In golf, when you slice the ball into the other fairway, or dribble it into a pond, you may decide to take a “mulligan”–pretend the errant shot didn’t happen and just take another shot.
The state of Wisconsin seems to have decided to take a mulligan over the “poisoning,” (a favorite term of the food safety lobby when people become ill from food-borne illness) of 18 people, many of them children, in Wisconsin…from raw milk last week.
This is the story that was breathlessly broken by Bill Marler on his blog last week. “I expect to hear that it is part of a FDA sponsored conspiracy against expanding raw milk sales in Wisconsin. Raw milk is not ‘magic.’ It has real risks.” When the story first broke, commenters on his blog and on a food safety list serve were practically apoplectic. “There should be a FEDERAL LAW against serving raw milk in a school,” one of the hysterics stated.
Yes, as long as he and his groupies assumed the milk was provided by a wacko raw milk dairy, it was fun to blame raw milk advocates and their supposed focus on “conspiracy” and “magic.” But once the facts of the story began dribbling out, and it became possible that the the milk was provided by a red-blooded American dairy farmer that serves the huge dairy processing establishment, well, suddenly the tone changed.
A number of the food safety blogs published a press release that regulators in Wisconsin had genetically linked the campylobacter found in the sick children to that found on a Wisconsin dairy. But no name calling and sarcasm and holier-than-thou scolding. Instead, radio silence by the food safety lobby/anti-raw milk hysterics.
Why did the busybodies suddenly go stone silent? It’s pretty obvious when you learn the story of what happened, as I did yesterday when I spoke with Donna Gilson, the press spokesperson at the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture and Consumer Protection. (She says, by the way, that the number of sick people is up to 18. While most are children, some adults have apparently contracted the campylobacter via secondary infections from their children.)
What happened is that a relative of a Wisconsin dairy owner stopped by the farm several weeks ago and, unbeknownst to the owner, filled a few jugs with milk from the dairy’s bulk tank. This individual went off to a public school function, where the milk was served. DATCP won’t reveal the dairy’s name, but Gilson says, “It’s not one of the farms that has sold raw milk.” This dairy is “a larger farm that has a good record with us.” In other words, it’s a member of the club; its milk is sold commercially to a processing plant that pasteurizes and homogenizes it. It’s part of the huge dairy establishment, selling unprocessed milk, often at a loss, to keep big processors profitable.
Now, anyone who knows anything about milk production knows that unpasteurized commercial milk is dangerous. That’s why any number of people on this blog and elsewhere continually reiterate that there are two raw milks in this country. There have been any number of studies showing that unpasteurized milk destined for the processing plants has a significant chance of containing pathogens. Here’s what I say in my book, The Raw Milk Revolution: “Raw milk of the first kind, which is really almost all milk produced in the U.S., has significant rates of pathogen contamination before pasteurization. A study published in a 2004 issue of the Journal of Dairy Science found that in milk samples taken from 861 bulk tanks in twenty-one states around the country, 2.6 percent contained salmonella and 6.5 percent tested positive for Listeria monocytogenes…the Journal of Dairy Science noted that the contamination ‘highlights the need for vigilance in maintaining hygienic conditions in milking and processing environments’…”
You’d think that 18 people becoming ill with campylobachter from raw milk in a major dairy state like Wisconsin would be a big deal to these busybodies who are certain they are better judges of what we should eat than we are. They can’t tell us often enough that it’s all about protecting the children. I’ve come out here on this blog and in talks and pushed raw dairies to pay closer attention to their sanitation practices and to focusing on reducing and eliminating illnesses.
Now, if we were living in a less-hysterical country where people were still at ease about the idea of being able to consume the foods they choose to consume, I wouldn’t be terribly upset about what just occurred in Wisconsin. No, it’s unpleasant, but as I’ve said any number of times, we can get sick from pretty much any food, and screwups of the type that occurred in Wisconsin can occur anywhere by honest well-meaning people.
But since we aren’t living in that type of country any more, I feel compelled to point out the obvious hypocrisy and double standard at work here. If the food safety establishment was being consistent and as concerned about safety as they always tell us when they feel real nutrient-dense food is creating a problem, there would have been lots of tears here, where raw milk was served in a public school to children whose parents had no idea what was being served. I mean, I can’t think of a recent situation where that occurred with milk intended to be served unpasteurized.
In addition to the illnesses, this little screwup in Wisconsin has some practical consequences. It’s very likely the 18 Wisconsin illnesses will become part of the database of illnesses attributed to raw milk by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, and then waved in our faces during hearings about whether or not to legalize sales in various states, including Wisconsin, where such legislation is pending. Just like the two deaths since 1998 that the CDC always includes in its data to fearmonger about raw milk–these were almost certainly due to the same sort of raw milk as in Wisconsin–commercial milk sold to individuals who concocted home-made queso fresco cheese.
So what should be done to learn from this episode? Here are a few off-the-cuff suggestions:
— DATCP should issue a warning to all Wisconsin residents to never drink unpasteurized milk from a commercial dairy.
— Commercial dairies should be required to place warning signs on their bulk tanks, “This tank contains a bio-hazardous substance. It should not be consumed by any person, at any time.”
— The CDC should commit to not attributing these illnesses to raw milk, but rather should create a new category, something like “Unpasteurized commercial milk.”
Why aren’t the busybodies making these kinds of suggestions? They’ve moved on. This case doesn’t fit their theology of kooks pushing raw milk and complaining about a concerted government effort, alas, maybe even a conspiracy, when state and federal agents try to shut them down. Their view is very much the view they attribute to raw milk producers and consumers: So what if a few kids got sick. Collateral damage. Leave this one go. Since it will count as a black mark against raw milk in any event, it’s a win no matter which way you slice it. Very sad.
Maybe instead of calling our milk "Raw Milk" we should give it an acronym so it's more descriptive and has less of a negative connotation.
PUG Milk? Pastured, Unprocessed, Grassfed Milk? Just an idea.
We are working on a "Standard of Identity" for Wisconsin Farm-Fresh Milk, to ensure that incidents like this are not conflated with raw milk intended for direct consumption. The exact details of the standard of identity are still being worked out, but it will include an equivilant to the organic standard for grazing (minimum 30% diet from pasture during the grazing season), that the milk be anti-biotic and rBGH-free, and that the milk is never heated above body temperature (or 118F in the case of cultured products such as yogurt, cheese, etc…)
I will let folks here know once we have finished our standard of identity for Wisconsin Farm-Fresh milk. In the mean time, be sure to check out my post from the end of the last thread:
WOW!
I just got back from day 2 of the Dairy Laboratory workshop course at the Center for Dairy Research UW-Madison.
One of the dairy scientists lecturing made an off-the-cuff remark about how a lot of Wisconsin dairy farmers are dirty and don't clean their milk pipeline between morning and evening milkings. Keep in mind, this was in front of a class of a bunch of lab techs working in big cheese plants from around the state. Few of them ever see the inside of a milk house.
Little beknownst to the lecturer was that there was one dairy farmer lurking amongst the audience. She ripped the scientist a new one!! It was a spectacle to behold. He ended up apologizing to her after the class.
To me, this is just more evidence of the need for RAWMI. We can prove industry shills like this guy wrong with thorough testing and documentation, proving that there really are two raw milks in America. The farmers that don't clean their pipelines between milkings can stay with the processors. The rest will have RAWMI evidence and science to back them up.
being created by thousands of raw milk farmers across the country (and I might add with a minimum of 'incidents') who choose not to pay a membership fee.
RawMI is buying into the liars that say that raw milk isn't safe. It is, IMO, just as bad as the milk boilers in exacerbating fear. I wonder who'll be the first to sue, after someone gets sick from milk that has 'tested' on the label. We all know that pathogen testing can't insure the safety of raw milk (turn around time)….and that the testing proposed will just be to 'monitor' previous batches of milk.
By the way, I hope that you heed your own advice from the previous post, not to flood this comment section with non milk posts. Funny how the most egregious culprit always seems to be the most outraged when another does it.
I guess you haven't found something 'better' to do.
If you do not wish to be part of RAWMI, that is your choice. Those who prefer to deal in the shadows and back-allys can continue being treated like drug dealers by the authorities. I think the reason there are so many attacks on RAWMI is because the conspiracy theorists and food-safety goons alike are afraid of us. They want to maintain the state of fear and darkness where anything goes (on both sides) and raw milk is an inherintly dangerous black market contraband. Only by bringing raw milk into the light of day can we hope to have a bright clean future for raw milk.
I am done talking about extraneous politics here. The struggle over collective bargaining rights for school teachers is an extremely controversial issue in Wisconsin right now which has divided many people in state against one another, but I have decided that going forward we must keep it seperate from the politics of raw milk. Raw milk brings people together (except the goons in the dairy industry and DATCP elites). There are very few issues which unite Wisconsinites the way that raw milk does.
The reason that there are so many attacks on RAWMI is because it's based on a flawed premise (that raw milk today is unsafe) and seeks to create two classes of raw milk producers….one being 'blessed' by Lord Mark and one being villified as some shady black market drug dealer.
Raw milk is being produced today by many that are in the shadows because of the environment dictated by the authorities…not because they 'choose' to be there. Frankly, the black market has served the raw milk community well this past decade. Buying into, and capitalizing on the fear factor is something that we can expect from those who seek to control all milk sales (the milk boilers). How disappointing to see raw milk proponents do the same. Raw milk is not now, nor has ever been "inherintly dangerous black market contraband" unless of course you work for the FDA or UDSA (and believe their tripe)…. Bill, your bullshit grows, as your 'reputation' shrinks.
All of a sudden raw milk in America is a 'problem' and lo and behold here comes Mark and his band of 'saviors' to the rescue. I don't buy it, and I would hope most with a shred of sense out their won't either.
Just wait till the first RAWMI producer in a state where it's illegal to produce the good stuff gets hammered because he decided to step out in that 'bright clean future'.
But my main comment is regarding the RAWMI thing (which I must confess I have never heard of but I don't live in WI so maybe that's why). I have one cow, a lovely grass fed jersey cow. I don't want or need any certification to tell me that my milk is good. I don't test my milk, I don't use bleach in my buckets, I don't use any chemicals on, in or around my cow. I kinda do pioneer-style (they didn't have little pH strips and ready access to a large animal vet or a labratory). I judge the health of my cow and her milk by observation and intuition. I clean my supplies with warm soapy water and rinse in scalding hot water (but I don't have a dishwasher so it's all done by hand). I operate with a Cow Share program so there are people besides me drinking the milk from my cow. We all want to keep things as they are with little or NO government intrusion. Everyone who owns a share of my cow has full access to visit the cow, see the operation and question anything they see. As far as we are concerned, the government (local, state or federal) has NO business in our food. None of us wants to see higher prices due to having to cover the cost of testing, licensing and labeling. We know we have a good clean product and we don't need any goverment person telling us otherwise or holding our hand while we do things right.
This is PMO milk for pasteurization that caused the oubreak. Milk produced under PMO standards is never tested for pathogens, and its safety and shelf-life is dependent entirely upon the act of heating it to destroy bad organisms (pathogenic and spoilage) within 72 hours of harvest. It is produced with the assumption that it is going to be cooked prior to consumption by anyone. This kind of milk should never be consumed in its raw form.
From the above article,NBC News Chief Medical Editor Dr. Snyderman was quoted, "We've all become germ-a-phobes so we've altered our kids immune systems that way."
Bill
I think you need to re-examine the science you intend to use as a basis for RAWMI.
http://quorumbiofilm.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=18
The above article states, Germ theory is dead, or should be. Today's microbiological studies are based on biological concepts not often exist in reality. The model of the single, freely floating, individually functioning microbe suspended in a test tube or grown in a Petri dish is an artificial lab construct poorly applicable to the actual patient. Indeed, results from these standard assays may be clinically irrelevant. This is because almost all bacteria exist in often complex, poly- microbial ecological systems called biofilm communities. These communities behave very differently from the simplistic test tube model. Thought to be a good diagnostic and therapeutic tool, the traditional MIC actually gives no useful information on the majority of human infections since MIC's are incapable of looking at biofilms.
The following quote is relevant to the ongoing political discussion, You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Abbie Hoffman
Ken Conrad
Rawmi won't need to change anything. The stated purpose is to make raw milk mainstream….and conventional germ theory is firmly entrenched there. Armed with the latest and greatest reductionist science they will open the door for large commercial dairies who want to stock supermarket shelves with the unprocessed stuff….and create a schism with those who pay (the good milk producers) from those who don't (the dirty black market unreliable producers).
It has to be this way….that raw milk is safe, but Institute milk is safer won't sell that many subscriptions. And in order to appease the authorities, you have to play the game with their ball, in their ballpark.
http://www.marlerblog.com/case-news/raw-milk-in-wisconsin-sickening-school-kids—shhh/
Enjoy!
cp
Wonderful piece exposing how the CDC FDA and FOOD INC cover up and spin the PMO CAFO Raw Milk and will attempt to classify this outbreak on Raw Milk that is intended for direct human consumption. Wonderful expose!!!
I am fully braced for lots of negative feedback from the work that RAWMI will do. I expect this and I look forward to it.
I am also very happy to report that the list of dairies from Canada and the USA that wish to become RAWMI certified is growing every day. Consumers that have heard rumors of RAWMI…love it!!!
Looking forward to RAWMI finally getting up and going….
I invite all of the RAWMI naysayers to visit the facilities ( virtual at first ) and read the RAWMI policies prior to judging our farmer and consumer friendly program. Feed back is wanted and appreciated.
All the best,
Mark
Facilities? Does this mean that RAWMI will operate demonstration farms?
In accordance with S510 demonstration farms are allowed to be operated by third party certifiers.
Are you still denying that RAWMI is firmly tied into S510 and Codex?
"Commercial dairies should be required to place warning signs on their bulk tanks, 'This tank contains a bio-hazardous substance. It should not be consumed by any person, at any time.'"
I have to wonder why all of the product at that dairy wasn't confiscated by the authorities (at gunpoint at 5 AM) including their personal food in their kitchen refrigerator as well as their computers (including the ones in the kids' rooms) for a sufficient length of time as to make their business nonviable. Not only are there two raw milks in America but there are two raw milk laws.
I have no problem with SPC,SCC,protein,fat and solids testing.But,they don't tell us if the milk is safe.If this conventional dairy was the cause of these illnesses,I doubt that these tests showed any reason for concern.Ken's comment very clearly makes the point that specific "pathogen " testing does not give us useful information.So what kind of testing will you use to convince us that the milk is safe?
" Milk produced under PMO standards is never tested for pathogens"……..Bill Anderson
"You are right that there are some more fancy tests which look for presence of very specific pathogenic organisms, and these tests are useful in addition to the tests I described above. But the backbone of any raw milk safety plan is SPC, SCC, Coli, Protein, Fat, and Solids." …..Bill Anderson
Are you really going to make traditional Germ Theory the backbone of your argument that Raw Milk can be produced safely?Good luck convincing anyone of that,especially trying to find science that supports that.
If this conventional dairy was the cause of these illnesses,I would suspect their attempts to properly sanitize the equipment as the true cause of the illnesses.We cannot rely on strong chemicals to sanitize milking equipment that is essentially uninspectable and nearly impossible to keep clean.This would mean that we should be testing for antibacterial residues in the milk.Indeed,the imbalance that the crude "pathogen" tests might detect is a result of these residues.
"the Journal of Dairy Science noted that the contamination 'highlights the need for vigilance in maintaining hygienic conditions in milking and processing environments'…"
What we don't need is more or stronger disinfectants used in milking systems.What we do need is simpler systems that can be easily cleaned with less toxic chemicals.Why don't you abandon you obsession with "pathogens" and test for the residues of chemicals in the milk.These contaminants enter the milk through soil and water contamination,feed additives and milking system disinfectants.
*Thank you* for emphasizing this point Miguel!
With everyone so focused on potential pathogens in the milk, the chemical contamination of conventional dairy from pharmaceuticals, ag chems and sanitizers seems to have gotten lost.
My body's immune system handles germs efficiently and effectively. The chemicals are another story……….
Excellent point. The double standard is alive and well.
David
The sign should read this tank contains hazardous substances such as chlorine, phosphoric acid, antibiotics, insecticides and genetically modified hormones such as rbst etc.
Ken Conrad
The focus on "pathogens" is an intentional attempt to distract all of us from the real problem.A problem we can actually DO something about.
It is the conditions that select which bacteria will grow in the milk.Agribizness has created the conditions that suppress the normally dominant lactic acid bacteria all through the dairy farm environment.The way the soil is mistreated,the way the cows are mistreated,the farmers are exploited and, at the end ,the stupid war on bacteria which eliminates the very bacteria that would be protective in stabilizing the whole system.
It all begins when the media repeats over and over again the dangers of bacteria.Their masters, the corporate monsters,use these lies to distract our attention from what is being done completely in the open.They are using all kinds of chemicals and methods to extend shelf life so that they can make more money with less work.If we want to be healthy we need to focus our attention on producing food in the natural system where community is our priority.We need to stop destroying the natural bacterial communities in the soil and feed them.We need to work together in communities to take control of the food supply away from those corporations.
We know that when it says 'tested' on the label it is no guarantee of being pathogen (or other nefarious substance) free. Will it be incumbent upon the consumer to understand and recognize that pathogen testing takes to long for a batch to be 'proven' safe? .and that the testing done is actually done to monitor the general quality of a farm? Will this testing regime really be good enough to satisfy the germophobes in government, and big business?
Now I am actually looking forward to seeing the Institutes protocol. Anything that I can learn that can influence my husbandry and production in a positive way would be a good thing for me and my customers (and the cows)…. but the rhetoric that we have seen since the announcement… that rawmi is the answer to everything, that it is needed because the raw milk supply in this country is currently unsafe (yeah, those unscrupulous black market farmers) and that its creation will not result in the marginalization of those who choose not to join…gives one real reason to pause.
I agree with you 125% that conditions are what matter. The conditions do indeed select for the micro-organism. I am an artisan cheese maker so I understand this fact very well.
But I think your views on some of the other subject matters are not entirely accurate. Firstly, chemicals detergents and sanitizers do not carry micro-organisms in them. It is true that persistant sub-lethal concentrations of these chemicals in the enviroment can breed strains of bacteria that are resistant to the chemicals. But the primary mode of resistance is through bio-film formation. If you do not let bacteria form bio-films in your equipment, then there is nothing to worry about.
Also, there are approved sanitizers available today which do not leave toxic chemical residues behind in milk. The best choice, in my opinion, is peroxyacetic acid which is a combination of hydrogen peroxide and vinegar. It breaks down into oxygen, water, and acetic acid (vinegar) when it comes into contact with organic matter such as milk. Unfortunately, it is not as active against bacterio-phage as old-fashioned chlorine is, but this is not a concern unless you are making cheese using modern freeze-dried starter cultures. (I prefer to use traditional whey and bulk starters when I can).
I realize that you do bucket milking, which I have no dispute with as long as you keep things clean. But when milking on a pipeline there are numerous ways to identify and monitor the buildup of biofilms. The first is a simple variation on the SPC called a P.I. Count. The second is to culture the pipeline sock for several days in a cool, dark, moist place (in a sterilized mason jar, with the lid cracked so it has access to oxygen) and then look at the sock under a blacklight. Does it fluoresce brilliant yellow? If so, you could have bio-films problems.
The purpose of pathogen testing is to verify that conditions in the soil and in the cow's rumen are correct. It is a way to prove — prove to your customers, and to your insurance company — that your milk is safe. Unfortunately, in this day and age, it is not enough to merely believe that the milk is safe. We need to use science to prove what we are saying.
DATCP was able to identify and isolate the pathogen in the milk, when it drew a sample from the farm that caused the most recent outbreak. Again, this is a PMO farm that never does pathogen testing. If the farm had done regular pathogen testing, it would have been apparent very quickly that their milk was pathogen laden, and therefore the conditions in the cow and in the enviroment are not correct for raw milk production.
I also agree with you that our goal should be to wrestle control of our food system from the multi-national corporations, and to serve our local community. But I do not think we will be successful at doing this unless we take food safety concerns seriously. I am currently writing a business plan to provide artisan cheese through organic vegetable CSA's in Madison next year.
Also, I posted the following comment on Bill Marler's blog. We will see if he allows it to be published in this thread:
http://www.marlerblog.com/case-news/michigan-herd-share-raw-milk-and-q-fever-dont-mix-well/
It is highly unlikely that this infection resulted directly from ingestion of raw milk. More than likely, it came from the women being exposed to the farm enviroment where they get their raw milk. Q-Fever is very rarely transmitted through food. It is most often transmitted through inhalation of airborne dust.
And if there really was that much dust in the air, this sounds like a farm I wouldn't want to get raw milk from. Green grass is critical to raw milk safety.
http://my.execpc.com/~cgcheese/EnvironmentalPolicy.html
"Firstly, chemicals detergents and sanitizers do not carry micro-organisms in them."
OH,is that why we avoid those things,because they might carry micro-organisms in them?
No ,Bill ,I am not talking about bacteria developing resistance to sanitizers.What I am saying is that ALL of the tools we use in modern chemical agriculture inhibit or eliminate the lactic acid bacteria.It is the lactic acid bacteria that dominates a healthy soil,pasture,rumen,milk and our digestive system.The lactic acid bacteria and it's supporting community do very well under stable conditions.Toxic chemicals do have a tendency to destabilize communities.If we let them,lactic acid bacteria will control the opportunistic bacteria and work for us.If we kill them we are in trouble.
Common sense is something you cannot learn in an institution.You can take all of the most advanced courses in artisinal cheese making using the most advanced and technical equipment,but if you cannot let go of your focus on the "pathogen" your cheese will be a scientific concoction not a work of art.
If we don't PUT toxic chemicals into our washing water,we can use the water to grow food as it exits the drain pipe.Checking for bio-film buildup in a bucket milker is as easy as holding the lid or bucket in bright light and looking for rainbows on the stainless steel.Rainbows is a sign of oil on the surface. KISS …….. keep it simple stupid.
I was trained by a second-generation cheese maker whose father immigrated to Wisconsin from Switzerland in the 1950's. When my mentor was my age, he travelled back to Switzerland and made cheese on an alp for one summer, with no running water and no electricity. The curd was set and cooked in a copper kettle over an open wood fire, and the cheese was surface-ripened with a bacterial schmear on wooden boards. He still cites that experience as defining in his cheese making career, and he makes cheese that has consistantly won awards at national competitions.
However, whenever he makes a batch of raw milk cheese, he always sends a sample into a lab to test it for pathogens.
I think it is you who is obsessing about the pathogen here. Sending in a laboratory sample is a simple and relatively inexpensive step. Why are you getting so caught up on it?
I am simply suggesting that we test to prove to our insurance company and customers that our conditions and enviroment are right. If there is no pathogen, it means we are doing things right. It was a small expense, but will save a lot of headache in the long run.
Trust mother nature, but verify with science. It is a two-pronged approach. All I hear from you is an argument against testing. Other than that, we agree on most things. I too wish to prevent chemical contamination of the milk and of the farm enviroment, and I too wish to maintain the dominace of lactic-acid producing bacteria.
What do you have against testing? Is cost an issue, or are you too distant from a lab to send a sample in without the sample being temperature abused? If that is the case, I can understand your concerns.
"The Supreme Court just decided two cases of great interest to the pharmaceutical industry that are each a big deal to consumers in their own way–especially the one that says you can't sue a generic drug manufacturer for not putting the latest warnings on their product label."
Again we see how big brother is NOT looking out for the population…
http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/departments/public_health/news/2011-news-stories/state-and-local-health-departments-investigate-q-fever-cases
I may have missed it, did the county health dept say they found the Q fever bacteria in the raw milk? Or are they again speculating?
Maybe we have a different definition of testing.I believe in testing.Let's discuss in detail one of your favorite LABORATORY tests.Are the results reproducible ?If you take a known bacteria and test for it do you always get a positive result?Are the tests accurate and reliable?
If they are,then what do you know from the results?Out of biological context what does the presence of a micro-organism mean?If I see a hawk on the farm,is it a pest to be eliminated or is it part of a healthy ecosystem?When mice are abundant,it is my friend because it helps lower that population and keep things in balance.When mice are in short supply,it might dine on the chickens.CONTEXT is important.Without it what does a test that detects the presence of a single organism tell us?Looking at a test that tells relative numbers of the most common organisms in the system would be helpful.Why don't we test for that?Laboratory tests are commercial products.Fear of pathogens is used to sell these products.A lot of money is made selling these tests.Do you have any evidence that they are worth the money?We do not operate a business so how do we buy insurance against the possibility that we will make ourselves sick?
And last but not least,why don't you think testing for chemical contaminants is a good idea?Are you not concerned about these things?
Not all laboratory tests are commercial products. Most of the major tests used today are technologies that have been in use (in some cases) for over 100 years, such as the Babcock butterfat test which was the first test for the fat content of milk in the U.S., and was developed in 1890 at the University of Wisconsin by Stephen Moulton Babcock. The dairy research hall on campus is named after him, and his original Babcock centrifuge is still on display at the front entrance of the building.
These technologies have no current patent. This includes SPC, SCC, Coliform, PI Count, Fat, Protein, Ash, Lactose. The methodology for all of these tests is described in detail in "Standard Methods for the Examination of Dairy Products", and the media used to conduct these tests are manufactuered by many different companies and are available in many different formats.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Standard_Methods_for_the_Examination_of.html?id=i4uuzh0r-9MC
The only tests that are commercial tests are the highly specialized pathogen tests, like the tests for E. Coli O157:H7.
You are right, Miguel, that there is always a certain margin of error inherint in a test. That is part of why it is very important to take a representative sample, to factor out sample variability. For example, if drawing from a bulk tank, you want to make sure the tank is throughly agitated immediately prior to drawing the sample, or else you may get a sample high in butterfat and as a result higher in bacteria and coli counts (bacteria are attracted to the cream).
However, the entirety of all the standard tests gives the context for the one pathogen test. For every E. Coli O157:H7 test that is conducted, there will be around a dozen other simple tests that are conducted. As a cheesemaker, I think that clabbering is also a very useful test (both renneted and unrenneted clabber) although that is not one the insurance company will recognize.
Let me see if I can clarify my understanding of what you are saying.
I recognize the shortcomings of existing methods. A standard plate count does not tell what types of bacteria are present. A coliform count can miss low levels of coliform (less than 1 cfu per mL) present in the milk from a single cow in the herd which has subclinical coliform mastitis. There is no test that can fully characterize and quantify the bacterial community in a sample of milk (though I think the clabber test does a nice job of qualitatively characterizing that community)
Milk is an incredibly complex medium, this I fully understand. There is no test that can fully describe what is going on in milk. I fully support continued research into the complex communities which bacteria form, including bio-films and bio-diversity commensal relationships etc…
What I am sensing from you, though, is nihilism about the existing technologies, that they are of no use and there is no point in using them. Is this incorrect?
If you mean that I won't take existing technologies on faith alone,that I want evidence that they are worth considering before I accept them,that certainly is how I feel about most laboratory testing.
My cat could tell the difference between those two samples.Obviously you want very much to play their game with their rules and their ball,like milkfarmer said.If that is the case then I have to agree with Milky Way that RAWMI is just another marketing tool.A respectable Institute to create a Brand Name product and to promote it to the public.In that case you should stop complaining about being treated unfairly.You have agreed to play by those rules.
The point of which is….??? Are you implying we black market raw milk yahoos leave our raw milk sitting on counters for 24 hours before selling?
You seem to have an awful lot of time to write daily, endless, argumentative comments, the most frequent writer here….
Michael Schmidt agrees with me. Michael, who practices bio-dynamic agriculture, tests every one of his cows for TB, Brucellosis, and Leptospirosis, and submits regular laboratory samples for routine testing of the milk.
Michael also won his court case. Its not just a coincidence that he hasn't caused any outbreaks.
If it is your judgement that Michael is trying to create a commercial brand and play by the rules of the powers that be, then I'm not going to try changing your mind. I think Michael has done an incredible service to the raw milk community and to small dairy farmers. I am honored to be working with him on the RAWMI board.
If you don't want to submit your milk for laboratory testing, be my guest. That is not how we are going to win acceptance of this movement with the broader public, though.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Beer-Archaeologist.html
You just figured out what Bill gets paid to do for 60 hours a week.
What happened to your insulting comment to me about the black helicopters?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/business/26milk.html?_r=2
"The agency said that it planned to test milk from about 900 dairy farms that had repeatedly been caught sending cows to slaughter with illegal levels of drugs in their systems.
It said it would test for about two dozen antibiotics beyond the six that are typically tested for. The testing would also look for a painkiller and anti-inflammatory drug popular on dairy farms, called flunixin, which often shows up in the slaughterhouse testing. "
Will RAWMI standards prohibit the use of antibiotics and other pharma drugs on the milking cows?
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Beer-Archaeologist.html
Fermentation is a way to preserve the food supply and to make many foods more digestible and nutritious. There are many ancient fermented beverages that do not contain alcohol, or so little as to not be considered an alcoholic beverage.
Kefir, takra, kule naoto etc will never make you drunk.
We strongly disagree with the following:
"…..McGovern says. Fermented beverages are at the center of religions all around the world. [Alcohol] makes us who we are in a lot of ways. He contends that the altered state of mind that comes with intoxication could have helped fuel cave drawings, shamanistic medicine, dance rituals and other advancements."
Having an alcoholic beverage in the storehouse doesn't by default make it the center of one's religion.
Alcohol is non existent in the worship styles and ceremonies of the Sanatana Dharma, nor does it really feature in Buddhist or most American Indian cultures (which is why most of them have a poor tolerance of alcohol) .
Having an altered sense of perception while drunk might be a spiritual experience for some, but certainly not all.
I would have found this article more interesting if it had discussed the history of fermentation in relation to traditional foods and improving nutrition rather than alcohol.
Beer brewing enthusiasts would enjoy this article.so I will pass it on to the home brewers of my acquaintance.
One of my favorite books of all time is "Sacred Herbal and Healing Beers: The Secrets of Ancient Fermentation" by Stephen Harrod Buhner. He presents an eco-feminist perspective about how the industrialization of alcohol production (and men taking over the profession) was what led to prohibition, among other things. His view on the famous German beer purity law of 1516 (the Reinheitsgebot) dissents very much from the mainstream view within the brewing community.
As for the anti-biotics testing, yes that is something that we probably intend to do. Most labs already do those tests because even trace amounts of anti-biotics are (in theory…) prohibited in the commercial milk supply. Of course, the problem right now is that the tests they have for anti-biotics are designed for older varieites that are not in use anymore, and there are not methods developed to detect the newer classes of anti-biotics.
I think it is fair to say that we do not expect a lot of cheating on this issue within the raw milk farms, the way that the CAFOs are cheating the system. In raw milk production, anti-biotic use should be minimal, if at all. I can support using anti-biotics to save the life of an animal, nothing more. And that animal should probably be removed from the milking line for at least the rest of her lactation, if not permenantly (in CAFO dairies, they only have to remove the animal from the milking line until the anti-biotics clear out of her system)
Antibiotics may be prohibited however all of the testing methods used for antibiotics have their limitations and there is no test available that can guaranty no residues.
In the livestock industry antibiotic testing is not about no residue" but rather risk management and what is considered allowable and safe, the legal limit as its referred to by FDA officials.
Ken Conrad
I am not a dairy farmer, I only know minimal from the little garden patches I've had over the years.
The above ice cream shop gets their milk from a dairy not too far away… 700 acres and they have only 150 head. Why can't he grow enough to feed his own heard on that 700 acres? By this story they are getting @ $1.66 per gal….Isn't milk $3-4/gal in the stores? Who is making the profits? Shame on the dairy farmers for allowing the govt to dictate what the price of their milk is…..makes me think they undervalue themselves. Perhaps they need their own revolution…..be real men/women and stand up for themselves. geesh….
"ice cream mix the powdered and skim milk, butter, and sugar combination sold to ice cream makers at shops."
That is just plain gross. And all these years I thought ice CREAM was made from cream, milk,sugar, maybe eggs, fruit, etc… What is it with powdered crap? And skim? ugh
The next step in understanding the conditions present in the milk is to test specifically for those properties that our bacteria testing indicates are present.For example:If we find an unusually high relative number of campylobacter cells,we now need to test for those things that favor the proliferation of campylobacter.Suppose our testing reveals a higher than normal level of arsenic in the milk.Now we can test water and feed sources to find the source of the arsenic.With this process we can find and remedy the real cause of an illness associated with the milk.There is no other intervention that can make the milk safe.Campylobacter is everywhere and if the conditions of the milk favor it over other micro-organisms it will proliferate in the milk.
Q fever has been in the news lately,from drinking raw milk ,of course.Coxiella burnetii is said to be the bacteria that is the cause of the illness.Avoiding raw milk is the only way to prevent it.Studies on frogs indicate that frogs co-exist with this bacteria very well until certain agricultural chemicals are added to their environment.Then the frogs come down with an "infection" of this organism and can become paralyzed.The agricultural chemicals have changed the conditions of the frog's environment and it's compromised immune system can no longer protect it from the bacteria.This would lead me to believe that avoiding raw milk is not the answer to the problem of Q fever.We have to look at chemical exposure as the true cause of the problem.
It is funny that in our attempts to make ourselves safe from disease,we spray our neighborhoods with adulticides(mosquito killers) and cover our bodies with toxic mosquito repellants .These things damage our immune systems and make us newly susceptible to micro-organisms which we previously lived with without problem.
Would you list your top two or three sources that cover the ethanol/oil/prohibition story?
Thanks,
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
During the depression the government was concerned that the agricultural industry would collapse and therefore took it over to regulate it like a public utility. Part of this agreement was that the government would guarantee to pay farmers parity price for their goods. Current parity price for milk is around $44/hundredweight, or about $3.67/gallon wholesale.
The government has ignored their own contract with farmers to benefit the dairy cooperatives, who get to purchase milk for below market value. The farmers in turn are handed subsidies to make up for the price discrepancy.
A great interview to listen to if you want to understand the issues around parity:
https://www.blogtalkradio.com/marti-oakley/2010/11/29/randy-cook
I can't necessarily give you one or two (or three or four) articles to read covering the ethanol/oil/prohibition issue. The information I wrote comes from years of my own research, coupled with conversations with friends who research agricultural and legal issues.
Here's a little food for thought, though.
"When Henry Ford introduced his Model T in 1908 , he had intended the car to run on ethanol , as a fuel . Henry knew that ethanol could be manufactured out of almost anything , weeds , vegetables , fruit , or even saw dust or anything that can be fermented !
"Henry Ford was from a farming family and new that fuel crops would help to support the farming industry . Henry even predicted that ethyl alcohol fuel is the fuel of the future . Henry once said that a one year crop from one acre of potatoes would provide enough alcohol fuel to operate that farms machinery (of that era) needed to cultivate the fields for a hundred years."
http://www.autodieseltips.com/categories/59/ethanol-fuel-and-henry-ford/
The extent of the issues with dry milk go beyond just ice cream mix. Many industrialized cheesemakers add Milk Protein Concentrate (MPCs) from China and India to their cheese vats, as a way to increase yields. And it does not even need to be listed as an ingredient or listed in a country of origin label. This practice is depressing milk prices for American dairy farmers. See this article:
http://www.themilkweed.com/MPC_Insert.pdf
Ingvar-
For more information on the Federal Milk Market Order system, see this:
http://snowvillecreamery.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/fmmos_changing-consumption1.pdf
Miguel-
In your example about campylobacter, I suppose arsenic is a possible cause (I have never investigated whether there is a link or not, but I would be interested in data which suggests this). However, more often than not campylobacter comes from anaerobic condition. As I'm sure you know, campylobacter is a very poor competitor with the other lactic-acid producing bacteria in raw milk, and will quickly expire in the presence of oxygen.
Pseudomonas is a common spoilage organism found in milk and in bio-films from dirty milk pipelines. Pseudomonas also consumes oxygen, and helps campylobacter survive for longer:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101007093617.htm
The best quick laboratory test for the presence of a large pseudomonas population in milk is the P.I. Count, which measures all cold-loving bacteria. The PI Count is a kind of "quick and dirty" test of milk shelf-life.
In the case of Q-Fever, I'd be interested to see the studies about the frogs. I do know that Q-Fever is rarely transmitted through food, and most often is transmitted through inhalation of dust. See this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870484/
Take note of the conclusion of this study:
"From what is reported above, it seems more than plausible that clinical disease of Q fever results only from inhalation of C. burnetii and sometimes arthropods bites. Ingestion of C. burnetii-contaminated milk or milk products may result in serological conversion potentially indicating infection but not necessarily clinical disease. In addition it is likely that seroconversion follows the ingestion of inactivated cells as well as of live cells. Therefore, one may question:
-Should Q fever be still listed among the foodborne zoonoses?
-Should temperature and time conditions for milk pasteurization still be based on the heat resistance of C. burnetii?
If the answer is no to both questions, the historical decision to pasteurize milk in order to kill C. burnetii, made almost 50 years ago, could be considered retrospectively as an early example of the application of the precautionary principle."
Existing anti-biotic screening methods can detect residues from 1 cow in 20,000. The problem is that rapid testing methods have not been developped for some of the newer anti-biotics that are now in widespread use. The tests that do exist for these classes of anti-biotics take several weeks to perform, by which time the milk will already be sold as drinking milk, or processed into more shelf-stable products like cheese, so the processors are understandably very resistant to screening for those anti-biotics unless rapid tests are developped.
It is probably fair to assume that the commercial milk supply sometimes contains these newer anti-biotics that are not screened for. All the more reason to get real milk and artisan cheese!
Thank you.
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/conspiracy.htm
look out …some of these theories make a lot more sense, now, than the explanations proffered at the time
However, for the true roots of prohibition, we must look long before the industrial revolution.
Consider that the driving force for prohibition was women. The movement for suffrragism often coincided with temperance, and I don't think this is merely a coincidence.
Women were systematically disenfranchised from the means of producing and distributing alcohol during the late middle ages, through various beer purity laws and industrialization. This also coincided with increasing social control over herbal remedies and mind-altering substances, and the strict puritanical views of the protestant reformation.
Please don't misunderstand me – I'm not disputing that beers/wines/alcohol have their place in the world. Food and medicine can be sacred without being the center of one's religion. My observation is that alcohol as a libation seems to have a stronger role in Western civilizations and the Judeo-Christian world than it does in other cultures.
Milk is traditionally more of a sacred substance for us. It is used in many of our ceremonies and is considered a precious substance not to be wasted. The cows are expected to be treated well and respected – how can we harm the mother who gives us milk?
I believe the women of Australia also changed the operating hours of pubs when they got fed up with their husbands spending too much time and money there.
Immune cells are unable to eliminate disease pathogens [28] and exposed amphibians are more likely to succumb to viral diseases [25, 26], bacterial infections [27] and macroparasites [30, 31], including the parasites that cause limb deformities in amphibians [29]. Similarly, atrazine exposure in rodents impairs immune function [32-40] and decreases an exposed animals ability to fight cancer [33] and other diseases. Further, atrazine exposure in rodents can lead to hypersensitivity [36], making exposed animals more susceptible to allergies. Most likely, the negative effects on immune function are due to an atrazine-induced increase in the stress hormones (corticoids). In salmon, the atrazine-induced increase in stress hormones in fresh water smolt, impairs the ability of exposed fish to return to the ocean leading to high mortality in these commercially important fish [41].
See figure 2
Leopard frog exposed to pesticide mixture, containing atrazine. Animal has contracted meningitis induced by bacterial infections
"Our results demonstrate that within the rhizosphere of sweet flag there were 3.8 107 cfu of psychrophilic bacteria, 1.8 107 cfu of mesophilic bacteria, and 6 105 cfu of fungi per 1 g of dry root mass. These microorganisms were represented by more than 20 different strains, and at the first step these strains were grown for 5 days in the presence of atrazine at a concentration of 5 mg/l. In terms of the effect of this trial culture, the bacteria reduced the level of atrazine by an average of about 220%, but the average level of reduction by fungi was in the range 1860%. The most active strains involved in atrazine reduction were then selected and identified. These strains were classified as Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Bacillus licheniformis, Bacillus megaterium, Rahnella aquatilis (three strains), Umbelopsis isabellina, Volutella ciliata and Botrytis cinerea. Culturing of the microorganisms for a longer time resulted in high atrazine degradation level. The highest degradation level was observed at atrazine concentrations of 5 mg/l for S. maltophilia (83.5% after 15 days of culture) and for Botrytis sp. (82% after 21 days of culture). Our results indicate that microorganisms of the sweet flag rhizosphere can play an important role in the bioremediation of atrazine-contaminated sites. "
http://www.springerlink.com/content/e4wq444hr812x3j5/