I guess I should feel honored. The barfblog, also known as “musings from the International Food Safety Network,” took notice of my article in the Boston Globe Sunday Magazine.
As you might imagine, Doug Powell, the author, wasn’t too pleased about the article, labeling it (under a heading “raw milk bs”) as “the advertisement masquerading as a story…”
So I wrote a comment on the blog, expecting to direct you to it. But barfblog apparently doesn’t believe in spontaneous comments, like on this blog–my comment needs to be reviewed first before it is published. So here’s what I said:
“I find your comments about me and about my article in the Boston Globe Sunday Magazine curious. You identify me as ‘an advocate for raw milk’–is that something like being ‘a known communist sympathizer’? Many journalists today who report fairly on health and politics have blogs where they express their personal views. You identify yourself as "a journalist," yet you are anti-raw-milk for children. As an editor, I wouldn’t consider that a reason not to allow you to write about the subject.
"You say I engaged in ‘statistical cherry picking throughout the story,’ yet you offer only a single example of ‘comparing confirmed illnesses from raw dairy products to the overall estimated illnesses from food’–even though the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) insists on using the 76 million annual cases of food-borne illness as a fact, not an estimate, for the number of overall illnesses.
I know you couldn’t find anything to dispute in terms of facts or research because, like a fighter who resorts to clinching when he’s losing, you resort to emotions–the oldest emotional argument around this subject: it’s for the sake of the kids.”
On the positive side, an outside commentator did have something nice to say about my Boston Globe article, as well as this blog (praising our “lively conversation"): a reporter at the Rutland Herald, writing about legislation in Vermont designed to liberalize regulations under which farmers can sell raw milk to farmers. It’s a well done article, covering a lot of ground, with some excellent examples. Worth reading.
While there are those out there that are grass nazi’s…and their tolerance for grain is ziltch, I think it more prudent to let the cow tell you a) if it needs additional inputs and b) how much it should get. The condition of your cow is paramount, and following some inflexible dogma regarding concentrates does not serve higher levels of health. It also depends on the time of season. Supplementing during the winter is different than giving grain 12 months a year. I think it more prudent to evaluate the farmers attitude towards (and selection of) concentrates rather than hinge on the number of grams they get.
Taking a cow that has been selected (for the last 60+ years) for performance on grain and throwing it out on pasture alone and expecting it to thrive, is not wise (or healthful). Thankfully there are those out there that are concentrating on grass based genetics (pun intended).
One percent of body weight per day….half a percent….there are those who have proposed rules. I prefer the anarchy of the free market system. If you know your farmer, and appreciate his attitude towards his cows and his agriculture, then there is no reason to tip a scale.
From the fact that almost no-one comments on his posting except us when he mentions raw milk, I don’t think that very many people are interested in what he has to say.
Taking the opportunity to inject some of my own personal opinion, I’d like to say that I rarely have strong opinions on controversial matters. I do my best to see both sides of a story and am even often willing to ‘agree to disagree’. However, everything I’ve read about the raw milk issue leads me to believe that there is little to no controversey. It is almost literally a case of right versus wrong, as close to a black and white issue as we are likely ever to come in this world fraught with shades of grey.
I’m no conspiracy theorist, and frequently clutch tightly to a belief in my fellow man’s inherent goodness and ability to see reason, but this? Perhaps I’m naieve, but I’m amazed at the lengths to which people go to delude themselves and how thoroughly they blind themselves to facts, preferring instead to rely on hysteria and fear.
I do have one question. From everything I’ve read the most conclusive thing I’ve found (without the benefit of personal experience) is that there needs to be more research. Most scientific studies I’ve found quote data that is decades old at the earliest. Am I right in assuming that more research must be done?
Aaaah I’ve rambled, but thank you again for this blog and all your links. I’ve long wanted to raise my own animals and what I’ve learned about raw milk has only strengthened that desire. If the sale of raw milk in Iowa is still illegal when my dreams are realised at least I’ll have ‘the good stuff’ for myself and my family.
http://www.lancasterfarming.com/node/1165
There wasn’t any mention in last week’s Farm and Dairy, but that magazine comes out on Thursday and I may have missed the submission deadline. I’ll check back tomorrow and see if they’ll run it in this week’s issue. At least Lancaster Farming has base of over fifty thousand subscribers, so that’s a lot of people in the mid-West who are now aware of what is happening in California.
Concerning grain feeding, there are general rules of thumb (0.5% – 1.0% of the cow’s weight, as noted above, which for an 800 lb animal would be 4-8 lbs a day), but this is complicated by the issues of individual animals, the amount of seed heads (grain) the animal is getting in pasturage, etc.etc. Tim devotes a page and a half to the issue.
Does the $6 public price for the "Raw Milk Production Handbook" apply to consumer-level FTCLDF members, or will we be receiving it automatically as well? It sounds like something that I’d like to read for my own edification.
First, the right…
Yes, there should be more studies, but those studies should, somehow, be unbiased toward either side. To date, all the "accepted" studies I have seen share two commonalities. They are anti-raw milk, and they are generally associated, either through funding (university grants from agribusiness) or through association (CDC) with confirmed anti-raw milk folks.
Agriculture is like any other business in that it runs on money, and the type of farmers that produce raw milk are not capable, financially, of funding studies that fit their agenda like the ConAgra’s, ADM’s, Perdue’s, etc., so when those folks fund studies slanted their way, there is little to no competing scientific information.
Then, there is my contention that the legality of raw milk should not hinge on this or that study, biased or unbiased.
People should have the right to make their own choices regarding nutrition, whether those choices are healthy or not.
I would never advocate for banning highly processed deli meats, McDonald’s Big Macs, or sushi. If folks wish to consume those foods, which are unhealthy in the extreme, THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT. All I ask is that other folks, that would choose differently, have the same right to choose for themselves.
I don’t want to see government promoting or banning ANY nutritional choice. I just want them to stay out of our personal business and let us make our own choices.
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
Thornberry Village Homestead…owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.
A farmer must have a clear understanding of the grain issue if I were to trust them to make my food. They must recognize the internal changes that grain can make in the rumen, and its effect on digestion, gut flora, and absorption. I rather not buy from some dumb hick spouting out the party line grain is bad. Understanding the why shows more depth. (and this is what you want to findsomeone who is REALLY into it).
Despite the drawbacks of concentrates, certain grassfarmers recognize it can have a place in their husbandry. A consumer must see how a farmer views the energy foods.a crutch, the last resort, a tool in their arsenal. Extrapolating from your farmer his attitudes makes better the piece of mind you get when you open your fridge. The most important question you can ask your farmer iswhy?
Another thing one can find out is what kinds of grain are they using? Are they growing it themselves? Are they purchasing organically grown grains (and are you willing to pay more for them to do so)? Are they staying away from corn and other widely dispersed gmo crops (is there really any truly gmo free corn left in this world . ..the answer is blowing in the wind). What they are using can speak volumes.
Grain is easy for cattle, Elizabeth. A cow is set up to take in a tremendous volume of food to extract the energy it needs. They spend most of their day hungry, grazing till theyre full. Like most animals, including humans, they will take the shortcut decisions of energy always demand it. Its not a conscious thing. One should not fault an organism for wanting to survive ultra-efficiently. There is nothing a cow would rather do than lay around all day and put on fat.(sounds like a few humans we knoweh?)…beats walking around for hours collecting enough for a meal.
Hope this helps.
I have some anecdotal evidence to address some of your questions. First off, Extension agents use a figure of 3% of body weight to figure how much dry matter a milking cow consumes. Beef steers probably eat somewhat less since they aren’t working as hard as the mothers that are making milk.
We feed grain to get the cows to come into the barn for milking. When the grass is lush, about a third of the cows don’t touch the grain and seem to come in only to follow the herd. We’ve also had a cow get severe stomachache when I failed to shut the barn door behind them and she snuck back in and pigged out at the grain cart. So some cows prefer healthy green grass and others can overindulge in candy.
I’m not an expert on asking milk farmers questions but from talking to milk drinkers I’ve got some idea of what to ask.
-Ask what the farmer drinks. The answer will probably be "the best milk in the world, which is in my bulk tank". The best motivator for me to produce that best milk is that my family is going to be enjoying it.
-Ask why they are selling raw milk, kind of like when answering a classified ad I put some weight on the answer to the question why the item is for sale.
-One question we’ve asked of drinkers is why they drink raw milk. I wouldn’t look askance at a farmer that didn’t ask that question since part of the reason we ask comes from some paranoia about Ag&Mkts Confidential Investigators collecting evidence and hopefully not all milk farmers are so afflicted. However, before we knew about such Investigators, we’d ask out of curiousity and were and are told wonderful stories about the perceived benefits of real milk. And we get to know who’s drinking our milk and who’s supporting us and we begin building another friendship.
-Since grain can be used to increase milk production and since milk processors pay primarily for volume of milk or in other words feeding grain is economically advantageous as long as the increase in milk income exceeds grain cost, some questions about the farmer’s goals for the farm and source of income are suggested. How to do that diplomatically is not easy.
Now that I’ve embarked on this line of questions, I realize that there is no simple question or a simple answer and I also realize that I can’t answer any of these questions for other farmers and further realize that the answers don’t necessarily correlate with clean milk. Perhaps there is no question but only a conversation that you and the farmer should begin and the correct answer will come when that conversation gets to the point that you both feel you can trust each other.
That is the key Steve and Elizabeth. Everyone has different motivations and production methods. No two farmers will be the same. It is this ability to have a conversation and interact on a human level that sets this new food system apart. It is so much better than relying on a jug label or a simplistic questionnaire. And the farmer benefits as much as the consumer in this type of relationship.
Feeding grain increases milk production and until recent jumps in grain prices,feeding grain helped keep the costs per gallon down.
The most important question is how does feeding grain effect the community of bacteria in the cows digestive system.The ideal PH for the rumen bacteria to reproduce rapidly is 6.8 to 7.0. As the forage in the rumen ferments the PH falls. To keep the PH in the favorable range the cow chews it’s cud,mixing many gallons of saliva(PH of 8) into the forage.Stemmy forage stimulates more cud chewing and so keeps the PH in the proper range.Feeding grain reduces cud chewing and so limits the addition of saliva to the rumen.Grain also ferments rapidly.As the PH of the rumen drops,The bacteria responsible for digesting the forage reproduce more slowly.Bacteria that are more tolerant of the acid conditions now have less competition for the nutrients and they can reproduce more rapidly.As the PH drops the community of bacteria in the rumen changes and favors the more acid tolerant bacteria.
The smell and consistency of the cow’s manure is much different depending on how acid it is.Neutral (PH 7) manure smells sweet,acid manure smells sour.
The increased acidity of the digestive system is irritating so the cow drinks more water to hurry it’s manure along on it’s way.The forage and grain is not as completely digested.Because the digestive system contents are acid ,the minerals are less absorbable just as plants can have mineral deficiencies in acid soil.This mineral deficiency makes the cow hungry so it tends to eat more feed(sometimes as much as 40%).
The pathogens that are of concern in dairy products are all both acid tolerant and poor competitors with the beneficial bacteria that we want in our food and in our own digestive systems.The truth of this is obvious.If these acid tolerant bacteria could compete with the common bacteria,they would be everywhere and we would have long ago developed a defense against them.
Safety is the best reason not to feed grain.The cows health and the increase in mineral content of the milk are also benefits.
I suppose,for economic reasons(?) only, a small amount of grain wouldn’t hurt.Check the PH of some fresh manure.It shouldn’t be below 6.7.You should be able to see the folds from the reticulum and it should have a shiny film coating each section.
the grain nazi
There have been numerous incidences of people, motivated by feedlot experiments, purchasing cows and putting them out on pasture alone and expecting them to thrive. This might have worked 100 years ago, but the genetic makeup of many cows today is far removed from that. It’s always the cow that suffers for the humans ‘ideals’. Being able to read your cow is more prudent. Never can be a dangerous thing.
Absolutes suck..as does extremism.
Not sure what type of cows Miquel has had, or what kind of pasture they were on, but I really would like to know. Few areas of the world have the capacity to keep up cows on grass 12 months a year. I guess he kept his pasture clipped, for everyone knows the first thing that a cow when let into new pasture is to eat seed heads first (if they are there).more energy per bite. Handling the mid-summer slump, and the transition to winter forage, would be nice to know too. Snow? Its not as simple as just growing grass.
The last thing Id advocate is daily rationing of grain, 365 a year. But if you are truly concerned with your cows, and their condition and health, then concentrates must be considered. Id be wary of a cow owner that wouldnt.
The people that make real milk are for the most part doing it for the right reasons. The economic reason is not usually high on the priority list.
I have certain cows that need a little extra when the pastures arent stoked. And in retrospect I guess these are the ones that I should selland if I viewed these animals as an ‘asset’ or a ‘commodity’ I would. Its different when its a family member.
There is much to be said for a more reasonable approach.
There are many farmers whose cows thrive on just pasture alone with no concentrates and no grain. But for everyone who does it there are probably 100 who say it can’t be done. Even if such doubters live just across the fence and have the same genetics.
Many,maybe all, of the people we produce milk for have immune systems that are compromised.Think of dairy products as a way to get the probiotics into people that are seriously lacking in the proper community of bacteria.It is more than just food.
I have fed grain to cows for 20 years,selling grade A milk.But consider what plowing does to the soil bacteria,consider what feeding grain does to the bacteria in the cow’s digestive system.The soil is the place where the bacteria have a chance to achieve, over many years, the healthy balance that we want. The community of bacteria that is in the milk is changed completely in the transition from a healthy community of soil bacteria.It has been assaulted by all kinds of changes and handled very roughly throughout the whole process.
Grain is used to provide energy when the hay doesn’t have the sweetness that it should.When you don’t feed grain,you have to make the very best hay possible and you have to have enough pasture to not overgraze it during the dry spells.If your cows have a problem maintaining their condition,try milking once a day.They do very well on once a day milking without grain.Of course you will get less milk,but it is better milk.When you are worrying about the volume of milk a cow gives,you are putting economics ahead of health.
The FDA’s latest "Food Protection Plan" (http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/advance/food.html) has as a key strategy, "Build Safety In From the Start."
Are Miguel and the FDA saying the same thing?
Manufacturers (auto makers, for example) constantly strive to build the quality into the product the first time, so that quality control/inspections do not have to catch the errors and send them back to the production line to be fixed. Modern industrial quality control emphasizes constantly checking the process of manufacture. The raw materials are checked. The assembly tools are properly adjusted. The workers are trained. If all goes right as it’s being made, then you don’t need a QC department to catch the errors. The quality will have been built in.
I would argue, that the experience described by Miguel and others on this post is a description of how you build quality into milk (and meat), so there’s little need to blast every molecule of the final product to make sure it’s clean. It’s made clean when the cows make it; not when the pasteurizer bakes it.
Is there common ground here, to understand raw milk as a product that was "built" right from the start, and which does not need further processing (pasteurization) to clean it up? Can we break through and talk to the FDA in their own language?
The vast bulk of milk, produced as it is in factory-farm conditions from cows that are improperly nourished, will always need pasteurization. This ought not to exclude, simply as a matter of industrial-scale convenience and regulatory fiat, producers who do it right from the start and don’t need to clean up the mess (or fail to clean up the mess, as in the unfortunate Massachusetts deaths last year from improperly pasteurized milk).
It would be great if regulators could change their paradigm to understand that raw milk is the stuff that has the quality built in, and that progress to more nutritious and safer food literally comes from the ground up (I love Miguel’s picture of cohorts of well-balanced, healthy bacteria moving from the soil, "up" (?) the food chain, ultimately to and through us all). It can be done. It’s been done for millenia.
While some require the distinct boundary, and need to have the line clear between black and white, there are others who recognize that Nature doesnt work that way, and enjoy discerning between the different shades of grey. A couple of pounds a day of oats to get an animal through the winter is different than feeding the same animal 10 pounds of corn throughout the year. Semi loads of soy and cottonseed meal are different than 50lb bags of organically grown barley. Broad statements, based on studies of commercial cattle, fail to recognize this distinction (and do us all a disservice).
Balancing the intake demands of cattle with the seasonal fluctuations in quality of pasture is not easy. If it were everyone would be doing it. Recognizing the patterns, and addressing the deficiencies is paramount. How your farmer does this is important to know.
I wonder what the Grand Poobah of Raw Milk thinks on this issue. I heard tell that there is a little corn in that mobile milking parlor.
A little salt makes life a bit tastier.a whole bunch can kill you. Breathing pure oxygen causes problems.but a little in every breath is necessary. If the goal is to cover things up, then a broad brush is used, but if youre going to paint a masterpiece, in which people can really see the detail, then a smaller brush is the tool of choice.
For what its worth, our Jersey family cow gets very little grainabout a pound per milking (that’s once a day for most of her lactation) and not year round. The main reason is to entice her into the barn for milking, which keeps the morning milking time manageable (i.e. gets me to my day job on time). So the grain is a compromise, but I am happy enough with that.
Notably, none of the grass farmers in my region have completely abandoned grain, and the factors they consider when determining when and how much grain to feed are not static. Pastures change, animals change, the weather, the market, even the expert opinions, all change from time to time. In our little home-based corner of the dairy world I note that my cow looks good, produces well, calves well, and is very healthy. Our milk is beautiful. I note also that my pasture, on the other hand, is relatively new and could be better. All that information goes into the decision about grain feeding. Could our cow (and our milk) be even healthier by totally eliminating the grain? I cant say, although I wouldnt be surprised if the answer were yes, even given our current pasture deficiencies. But Im not going to sweat it. Were a mile above the standard grocery store fare, and getting better all the time.
And last but not least… Thank you Elizabeth McInerney for being interested enough to ask questions about asking questions.
My family drinks raw milk from a 5th generation dairy farmer who feeds no grain (and happens to be certified organic — which is of less importance to us than being grass-based). He has Ayrshire Dutch Belt cows. I’m not at all "wary" because we visit his farm regularly and see his milking operation. We know what’s growing in his pastures — including high energy annual grasses that he seeds from time to time when necessary.
Comparing the ingestion of grass grain heads in a field of grass to a ration of pure corn is like comparing whole grain bread to highly refined white sugar in a human diet.
None of this is to say that everyone can go straight from conventional feeding to all-grass. Genetics certainly is a significant part. Is there really something wrong with "throwing them on pasture" and aggressively culling to guide the selection process? This is the process used for thousands of years to get animals that are well-adapted to the locale.
Soil management is critical as well as genetics to provide nutrition. Although not about dairy, I recommend "Grass-fed Cattle: How to Produce and Market Natural Beef" by Julius Ruechel as a great resource for understanding the factors involved in transitioning away from grain to all-grass.
"A couple of pounds a day of oats to get an animal through the winter is different than feeding the same animal 10 pounds of corn throughout the year. Semi loads of soy and cottonseed meal are different than 50lb bags of organically grown barley. Broad statements, based on studies of commercial cattle, fail to recognize this distinction (and do us all a disservice)."
Milkfarmer, I can agree with this 1st statement completely. And I would assume this is where communication with your farmer comes in. Unfortunately, the next statement is what most consumers are fed and what they know (a broad/vague knowledge of an issue-I am guilty of this too). I am learning more each day!
In the "Raw Milk Production Handbook" Tim Wightman gives the "one step removed from conventional dairy farming" approach to milk production.But where are we headed? And what is the next step?I’m not interested in making minor adjustments to the way milk is produced.We can’t simply take a piece from one system and mix it into the other.
Tim advocates lots of testing,vaccinations and disease erradication programs as for TB and brucelosis.We need to wipe the slate clean and build a new system starting from the ground up.
Consumers are interested in safety from "pathogens".How do these "pathogens" get into the milk?What is the reservoir of these "pathogens"?The most important aspect of dairy farming is to realize that you are managing microbes along with the crops and the cows.The reservoir of your healthy community of microbes is your soil.Left undisturbed they will,over years,reach a healthy balance of bacteria types that break down the organic material to feed the plants.They will also keep the "pathogens" under control as long as we don’t keep disturbing them.We should feed the cow with the understanding that we are really feeding the community of bacteria that it acquires from the soil.If we understand and respect these bacteria at each step along the way,they will protect us from the disease causing microbes.
This article is from the latest Farm-to-consumer news.
You Can’t Vaccinate Your Way to Health – Editorial
Government eradication programs almost always end in failure (Part 1 of 3)
By: William G. Winter, DVM
Saying government eradication programs virtually never work runs counter to conventional wisdom. But, as George Orwell so graphically illustrated in his landmark book 1984, anything repeated often enough passes for the truth after awhile. Even bald-faced lies.
The government agencies’ basic approach to cases of suspected "contamination" or"contagion" is block-headed and monolithic. There are some standard characteristics:
1) Round up, quarantine and isolate the suspects. Quite often this includes a security band of innocents who were unlucky enough to be proximate to the suspects. Bummer.
2) Mark them in some way to make them identifiable, such as a tattoo, or, nowadays a microchip.
3) Devise a "test" to judge the guilty.
4) Ideally, exterminate (kill) the contaminated ones as well as those who may have been exposed, or at the very least, lock the bad guys up and throw away the key.
5) Activate(and subsidized) industry to find a "silver bullet" that will cure the horrible plague.
Thousands of examples abound in modern culture. We are seeing the last of the majestic American Elms being thrown into the shredders in an attempt to kill the Dutch Elm Virus. Sure it kills the patient but, as Big Brother teaches us, that’s the only way to save the patient. When the last elm on earth is safely shredded and buried in the landfill, we will at last have won the war against Dutch Elm Disease. Mission accomplished!
Around the world, sharpshooters and guardsmen have declared war on several animal diseases. Using the blockhead model, a determination is made that the "Intruder Alert" alarm has gone off. All it takes is the suspicion of illness in many cases. Immediately, the process begins and woe to you if you stand in the way. We are currently seeing the scramble alert approach wherein we have declared simultaneous war on bovine TB, brucellosis, chronic wasting, bovine spongiform encephalapathy, and avian flu to name a few. No one seems to notice that the number of wars are increasing. Meanwhile, old diseases such a malaria, bubonic plague and polio, earlier losers that were beaten in our previous war campaigns, are now crawling out of the Mission Accomplished trophy room.
In summary, as the current thinking goes, if only we had a better, more efficient way to line up these contaminated ones, then we could create the model for quicker sorting, marking, judging, and exterminating these bad apples. Then we could work on the magic bullets for the rest of us, right? What is truly happening here?
Part II – a) If this model is so ineffective, why do we stick to it then? and b) Vaccine manufacturing is a very, very big business
Part III – Getting out of the box. A truly superior model of what really works to prevent disease.
I can’t wait to read the next two parts of this editorial.