Discrepancies In Food Sources Creates Foam In The Stomach, Reproductive Disease

 Studies are surfacing showing negative affects on animals, however the contradicting information is being brushed under the rug, causing potential healthful changes.

“Health concerns long associated with eating beef result not from eating beef, but rather from eating corn-fed beef,” says Bill Kiernan, Director at GAI Research & Insight. He goes on to say, “During World War II farmers were producing more corn than the American population was consuming and so, started feeding the surplus corn to cattle. They soon found that cows eating corn fattened up much quicker than cows eating grass.”

More importantly, cows are not designed to eat corn. When we step out changing the method, adverse affects result. Kiernan says, “A corn diet dangerously raises the acid level in the cow’s stomach creating health conditions such as acidosis, necessitating medications and antibiotics which create prime conditions for the existence of E. Coli.”

{We are taking a leap of faith and have added a donate button instead of using advertisers. Advertisements have been removed from this page to make your reading uninterrupted. If you learn something here, please donate so we can keep offering these posts. This post contains affiliate links, which sometimes pay for this site}.

The Merck Veterinarian Manual says, “Bloat can be a significant cause of mortality in feedlot cattle.” They say bloating comes from grain feed and manifests in two different forms, “Persistent foam mixed with the ruminal contents, called primary or frothy bloat, or in the form of free gas separated from the ingesta.”

Nation Of Change reported on a recent long term study exposing the results of GMO feed in cattle and pigs saying, “Pigs and cows fed on the rather common diet of GMO corn and soy have suffered digestive and reproductive disorders. This is of particular importance since the human digestive tract is very similar to that of pigs.”

The study used 168 pigs, from birth to slaughter. The pigs were divided into two groups, one was fed GMO corn and soy specifically containing 3 GM proteins, which were herbicides and insecticides.

In detail they said, “One protein made the plant resistant to a herbicide, and two proteins were insecticides.” The test groups were studied for over 5 months solid while the other was fed an equal non-GMO diet. They were taken for processing at the normal slaughter age. Individuals performing the autopsies were not notified which pigs were fed the GMO diet.

The female pigs fed GMO feed showed numerous health issues including: endometrial hyperplasia, carcinoma, endometritis, inflammation, thickening of the myometrium, larger presence of polyps, the uteri were fluid filled, the pigs were 25% larger, inflammation of the stomach and small intestine, stomach ulcers, stomach inflammation, thinning of intestinal walls and an increase in internal bleeding specifically hemorrhaging bowels.

At that same time, World Truth TV reported, “The pro-GMO British Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, has just come out with a major call for the EU to go full-speed ahead with GMO. Paterson told the BBC that GMO crops were ‘probably’ safer than conventional plants, claiming, without proof, that GMO has significant benefits for farmers, consumers and the environment. He held out the promise that a next generation of GM crops offers the “most wonderful opportunities to improve human health.”

Food isn’t the only affecting source on the animals. Science Blogs reported the study of 153 herds of cattle and 201 herds of deer saying, “High-voltage power lines, which emit strong magnetic fields of their own, disrupt the orientation of cattle and deer. Near these lines, their neat alignment goes astray and they position themselves at random. This disturbance becomes less and less pronounced as the animals stray further away from the power lines.”

Conversely, Oregan State University tested high voltage power lines with two herds of cattle over 30 months with 205 pairs of cow and calf. They constructed pens directly under the lines. The researchers noted previous studies showed short term adverse effects were unlikely.

Donald Pillman, PhD, et al, from Michigan University found different results. Their test showed suppressed milk production for 3 years recovered after a shield transformer was installed. Behavior also improved. They reported, “Changes of concentrations of several blood and cerebrospinal fluid components, energy and fat metabolism, and reduced milk have been reported for cows exposed to EMF from overhead powerlines in Canada. Consequences are related to the time and intensity of exposure to EMF.”

Another separate test proved the same negative findings to cattle near EMF. The Institute of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmacology at the Veterinary Faculty of Hannover and the Scientific Institute of Electronics and Radar at the University of the German Federal Armed Forces reported, “Considerable reduction of milk yield and increasing occurrences of health problems, behavioral abnormalities that have not yet been examined, have been observed over the last two years in a herd of dairy cows maintained in close proximity to a TV and Radio transmitting antenna.”

They went on to say, “An experiment in which a cow with abnormal behavior was brought to a stable in a different area resulted in normalization of the cow within five days. The symptoms returned, however, when the cow was brought back to the stable in close proximity to the antenna in question. In view of the previously known effects of electromagnetic fields it may be possible that the observed abnormalities are related to the electromagnetic field exposure.”

Martha Herbert, MD, PhD, notes publicly that her personal farm reflects the same health issues in her farm animals as people.