I commented on Tayler’s, Casey’s, Cam’s, Allison M.’s, April’s, Colden’s, and Tyler’s weblog 
04
Dec
08
who i commented on Assignment #2
After this class is over, I probably won’t use this weblog anymore. But after doing this digital composition assignment, I have really learned a lot about blogging and the whole weblog thing. In my future, I could use a weblog for a lot of different things. If I wanted to keep in touch with friends, this would be a great way I could do that. Also, I hope to become a teacher so weblogging is something I could introduce to my students.
Starting out in my English 110 class, I was pretty comfortable with the whole idea of writing an analytical research paper. I mean, I have written a lot of papers in the past and since I got to choose the topic, that made it all the more better. BUT when I learned that we had to do the digital composition project (wordpress), I was not very happy about that. I am a person who really doesn’t use the Internet for socializing, I don’t have a myspace or facebook, or anything like that. The most I do is text! So when all of us in my class had to become bloggers, I thought “this should be fun!…..NOT!!” I set up my wordpress account and did the assignments with an attitude of just do it for the grade. But now that I have been blogging for a few weeks now, and people are commenting on my posts, it is actually fun!! So yay for blogging!!
To me the rules and conventions of writing op-eds are pretty simple. The writer wants to keep their writing on a simple and casual level, but they want to be able to convey the intended argument to the reader. When writing an op-ed, keep the structure in paragraph form. Don’t have just one big long paragraph, but split it up making each paragraph contain 3 or 4 sentences. This will help the reader read your op-ed and it will look nicely structred.
Recently, I wrote an analytical research paper regarding the topic of modern dairy farms and the use of growth hormones in dairy cattle. There is a hormone called bovine somatotropin, bST, that is naturally found in all dairy cattle. The hormone bST helps young cattle grow and it helps adult cows produce milk. Some people might think that it is unsafe to drink milk since there is bST in it. But in fact, the human digestive system completely breaks down the bST, just like any other protein.
While bST helps adult cows produce milk, there is way of having cows produce even more milk. This is choosing to supplement cattle with a synthetic version of bST called rbST, which stands for recombinant bovine somatotropin. The synthetic hormone boosts milk production about 10% per day.
The safety and sanitation of all dairy products is a great concern of the dairy farmer. Milk and other dairy products are among the most tested and regulated foods in America. Milk is tested for antibiotics and other pesticides on a regular basis and the milk rarely ever tests positive. There are strict government standards that ensure all milk, whether it is regular or organic, is safe as well as nutritious.
With all of the precautions and safety measures that dairy farmers take to make sure that consumers are provided with safe milk, it is a wonder why anyone would even question the safety of their milk and other dairy products. Some consumers are greatly concerned with the presence of antibiotics, pesticide residues, along with unsafe hormones in milk.
Since there is this concern, consumers are going alternative routes, such as buying only organic milk and dariy products. Where as organic milk is more expensive than regular milk. There is a great concern regarding the synthetic hormone rbST, which I have already mentioned. The concern about rbST is a growing controversy.
It is estimated that about 15% of the dairy farmers in the United States choose to supply their dairy herd with rbST. This number accounts for about 17% of the dairy cows in the United States. This is actually down from the 22% in the year 2002.
With such a big concern about rbST, the synthetic hormone has gone under extensive and thorough review done by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In 1993 the FDA approved the use of the synthetic hormone rbST. Scientists have come to the conclusion that there is no significance difference in milk that comes from cows that were supplemented with rbST and cows that were not. Even though scientists have concluded that there is no harm what so ever in the consumption of milk from cows that were supplemented with rbST, some think otherwise.
Stores across the country such as Kroger, are responding to requests from the worried customer and are now providing their customers with milk that is hormone-free. The milk that is certified to be free from hormones is typically more expensive than conventional milk, but it is well below the cost of organic milk. Kroger’s labels were also supposed to carry the statement that the FDA had found that rbST was safe, a compromise that has been permitted in other states such as Pennsylvania, but this system was considered inadequated because the FDA was in smaller print than the “hormone free” label.
The use of the hormone rbST goes back about 14 years, but the increased awarness and concern from the consumer is fairly recent. The FDA continues to state that there is no difference in the nutrition or safety of milk from rbST-treated versus untreated cows.
Other studies that were mostly conducted in other countries, have failed to find conclusive evidence of dangers to human health. But still some people out there continue to ”play it safe” when buying milk. As consumers, it is very important to understand that carton to carton and bottle to bottle; milk is wholesome, safe, and nutritios. All milk contains the same combination of nutrients that make dairy products an important part of a healthy diet.
After researching this topic a great deal, I feel that there is no harm for humans to consume milk or other dairy products that has come from cows that were treated with rbST. After all it is up to the dairy farmer to choose if they want to give their cattle rbST and I don’t really think that dairy farmers would give this to their cows if it wasn’t safe for human consumption.
There is a difference when a person is writing for an academic audience and when they are writing for a popular audience. For starters, when you are writing for an academic audience it is usually a professor or someone that already has some idea of how the paper should be structured, and they have some insight about the topic that is reading your work. Where as when you are writing for a popular audience, the writing style is more casual and relaxed. When you blog, for example, you are writing for a popular audience. Anyone could stumble upon your blog and read it, even if they don’t already have the background information of that particular topic.
Here is an interesting op-ed that I found in this morning’s LA Times. It is about the issue of cutting education funding in California. This op-ed was very persuasive because it used the strategies of logos, pathos, and ethos. This op-ed was very relevant and timely.
09
Nov
08
Modern Dairy Farms assignment #1
My Analytical Research Project for English 110 is on the topic of modern dairy farms. Today there is a big controversy regarding the use of the growth hormone rbST in cows. The hormone rbST helps in milk production and is a synthetic version of a hormone that is naturally found in cows. Some consumers fear that even though rbST is not found in the milk, the milk is not safe. Milk is tested regularly for antibiotics and other harmful residues. Therefore, I feel that there is really nothing wrong with drinking milk that has come from cows that were treated with rbST.
03
Nov
08
Hello world!
Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!
