Talk:Milk/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Milk Spoilage?

I've noticed a lot of people talking about milk spoiling more quickly than it used to (and it has been happening to us). Has there been a change in various market's treatment of milk, or is there something else wrong?

This is not directly in response to the above unsigned comment, but the article does need work regarding milk spoilage and souring. As it stands (Dec 6, 2009), the article is very vague:

Pasteurization of cow's milk initially destroys any potential pathogens and increases the shelf-life [74][75], but eventually results in spoilage that makes it unsuitable for consumption. This causes it to assume an unpleasant odor, and the milk is deemed non-consumable due to unpleasant taste and an increased risk of food poisoning.

Why would pasteurization result in different spoilage than raw milk? Is it because the naturally occuring bacteria that are present in high numbers out-compete the dangerous bacteria that are able to grow in the refrigerator? What is the source of food poisoning in milk, and what is the incidence of this in the US and globally? Many people probably come to this article looking to answer the question, "how dangerous is drinking sour/spoiled milk?" and as it stands the article is no help at all. -kslays (talk • contribs) 17:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Lactose Intolerance

Before, it said, "Humans are an exception in the natural world for consuming milk past infancy. Most humans lose the ability to fully digest milk after childhood (that is, they become lactose intolerant). The sugar lactose is found only in milk, forsythia flowers, and a few tropical shrubs. The enzyme needed to digest lactose, lactase, reaches its highest levels in the small intestines after birth and then begins a slow decline unless milk is consumed regularly. On the other hand, those groups that do continue to tolerate milk often have exercised great creativity in using the milk of domesticated ungulates, not only of cows, but also sheep, goats, yaks, water buffalo, horses, and camels."

But I changed this to "Some humans lose tha ability to fully digest milk after childhood (that is, they become lactose intolerant)." Because as far as I know, most adult humans are not lactose intolerant. But does anyone understand why someone said this?

Pronunciation...

Can some others weigh in here? I recently had a bit of a debate with someone about how to pronounce this word. My friend says it should be pronounced just like the word "mill" (but with a "K" sound at the end), whereas I've always pronounced it and heard it pronounced as something more in the direction of "melk." The dictionaries that I've looked at all seem to have pronunciation keys that side with my friend here, but it still doesn't match with my experience. I don't know if a regional/dialect issue. Mine is American English, Mid-Western to be specific, and it may well be pronounced differently in different places. But for me, in spite of what prounciation keys may say to the contrary, the "I" in "milk" sounds quite different from the "I" in "mill." I believe I even recall, from back in elementary school that the word was often mis-spelled with an "E." Others please give opinion here, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.112.88.143 (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's pronounced mill-k. I live in New England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.136.163 (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if we're talking about clear and dark "L"s? (see Velarization and IPA chart for English dialects, footnote 13). In many dialects of English "L" is pronounced differently according to position. At the start of a word, the tip of the tongue is used (clear L), but in the middle or at the end, the sides of the tongue are used (dark L). Some accents only use the clear (Welsh, Irish) or dark (Australian, Scottish). This is hard to hear for many English speakers, but is important in many other languages, where it may change the meaning of a word. Try saying the word "lull" and feel where your tongue goes for the two "L" sounds. For many English accents the "L" in "milk" will be dark, but that in "mill" may be clear (not in mine, though – southern English RP). For those familiar with the weird accent of the UK politician Michael Howard, (one) reason why he sounds odd to a standard English speaker is that he has completly lost his Welsh accent, except that he uses the clear L in all positions: "MichaeL Howard". All this may change the way the vowel is spoken or perceived – but as with all accents, whatever you yourself say is of course as "right" as anything else. Richard New Forest (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In my personal experience, the "melk" pronunciation, which rhymes with "elk," is common accross the United States and is not regional. I don't know if any dictionaries have adjusted to this, or where to look for a citation, but it is certainly a common variant(just as "bolth" is for "both," but that's another story...). -kslays (talk • contribs) 17:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Milk May Contribute to Type 1 Diabetes

Several studues in Finland have been conducted in recent years on the connection between type 1 diabetes and milk consumption...Finland has the highest rate of milk consumption so this seems like a good place to find some answers

Milk May Contribute to Type 1 Diabetes - ArticlesJun 17, 2000 ... Children who consume more milk are at higher risk of Type 1 diabetes, which occurs when the pancreas is no longer able to produce insulin. articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/06/17/milk-diabetes-part-one.aspx - 49k - Cached - Similar pages - More results from articles.mercola.com » —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johara95 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

milk

milk and pepole cunbind makse erike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.188.181.163 (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Price

In reading this article I was shocked by the claim that biofuels have increased milk prices. I am sorry I do not know how to contribute so maybe somone can help. Prices for ag products have declined by nearly 50 percent since 2007. Yet milk prices have remained high in the stores. So this just not seem like a true statement. Any help with refrences to correct the price statement would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.52.123 (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In point of fact, the production of the biofuel ethanol from corn has affected the U.S. dairy industry. A lot of corn produced in the U.S. has been diverted from feeding humans and animals into creating ethanol. This causes the price for the remaining available corn to increase, and can contribute to an increase in price for any food product that requires corn to make (beef, lamb, pork, chicken, dairy, cereals, cornmeal, etc.). Nancy.chenault (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section not controversial about Montsanto

The third paragraph appears to be written by Montsanto representatives. Someone more knowledgable about the rbst cancer link should provide the information with a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.230.148 (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you were referring to the rBGH section and I agree. For one thing, it was written as though the Monsanto product and natural bovine growth hormone are exactly the same, while the artificial product is genetically engineered and somewhat different. While doing the research for the changes I have made I found that this wiki article is widely quoted on the web - it's important that we get our facts right and referenced well. Gandydancer (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Most humans lactose intolerant?

"Most humans lose the ability to fully digest milk after childhood (that is, they become lactose intolerant). "

Can this fact be referenced please? Are we sure that most humans are lactose intolerant? --mgaved (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Adult mammals lack the enzyme lactaze (if I remember correctly) which means they can't process milk. Humans are an exception, and even among us it's almost exclusively people of northern european descent. At work right now so I can't find a proper source =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.218.38 (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a ref [1]- It's quite clear, the article states: "it is adult lactose tolerance for cows' milk that is unusual." There is no shortage of refs for this, and there doesn't appear to be any dispute about it, so I think it's OK to stand without an inline ref. Bob98133 (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Another good and very thorough source out of Cambridge University: http://www.cambridge.org/us/books/kiple/lactose.htm. I am interested in this 90 - 95% in the Science in Africa article as i have never actually seen a reliable worldwide statistic on this - seems a little high. Artshocx (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I would not pay attention to the statistics in this article, as they are clearly not based on hard data. However, this is an interesting article, and may also contribute to the argument of racial/ethnic or genetic/cultural being the cause of lactose intolerance.Nancy.chenault (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is correct. The majority of humans cannot digest milk as adults. The ability to eat milk as an adult appeared around 10000 years ago. See lactose intolerance for an explanation, and cites. 213.201.175.114 (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Irn Bru is not a milk product

"South Australia has the highest consumption of flavored milk per person in the world, where Farmers Union Iced Coffee outsells Coca-Cola, a success shared only by Inca Kola in Peru and Irn-Bru in Scotland."

Irn Bru is not a flavoured milk product. Not sure what the above section is trying to say? Irn Bru is a more popular soft drink than Coca-Cola in Scotland and I've heard it said that it's one of the few countries that the local soft drink outsells Coca-Cola, but I am not sure this includes consumption of any non-alcoholic drink (e.g. coffee, tea, milk, etc). I think this sentence needs clarifying. --mgaved (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear that they are comparing the sales of flavored milk drinks inf South Australia to the sales of Inca Kola in Peru and Irn-Bru in Scotland, not trying to imply that Irn-Bru is a flavored milke drink.Nancy.chenault (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Skim milk

How come "Skim milk" redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skim_milk#Varieties_and_brands when there's nothing whatsoever about skim milk in that section?

People searching for that term likely want information about just that, and not about "half-and-half" or whatever, not that there's really any information on any of the listed varieties either. /85.229.218.38 (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

female

Why the first line of the article mentions "female"? Then what's the stuff coming out of male mammary glands when you press them? Alien blood? apple juice? Maybe it could replace biofuels. Since it's probably more abundant in fat people, that would solve USA's energetic dependance...

I agree, males can also produce milk... see Male lactation. -- the librariaŋ (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree also. It's inaccurate (as well as unnecessary) & I just removed it. (Funny, though, if you follow the link to mammary glands it doesn't say anything like "mostly female animals have them". That seems a bit strange to me.)--Tyranny Sue (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a few mammalian species in which the male does not have mammary glands, such as the kangaroo. However, the secretion that is sometimes produced by a male gland cannot truly be considered to be milk, as the secretion is neither consistent nor maintained over a significant period of time. Just because it comes from the mammary gland, it isn't necessarily milk. It is possible to induce milk production in a male, if you administer injections of the proper hormones.Nancy.chenault (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That's all very cute, but we already have an article on man boobs. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A few updates needed for clarification

The UHT processing of milk is becoming more and more common recently. But they are calling it "Ultra Pasturized Milk". I think this verbage should be added in the pasturization section, to stay current with industry/marketing terms.

Also Raw milk is becomming more available. It should be mentioned in the Nutritional sections that most of the vitamins listed are fully present in raw milk, but are eliminated or reduced during pasturization, and much more so during UHT. In the Lactose Intolerance section it should be noted that this is a result of the pasturization process, not an inherent property of cow milk. Raw cow milk and goats milk do not have this adverse reaction in humans because: raw milk contains the [enzyme lactase] needed for digestion, and goats milk does not contain [Lactose].

Alager (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Aaron, 3/1/2009

Raw mild doesn't contain lactase, though it may contain co-enzymes that facilitate its production. [2][3]. Some vitamins are heat sensitive, and some are not. This should be further referenced. (And cultures that don't pasteurize their milk often boil it or ferment it before serving). FiveRings (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. According to Organic Pastures[4] web site: "Natural organic raw milk has in it vitally important living things. These include the following: beneficial bacteria, enzymes (including lipase, protease. and other), lactase forming bacteria, and many enzyme based pathogen killing systems. The common practice of pasteurization inactivates or dramatically reduces the effects of these important active (living) elements. As a result, you may be lactose intolerant when drinking pasteurized milk, but not lactose intolerant when you drink raw milk. This is because lactase enzymes are being formed when you digest raw milk..."

Your first link to realmilk.com is confusing, as they state both that raw milk DOES contain lactase AND that it does NOT.

So maybe since there is a fair amount of mis-information on this point it should be added correctly to this article.

[5]"However, raw milk does contain lactic acid bacteria – notably species of Lactobaccili and Lactococci. These bacteria are naturally found in milk and ferment lactose into lactic acid using their handy enzyme B-galactosidase." Alager (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think to properly address this issue, you need better sources. The Organic Pastures website seems more like an advocacy source than a reference. Talking about "vitally important living things" (things you can't live without), then claiming that they are only available in raw milk, is a leap; as is the section on the reference page that talks about enzymes going to sleep or waking up. Not terribly scientific. There's got to be verifyable sources out there. Bob98133 (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What is in question? Is it that raw milk contains the bacteria [6], United_States_raw_milk_debate, or that the bacteria does what is claimed? Probiotic, Lactose, Beta-galactosidase? Alager (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We need a better (non-advocate) source, yes. Part of the confusion is that lactase is produced over time - it's not in the milk fresh out of the cow, but it will be if you leave the milk to sit so the bacteria can do its work (also true of pasteurized milk if it is re-inoculated with lactobacillus). Once you've got lactase (the enzyme), produced by lactobacllus (the bacteria), you still need to give the enzyme time to digest the lactose (milk sugar). This is why Lactaid (a commercial preparation of lactase) says to add the drops to the milk container and then let it sit for 24 hours. Have I lost you yet? (Maybe a chart) FiveRings (talk) 07:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Milk contains these probiotics directly from the heifer. These are the same Lactobaccilli used in the production of Yogurt. Lactose intolerance reactions in many people are directly correlated with the 'gut flora', or probiotic content of their digestive systems. The length of time that these bacteria are allowed to 'cure' the milk is also dependent upon the severity of the lactose intolerance a particular person has. With the proper populations of Gut-Flora, milk becomes digestible. There are a myriad of causes in the reduction of 'healthy gut flora such as Anti-Biotics and drinking Alcohol. Another thing to note is that Raw Milk often sits in the Bulk-Tank where the bacteria consume and break-down the lactose sugars present in milk.

You didn't lose me, I think what you are adding is great stuff. I've never heard/read that before (that it happens over time), do you have a reference for that process? I think that would be a great addition to the article. Which Lactaid product are you refering to? I could only find dietary suplements, nothing to add to regular milk.Alager (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a blog post - http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/stevecarper/drops.htm People with irritable bowel syndrome are very up on the whole lactose thing. FiveRings (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to improve accuracy & balance by renaming article "Dairy milk"

Under the "liquids" disambiguation subcategory, there should be 2 sections: "dairy milk" (or dairy milks) & "non-dairy milk" (or milks). This article should be renamed "Dairy milk" (or "Dairy milks"). Otherwise we are presenting a very strangely unbalanced interpretation/understanding of the (global) use of the word 'milk'. --Tyranny Sue (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement with no (working) reference should be removed

Homogenized milk may be more digestible than unhomogenized milk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollowleft (talk • contribs) 15:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

IGF-1

I'm not going to go into great detail about IGF-1, but, as a bodybuilder, I actually would prefer to consume milk that has more IGF-1 in it rather than less. The current article gives IGF-1 a rather negative connotation in the "Bovine Growth Hormone Supplementation" section. IGF-1 is great for muscle-building purposes due to its anabolic effect. If anyone cares to do more research on the positive effects of IGF-1, please feel free to do so and add to the article so that there may be a full balance in the issue of IGF-1.198.30.217.220 (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Jordan, 4/29/09

Rewrite to fit citaion

In the Controversy section, the following needs to be rewritten to fit the citation:

Other studies suggest that milk consumption may increase the risk of suffering from certain health problems. Cow milk allergy (CMA) is as an immunologically mediated adverse reaction to one or more cow milk proteins. Rarely is it severe enough to cause death.[29]

The cited article is about cow's milk protein allergy (CMPA) in infants which is fairly rare even in countries where adult lactose intolerance is common. Additionally, the article does not claim that death is due to the severity of the CMPA. The CMPA itself does not cause death, but rather delays and/or failures to diagnose CMPA in a timely fashion, which then progressively weaken the immune system over time. It seems to confuse the purpose, scope and meaning of the cited article. Artshocx (talk) 08:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Nutritional value section

I am curious to know why the Nutritional value section is labeled as:

This article is written like an advertisement.

The citations seem valid and relevant. Artshocx (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Milk

FYI: Most South Asians, i.e. Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis have been drinking cow's milk for millenia and definitely are lactose tolerant. South Asia produces more cow's milk than any other part of the world by far. North Europeans and any other lactose tolerant peoples are small groups when compared to South Asians. The milk article is extremely biased in this regard.

Niz1vir (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Quoting studies from the national dairy council is like an advertisement. you need to do more research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.213.251.31 (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Debate about different kinds of milk in Australia and New Zealand

A1 and A2 Milk It has been suggested that A2 milk provides levels of protection to consumers from autism in children as well as schizophrenia, diabetes and heart disease. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) decided that the available information did not warrant an amendment to the Food Standards Code.

What is A1 and A2 milk?

Milk contains many types of proteins. The proportion of various proteins can be quite different in the milk from different breeds of cows and in the milk from other animals.

Of the six major protein types in cow's milk, four are casein proteins and the other two are whey proteins. The caseins usually make up about 80% of the protein in cow's milk. One of the major caseins is beta -casein. There are different beta casein types, but the most common are beta casein A1 (milk high in this type is known as A1 milk) and beta casein A2 (milk high in this type is known as A2 milk).

Certain breeds of cows, such as Friesians, produce mostly A1 milk, whereas other breeds, such as Guernseys, as well as sheep and goats, produce mostly A2 milk. Milk produced in Australia and New Zealand is normally a mix of A1 and A2 milks.

A2 milk is thought to have an impact on what we call 'lactose intolerance'.

A2 Milk contains the same quantity of lactose as normal milk and will not resolve any medically diagnosed lactose intolerance. However some of the symptoms of lactose intolerance can be caused by other factors in milk such as BCM7 that can be released from the A1 protein found in most cows’ milk.

BCM7 is a strong opioid which has been shown to directly affect gut processes and mucus production. A2 Milk does not contain the A1 protein that releases BCM7.

Opioids in the gut can directly act on the gut lining and affect gut motility and absorption processes which can affect digestive health. Strong opioids are known to cause constipation.

What does the regulator (FSANZ) think of these claims?

FSANZ is waiting for the outcome of research which is currently in progress before proceeding with regulatory action on the basis of the available evidence.

In order to make an amendment to the Code, FSANZ has to receive an application which they then analyse and make a decision on. They have not received any applications to amend the milk provisions of the Food Standards Code to consider A1 or A2 milk.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) released its detailed review of the available scientific literature in February 2009 that addresses possible health effects of beta-casein (particularly a milk protein called beta-casomorphin-7 (BCM7)) and related peptides in milk and other foods. EFSA states:

“Based on this review, EFSA concluded that a cause and effect relationship is not established between the dietary intake of BCM7, related peptides or their possible protein precursors and non-communicable diseases. Consequently, a formal EFSA risk assessment is not recommended.”

The issue remains unresolved for consumers.

• Landline - 06/08/2006: The A2 milk story. Australian Broadcasting Corp
• The latest news on A2 milk(Reporter: Helen Wellings) Broadcast Date: September 19, 2007 - Today Tonight
• A1 and A2 Milk (14 September 2007) Fact Sheets 2007 - Food Standards Australia New Zealand
• A2 Milk - FactSheet - Food Intolerance Network

And wikipedia article A2 milk? gioto (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exclusively1 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Exclusively1 (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Exclusively1

This definitely warrants inclusion under a heading like: 'Variability in Milk across Dairy Breeds'. It is well known that different breeds produce milk with different qualities.... for example: Holstein Heifers will produce larger quantities of milk with lower milkfat, while Jerseys will produce creamier milk albeit in lower amounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.128.252 (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ethical Concerns?

The section on Ethical Concerns contains no citations to back up its claims, not to mention the fact the veal production is relatively unrelated to dairy production. Can someone provide a reference? 98.185.255.207 (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in the United States, veal and dairy production are fairly closely related, as veal calves are usually sourced as unwanted bull calves from dairy farms. A lot of unwanted bull calves here are also castrated and raised as beef steers. I somewhat disagree with the inclusion of an "ethics" section, other than to list some aspects of the production of milk that have been ethically questioned. To decide what is ethical is not the goal, as each person has different opinions and views on the matter.Nancy.chenault (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Likewise in the UK: can't produce milk without calves, so need to eat the bull-calves. Modern dairy breeds are so bony that they are no good for beef, so calves are either reared for veal, or simply shot at birth. Richard New Forest (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Dairy breeds aren't necessarily "too bony" for beef, and a significant amount of beef on the U.S. market is sourced from dairy animals (both cull cows and dairy-breed steers). Many lactating cows appear to be too skinny for beef production, but dairy-breed steers, when properly fed, can yield decent-quality meat.N.McGill (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well... What do you mean by "properly" fed? Of course they are perfectly edible, and if you stuff enough grain into them perhaps they'll come to something. However, almost all beef in the UK is primarily grass-fed, and Holstein steers look pretty bony to me on grass... A large proportion of British dairy farmers shoot Holstein bull-calves at birth precisely because they won't make anything much. Cross-breeds are another matter. Richard New Forest (talk)

Just because an animal is pastured doesn't mean you can ignore its nutritional needs. Pasture needs to be carefully and intensively managed to yield desirable results. If you throw some Holstein steers in a pasture and forget about them, then they will not grow well. If you properly manage their nutrition, then they will "come to something".N.McGill (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that RNF is correct that lots of beef is derived from dairy cattle, however they are generally spent or downer animals that are no longer economically productive, not raised from calves. In any event, sweeping statements like all beef in UK are primarily grass fed really need a reference, as would my first sentence here. Bob98133 (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember saying that about beef from dairy cattle – though I don't disagree. In the UK some pure dairy steers are reared for beef, especially those from less-extreme dairy strains or breeds, which are thankfully becoming a bit more popular again. However a large proportion of the rest of our beef comes from crosses out of dairy cows, so is of course "derived from dairy cattle". Cull cows are indeed eaten, after testing for BSE, which is now rare – though until a couple of years ago over-30-month beasts were all incinerated as a precaution. Downer cattle are not eaten by humans in the EU.

I've checked on the proportion of intensive and grass-fed beef in the UK. This source gives a figure of 15 to 20% beef production from intensive systems – which I have to say is a lot higher than I thought, so I wasn't quite right. This source describes the UK beef industry more generally, and explains why extensive systems are the norm – the "bull beef" it mentions will I think mostly be pure dairy animals. I suspect that most of the intensive beef in the UK must mainly be in the grain-growing areas of eastern England – I've never met a British farmer who does it, but all the farmers I know are in the west or south. Shocking waste of grain and resources, anyway. It isn't however uncommon to feed a lot of grain to stores for finishing, though traditional (that is non-Continental) beef breeds also finish perfectly well off grass. I believe that "finished" in the UK is very much leaner than in the US. Richard New Forest (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

RNF - thanks for clarification. Sounds like the industry in UK is less intensive than in the US. I've seen figures upwards of 75% for grain fed cattle in US, but I don't have a ref for that, nor any personal experience. As far as I know, downers can still be used for food in the US (particularly those bred, slaughtered and sold within one state) and there is only random testing for BSE.Bob98133 (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Cattle over 48 months (formerly 30 months) can be eaten only after brain testing and removal of the spinal column; under that age no testing is needed and only the spinal cord itself is removed. Animals born before 1996 cannot be eaten at all (not many left now) – that was when the ban on animal products in feed finally came in. Worrying that you don't have proper testing – particularly with a much more recent ban on animal products in feed and more intensive rearing. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A difference here is in the size of the farms...

Smaller farms are more likely to raise dairy steers for beef consumption, while larger farms would more likely produce veal from their unwanted dairy bull-calves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.128.252 (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a vegan and I don't drink milk because it, along with most animal products is inefficient to produce, requiring between 1000-2000 gallons of water per gallon of milk depending on the source you ask. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.210.145 (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment on the accuracy of that figure for water (though it does not surprise me) – but it is very simplistic, as it doesn't take into account how it relates to available resources. The figure must include both the water the cow drinks and the water needed to produce the cow's feed. In an arid area both these would come from piped or mined water, and yes, if not used for dairy production that water could be used more efficiently or not at all. However, what about in a climate more suited to dairy production, such as Wales and the west of England? Plenty of rain falls out of the sky and runs off the land as rivers, and if not used it just runs into the sea. Much the same amount of water gets to the sea whether you have dairy or some other land use, so "use" of water for dairy in that climate is essentially nothing. Even in a considerably drier climate the feed can be produced without irrigation and only drinking water may need to be piped. So I would say that if your concern is just water resources, then veganism makes some sense in a dry climate, but not in a wet one, and perhaps not much in an intermediate one. (I would have thought anyway that a vegan would be much more concerned about the fate of male calves and cull cows, which must be killed as part of a dairy system as discussed above.) Similarly, production of meat can be either very inefficient in resources or very efficient – beef or lamb can be reared on rough pasture on land unusable for arable farming, and then the use of fertiliser, grain and other resources may be very low or zero. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of Ranking table

The ranking table need to be updated with the following list Source [7]

Rank	Country	Production (109kg/y)[a]
1	India	114.4
2	United States	79.3
3	Germany	39.4
4	Pakistan	35.2
5	China	32.5
6	Russia	28.5
7	Brazil	26.2
8	France	24.2
9	New Zealand	17.3
10	United Kingdom	13.9
11	Ukraine	12.2
12	Poland	12
13	Netherlands	11.5
14	Italy	11.0
15	Turkey	10.6
16	Mexico	10.2
17	Australia	9.6
18	Egypt	8.7
19	Argentina	8.5
20	Canada	8.1

Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Zebra milk?

The "Other animal sources" section lists Zebras, but Zebras have not been domesticated (only individual Zebras tamed) and I can find no reference to a Zebra dairy, or references to Zebra milk outside of tabloid reports of a celebrity's demand for it. If there is actual Zebra milk production somewhere, a citation for it should probably be added. Otherwise the reference to Zebras should be removed.

MVandegrift (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism, already removed. I've milked a domestic mare a few times, and that was exciting enough... Richard New Forest (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No mention of it being a "colloid?"

Near the front, after mentioning it is a nutritional source for mammals, there should be mention that milk is a "colloid" of immiscible lipids/fats and water; I propose the following (I cannot edit as an IP address since the article is protected):

It is a liquid of evenly dispersed lipid and water, that naturally do not mix and so is thus a colloid by means of emulsion, rather than a solution of the two, composed of globules from butterfat lipids and the water base to the fluid. ... or something similar to that. 4.242.174.119 (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Cap correction in "Medical research" section

I suggest replacing "Milk is a source of Conjugated linoleic acid" with "Milk is a source of conjugated linoleic acid".--24.170.79.236 (talk)

The majority of Indians drink water buffalo milk heated

Can some body briefly explain on this page effects on babies, blood and body of drinking buffalo milk and heated and unheated comparing with cow milk. In America and Europe where I live we drink unheated milk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ureddy (talk • contribs) 13:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not clear what you mean by "heated". Do you mean it's used warm or hot, or that it is used after being heated and then cooled? Do you mean heated to be warm, or heated to boiling?

Liquid milk in the West is almost universally either sterilised (UHT) or pasteurised, both of which involve heating. Richard New Forest (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

In many Asian/East Asian countries milk is more typically drunk hot than ice cold. (Water too). Might be a holdover from pre-pasteurization days, when you had to boil it. FiveRings (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Milk solids redirect

Milk solids redirects here, but there's nothing in the article about milk solids. I think if there's going to be a redirect, the article should explicitly address the topic, otherwise let it stand on its own. 206.116.59.90 (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section

The link for Monsanto's testing no longer worked. I have replaced it as best I could. It seems that they keep most of their testing secret. Gandydancer (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

im not sure if im doing this right... but in controversy at one point it says "is it" but should say "it is" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.29.22 (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

First paragraph of the Controversy Section needs to be edited because the citation it uses links to studies on INFANTS not on the general population. Gerelroa (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please be more specific? The paragraph seems to only define the term rather than discuss studies. Gandydancer (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ethical concerns

I added a reference to this from a vegan organization, so the "may" can be removed. These groups "do" object and for the reasons stated. (Note: I have no objection to RNF's rewrite - his version is better with the exceptions I'm trying to explain) The reference that I cited listed environmental damage as a concern. I think that if this group (or these groups) do not consume milk because of environmental concerns that that is an ethical issue, since the amount of environmental degradation from consuming a glass of milk is negligible. Perhaps that POV would be better represented by an environmental group, such as NDRC [8]? Bob98133 (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry – I got an edit conflict and I tried to merge our two versions). I left the "may" in because I'd added the bit about all male offspring being killed, and the source doesn't really mention this as such. Yes, they cite environmental concerns as a reason for avoiding milk – and that is an ethical concern about milk consumption; however the para is about veganism, not ethical consumption in general. Avoiding intensive dairying is an argument for avoiding intensively produced milk, not for avoiding milk altogether – just because PETA claim it as the former doesn't make it the latter. We could however have a more general para about ethical concerns – for which the ref you suggest would be good.

I agree that the PETA source is a poor one generally – it does raise many legitimate concerns, but sadly these are so set about with extreme POV and misinformation that it isn't a reliable source for anything much except that there are people who hold those views. Richard New Forest (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Peta site is a poor source for hard information, however, it is a good source to demonstrate what they believe, so as long as it is presented that way, I think it's OK. I hadn't noticed the "all" or "most" male calves being used for veal, but I'm sure that's wrong. Even so,I think I'd remove the "may" and also remove the "almost all". I don't think it matters to the animal rights people if it's all, almost all or just some, they'd still object. I'll leave it to you if you want to tweak this or not - it's not a big deal. As for the environment thing, I think it is an ethical objection, but as you say, it's hard to phrase the objection without making it sound like accepted fact. Thanks - Bob98133 (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Milk Solids

"Milk Solids" redirects to this page, but there is no reference to milk solids as used as an independent ingredient used in food. — al-Shimoni (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Health effects of low fat milk

Several studies suggest that animals reared on a diet of low fat milk develop heart disease while animals reared on whole milk do not

A significantly increased risk of prostate cancer in males has been attributed to the consumption of low fat milk

Vitamin C content

According to the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, cow milk doesn't contain any vitamin C. Since I can't edit this article, could someone else please correct this factual mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.70.146 (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the database, checked one of the many milk products there and there is some Vitamin C in milk. http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/cgi-bin/list_nut_edit.pl I guess what most sites are saying is that milk is NOT A SIGNIFICANT source of Vitamin C, not that it does not have any Vitamin C. I guess we can put this one to rest. Gerelroa (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing language

I request editing in order to add the Haitian creole equivalent to the list of languages in the left-side column. Rajkiandris--Rajkiandris (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Richard New Forest (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please use edit summary

A bunch of recent edits by 100110100 reorganized and reformatted this article, but were all done without any explanation. It appears as if this was a good thing, but normally I'd revert them all as unexplained. Pls use the edit summary to let other editors know why you are making changes. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Other Uses

Cleaned this section up, added appropriate templates and removed material unsubstantiated by citations provided. Halogenated (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request for Milk

{{editsemiprotected}} The India section of distribution of milk needs a change. It can be changed to into the following: In rural India milk is delivered daily by a local milkman carrying bulk quantities in a metal container, usually on a bicycle; and in other parts of metropolitan India, milk is usually bought or delivered in a plastic bags or cartons via shops or supermarkets. But most households have milkmen deliver these packets of milk to their houses through some local agency, sometimes also integrated with the newspaper delivery.

Csaidheeraj (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources.  Chzz  ►  10:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Add "Notes on Milk" and related Robert Milham Hartley from P.O.V. 2010?

Add "Notes on Milk" and related Robert Milham Hartley from P.O.V. 2010? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.139.227 (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Bottled milk around the world

From memory, in the US, milk is described as either 1% or 50/50. 1% describes the fat content, but what is 50/50?

In the UK, milk is described as skimmed (red top on plastic supermarket containers, blue foil top on glass milk bottles), semi-skimmed (green top on plastic supermarket containers, red foil top on glass milk bottles), whole milk (blue top on plastic supermarket containers, silver foil top on glass milk bottles) or Jersey (gold foil top on glass milk bottles). Some UK supermarkets are starting to stock 1% milk (with an orange plastic top).

In the UK, skimmed milk is typically around 0.1% fat, semi-skimmed is 1.5 - 2% fat, whole milk is around 4% fat, Jersey milk is around 5.5%.

md84419 (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So 50/50 or half and half is typically 10.5%-18% fat. And the US fat free is UK skimmed milk. Perhaps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_content_of_milk should be merged with this article and the milk information from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_and_half be duplicated in this article?

md84419 (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by the descriptions, but we have 1%, 2%, fat-free/skim, and whole milk. Then there are kinds of milk, etc... --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 11:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Merger w/ fat content article

Okay, just found this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_content_of_milk

Skim milk vs skimmed milk (reverted edits by Arthur Rubin, 20:28, 23 April 2010 Arthur Rubin

In the US the phrase is "skim milk" (although some US observers have noted that "skimmed milk" is acceptable and used in parts of the US as an alternative or equivilent - see the talk pages for this article and Fat_content_of_milk). In the UK and most of the rest of the English-speaking world, the phrase used is "skimmed milk" and "skim milk" is considered to be gramatically incorrect.

Wikipedia policy is mute on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ENGVAR#National_varieties_of_English

Given the potential for edit and revert wars, I suggest one or the other is selected and a note added before the first use of the term describing the difference in terms between countries.

I agree. And given that in the US, the term "skimmed milk" is acceptable (and used in some parts) and in the rest of the English-speaking world, "skimmed milk" is the only option, I think it should be this term. A note explaining this in the article would be useful, though. IndieSinger (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In the US another term for "Skim Milk" is "Fat-Free Milk"

Edit request from 204.161.5.2, 18 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please delete “strongly” in “This extends its shelf life and allows the milk to be stored unrefrigerated because of the longer lasting sterilization effect but strongly affects the taste,” since “strongly” is subjective and is not supported by evidence.

Please be consistent in the use of “rbST” and “rBGH.” Here the two abbreviations are used interchangeably, sometimes within adjacent sentences, to refer to the same compound.

In the photo caption, “Note that American milk bottles are generally square”, please change “square” to “rectangular.” Neither is correct, of course, but “rectangular” better represents the general shape.

Please fix the link to the photo of powered skim milk (Dry skim milk.jpg) and correct the misspelling in the caption.

Thank you. 204.161.5.2 (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done - to an extent:

•  Done Strongly →
•  Not done rbST - beyond my level of understanding of milk
•  Done Square → rectangular
•  Removed Image doesn't exist anyway

Can someone more familiar with this article please fix the second issue? Thanks, —  Cargoking  talk  15:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Critical Issues

For continuity, I tried to cluster all the negatives issues about milk together, it didn't read smoothly with all the issues spread out throughout the article.RomanGrandpa (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2021

I want to change some facts because they're wrong Jkhgopeerg (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Non-dairy milks

I propose a deletion of the non-dairy milk section, again the nature of the article is stated at the beginning. "this article is about the fluid produced by the mammary glands of mammals. For the milk-like beverages derived from plants, see Plant milk." RomanGrandpa (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Which section are you referring to? Gandydancer (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I already deleted it. You would have to restore it to view. RomanGrandpa (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There is still a comparison with non-dairy liquids: Nutritional content of fortified cow, soy, almond and oat milks under Milk#Nutrition_and_health Also the plant based liquids are shown with Vitamin B12 content, without stating, that Vitamin B12 is not naturally contained in plant based liquids. The reference in the table for this information says: Manufacturer supplied(industry or trade association), Analytical data, incomplete documentation. See also the Wikipedia article about Vitamin_B12#Fortified_foods. All plant based liquids are fortified with Vitamin B12. I propose to delete this table in Milk. Darwipli (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Darwipli...I agree the chart comparison to plant based milk should be deleted, so I did delete it, thanks for pointing that out and thanks for the heads-up. RomanGrandpa (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Additions to table

Suggest adding the following to the table (all from the same existing source at dairyinfo.gc.ca):

Russia, 36.5, 5.8, 2.4 Egypt, 24.3, -, 0.8 Turkey, 16.2, 6.8, 0.6

This would at least cover all the continents (ie Africa and Middle East are currently missing, and Russia is a major world culture). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.35.176 (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree, it's quite incomplete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.226.49.230 (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Resource and reference list from Kurzgesagt

The video Milk (youtube), by Kurzgesagt, comes with a comprehensive list of references for each of the details mentioned: https://sites.google.com/view/sourcesmilk/ -- I'm adding it here in case useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiddity (talk • contribs) 05:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The 'Notes' tab should be removed

In my opinion, the 'Notes' tab should be removed if no notes can be added to it as in my opinion it is pointless having an empty tab within the article. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

One can add notes, you have to activate your user/talk page first to do it, see link... WP:AUTOCONFIRM... RomanGrandpa (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Milk definition

I think this section should be headed ”Dairy Milk” as it is headed “Milk” yet the definition of milk includes plant milk and Dairy Milk. 86.2.197.150 (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is for mammal milk only, plant milk really isn't milk at all, it plants crushed into a powder, and then water and a little bit of vegetable fat added. 17:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanGrandpa (talk • contribs)

Criticism and Controversy Section/Plant milk advocacy in this article

@Psychologist Guy: Both sentences are nonsequitur within the article. The first is placed in the lead and not in the body — a placement of importance that is supposed to summarize the article — and is a cherry-picked concept from a source that doesn't really support the concept being presented here in Wikipedia (see WP:SYNTH). The second is a false equivalency illogic. It also contradicts Water footprint#Water footprint of products (Agricultural Sector) and the chart at Plant milk, especially if you realize that almond milk (not a legume) is one of the predominant plant-based beverages. Only soy is considered a legume, and it is just one of the plant "milks". Attempting to list a single sentence comparison between dairy and soy in order to promote "milk is bad", is advocacy. These concepts don't really belong in the Milk article, but would be better used in Milk substitute or Plant milk where the concepts are perhaps relevant. If you would flesh out a paragraph of the concepts, in the body, then perhaps they would be relevant in Milk. But as single sentences, non sequitur, they are appear as advocacy. Platonk (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Platonk, criticism of a product often comes down to opinion and can be highly subjective, so I'm going to go ahead and remove the criticism and controversy section on this page. The section is underdeveloped and the current single article placed in the category is rather weak and questionable.RomanGrandpa (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Overproduction

Since "overproduction" and "underproduction" ebbs and flow with the times, I'm removing this section, currently, production has declined and dairy prices are converging up, so this section no longer applies (see link) https://www.wfla.com/news/national/big-cheese-milk-production-slows-causing-dairy-prices-to-rise-in-2022/ RomanGrandpa (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Consensus Needed

An editor, Fragrant Peony, restored a throw away line in the lede about plant milk. First off, the article is not about plant milk, that is clearly stated at the top of the page. Also, there is no relevance to the statement. It's like me going on the broccoli wiki page and placing a statement in the lede like -- more people are consuming spinach now......it just doesn't belong. RomanGrandpa (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

In addition, Fragrant Peony restored the "Criticism and Crontroversy" section although I had reached a consensus with another editor, Platonk, that the section should be removed.RomanGrandpa (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Such criticisms that are reliable sourced might belong better on the dairy article. Normal Op/Platonk is a blocked sock-puppet and is a well known anti-vegan editor, so the only editor here who has objected to the criticism section is yourself, because he is blocked his vote does not count. You seem to be an experienced editor but you have not really reached an over-all consensus as you would need quite a few users for that. I am not going to revert your edit, I can't be bothered with an edit war.

But the criticism section had nothing to do with "vegan advocacy". I agree it was a underdeveloped section but it needs expanding. Milk production has a significant effect on climate change due to emissions of greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide) etc, there is also the serious environmental effects to how much water is used (and land mass!). Have you looked at the water footprint of milk production? It is not sustainable, there are issues about how much feed is used, the environmental effects of waste like ammonia emissions etc. In regard to human health it has been shown in the medical literature that although milk consumption lowers the risk of hypertension or stroke it increases the risk of prostrate cancer [9], [10], [11]. Most mainstream health agencies are telling people to cut down on milk consumption and only eat low-fat dairy products like yoghurt in moderation and avoid high-fat milk products. About 68 percent of the world's population are lactose intolerant and they can't drink milk (this figure is increasing BTW, not decreasing).

There are many other issues, such criticisms are valid and are found in reliable sources that have nothing to do with vegan advocacy. "Dairy cows add substantial amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. In some places they contribute to the conversion of natural habitat to agricultural land due to the increasing demand for feed crops such as corn, alfalfa and soy. Dairy operations can also be significant contributors to water pollution and soil degradation when manure and feed crop production are poorly managed... Livestock farming is one of the main contributors to soil erosion around the world" [12]. The World Wide Fund for Nature website has nothing to do with vegan advocacy, that is just one example of a reliable source. I am not interested in debating the pros and cons of milk but it is not true to suggest that only criticisms of milk production come from vegan activists. I agree with you that there is no reason to discuss plant milks on the article because this article it not on that topic but I do not support the idea to never include any criticisms. If we have reliable sources they should be cited. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

If you choose to restore the criticism section, I won't revert, my objection is not to use fringe sources like PETA, just legitimate scientific journals. Lactose Intolerance is already addressed in the text of the article. However, many foods, like beans and lentils, also have complex sugars that can not be broken down, and 100% of the population is intolerant to these sugars, so I'm not certain that is a proper argument.....humans have always ate food that was not quite digestible. Milk may have its particular health issues, but remember, certain tribal groups specifically built an evolutionary mechanism to tolerate dairy, indicating it was more advantageous to drink milk than not...(think of the strong and healthy Viking invaders, or the Germanic tribes that sacked Rome). While there are environmental issues with Dairy farming, there are environmental issues with modern farming in general. All the pesticides and land alteration. Modern farming issues and pollution are not unique to dairy. I know the editor Zefr specifically removed my criticism of soy milk, which did cite legitimate journals and Harvard Health, so not much tolerance for criticism of plant milk. RomanGrandpa (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2022

It’s a drink that’s basically it but the history of it and other info is }} 41.47.249.3 (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Old primary studies

RomanGrandpa this is a primary source and very old (2004?) [13]. This type of sourcing is very poor, it obviosuly fails WP:MEDRS. The article clearly needs updating, I don't think adding old primary studies is the way to go forward. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Cow Milk - where is it ?

I am astonished that although there is an article for "Goat Milk", I cannot find any Wikipedia article called "Cow Milk". Have I missed something, or should this article be created ? Darkman101 (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2022

Please add that it comes from more than cows 2603:80A0:1100:1380:8401:40BE:161B:2317 (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It already says "Milk is a white liquid food produced by the mammary glands of mammals". - FlightTime (open channel) 03:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Milk definition 2

While milk in many countries certainly typically refers to animal product, in countries where the consumption was rare and plant milk was the predominant, that was milk to them (and not "milk-like".)

While the push to have milk refer only to animal based products makes sense from a protectionist viewpoint it certainly isnt without clear bias. I don't understand why at least some history as to the alternative isn't mentioned on this article. The plant based milk article mentions animal milk.

This article basically omits the alternative and when forced to mention it immediately demeans it ("milk-like")

Is this because of the EU law? I assume Wikipedia must have to follow it to some degree? 49.186.80.253 (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Dairy Milk from Mammals, if you want to edit on plant milk (fake milk); go to those articles. It seems like when editors come here to place plant milk viewpoints, it comes with a heavy dose of vegan dogma and animal rights advocacy, and that's not what this article is about. RomanGrandpa (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is definitely about liquid dairy milk. My suggestion is that the products of milk are also included to add detail and information. Products such as cheese, ice cream, and yogurt are all products of milk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.195.232 (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Packaging

Add to paragraph Packaging

2A01:599:30C:887F:38E3:EB4B:94C2:FADF (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Red-billed oxpecker drinking milk?

I doubt the veracity of the claim that red-billed oxpeckers drink the milk of impalas, which is stated in the Interspecies milk consumption section. The source seems to be a children's science website, and while the webpage does cite sources, none of them mention the oxpecker from what I could see, and I don't know if the website can really be considered a reliable source. Additionally, these papers on the red-billed oxpecker's feeding habits don't mention them drinking milk, which I would expect them to if the birds did. I EAT PINBALLS (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have similarly been trying to find any verifiable source that Oxpeckers, red-billed or otherwise, drink milk. It is referenced repeatedly in conversations about milk consumption online, but not a single mention I have found ever links back to any source, study, or documentation of this behavior. Crypticgimmick (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)