Things You’ll Need:
Animal care knowledge
Hard work
Start up capital

Instructions
Step 1
Different breeds do better in different climates. Some are better for milking and others for beef production. Find out a breed that does well in your area and suits your business goals.

Step 2
One learns cattle farming by cattle farming, not by reading a book. Consider taking a job on a cattle farm to gain knowledge and experience. You will also learn if the work is right for you. Sometimes people over romanticize the business. Once they spend a couple of weeks on a cattle farm they learn that cattle farming is not their thing. Why is that happen? Its because some of us looking for comfort which you could get in apartment kharkov, but sacrifice is needed when we’re talking about business to build.

Step 3
Acquire land and buy fencing. Be sure that the fencing is heavy enough to stand up to cattle. Make sure there are a few trees on your property to provide shade.

Step 4
Buy the cattle. Buy no more than one bull because they will fight each other. Brand them.

BGH: Turning Cows Into Biotech Milk Machines
Milk and dairy products produced in the United States – unless otherwise labeled – may come from cows routinely injected with a genetically engineered hormone called recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH).
This is the story of BGH – its effect on cows, consumers, and farmers, as well as the efforts of agribusiness drug companies to get genetically engineered hormones into our nation’s dairy cows.
Logic Pro 9 + Updates Till 9.1.3 MacOSX

What is BGH?Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH), also known as Bovine Somatotropin (BST), works by interfering with a cow’s natural physiology. Lactation is artificially manipulated through hormone injections. Monsanto, the hormone’s manufacturer, claims that BGH use results in an increase of up to 30 percent in milk production. BGH is produced by extracting growth hormones from cows, using sophisticated gene-splicing techniques to create synthetic hormones. These hormones are then injected into dairy cows on a regular basis. Monsanto claims that BGH merely “enhances” a natural process. Cows do, of course, produce hormones as part of their natural bio-chemical systems. But those natural hormones are produced in the proportion needed to meet the cow’s complex physiological needs. BGH manipulates these natural systems and artificially induces the cow to produce more milk than is appropriate for her body.

Pharmaceutical companies have spent millions of dollars developing genetically engineered hormones. Now that BGH has become an integral part of dairy farming, these drug companies are reaping even greater profits. BGH also stimulates drug company profits by increasing the sale of other pharmaceuticals. As BGH forces cows to produce more milk than is healthy for their bodies, the cows become more susceptible to infection and disease. This, in turn, creates additional needs for antibiotics and other drugs, which these companies are all too happy to provide.

FDA Suppresses Information
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of Monsanto’s BGH – commercial name “Posilac” – in November 1993, supposedly after an extensive review of the product’s safety and efficacy. However, dozens of scientific studies conducted before and after the drug’s approval suggest the existence of several serious animal and human health concerns.
The controversy surrounding BGH has renewed public concern about the integrity of the FDA. The very agency that should be protecting the nation’s food supply has actively worked with drug companies to suppress information about BGH that would put the hormone in a negative light. The FDA violated its own internal policies in helping the pharmaceutical industry reap the profits of genetic engineering.
Dr. Richard Burroughs was a staff veterinarian and senior scientist at the FDA overseeing the analysis of industry-sponsored tests on BGH. He raised a number of questions about the safety of BGH and about the approval process his agency was using. Dr. Burroughs reported that:
· Cows treated with BGH have higher than normal levels of reproductive problems.
· Their udders show an increased tendency to become infected.
· The FDA did not assign reviewers with the expertise needed to evaluate the data.
· Adequate human health studies of the effects of BGH had not been conducted.
Ultimately, Dr. Burroughs was fired. “I was told that I was slowing down the approval process. It used to be that we had a review process at the FDA. Now we have an approval process. I don’t think the FDA is doing good, honest reviews. They’ve become an extension of the drug industry.”
The firing of Dr. Burroughs sent a powerful message to others working within the FDA who might have raised similar concerns.
Criticism of BGH has not abated since approval of the drug. Consumer and animal protection advocates filed legal petitions with the FDA in 1998 and 1999 seeking removal of genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone from the market. The agency denied both requests.
In March 2000, the Center for Food Safety led a coalition of over 50 scientific, consumer, environmental, and farm organizations in filing a legal petition with the FDA demanding the development of a thorough pre-market testing regime for genetically engineered foods, as well as mandatory labeling of all genetically engineered food products.
BGH-Milk: It Does No Body Good
BGH-milk contains higher levels of a human growth promotant knows as Insulin-like Growth Factor One, or IGF-1. This hormone, which is identical in cows and people, is a suspected carcinogen. Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, internationally renowned toxicologist, warns, “all women from conception to death will now be exposed to an additional breast cancer risk due to milk from cows treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone.”
Cancer is but one potential risk of consuming BGH-induced milk. Other risks result from the health problems that artificial BGH causes in cows.

The FDA admits that BGH injections increase sickness and drug use in dairy cows. Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, reports that “because of increased udder infections, it is more likely that milk from treated cows will be of lower quality – containing more pus and bacteria – than milk from untreated cows.”
Because hormone-treated cows are pushed to the limits of endurance, their immune systems are weakened. Producers respond by administering more antibiotics and other drugs to keep the over-stressed animals alive.
Milk from BGH-injected cows is more likely to contain dangerous residues of the more than 80 different drugs, many of them antibiotics, used to treat sick cows. From infancy to adulthood, people are dosed with antibiotic residues that contaminate baby formula, milk, cheese, and other dairy products.
The FDA and the dairy industry claim that they test raw milk for drug contamination. But this testing is wholly inadequate. They only look for a few of the scores of drugs actually administered to dairy cows.
Furthermore, the FDA allows drug-contaminated milk to be sold as long as the residues are at a “safe” level. These so-called “safe” levels have been shown to cause increases in drug resistant strains of virulent diseases.
This alarms medical experts, such as Dr. Stuart Levy of Tufts University. Dr. Levy warns of the growing human health crisis posed by “antibiotic resistance.” As disease organisms are exposed to the antibiotics used on dairy cows and other farm animals, they become increasingly resistant to drug treatment. Although exact numbers are not known, over ten thousand people probably die in the U.S. each year due to antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. And the number of deaths is rising annually.

The FDA has been notoriously lax in dealing with the misuse of antibiotics and other drugs in the dairy industry. It is estimated that there are more than 80 different drugs currently used by milk producers. Several of these drugs are passed on to people through milk, as well as through meat from slaughtered dairy cows and calves.
Many people have had debilitating allergic reactions to these antibiotics. In addition, one of the drugs routinely found in milk is sulfamethazine. Promoted by the drug industry as “safe and effective,” sulfamethazine is now known to be carcinogenic.
Animal Suffering
Though little has been done to measure BGH’s effects upon human health, pharmaceutical companies have sponsored tests to measure the impact of hormone injections on cows. Even these tests – clearly biased in favor of BGH – indicate the dangers of its use.
Routine injection of BGH into a cow increases her level of stress. A cow may not metabolize food quickly enough to compensate for the extra milk the hormone forces her to produce. This can throw her into what can be termed low-level shock. The cow remains in this condition for as long as the hormone is administered.
Cows injected with BGH may not be allowed to graze in pastures. Instead, they are confined in small areas where their diet and movement can be tightly controlled. Rather than grazing on grass, BGH-treated cows must consume a highly-concentrated diet to keep up with increased production. This, in turn, can lead to higher rates of metabolic disease. Industry tests also indicate that BGH may cause enlargement of internal organs, declines in the rate of pregnancy, increased intolerance to heat, and a dramatic increase in the amount of blood pumped through the animal’s heart.

Through reproductive technologies, the quantities of milk produced by cows have already increased dramatically. In extreme cases, cows must wear bra-like harnesses to support their engorged udders.
As a cow is made to produce greater quantities of milk, she is increasingly prone to mastitis – a painful infection of the udder. Tests have shown a 25 percent increase in the incidence of mastitis in cows receiving BGH injections. And mastitis has been associated with lameness, which research shows may increase as much as 50 percent with BGH use.
In 1930 the average cow produced 12 pounds of milk a day. By 1988 the average had risen to 39 pounds. If BGH increases production by 30 percent, that volume rises to 51 pounds a day per cow. This leads to a corresponding increase in veterinary problems associated with intensive milk production.
Bad Medicine
HFA has warned for years that the use of synthetic BGH would harm cows. This, of course, was vehemently denied by BGH manufacturers. Now, HFA has been proved correct.
Below are excerpts from the official government warning that by law must accompany Monsanto’s BGH: “Use of [BGH] is associated with increased frequency of use of medication in cows… Use of [BGH] in cows in which injection site swellings repeatedly open and drain should be discontinued. The number of cows affected with clinical mastitis and the number of cases per cow may increase…Use of [BGH] has been associated with increases in cystic ovaries and disorders of the uterus…Cows may have…increased twinning rates. Also, the incidence of retained placenta may be higher…Cows injected with [BGH] had increased numbers of enlarged hocks and lesions (e.g. lacerations, enlargements, calluses) of the knee (carpal region), and…disorders of the foot region.”

The government’s product warning for BGH has proven valid. In the first 4 years after its introduction, the FDA received nearly 2,000 reports from dairy farmers of adverse experiences with Posilac. (Each report may represent multiple problems and multiple animals affected.) The clinical manifestations cited in the reports include reproductive problems, mastitis, injection site reactions, udder abnormalities, digestive disorders, foot or leg problems, cardiovascular disorders, and death.
Canada and Europe Just Say No
Since approval of the drug in 1994, the U.S. has exerted pressure on Canada, Mexico, and other trading partners to sanction use of BGH in order to increase pressure on Europe through the World Trade Organization to accept BGH products.
Following approval of the drug in the U.S., Canada’s Health Protection Branch reviewed the data upon which the FDA’s decision was based and came to a starkly different conclusion. Concerned that the FDA had ignored or overlooked evidence showing adverse reactions in animal studies to BGH, Canada in 1999 rejected approval of the hormone.
Shiv Chopra, one of the Canadian scientists studying the drug, criticized the FDA for not calling for more studies, “instead of subjecting the public to unknown risks without their knowledge and consent.” He says, “The FDA may think this is an insignificant risk for the public, but they don’t know because they haven’t tested it fully.”
The European Union (EU) also commissioned two independent committees of internationally recognized experts to review the scientific literature related to the animal and human public health effects of BGH use. The committees reached the same conclusion as the Canadian health service and recommended a moratorium on use of the hormone, which was adopted by the EU.
Dairy Politics
The most persistent economic problem faced by the dairy industry today is overproduction. Every year farmers are driven out of business because milk production far outreaches demand. The increase in milk production attributed to BGH is having devastating consequences.
Studies at the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment and Cornell University predicted widespread use of BGH would drive as many as 30 percent of American dairy farmers out of business. And, in fact, between 1991 and 2001, the number of dairy operations in the U.S. declined by more than 40 percent. Those on the losing end are primarily small-scale family dairy farms. These are farms which are much more inclined than corporate agribusiness to use humane, sustainable, and environmentally-sound farming practices.
The problem of overproduction is so great that in 1985 the government paid over 14,000 dairy farmers to kill their cows and get out of the dairy business. Under this misguided program, 1.6 million cows were either slaughtered or exported for the purpose of reducing milk surpluses.
Overproduction results in economic loss for both farmers and taxpayers. This is because milk prices are artificially propped up by the government. The government sets a minimum price and then agrees to buy all of the milk products that cannot be sold.
BGH benefits only large-scale dairy factories that, with BGH increasing their yields, can gain an advantage over other farms. But that advantage is usually only temporary. In order to compete, other dairies in the area are forced to adopt the same technology. In short, BGH triggers a pharmaceutical arms race, requiring milk producers to use more and more hormones, antibiotics, and other drugs.
Many dairy farmers know that administering BGH will actually harm cows and make their work harder. However, some feel virtually forced to use it. According to Vermont dairy farmer Robert Baird, “None of us are excited about pushing our cows any harder. But if we’re forced to, we will use BGH to stay in business.”
Despite opposition from many farmers, some dairy industry organizations are promoting BGH. As of 2000, BGH was being injected into about 30 percent of U.S. dairy cows.
Boycott Hormone-Milk
Prior to its approval, the National Dairy Board, which is closely aligned with corporate agribusiness, conducted a survey regarding consumer reaction to the introduction of BGH in milk. Not surprisingly, consumers expressed alarm at the idea of genetically engineered hormones ending up in their children’s milk.
The Dairy Board set out to counteract this negative response. In 1990 it paid more than $1 million to a public relations firm to boost BGH’s image – even though most dairy farmers opposed BGH and would be harmed by its use.
Although the uproar over BGH quieted some after its introduction, the public remains opposed to its use. A 1996 University of Wisconsin study found that 74 percent of Americans considered the recombinant hormone a hazard, and 94 percent supported mandatory labeling.
The FDA, however, refuses to require that milk and dairy products from BGH-injected cows be labeled, instead leaving it to the states to decide whether to regulate labeling. The FDA’s refusal to label BGH-induced milk undermines the public’s right to know how food is produced and how farm animals are treated.
The economic and political forces behind BGH have even worked to prevent the labeling of milk that is free of synthetic hormones. Monsanto has gone so far as to sue dairies that label their milk as being free of the artificial hormone. In addition, 4 states – Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, and Oklahoma – banned BGH-free labeling.
A group of dairy companies, led by Ben & Jerry’s ice cream sued Illinois and the city of Chicago in May 1996 over the ban on labeling. In August 1997 Illinois agreed to settle the lawsuit and allow labeling after Ben & Jerry’s agreed to modify the “BGH-free” wording on its labels. The compromise language reads: “We oppose recombinant bovine growth hormone. The family farmers who supply our milk pledge not to treat their cows” with the hormone.
Cows Can’t Say No – But We Can
Four multi-national drug companies have invested more than half a billion dollars in the development and promotion of BGH. The battle over the use and labeling of this hormone has significance for all areas of animal agriculture.
As BGH gains acceptance, it paves the way for the use of genetically engineered growth stimulants for pigs, sheep, and other farm animals. BGH itself has already been used in experiments to produce larger, faster growing chickens.