Thunder's Place

The big penis and mens' sexual health source, increasing penis size around the world.

Question about milk

12

Question about milk

At the grocery store I noticed that milk comes in plastic jugs, cardboard cartons and glass bottles. If their packaged differently does it create any nutritional difference between each of them?

Nope, milk is milk. All the different packaging means is it costs the company more or less money to produce it. Other than that, some companies do it for the look of their product (marketing).

When in doubt, just read the Nutrition Facts label on the back; that contains all you need to know about the product. Hope this helped! :up:


No dedication + No self-discipline = No Gains. This goes for working out as well. It\'s elementary math kids.

Starting Date: 1-17-05 - EL: 6 in. EG: 5.125 in. ... or 5 2/16 in. ..FL: 4.5 in. ... or 4 8/16 in. FG: 4.5 in. ... or 4 8/16 in.

14th Check-In Date (much 'rest time' so far): 10-01-06 - EL: 7 1/16 in. EG: 5 9/16 in. ................ FL: 5.00 in. ... or 5 in. FG: 4.75 in. ... or 4 12/16 in....1st Goal: EL: 7 in. EG: 5.75 in ... or 5 12/16 in.

1. Packaging is marketing.

2. Milk is not milk. Its makeup varies within species and between species.

3. Milk in the store is not milk. Rather it is a white nutrient devoid lifeless liquid industrial agriculture uses to sell corn which you in turn pay for with your tax dollars that go to corn farming subsidies.

Checkout realmilk.com.

Cheers

I like to buy my milk at BJ’s because they have an opaque container. I read that light can do do something to milk. Lower the protein somehow? I’ll look for more links tomorrow. This was all I could find right now:

Quote
New study validates light blocking efforts: teens taste light-oxidation in milk and don’t like it

Kathryn Chapman
Teens influence food purchases…and food bills. They have a great deal of dollar influence and spending power. Although teens spend about $94 billion annually, with more than 10% of this amount directed toward food (mostly soft drinks, snacks, cookies, candy, and fast food), youth exert significant influence on spending across virtually all food categories. This figure does not include the billions of dollars parents spend under the influence of youth. A glitzy image may get youth to buy a product in the first place, but flavor influences repeat performances. If it doesn’t taste good, they won’t want it again. One mechanism for increasing milk consumption is to provide dairy products that have an appealing taste. According to Dr. Joseph Hotchkiss, packaging specialist from Cornell University, Ithaca N.Y., “if you want to increase milk sales, make sure the milk appeals to children. If they like milk when they are young they are more apt to drink it as an adult.” One way to have good-tasting milk is to protect it from light.

Both natural and artificial light can induce quality defects that consumers notice — and don’t like. Light exposure causes chemical reactions in milk that can modify the proteins and fats that are present to produce many negative flavors, ranging from burnt protein (burnt feathers or hair) to cardboard or metallic. The resulting off-flavors are dependent upon various factors such as exposure time, intensity and wavelength of light, and composition of the milk.

To ensure that the highest quality products are on the market, parameters for protecting product quality must be established. To this end, Milk Quality Improvement Program (MQIP) scientists at Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. measured the amount of time it took to get noticeable flavor changes. Reduced fat (2%) milk in high-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers were exposed to lighting similar to the retail dairy case (2000 lux), where the average light exposure is 8 hours. The study was conducted from 1999 to 2001. The conclusions? Half of the teen and adult consumers could detect an off-flavor with less than 2 hours of light exposure. Also, the teens were asked how much they liked the milk. They thought that the light-oxidized milk was objectionable. The longer the milk was exposed to light, the less they liked the milk.

Light not only degrades flavor, but also vitamins. Since vitamins are essential nutrients, their loss by photodegradation decreases the nutritional value of food. Vitamins A, C, and B2 (riboflavin) are of particular concern with milk. MQIP found measurable vitamin A losses occurred increasingly at 2,4, and 16 hours for nonfat, reduced fat, and whole milk, respectively. Moderate light-oxidized flavors were detected after 4 hours of light exposure in the whole and reduced fat milk and after 8 hours in nonfat milk. The presence of increased levels of milk fat adversely affects the flavor quality of the products following exposure to light. On the other hand, higher fat levels do appear to provide some protection against vitamin A degradation, the studies have shown. (Journal of Dairy Science 85:351-354).

Anecdotal evidence shows why light can hurt milk sales.

Researchers at Cornell recently presented light-oxidized milk to students in an Introduction to Sensory Analysis Course. One of the students, who is also a mother, said, “That’s what the milk tastes like that I serve to my children at home. Now I understand why my children don’t want to drink milk.”

Preventing light-oxidized flavors in milk involves simply protecting milk from light. Gabletop paperboard containers usually provide sufficient light barrier, but light-oxidation is more common in light transmissible plastic containers, so extra care is needed during transport, storage, and display.

To avoid photodegradation, milk should not be exposed at all to direct sunlight. Since sunlight is even more damaging than artificial light, a few minutes exposure to the sun on a loading dock or during consumer transport has profound results. In storage areas, milk crates should not be stacked in close proximity to lights. In dairy plants and stores, milk handling areas, storage coolers and display cases should be designed with minimum lighting and to facilitate product rotation. When selecting lighting, “cool white” fluorescent lights with wavelengths ranging from 420 to 520 nm, should not be used. If lighting is necessary, “warm white” lights are preferred in the dairy display case. Yellow shielding of the light can be used to reduce the intensity of light. Unnecessary lighting in coolers and display cases should be turned off when milk turn over rate is low.

According to Hotchkiss, three ways that plastics can be modified to protect their products from light-oxidized off-flavors and vitamin degradation are: (1), adding opaque pigment that blocks harmful wavelengths, (2), adding ultraviolet (UV) light blocking agents to clear plastic or (3) modifying the white pigment (titanium dioxide), so that it is translucent, but still blocks the UV light.

High-density polyethylene (HDPE) dominates the jug business because of its low cost, durability and light weight. However, standard HDPE resin produces a translucent container, which offers little protection against UV light. Adding pigments blocks light, therefore protects against harmful UV rays. Yellow or white are the most popular colors. While objection to this solution may be that consumers can’t see how much milk is in the container, consumers can’t see the milk in paperboard containers either. One solution is to put a “see-through strip” in the opaque jug; the milk will still have some light protection, especially if the strip is placed away from the light.

Adding UV light-blocking agents to clear plastic has the advantage of allowing visible light through so the consumer can see the milk in the jug. Eastman Chemical Co., Voridian div., Kingsport, Tenn. makes single serve and quart polyethylene tereph-thalate (PET) with UV blockers by attaching an absorbing unit to the main chain of the polymer. Amber tinted PET and PET with UV light-blocking agents are competitive alternatives to pigmented HDPE.

Many dairy processors are investing in packaging to make sure that their product is protected from the harmful effects of light. Despite the increased packaging cost, sales have increased and so have profits. Dairy processors should not be intimidated by the additional cost of light blocking bottles. It is a financial risk that is worth taking. In fact, most dairies that have made these packaging changes don’t view it as risk, but rather, as a step in the right direction. Here are a few success stories:

The dairy industry leader Dean Foods Co., Dallas, has several processors that use protective packaging. Mayfield Dairy Farms, Athens, Tenn., is well-known in its marketing areas for its distinctive yellow pigmented Flavor Tight [TM] jugs. Mayfield is one of the first dairies to switch to an opaque jug, more than 8 years ago. Through a partnership with Land O’Lakes, Arden Hills, Minn., Dean manufactures Land O Lakes brand milk, which is packaged in white opaque HDPE jugs, made with opaque resin. Dean’s subsidiary Morningstar Foods bottles Hershey’s milk in Mt. Crawford, Va., in HDPE single-serve bottles. The bottles have three layers including a carbon black layer that helps prevent light damage.

H. P. Hood, Chelsea, Mass., developed the LightBlock Bottle[TM] in 1997 to protect its milk from the harmful effects of light. Providing consumers with the best tasting and most nutritious milk possible is consistent with Hood’s brand equity, according to Lynne Bohan, director of public relations.

“Sales have definitely increased,” Bohan said. “Since the launch of the LightBlock Bottle in Oct. 1997, Hood’s market share has more than doubled, because of consumer confidence in the product. Consumers have been happy.”

Crowley Foods, Binghamton, N.Y., rolled out a Flavor Savor[TM] bottle for its PenSupreme brand in the fall of 2001. Sales of the brand have been up 40% since its introduction and Jerry Gaube, special projects manager, expects further growth. Crowley blow molds its own bottles using a resin pebble titanium dioxide.

Smith Dairy Products, Orrville, Ohio, has used the yellow pigmented, Super Jug[TM] for two years, with gradual success. Initially, consumers resisted the new package according to Stephen Schmid, president. They wanted to see the milk, and the yellow colored jug had some consumers confusing it with orange juice. Now sales are building. “We have won them back by promoting the benefits of the package,” Schmid says. “One consumer I spoke with said, ‘I hate the yellow jug, but love the product that comes from it.”’

Retailers love the product because it sells for an extra 25 cents a gal.

Cheryl Bell, public relations manager, for Schroeder Milk Co. Inc, Maplewood, Minn., says Schroeder has used the white pigmented bottles across its entire line of fluid milk for several months.

Labels, such as full-body stretch sleeves or shrink sleeves, are not only attractive, but help block light. Dean Foods’ Milk Chug[TM] and the Land O Lakes Grip-N-Go[TM] single serve HDPE containers both use shrink sleeves. Smith is one of a number of processors who also use shrink sleeves on bottles.

Even a brief, moderate light exposure of 2 hours at 2000 lux can reduce the nutritional value and can produce detectable off- flavor of milk. Approximately half of the plastic containers in a given dairy case remain under lights for at least eight hours. Thus, the majority of milk in light-transmissible containers could have detectable light-oxidized flavor defects. There are many ways to block light. Processors have found that despite the increased packaging cost, sales and profits have increased due to the protection of milk’s flavor and nutrients. For milk to be competitive in the beverage market, it must be protected from light exposure.

Time Parameters for Light Damage to Milk

Time of % of Panelists Who
Exposure Detect of Flavors

1/2 Hour 34.5%
1 Hour 45.6%
2 Hours 50.0%
3 Hours 70.7%

* According to a study done by Cornell University’s Milk Quality
Improvement Program (MQIP), when milk was exposed to light for as little
as a 1/2 hour, 34.5% of teen panelists could detect an off-flavor.

Note: Table made from bar graph
Kathryn W. Chapman is a researcher at Cornell University - Ithaca, N.Y.

Sensory Threshold of Light-Oxidized Flavor Defects in Milk by Kathryn Chapman, Lynn Whited and Kathryn Boor, Journal of Food Science (in press)

Vitamin A Degradation and Light-Oxidized Flavor Defects in Milk by Lynn Whited, Barb Hammond, Kathryn Chapman and Kathryn Boor was published in vol. 85, No. 2, 2002 of the Journal of Dairy Science.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/…103/ai_92137784

Originally Posted by Cock Kent

I read that light can do do something to milk.

So you are one of those who believe the light doesn’t goes off when you shut the refrigerator door. :D


The primary goal of PE should be to make your penis as healthy as possible in both form and function. If you do that, increased size will follow.

Originally Posted by Mtn High
1. Packaging is marketing.

2. Milk is not milk. Its makeup varies within species and between species.

3. Milk in the store is not milk. Rather it is a white nutrient devoid lifeless liquid industrial agriculture uses to sell corn which you in turn pay for with your tax dollars that go to corn farming subsidies.

Checkout realmilk.com.

Cheers


Okay, well I can’t believe I’m about to reply to this, considering it’s over MILK.

I’ll quote what I just read an advocate of Raw Milk say:

Quote
Pasteurized milk is often associated with health problems like diarrhea, cramps, iron-deficiency anemia, cancer, skin rashes, osteoporosis and allergies etc.


Needless to say, I about sh*t my pants when I read that. I can’t believe I just read somebody say that milk, just by being “pasteurized”, is “often associated with Osteoporosis”. I can not for the life of me ever recall a time I heard a doctor tell a patient with a calcium-deficiency to stay away from Pasteurized Milk.

Anyways, since now I’m curious and you may have this information Mtn High, how does packaging only equal marketing? Last I noticed, cardboard is a lot lighter than glass, thus would cost less to ship - thus permitting a cheaper, more attractive end-price for the consumer… win-win. This implies that packaging does not only equal marketing as you say, but also just what I mentioned in my previous post: “All the different packaging means is it costs the company more or less money to produce it.” Also, milk has a shorter shelf-life than say juice or water. Therefore, it would seem common sense that there is likely to be more expired milk containers thrown out by both retailers and distributors. Wouldn’t this also further drive the need for cheaper containers?

Secondly, I don’t ever recall seing a nutritional difference in the different jugs of milk I buy (Fat-Free/”Skim” Milk). However, I am going off of the macronutrients and other nutrients listed on the Nutrition Facts label. I agree with you on the fact that if you want to get all the natural bacteria’s/enzymes/etc. in milk, you’re better suited drinking Raw Milk. Though, you can just as easily get these same bacteria’s/etc. elsewhere (ex: Yogurt.. another dairy product… feel free to link me to “realyogurt.com” or whatever to detract/negate this too though if you want).

Lastly, I was just wondering what you meant by how buying milk makes me buy more corn? Or, maybe more precisely, allows them to sell more corn???

I hope this doesn’t sound like an argument, I’m not trying to argue, I’m simply wondering about the validity of what you said (Mtn High). I mean, you put it out there for people to read, I feel as though if nobody questioned it then the readers of this thread would just assume it to be correct and golden scripture - despite you not really elaborating on the basis of your claims. At least some of it is likely true, I believe you that there may be different “species” of milk (by the way what I meant by “milk is milk” is that nutritionally (macronutrients wise) it is the same (his question was “If their packaged differently does it create any nutritional difference between each of them?”)..I, though perhaps ignorantly, assumed he was asking about a difference in macronutrients, as I would assume that if he knew about raw milk then he wouldn’t be asking the question to begin with as I would think he’d already possess the knowledge to answer his question), I just think that if you’re going to throw stuff like that out there then there should be at least some sort of elaboration (facts, sources, etc.). That’d be like me saying “the day time sky is always the same color blue” when in fact that is not always the case (high altitudes). I can’t believe I just wrote all of this over milk… :smack:


No dedication + No self-discipline = No Gains. This goes for working out as well. It\'s elementary math kids.

Starting Date: 1-17-05 - EL: 6 in. EG: 5.125 in. ... or 5 2/16 in. ..FL: 4.5 in. ... or 4 8/16 in. FG: 4.5 in. ... or 4 8/16 in.

14th Check-In Date (much 'rest time' so far): 10-01-06 - EL: 7 1/16 in. EG: 5 9/16 in. ................ FL: 5.00 in. ... or 5 in. FG: 4.75 in. ... or 4 12/16 in....1st Goal: EL: 7 in. EG: 5.75 in ... or 5 12/16 in.

Originally Posted by ThunderSS
One cow is fed with an eye on profit.

Another cow is fed with an an eye on quality.

Is the milk going to be the same?

Yep, the milk will be the same. However, the cow fed with the eye on profit may not produce as much milk as the one fed with the eye on quality. The end product, will be the same in each cow.


sunny A day without sunshine is like a day without laughter :sun:

Endow,

My statements were not given out of malice but passion. I spend every day on the forefront of sustainable agriculture and the actions of the of the industrial agriculture complex tend to raise strong emotions in me.

I know I’m contradicting you on my second point, but I honestly thought I was agreeing with you on the packaging thing just restating it for emphasis. That packaging means nothing. Marketing would include but is not limited to appearance and all costs associated with the desired image.

I just came in from putting up hay and do not have the energy to put into hunting down references but if you really want I’ll see if I can throw some stuff together tomorrow.

Originally Posted by sunshinekid
Yep, the milk will be the same. However, the cow fed with the eye on profit may not produce as much milk as the one fed with the eye on quality. The end product, will be the same in each cow.

Really? The profit cow is pumped full of hormones and antibiotics and the quality cow isn’t given anything to artificially promote more milk.

Still the same milk? I don’t think so.


Penis Enlargement Forum -- How To Jelq -- Free Penis Enlargement Videos

Make a Donation This place runs on donations, help out if you can. Thanks.

Whew, I thought this thread was gonna be some weird post-partum sex question.

Me too. Jelqing is often called milking, so I didn’t expect a dairy thread.

Raw, organic milk is best.

Getting it from a farm in your area is ideal .

Everything is better in a glass container .

If you are interested in more info, check out the Weston Price Foundation’s website, there is a ton of information there, about raw milk, and a whole lot more .

Http://www.westonaprice.org/splash_2.htm

Top
12
Similar Threads 
ThreadStarterForumRepliesLast Post
Read - The Second PE Survey -- A Thunder's Place group projectremekPenis Enlargement32706-02-2017 01:29 AM
The PE Survey results!remekPenis Enlargement16105-19-2017 12:29 PM

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:45 PM.