News

Milking Break and Production Costs Creating a Cows Milk Shortage in Thailand

According to the Deputy Director-General of the Department of Livestock Development, the quantity of raw cows milk in Thailand has currently reduced by 400 tonnes per day from the previous year’s average as farmers enter milking break and reduce livestock rearing.

The milking break period before cows give birth after the regular raising cycle is connected to the drop. Furthermore, due to the high cost of animal feed ingredients, several farmers have suspended rearing.

The department is accelerating efforts to expand and promote the use of animal feed, which helps lower production costs, with the expectation that raw milk volume will progressively increase to meet demand, in accordance with the milk production cycle.

According to Prapas Phinyocheep, Deputy Director-General of the Department of Livestock Development, the present volume of raw cows milk in the country is lower than the national average. The average daily raw milk production in 2022 was roughly 3,500 tonnes. In 2023, the average daily raw milk production in May was around 2,900 tonnes, a reduction of 400 tonnes per day or 12% from the previous year’s average of 3,300 tonnes per day.

From June to September, most cows are nearing calving, leading farmers to take a milking vacation. Furthermore, as a result of the COVID-19 epidemic and high livestock feed prices, some farmers have stopped rearing or reduced the number of cows, resulting in higher milk production costs.

To address the issue, the department has launched programmes to assist small-scale dairy farmers in lowering the cost of animal feed, which accounts for 60-70% of overall production costs, by encouraging farmers to cultivate roughage such as grass for feed rather than purchasing processed feed.

Providing grass seeds to farmers

The department has established a national goal of 50,000 rai (20,000 acres) for grass growth and is currently providing grass seeds to farmers. Currently, 27,000 rai (10,800 acres) are under cultivation, although it was struck by drought at the start of this year. Efforts are now undertaken to meet the project’s goal.

Another endeavour is to promote Dry TMR (Total Mixed Ration) feed, which is a complete mixed feed made by blending roughage and concentrated feed in the appropriate amounts.

The department tested it in ten provinces across all areas and discovered that it decreases production costs by 3 baht per kilogram of cows milk, or about 10%, and plans to expand the programme to reach more farmers.

Milk is an important part of children’s meals because it helps them grow. According to experts, it contains calcium, which is good for the teeth and bones, as well as other health benefits such as boosting the immune system, enhancing heart health, and improving the skin.

Despite these benefits, a study found that cows milk consumption among young Thais is low, raising concerns about their small stature.

Thai children are typically short because they consume insufficient milk, according to Dr. Suwannachai Wattanayingcharoenchai, director general of the Department of Health (DoH).

Over the last few years, the proportion of “short” Thai youths has risen from 9.5% to 10.4%. And that small stature is due to a lack of milk consumption.

Benefits of children drinking milk

Dr Suwannachai was speaking during a special event commemorating World Milk Day 2023, which he hosted and chaired at the DoH’s office. The goal was to raise awareness about the benefits of drinking milk.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations established World Milk Day on June 1 to emphasise the importance of milk as part of a balanced diet.

He claims that the average height of a 12-year-old male is 148.4 centimetres and 149.3 centimetres for girls. A 19-year-old boy’s average height is 166.8 cm, while a girl’s average height is 157.8 cm.

The Thai government has pushed the consumption of cows milk as a means of increasing the average height of young Thais. It has set a target of increasing the average height of Thai adolescent boys over the age of 18 to 170 cm and teenage girls to 165 cm by 2027.

According to a recent study conducted by the DoH, Unicef Thailand, and Suan Dusit Rajabhat University including children aged 6 to 19, the majority of Thai youngsters consume an average of one glass of milk every day.

Milk consumption among Thais is relatively modest, at roughly 21.5 litres per person per year, compared to 32.8 litres for Japanese and 60 litres for Indians.

By 2027, the Thai government hopes to raise the average milk intake of Thais to 25 litres per person per year.

Dr. Suwannachai emphasised that people should drink two glasses of fresh cows milk every day and eat a range of foods from all five food categories in the appropriate serving sizes over the course of three meals.

“In addition, teenagers should exercise for at least 60 minutes per day and participate in outdoor activities to increase vitamin D levels, which aid in the absorption of calcium from milk.” A decent night’s sleep is also essential. “All of these things should help them grow and develop properly in accordance with their age, including their height,” he stated.

Cows Milk is beneficial to everyone.

Milk, according to Assoc Prof Prapaisri Sirichakwal, advisor to Mahidol University’s Institute of Nutrition, is not only high in protein but also high in vitamins and minerals such as vitamin B2 and calcium.

“Milk is good for you at any age.” It is one of the most calcium-rich foods available. And milk proteins are considered to be of high quality,” she added, adding that drinking milk helps children grow and is also beneficial to elders since it helps preserve bone strength and prevents osteoporosis.

According to her, one serving or glass of (cow’s) milk (approximately 250 mL) can provide persons with 17-22% of their daily required intake. It contains approximately 7-8 grammes of protein.

Milk is also a good source of vitamin B2, which helps the neurological system and energy metabolism function normally. According to Prapaisri, a serving of milk offers roughly 25-30% of the daily value.

According to her, a glass of whole milk contains roughly 8-9 grammes of fat (about 12% of the daily value).

“If you are concerned about the fat content of full-fat milk, choose skimmed milk instead,” Prapaisri said.

Cow’s milk, on the other hand, is not for everyone. According to Prapaisri, certain people are intolerant to lactose, a sugar contained in milk.

People who are lactose intolerant are unable to adequately digest the sugar because their systems do not create enough lactase, the enzyme required to break down lactose. As a result, the undigested lactose remains in the gut and is later broken down by bacteria, resulting in digestive issues such as abdominal pain, flatulence, bloating, and diarrhoea.

Lactose intolerance symptoms might be unpleasant, but they are controllable by adjusting your diet, she says.

“If you’re lactose intolerant, you don’t have to give up cow’s milk completely because it’s a good source of nutrients, including calcium.” Try not to drink too much milk all at once, but rather a bit at a time. “Many lactose intolerant people can tolerate a small amount of milk,” Prapaisri remarked.

She also mentioned mixing cow’s milk with other foods.

“For example, during an afternoon break, you could have a Chinese bun or a sandwich with milk.” “You may notice fewer symptoms if you take it with food,” she said.

She did, however, mention that certain newborns and children are allergic to the protein in cow’s milk. They may develop symptoms such as lip swelling, rashes, vomiting, diarrhoea, asthma, and difficulty breathing.

She emphasised that lactose intolerance is not the same as milk allergy. The first is a digestive issue, whereas the second is an immune system disorder.

She claims that the two illnesses can make it difficult to digest cow’s milk.

Prapaisri advised those who choose plant-based milk alternatives to replace cow’s milk to carefully consider the variations in nutritional content when comparing them to dairy milk.

“Plant-based milk products may be deficient in calcium and other nutrients found in cow’s milk.” “You have to look at the labels to see if they are fortified,” she added, adding that many plant-based milk alternatives lack the same nutrients as cow’s milk.

She also advised against eating diets high in sugar, fat, and salt because they raise the chance of health problems. Excessive salt consumption might result in calcium loss.

“Consuming too much salty foods can deplete calcium in the body,” Prapraisri explained, adding that when sodium intake is too high, the body flushes it out through the urine, taking calcium with it.

News

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.

According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.

Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.

Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.

Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.

To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.

Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.

On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.

In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.

Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

Pixa Bay

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.

TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.

When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.

And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.

Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.

A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.

google

Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.

But today, it feels more like reality.

Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.

Could we remember Google in the same way that we remember Yahoo or Ask Jeeves in decades? These next few years could be significant.

SOURCE | CNN

News

The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.

The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.

Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.

This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.

In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.

The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.

This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.

The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.

In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.

According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.

Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.

The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.

For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.

Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.

As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.

As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.

The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.

SOURCE: AP

News

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli, To repay $6.4 Million

Washington — The Supreme Court rejected Martin Shkreli’s appeal on Monday, after he was branded “Pharma Bro” for raising the price of a lifesaving prescription.

Martin appealed a decision to repay $64.6 million in profits he and his former company earned after monopolizing the pharmaceutical market and dramatically raising its price. His lawyers claimed the money went to his company rather than him personally.

The justices did not explain their reasoning, as is customary, and there were no notable dissents.

Prosecutors, conversely, claimed that the firm had promised to pay $40 million in a settlement and that because Martin orchestrated the plan, he should be held accountable for returning profits.

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Martin was also forced to forfeit the Wu-Tang Clan’s unreleased album “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin,” which has been dubbed the world’s rarest musical album. The multiplatinum hip-hop group auctioned off a single copy of the record in 2015, stipulating that it not be used commercially.

Shkreli was convicted of lying to investors and defrauding them of millions of dollars in two unsuccessful hedge funds he managed. Shkreli was the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals (later Vyera), which hiked the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per pill after acquiring exclusive rights to the decades-old medicine in 2015. It cures a rare parasite condition that affects pregnant women, cancer patients, and HIV patients.

shkreli

He defended the choice as an example of capitalism in action, claiming that insurance and other programs ensured that those in need of Daraprim would eventually receive it. However, the move prompted criticism, from the medical community to Congress.

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Attorney Thomas Huff said the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling was upsetting, but the high court could still overturn a lower court judgment that allowed the $64 million penalty order even though Shkreli had not personally received the money.

“If and when the Supreme Court does so, Mr. Shkreli will have a strong argument for modifying the order accordingly,” he told reporters.

Shkreli was freed from prison in 2022 after serving most of his seven-year sentence.

SOURCE | AP