Anyone feed Urea to cows?

sheebadog

When milking cows are indoors I feed some Urea. I always did that but talking to a group of farmers that called yesterday they thought I was mad.

trixi2011

sheebadog wrote: »

When milking cows are indoors I feed some Urea. I always did that but talking to a group of farmers that called yesterday they thought I was mad.

Have herd of people doing never feed it myself . Spread urea on front of the cows in the grazing season I'm sure they end up eating a little .

sheebadog

trixi2011 wrote: »

Have herd of people doing never feed it myself . Spread urea on front of the cows in the grazing season I'm sure they end up eating a little .

I would never feed it on grazing as they should have adequate protein.

J.O. Farmer

sheebadog wrote: »

I would never feed it on grazing as they should have adequate protein.

Is urea not a byproduct from the breakdown of protein anda waste product at that excreted in the urine. If you wanted to give extra protein surely there are better sources.

sheebadog

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

Is urea not a byproduct from the breakdown of protein anda waste product at that excreted in the urine. If you wanted to give extra protein surely there are better sources.

Yes a byproduct. I feed between 50 and 75 grams per head so not to waste some of their protein intake.

J.O. Farmer

sheebadog wrote: »

Yes a byproduct. I feed between 50 and 75 grams per head so not to waste some of their protein intake.

How does that help save their protein intake. Protein has to be broken down by the cow to be used in production of their own protein. For example soya protein can't be taken in by the cow and pass straight through the system into milk.

sheebadog

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

How does that help save their protein intake. Protein has to be broken down by the cow to be used in production of their own protein. For example soya protein can't be taken in by the cow and pass straight through the system into milk.

My thinking is that the urea is already made as it were when you feed a little urea. Then you get full bang from soya.
Crazy??

Brown Podzol

sheebadog wrote: »

When milking cows are indoors I feed some Urea. I always did that but talking to a group of farmers that called yesterday they thought I was mad.

Is that feed grade urea? . What price is it compared to soya. I have herd of some people feeding ordinary urea fert to cattle through a diet feeder, but if caught then there could be serious repercussions.

ganmo

Keep it at small levels and it'll be grand. It should be cheaper than considerably cheaper than Soya.

Gillespy

I remember giving it a few years ago at 50g/head. It wasn't feed grade and was warned to make sure it was thoroughly mixed through before feeding out. Unusual to be looking for ruman degradable protein, I forget why we needed it that time.

conor t

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

How does that help save their protein intake. Protein has to be broken down by the cow to be used in production of their own protein. For example soya protein can't be taken in by the cow and pass straight through the system into milk.

urea is broken down into ammonia, then used by bacteria and turned into protein as long as energy is adequate. if their on silage not much point in feeding urea because energy will be lacking.

Farmer Pudsey

Granular Urea that we spread as fertlizer is feed grade urea. It is ultra high protein a good bit above 100 units/kg(soya is 48 units). The biggest issue is that even feeding small amounts meas that you are giving adequate P. Piosining is a real danger however the cost benifit is very tempting.

It is quite common in the states to do it, not quite sure to what level you can feed to. Soya by far is the premium source of P but cost of P is a real issue. Have considered feeding to reduce costs however have not so far. 50-100 grams would not be a huge amount and well within limits. It would be tempting where feeding a set ration to use ureal to balance P for stores/weanlings.

Brown Podzol

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Granular Urea that we spread as fertlizer is feed grade urea. It is ultra high protein a good bit above 100 units/kg(soya is 48 units). The biggest issue is that even feeding small amounts meas that you are giving adequate P. Piosining is a real danger however the cost benifit is very tempting.

It is quite common in the states to do it, not quite sure to what level you can feed to. Soya by far is the premium source of P but cost of P is a real issue. Have considered feeding to reduce costs however have not so far. 50-100 grams would not be a huge amount and well within limits. It would be tempting where feeding a set ration to use ureal to balance P for stores/weanlings.

There'd feed anything in the States. Have a look at the list of feeds on the right of the page of the following link. Feathers, lamb meal, blood meal etc.

http://www.ingredients101.com/lamb.htm

trixi2011

sheebadog wrote: »

I would never feed it on grazing as they should have adequate protein.

Spread for grass growth as fertiliser what I mean is I'm sure the cows would end up eating some

Farmer Pudsey

Brown Podzol wrote: »

There'd feed anything in the States. Have a look at the list of feeds on the right of the page of the following link. Feathers, lamb meal, blood meal etc.

http://www.ingredients101.com/lamb.htm

Urea is also used in treating grains to preserve and to increase P. It is also used accross europe. When soya went crazy last year it was being used a bit. The thing about it you need to be very aware of risks involved mainly that no animal has access to more than there share.

gozunda

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Urea is also used in treating grains to preserve and to increase P. It is also used accross europe. When soya went crazy last year it was being used a bit. The thing about it you need to be very aware of risks involved mainly that no animal has access to more than there share.

I agree

This is from an US source on feeding urea to cattle...

"Urea is quickly converted to ammonia upon entering the rumen. This ammonia can either be used by bacteria along with a readily available energy source to produce proteins or enter the bloodstream.

If energy sources are limited in the rumen or if too much urea is consumed, then large amounts of urea can enter the circulatory system. When the amount of urea entering the bloodstream exceeds the capacity of the liver to remove it, cattle can suffer from ammonia toxicity or urea poisoning with death resulting in less than 30 minutes.

Prevention of urea toxicity is always better than having to treat the condition. Instances of urea poisoning are commonly due to improper weighing or poor mixing of urea into cattle feeds. Overconsumption of liquid or solid molasses-based supplements containing urea by hungry cattle can also lead to urea toxicity. ...

Never feed raw whole soybeans and urea together. Soybeans contain an enzyme called urease which breaks down urea into ammonia

Signs of toxicity include excessive salivation, rapid breathing, tremors, tetany and eventually death. "

As far as I am concerned I would not feed cows urea, it's a cheap but potentially dangerous way of attempting to bulk up protein levels. In 2008 Chinese milk producers were found using melamine added to milk to cause it to appear to have a higher protein content.

It was reported an estimated 300,000 people developed complications with six infants dying from kidney stones and other kidney damage. The chemical appeared to have been added to milk to cause it to appear to have a higher protein content.

Whilst the Chinese example was of fake protein added to milk, I would be just as warey of using a byproduct as a feedstuff for cows. Ignoring the potential for toxicity - there are some serious concerns for food safety as well in my opinion.

blue5000

Some of the crimp additives available last autumn are using urea to bring up protein levels in the cereal from 10-11 to around 16% I'd be interested in doing this. Did anyone on here try it?

ganmo

Don't feed urea to young stock though, they can't handle it

sheebadog

Brown Podzol wrote: »

Is that feed grade urea? . What price is it compared to soya. I have herd of some people feeding ordinary urea fert to cattle through a diet feeder, but if caught then there could be serious repercussions.

I just feed prilled urea straight from the bag into the diet feeder. I'm not supposed to use this type but the food grade is almost €1000 per ton.
I would never use it on young stock though.

conor t

gozunda wrote: »

As far as I am concerned I would not feed cows urea, it's a cheap but potentially dangerous way of attempting to bulk up protein levels. In 2008 Chinese milk producers were found using melamine added to milk to cause it to appear to have a higher protein content.

It was reported an estimated 300,000 people developed complications with six infants dying from kidney stones and other kidney damage. The chemical appeared to have been added to milk to cause it to appear to have a higher protein content.

Whilst the Chinese example was of fake protein added to milk, I would be just as warey of using a byproduct as a feedstuff for cows. Ignoring the potential for toxicity - there are some serious concerns for food safety as well in my opinion.

Melamine being added to milk to boost protein levels has nothing to do with feeding urea.
As long as you have the facilities to mix it properly urea is perfectly safe and there wouldn't be any difference in the end product compared to soya, except for the cost of production. To say otherwise shows no knowledge of what happens during digestion in the rumen.

gozunda

conor t wrote: »

Melamine being added to milk to boost protein levels has nothing to do with feeding urea.
As long as you have the facilities to mix it properly urea is perfectly safe and there wouldn't be any difference in the end product compared to soya, except for the cost of production. To say otherwise shows no knowledge of what happens during digestion in the rumen.

If you read what I wrote I made it perfectly clear I was not giving it as a comparison. My point was that using non food derivatives can cause unintended consequences both in animal and human consumers.

Soya can not be equated with urea and as quoted from the article detail I posted may cause issues when fed together. Please reread my original post if you did not understand this. The detail what can happen in the rumen is clearly detailed.

conor t

gozunda wrote: »

If you read what I wrote I made it perfectly clear I was not giving it as a comparison. My point was that using non food derivatives can cause unintended consequences both in animal and human consumers.

Soya can not be equated with urea and as quoted from the article detail I posted may cause issues when fed together. Please reread my original post if you did not understand this. The detail what can happen in the rumen is clearly detailed.

The melamine in China wasn't fed to the cows, it was mixed into the milk so don't see how your point is relevant in this thread, if your talking about bone meal or some other by products your right, but there's no risks when urea is fed right

gozunda

conor t wrote: »

The melamine in China wasn't fed to the cows, it was mixed into the milk so don't see how your point is relevant in this thread, if your talking about bone meal or some other by products your right, but there's no risks when urea is fed right

Where did I say melamine was fed to cows?????

As I said It is another example of the use of non food derivatives which can cause unintended consequences both in animal and human consumers.

The point is that "feeding right' is a variable that is at best very difficult to determine. The information I quoted detailed serious issues of interactions with other foodstuffs and feeding quantities. Urea is not a natural foodstuff and carries potential risks of poisoning and death. I suggest you reread the original post again.

I will repost the last paragraph for clarity

"Whilst the Chinese example was of fake protein added to milk, I would be just as warey of using a byproduct as a feedstuff for cows. Ignoring the potential for toxicity - there are some serious concerns for food safety as well in my opinion"

conor t

gozunda wrote: »

Where did I say melamine was fed to cows?????

As I said It is another example of the use of non food derivatives which can cause unintended consequences both in animal and human consumers.

The point is that "feeding right' is a variable that is at best very difficult to determine. The information I quoted detailed serious issues of interactions with other foodstuffs and feeding quantities. Urea is not a natural foodstuff and carries potential risks of poisoning and death. I suggest you reread the original post again.

I will repost the last paragraph for clarity

"Whilst the Chinese example was of fake protein added to milk, I would be just as warey of using a byproduct as a feedstuff for cows. Ignoring the potential for toxicity - there are some serious concerns for food safety as well in my opinion"

The lads in China were just out to make money and couldn't have given a ****e about whoever drank the milk, that's not what's happening feeding urea to cattle. Feeding soya with urea would defeat the whole point of using urea in the first place and balancing a diet properly isn't hard at all if you do a bit of research. What exactly are these 'food safety concerns' you have because you hardly think it would be legal and widely practiced if there were 'serious food safety concerns'.

Gillespy

The high protein molasses on the market, QLF and Premier Molasses have them, are urea based I believe. So let's assume they're above board, it's no different to putting 50g through the feeder.

It's not a total substitute for soya, still need bypass protein well high performing cows do.

Farmer Pudsey

Gillespy wrote: »

The high protein molasses on the market, QLF and Premier Molasses have them, are urea based I believe. So let's assume they're above board, it's no different to putting 50g through the feeder.

It's not a total substitute for soya, still need bypass protein well high performing cows do.

Hi protein molasses were using whey as far as i know unless they changed in the last while

Gillespy

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Hi protein molasses were using whey as far as i know unless they changed in the last while

Some do, it appears Premier Molasses range is whey based. QLF is urea iirc.

Here's one in the UK.

gozunda

conor t wrote: »

The lads in China were just out to make money and couldn't have given a ****e about whoever drank the milk, that's not what's happening feeding urea to cattle. Feeding soya with urea would defeat the whole point of using urea in the first place and balancing a diet properly isn't hard at all if you do a bit of research. What exactly are these 'food safety concerns' you have because you hardly think it would be legal and widely practiced if there were 'serious food safety concerns'.

You didn't answer the question in my last post. By the way it wasn't me either who first brought up the issue of soya. Although Soya is present in nearly all compound feeds these days. Yeah the lads in China were out to make money but nearly every one is the same. The problem with feeding - urea which in physiology is defined as a waste product. Increased feeding of urea can lead to elevated levels of urea in both milk and meat. As for the health concerns like the feeding of animal waste products in the past - there was little research done until serious issues arose. We already know that it can be toxic in certain circumstances when fed to animals. Elevated levels of urea in cows / cattle can pass into both milk and meat.
And it's not that it's 'legal' there is no statement in law about this one way or the other. It wasn't 'illegal' in China either to add melamine but it happened anyway. We need to learn from lessons of the past about what we feed to animals. The way I look the quality and reputation of the product suffers. Is irish farming not famed and promoted for its grass fed image?

Gillespy

Blowing this way out of proportion. It's grams of urea and it's done in cases where that kind of protein is called for. The only danger is when it's poorly mixed through the ration and that is hard to do quite frankly if the farmer is awake. It's scaremongering like this that threadens to destroy our 'green image'.

gozunda

Gillespy wrote: »

Blowing this way out of proportion. It's grams of urea and it's done in cases where that kind of protein is called for. The only danger is when it's poorly mixed through the ration and that is hard to do quite frankly if the farmer is awake. It's scaremongering like this that threadens to destroy our 'green image'.

Thanks for that. However I disagree. Urea is used to provide an cheap source of nitrogen from which rumen bacteria can form protein. There are many factors that make urea toxicity possible. Some of these have already been stated and include:

1) Poor mixing of feed

2) Errors in ration formulation

3) Inadequate period of adaptation

4) Low intake of water

5) Feeding of urea in conjunction with poor-quality roughages

6) Low feed intake prior to exposure to feed containing urea

7) Rations that promote a high pH in ruminal fluid

I would suggest you consider more than the somolitic state of farmers as a problem. You do realise that the bizarre statement above that any one who highlights recognised concerns is by your reckoning 'scaremongering' and is somehow the cause of the problem - a great example of a strawman argument ie a complete misrepresentation of what was actually said.

Gillespy

Any other everyday feeds cause similar problems if misused or overfed?

conor t

gozunda wrote: »

Thanks for that. However I disagree. Their are many factors that make urea toxicity possible. Some of these have already been stated and include:

1) Poor mixing of feed

2) Errors in ration formulation

3) Inadequate period of adaptation

4) Low intake of water

5) Feeding of urea in conjunction with poor-quality roughages

6) Low feed intake prior to exposure to feed containing urea

7) Rations that promote a high pH in ruminal fluid

1.urea should only be fed where proper mixing facilities are available
2.errors in ration formulation won't happen because you've mixed it properly and you've also gotten advice if you can't work it out yourself. The same for any high concentrate diet
3.that can be said about almost any feed so doesn't make urea any more dangerous
4.as above. Proper water supply essential whether urea being fed or not
5.that wouldn't happen because your diet wouldn't be balanced then which is why your using urea.
6.if the ration is properly mixed not a problem. Refer to 1
7.the ration won't promote high pH because it has a high energy content to make use of the urea.
Urea has been used/studied the last 40 years or so, if there were serious risks they would have been found already. By using your logic that it can poison animals if fed incorrectly we shouldn't feed any concentrates and grass would be risky in spring. As with everything common sense must be used if you don't know enough to do it yourself hire someone who can do it.

gozunda

conor t wrote: »

1.urea should only be fed where proper mixing facilities are available
2.errors in ration formulation won't happen because you've mixed it properly and you've also gotten advice if you can't work it out yourself. The same for any high concentrate diet
3.that can be said about almost any feed so doesn't make urea any more dangerous
4.as above. Proper water supply essential whether urea being fed or not
5.that wouldn't happen because your diet wouldn't be balanced then which is why your using urea.
6.if the ration is properly mixed not a problem. Refer to 1
7.the ration won't promote high pH because it has a high energy content to make use of the urea.
Urea has been used/studied the last 40 years or so, if there were serious risks they would have been found already. By using your logic that it can poison animals if fed incorrectly we shouldn't feed any concentrates and grass would be risky in spring. As with everything common sense must be used if you don't know enough to do it yourself hire someone who can do it.

For your information, the list of issues of urea toxicity were not put together by me but come from an expert document on the subject for feeding urea. So if you wish to argue your own opinion please feel free to do so. It doesn't make the issues any less valid just because you don't like then.

I would disagree about current studies - most consequent actions are after the fact. BSE for example. It is of interest that food safety has really only become a significant issue in the last two decades. The use of urea as feed is a relatively new venture in Europe and especially in Ireland

Your interpretation of logic is faulty - again a straw man argument. There is no link with regard to grass or otherwise. Reread my posts if you need clarification.

How many people who are seeking to use cheap substitutes for feeding are able to afford to "hire someone who can do it" ? Yeah right.

I really could be bothered detailing this issue with you tbh - it is apparent no amount of detail and posts from myself or other posters on this thread are going to deflect your own opinion.

As I stated previously I would not feed urea as a cheap substitute for protein. I prefer not to mess with with rumen processes at this level.

But hey it's a free country - but it might be a good idea to let the consumers know so they can make their own decision on what they are buying.

Again you are welcome to your own opinion...

And you still didn't answer my question from my previous email. No worries.

Gillespy

The only fact in your original post is if urea is misused it is dangerous to the cow's health, a point no one is denying. You then said 'there are some serious concerns for food safety as well in my opinion'. And you throw in melamine and now BSE as a way of backing up your opinion. Unless you can actually back up your claim I don't see the point in discussing this further with you.

gozunda

Gillespy wrote: »

The only fact in your original post is if urea is misused it is dangerous to the cow's health, a point no one is denying. You then said 'there are some serious concerns for food safety as well in my opinion'. And you throw in melamine and now BSE as a way of backing up your opinion. Unless you can actually back up your claim I don't see the point in discussing this further with you.

Of interest I am not the only poster who has expressed concern with the use of Urea as a Cheap feed substitute. And there are posts that claim the stuff is safe as houses! I have already provided published detail on these issues. How about you show why you think that it is safe rather than misinterpreting what has been detailed? No? Grand so - As I said you are welcome up your opinion.

Gillespy

Again, no one is denying the dangers of overfeeding urea, I did so myself, in fact I said it here first. But the same can be said for many feeds and supplements/minerals etc, but that's besides the point.

So what exactly am I misinterpreting? Why include such words as melamine and BSE if the worst that will happen in the event of it being misused is cow death?

periodictable

Food for thought...


Urea is a form of NPN that can be fed to beef cattle. Producers may consider its use due to economics. However, use caution when including urea in beef cattle diets. It can be toxic if improperly used. Urea is quickly converted to ammonia upon entering the rumen. This ammonia can either be used by bacteria along with a readily available energy source to produce proteins or enter the bloodstream. If energy sources are limited in the rumen or if too much urea is consumed, th
en large amounts of urea can enter the circulatory system. When the amount of urea entering the bloodstream
exceeds the capacity of the liver to remove it, cattle can suffer from ammonia toxicity or
urea poisoning with death resulting in less than 30 minutes.


http://msucares.com/livestock/beef/mca_aug2008.pdf

J.O. Farmer

In fairness to gillespy the claim that urea is like BSE is a bit extreme. My biochemistry is a bit rusty but urea is a naturally occurring byproduct of protein metabolism. It is found naturally in people anyway. Given that as pointed out in this thread that a cow will be dead within 30 minutes if she gets too much I fail to see how it poses a human health risk.
I'm assuming that people get meat from a reputable butcher and not the knackers yard. If you were then to eat enough meat from a cow fed a sub lethal amount of urea you would probably more likely die from urea poisoning from the breakdown of the meat than the urea in it. As urea is excreted in the urine a build up in the body would indicate a more serious health problem which left untreated will kill you anyway.

gozunda

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

In fairness to gillespy the claim that urea is like BSE is a bit extreme. My biochemistry is a bit rusty but urea is a naturally occurring byproduct of protein metabolism. It is found naturally in people anyway. Given that as pointed out in this thread that a cow will be dead within 30 minutes if she gets too much I fail to see how it poses a human health risk.
I'm assuming that people get meat from a reputable butcher and not the knackers yard. If you were then to eat enough meat from a cow fed a sub lethal amount of urea you would probably more likely die from urea poisoning from the breakdown of the meat than the urea in it. As urea is excreted in the urine a build up in the body would indicate a more serious health problem which left untreated will kill you anyway.

Read again. Gillespie in fact mistakingly equated BSE with urea. Reread the post -my original reference was to studies on the effects of using additives to animal foodstuffs. I quote ...

"I would disagree about current studies - most consequent actions are after the fact. BSE for example." ie that the research that proved what happened in relation to BSE came many years after the health issues first began and the causative agent identified.

So no where was it said that "urea is like BSE" ...

I am more interested in seeing a proper defence of the use of Urea as a feedstuff than the use of this type of distraction. So far there has been little or no evidence put forward.

JO I Dont quite get your point about eating meat with sub lethal amounts of urea? Could you explain.

Gillespy

What do you want exactly? You're trying to say it's dangerous beyond its know and well documented dangers, so take it upon yourself to provide the proof.

J.O. Farmer

gozunda wrote: »

Read again. Gillespie in fact mistakingly equated BSE with urea. Reread the post -my original reference was to studies on the effects of using additives to animal foodstuffs. I quote ...

"I would disagree about current studies - most consequent actions are after the fact. BSE for example." ie that the research that proved what happened in relation to BSE came many years after the health issues began and the causative agent identified.

So no here was it said that "urea is like BSE" ...

I am more interested in seeing a proper defence of the use of Urea as a feedstuff than the use of this type of distraction. So far there has been little or no evidence put forward.

JO I Dont quite get your point about eating meat with sub lethal amounts of urea? Could you explain.

Somebody here made reference to the urea being in the meat. If the urea in the cows blood stream didn't kill the cow then the levels in the meat would be extremely low. Therefore huge amounts of this meat would need to be eaten for much to be absorbed into the human bloodstream.
This is related to the concerns you have. If you feel the risk to human health comes directly from ingestion of urea.

In relation to BSE with hindsight there is 20/20 vision but to the best of my knowledge prions are not produced every time we ingest protein.

conor t

There is no question but that urea and certain other nonprotein nitrogen substances can be fed safely to ruminants to replace part of the dietary vegetable protein. Favorable results can be expected when cereal grains are also included in the ration, but performance may be less satisfactory on forage alone.
Urea may cause toxicity and even death in ruminants if it is fed inadequately mixed with other feeds or in too large a dose. The toxic signs can easily be recognized.
Research by Kondos and McClymont (1965) suggests that high urea supplements should be withdrawn at least one half day before and after the administration of carbon tetrachloride, if the latter is being given as treatment against liver flukes and Haemonchus contortus infestations, because a concomitant absorption of ammonia increases the risks of toxic effects resulting from the drug.
Animals should never be permitted access to urea not mixed with other feeds.


That's off the FAO probably the least biased organization you could expect to find. So as long as guidelines are followed which isn't hard to do you don't have any argument. Just on your point about soya above never seen anything other that soyabean meal in feed. And also hiring someone to do up a proper diet is in the reach of the vast majority of farmers assuming 500euro(don't have a clue how much it would cost) you could easily make that money back through reduced feed bills

tomieen jones

gozunda wrote: »

I agree

This is from an US source on feeding urea to cattle...

"Urea is quickly converted to ammonia upon entering the rumen. This ammonia can either be used by bacteria along with a readily available energy source to produce proteins or enter the bloodstream.

If energy sources are limited in the rumen or if too much urea is consumed, then large amounts of urea can enter the circulatory system. When the amount of urea entering the bloodstream exceeds the capacity of the liver to remove it, cattle can suffer from ammonia toxicity or urea poisoning with death resulting in less than 30 minutes.

Prevention of urea toxicity is always better than having to treat the condition. Instances of urea poisoning are commonly due to improper weighing or poor mixing of urea into cattle feeds. Overconsumption of liquid or solid molasses-based supplements containing urea by hungry cattle can also lead to urea toxicity. ...

Never feed raw whole soybeans and urea together. Soybeans contain an enzyme called urease which breaks down urea into ammonia

Signs of toxicity include excessive salivation, rapid breathing, tremors, tetany and eventually death. "

As far as I am concerned I would not feed cows urea, it's a cheap but potentially dangerous way of attempting to bulk up protein levels. In 2008 Chinese milk producers were found using melamine added to milk to cause it to appear to have a higher protein content.

It was reported an estimated 300,000 people developed complications with six infants dying from kidney stones and other kidney damage. The chemical appeared to have been added to milk to cause it to appear to have a higher protein content.

Whilst the Chinese example was of fake protein added to milk, I would be just as warey of using a byproduct as a feedstuff for cows. Ignoring the potential for toxicity - there are some serious concerns for food safety as well in my opinion.

the Chinese mixed urea in milk ???? this cant be true

ganmo

tomieen jones wrote: »

the Chinese mixed urea in milk ???? this cant be true

It would show up on the normal lab tests as right spec

gozunda

tomieen jones wrote: »

the Chinese mixed urea in milk ???? this cant be true

You do realise that this is an old thread?
Anyway read the last few posts again. I did not say the chinese mixed urea. The last post clearly stated 'protein'.

Whilst the Chinese example was of fake protein added to milk

Tbh I'm not going over the rest of it again.

tomieen jones

gozunda wrote: »

You do realise that this is an old thread?
Anyway read the last few posts again. I did not say the chinese mixed urea. The last post clearly stated 'protein'.



Tbh I'm not going over the rest of it again.

yes your right actually when I google it! My good God it would make you wonder wrists in our food! I hope it was feed grade urea they used or did they say?