I’ve been wrestling with a raw-milk dilemma of sorts. Not a huge dilemma, and not something in which my decision will have a lot of impact.
But the more I think about it, the more agitated I find myself becoming.
Here’s the situation: A few days ago a California reader forwarded me a one-page statement of “Research Survey Information” the California Department of Public Health and the Del Norte County Health Department have been distributing, presumably intended for residents of Del Norte County. It said these public health agencies “are conducting a research survey to learn more about raw (unpasteurized) milk.”
Del Norte County, you may remember, is the California county that had an outbreak of illness from campylobacter just about a year ago, which was attributed to raw milk distributed under a local cow-leasing program at Alexandre Family EcoDairy Farms. According to a report prepared by the California Department of Public Health, 16 people became ill—15 of whom had consumed milk from the cow-leasing dairy and one who was a dairy employee.
Part of what made the case noteworthy was that a public health employee was the most severely stricken, contracting Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a complication from campylobacter, after consuming raw milk for the first time just days previous. She became a client of Bill Marler, the food poisoning lawyer, who described the case on his blog a few weeks ago.
A couple other things worth pointing out. The state report on the illnesses provided data on the raw-milk-drinking history of those individuals who became ill, and provided some anti-raw-milk propaganda as well, which I discussed in a posting.
Finally, the state report recommended that officials “Continue public education efforts regarding health risks associated with consuming unpasteurized milk and unpasteurized milk products.” One of the authors of that October 2008 report was Amy Karon, Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the California Department of Public Health.
I mention the recommendation and Amy Karon because the new one-page notification of a survey names her as the principal contact. It alerts Del Norte County residents receiving notification that “we will be calling your household and other households in your area to ask household members age 18 and older what they think about raw milk and raw milk products.” Participation is voluntary, participants are told, and “the information provided by you and others in your community will help us better understand what people think about raw milk, and improve the way that we teach people about this food.”
I telephoned Amy Karon, whose name and number are shown on the survey notification, to ask her a few basic questions about the survey—whether it was limited to Del Norte County, how many people she expected to be surveyed, when the results might be available, how I might obtain a copy of the questions to be asked, and how the public might access the results. This last question, I thought, was particularly important, since generally, the results of such surveys are revealed mainly in obscure scientific papers that may or may not be published.
So when I asked her my first question about how the survey came about, she said, “This is a research survey. It is just starting. To give you information could bias the results.” When I started to ask another question, she said, “I can’t tell you anything else about this,” and hung up the phone.
Now, “bias the results” is a common concern for anyone conducting surveys of any type. If your respondents aren’t representative of the population at large (perhaps more or fewer raw milk drinkers than the general population, for example), the results might be considered skewed from a scientific perspective.
So my dilemma is this: Should I be respectful of Amy Karon’s concerns, and excuse her refusal to answer even the most basic questions about the survey? Or should I and others with an interest in the subject be prodding her to be more forthcoming, and let concerned consumers know such basic facts as when the survey might be completed and how they might obtain the results?
I’ve conducted a number of surveys over the course of my writing and business career, and can appreciate her desire to obtain the most complete and accurate data possible. But I’ve never conducted one on an issue of pressing public concern. I think if I were, I would want to be open and forthright about the whole thing, even if it meant possibly skewing the results.
My big problem is that, even though Amy Karon and her colleagues may be dedicated scientists and public servants, I have no faith in their employer to allow an objective survey, and for the results to be generally disseminated. Here’s one example of a question I can imagine being on the survey:
Q: Since the outbreak of campylobacter at Alexandre Family EcoDairy Farms, the following statement best describes my feelings about raw milk:
A. I am very afraid of raw milk.
B. I am beyond very afraid, I am terrified by raw milk.
C. I get an upset stomach if someone even mentions raw milk.
D. If that dairy starts distributing raw milk again, I think I’ll have an anxiety attack.
E. All of the above.
Given these kinds of questions (and I suspect I’m not that far off) I fear that whatever the results, the message to the public will be that consumer respondents (the actual number doesn’t even matter) are very worried about the dangers of raw milk, and therefore we must continue to be diligent in opposing consumption. When government regulators talk about wanting to “improve the way that we teach people about this food,” what they really mean is they want to come up with more effective techniques for disseminating anti-raw-milk propaganda.
David, you musn’t interfere and bias the results.
I spoke with Dr. Karon just a few days ago.
It was a very brief conversation. As soon as I introduced myself….she could not get off the phone quick enough. I did ask her if she needed 10,000 email contacts of CA raw milk drinkers so she could broaden her research. She refused the offer. Said it was just a local effort to collect information.
She began to breath and speak quickly and then said goodbye….almost a hand-up but not quite.
I have spoken with people in the area that I know very well and they said that everyone except for the health department employee that got GBS… recovered quickly. Some with the help of a round of antibiotics and others with just some time. The GBS patient is doing better and better but still has substantial problems with her neurostatus…..but gets better every week. She has got Marler doing his thing for her.
Right now several black market raw milk clubs are operating in the Humbolt area. We have been told that if we tried to bring in OPDC raw milk it would be seized by the county health department.
I think of Humbolt county as a different state and not really part of CA. It is the state of Humbolt. It is so remote and inaccessible.
They are big marijuana growers yet they are the only county in CA that bans the sale of raw milk officially. Kinda weird.
The Humbolt Creamery is in Bankruptcy and the local dairies that send their raw milk to that creamery are really hurting and have not been paid for months.
I saw that we raw milk people scare the hell out of them. Their health department is so very small and has no idea about the rest of CA and its raw milk market.
The good news is this….perhaps when the data is collected, they will get a clue and resort their feelings and address the real origins of the reasons for the black market and allow tested and inspected raw milk flow into that area…. or am I just smoking some Humbolt alfalfa and dreaming again.
Mark
Is there a reason to be rude? Her PR training leaves much to be desired.
"what they really mean is they want to come up with more effective techniques for disseminating anti-raw-milk propaganda."
So far tptb have not proven this to be untrue.
Mark, you’re dreaming from the smoking…..
I now know that you are a regulator or public health agency representative of some kind.
How can you defend the use of public funds to collect information to teach people to not eat a certain food.
Did any public health department ever spend a dime or a second of time to try and convince people not to eat spinach, peanuts, pistacios, tomatoes, or any other foods?
Not one second and not one penny has been spent….except for the anti raw milk research being done by the rude biased Dr. Karon.
….Our leadership in CA will not put up with kind of bias, unfounded missuse of public funds and corruption.
Trust me.
Mark
Mark
This is THE scientific test that I listen to every day my body expresses to me how good it feels and I can not ignore it so all the fear mongering NONSENSE be damned.
I am glad Lykke you STILL AS YET are able to speak FREELY and I will do the same but how much longer will these rights exist? I am sorry that question even could be seriously asked here in the good old USA.
Nevertheless Lykke I hope you and the other lady CP enjoy the slumber party at Amanda’s.
Lykke I think I have posed to you about 20 questions by now so here is another will you ever answer even one?
Also Lykke before I retried I also had a real job I manufactured a real product that went into your car, your home appliances, your power tools, your electronis gadgets, and even used by your medical providers all made in the USA [for 115 years]. Until a wise ceo began sending our unique production machinery that I helped to design and build to our enemy China.
proposal before USDA to eliminate producer-handlers’ exemptions from the federal milk order pricing
Sorry Mark, I was joking in response to your previous statement. Meant no offense.
"Now, bias the results is a common concern for anyone conducting surveys of any type. If your respondents arent representative of the population at large (perhaps more or fewer raw milk drinkers than the general population, for example), the results might be considered skewed from a scientific perspective."
Del Norte County population; 29,100 – Jul 2008 (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division) Of these 29100 people; how many consume raw milk daily? Weekly? sporatically? People from different backgrounds, cultures, eductions levels all view the same thing differently; how will this survey take that into account? How would this small population represent the total population? How would it show realistic results?
This article points out studies and also points out educated "professionals" who claim "There are absolutely no health benefits from consuming raw milk.". Do they not read or are they so narrow minded (bought and paid for) that they cannot open thier eyes?
It should be a choice of the consumer, not the govt entities. If the govt really wanted to prevent "outbreaks" they’d teach farmers better methods of prevention (this would be for all foods), they’d teach the processors and transportation facilities better ways, they’d teach how to keep animals healthy without the use of chemicals, etc. This is not done. It appears to be thier way or no way.
by Mathew Climtile Enviromental Health News 1/6/09
Even the veggans are not left out of consuming other people or other animals "excreted" antibiotics and drugs. None of us can say we are drug free and that is indeed "frustrating".
Enjoy your veggies at you own risk!
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/antibiotics-in-crops
"Smart people never buy snake oil twice", Roger McAfee (1939-2006)
Lykke, CP and other government naysayers….take note. There is a reason why people of all kinds drink and rely upon raw milk. It is changing lives for the better. No science needs to prove this….if raw milk was not so important…it would never sell at three times the price,with such deep purpose and passion.
Mark
is this in farm country? family cows?
http://www.city-data.com/city/Crescent-City-California.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Del_Norte_County,_California
Hugh,
I believe that is for the whole county. Maybe they count all the Bigfoots as 2 or more? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film
"if raw milk was not so important…it would never sell at three times the price,with such deep purpose and passion."
Mark, you do have a good point here. For some it is the freedom of choice
I don’t understand what you mean since I have answered many if not all of your questions over time (perhaps not with the desired answer, but did take a stab at them). Sometimes the questions get repeated on this site (or I might miss them when not online), and I just assume you are addressing someone else if I already commented on the topic. Keep in mind too that my *personal" opinions on raw milk keep shifting around as I think about all the pro and con arguments; in contrast, this blog personality often tries to take the point of view of TPTB in a general way (they are by no means a uniform group), and share thoughts from that perspective.
Why no sense of humor on this blog? It isn’t natural. Humor is a good tool to work through differences no matter how important and serious the topic (and raw milk is hardly the most pressing or serious issue in the world). Even the joke by Sylvai about smoking was taken as a serious insult, geez.
And, why so much conern about a small survey? Why fear it? Just a couple weeks ago the discussion here was about how the government should conduct more surveys and studies on raw milk. Given this reaction, what scientist iin the future s going to want to do any studies in such a toxic atmosphere…and on a product that is consumed by very few people and doesn’t cause that much illness or haven proven benefits in the big picture of health and safety?
Why not be open about surveys? Why insert covertness surrounding something so simple as are conducting a research survey to learn more about raw (unpasteurized) milk. ?
Is this the govt entity that is trying to learn about raw milk? Or is the govt entity trying to learn what the public knows about raw milk? That isn’t very clear on what the projected goal is.
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/05/health_experts_say_food_supply.html#more
"Concerned about health, Mari Tardiff, the California nurse, bought organic and less processed foods whenever possible. She decided to try raw milk, believing the unpasteurized product would supply helpful organisms.
Instead, she got a dose of an unhelpful germ: campylobacter, easily killed by pasteurization. The ensuing intestinal illness triggered a debilitating nerve disease. Tardiff communicated by blinking for months, and still cannot stand or use her hands.
"This has been life-altering," she said. "All I want to say is, ‘Be careful.’"
Indeed, just eating or drinking something can be life altering. Not to forget the RX’d drugs and Vaccs, et al, that alter your life in the negative.
"Food has always contained germs, and it has always posed a risk of illness. An estimated 76 million Americans, a quarter of the population, contract food-borne illness each year, but the vast majority of the cases are so mild that victims do not realize where the germs came from"
This has been pointed out many times.
"Public health experts say the complexity of the food supply illustrates the need for tougher government oversight, including more field inspectors."
Instead of changing the processing that causes the contamination, they add more inspectors? That is not fixing the problem.
"Some people are tempted to opt out of the modern industrial food system altogether. But doing so can put them at risk of the very diseases that were banished from the food supply decades ago. "
Or they can consume the "modern industrial food system" and become ill and diseased.
If there is more gov. oversite of the small family farmers how many more of them will be considered the enemy of the state???
"Truth is the enemy of the state" So said a bloodthirsty madman in the 1930s wearing a Nazi uniform whos name is unworthy of receiving credit for his truthful statement.
I have a little story to tell. My son is going overseas to Africa for a couple of months this summer to do volunteer work as part of a scholarship program that is paying for his college. (We aren’t rich). He had to have a bunch of vaccines. I wanted to share a little of our experience.
I thought I could do all through the health department or his doctor. Not!!! Both said they did not give yellow fever shots, and they didn’t know where they could be had! There apparently, according to Sanofi Pasteur, a sub-company of Aventis, is a "shortage" of yellow fever vaccine, so it can only be given through an "approved" travel center. The only local one (less than 2 hours away) had disconnected phone service. So today, we traveled 2 1/2 hours one way to an appointment at a Passport Health center to obtain a yellow fever vaccine. That is why I was able to take pictures for Sylvia, finally.
Before we could receive this vaccine, however, we were subjected to over an hour of sales pitches for every vaccine and product under the sun. They attempted to sell us a $250 rabies vaccine. Even businessmen in the city get bitten by rabid dogs. My son called his travel liason to ask about the rabies shot (we were up to around $650 by that point), and the guy laughed his rear off. (That was a "no.")
When asked about the price of the vaccines, I was told the prices were "competetive." Unbeknowns to the RN telling me this, I’d already done some checking. The health dept charges $44 for Hepatitis A. Passport Health charged $90. Typhoid had to be ordered 2 days ahead, but was $47 at the local health dept.. Passport Health was $85. I’m not sure who they’re competing with. The malaria pills were $9/pill, and my son needed at least 60-70 for his stay, amounting to over $600. Or he could risk neurotoxicity with the weekly pill and only pay $185. When I stated I was told most local pharmacies could fill malaria pills, and I wanted to check out prices, I was told they were often out of them or didn’t stock them. Unsaid: it was a 2 1/2 hour drive, and I might not want to risk not having them for my son’s sake and having to drive all the way back. The health dept, again, had told me otherwise – no problem getting them at local pharmacies.
I just spent about an hour online trying to find a link between Aventis and Passport Health. The closest one I found was that an Aventis scientist and marketing person, and the Passport Health founder all spoke at the same national vaccine conference together a few years ago.
It is pretty nice for there to be one place to go to for all our traveling health needs, but I really did NOT appreciate being marketed to with fear, to buy overpriced products. That is a pretty nifty idea though – travel centers for profit for one-stop shopping. Good thing my son gets reimbursed with scholarship money, but pathetic a "travel center" might think this is somehow okay. Pathetic that such places are difficult to find, and are the ONLY place you can obtain a yellow fever vaccine, required for mission work in many 3rd world countries, paid for by donated money.
I’m going to the feed store for the Permethrin to dip his clothes and net in. We dip animals in it. A 32 oz bottle of 10% is competetive with a 12 oz bottle of 10% Passport Health mosquito net spray. She may have thought it odd when I looked closely at the label. I was memorizing the concentration of their product, being rather familiar with Permethrin.
Malaria pills are much cheaper in Africa, and you don’t need a prescription. It’s OTC. But the quality and dependability is questionable,….of course. I don’t suppose Aventis exports there, do they?
We were told he was not to drink unpasteurized milk (among many other things not to eat or drink). I suppose if he makes through the aftermath of 6 vaccines in one day, 2 or more live attenuated ones, then we’ll worry about the milk. I’m suprised they didn’t offer a pan to pasteurize it in.
Gwen, Thank you so much! I sent an email to you. I hope your son stays safe, what a terrific adventure for him! Wow, I remember when my husband got a ton of vaccs before going to Korea, he was sick for a while (the flu vacc made him sick too- something in the shot made him ill).
Travel medicaine clinics are in Ca too. It’s good information to pass on for shopping around… Is there a rabies vaccine?
First of all, we have mosquito and other vector control programs (the dreaded "program" word). Unfortunately, the stomping out of mosquito-borne diseases in most of the US was accomplished last century with DDT at the expense of our great ecosystem, especially impacts on raptors (like eagles). Much work has been done to develop insecticides with fewer impacts on the system, but still we rely on these methods sometimes to keep these diseases rare (and for those individuals that still get them and end up paralyzed or otherwise brain impared, they think it is not enough). For example, there often is a rukus about spraying when West Nile virus or another arbovirus emerges, but I doubt folks appreciate the number of people that ended up "vegetables," desperately thrown away into sanatariums (that have thankfully become obsolete) because of mosquito-borne diseases. Indeed, these diseases virtually wiped out the native American populations when introduced. We only enjoy virtual freedom from them (out of sight, out of mind) because of pesticides, AND other modern things like screens on our windows and air conditioning. Ironically, the indoor lifestyle has contributed to the reduction of many of these insect-borne diseases…now you see rare cases in people who spend huge amounts of time outdoors camping, hunting, fishing…getting exposed to mosquitoes, ticks, etc. And, you see them in those who travel to tropical areas.
Something similar with the unpasteurized milk in developing countries. Unlike the US that has virtually eradicated brucellosis and bovine TB through mandatory testing "programs" (and even kept E. coli O157, Salmonella, Campylobacter mostly at bay with improved sanitation, especially on farms that take care with their processing and bottling)…these disease are rampant in herds in develping countries. Grass feeding makes no difference (indeed, they are common in wildlife that eat no grain). Would you drink raw milk in one of these countries knowing the prevalence of brucella, bovine TB, and the fact that "buying from a nice farmer" won’t protect you?
There is a human rabies vaccination and it is expensive and only recommended in very specific circumstances. The cost is even higher for the shots after an exposure (bite by a loose dog in one of those countries, for example). If treatment doesn’t start until symptom begin, it is a fatal disease. There have been massive treatments in the US of people exposed to raw milk from cow(s) diagnosed with rabies, and who knows if there was a "real risk." Never has a case been documented due to exposure directly from raw cows milk to a human. On the other hand, deaths from rabid dog bites are relatively common and tragic where the disease circulates – and where dogs overpopulate and free roam. Why do we see so little rabies in the US today: dog rabies vaccination and pet population control (animal control agencies and humane agenices that work diligently for animal welfare and human safety). We still have rabies in wildlife, but no longer in our canine companions (very rarely). The movement to stop vaccinating to protect pets against rabies is fortunately confined to only a few misguided individuals. It would be very sad to see the pendulum swing where we allowed canine rabies to re-gain footing in the US. That is not fear mongering. Just go visit Africa, India, Mexico…and Sylvia/Gwen, as folks in health care, I am certain you would see cases of rabies, milkborne brucellosis/bovine TB, insect transmitted malaria/yellow fever if you worked in those countries that cannot afford effective "programs."
What diseases are you referring to? The ones the white man brought over?
Infectous "pathogens/bacteria" was brought over by the European invaders and colonialists – and they were responsible for the genocide of the Native American population. The europeans had been exposed to thier microorganisms for centuries. Therefore their immune systems had some degree of resistance to the more lethal effects. In contrast, Native Americans had no immunity to these diseases. The first European explorers brought to America a form of biological genocide. The combination of large populations and naive immune systems created a perfect ecology for epidemic diseases such as smallpox, measles and others. Once these microorganisms reached the New World, the result was apocalyptic for the Native American cultures. North and South America were never conquered by invading armies, they were conquered by invading microorganisms. Most Native American were remarkably healthy. If they weren’t they didn’t survive childhood. Most lived not in unsanitary cities but "in small, isolated bands and were therefore less likely to spread diseases over large geographical areas."
"While millions of native Americans died of European diseases, millions of Europeans died of European diseases, too. In fact, one reason the natives suffered such catastrophic mortality was that Europeans arriving in the New World were walking petri dishes for germs. In some years 25 percent of European immigrants died at sea, often of diseases such as typhus that they had picked up in the ports they had just left. Epidemics were common in Europe. It was not uncommon for a town to lose a third of its population to some new outbreak. Armies invariably lost more soldiers to disease than to combat. (Judging from U.S. figures, this remained true up until World War II.) "
One of my least favorite debates relates to vaccinations, but on your question, if talking about what happened to our magnificent native population..most of their destruction by disease was due to what we call today, "vaccine preventable diseases:" smallpox (hopefully obsolete), mumps, measles, diphtheria, whooping cough. There was a good reason to create those vaccines, and still a good reason to use them today. Do we need a vaccine for everything? I don’t think so, but there is a place for vaccination in the realm of "building immunity."
The others that caused major devastation for native populations and europeans alike have been dealt with in devleloped countries through sanitation of our water (cholera) and milk (tuberculosis) supplies – and, yes, milkborne tuberculosis used to be a major killer before pasteurization. The rest like malaria, yellow fever, bubonic plague, and typhus have been dealt with using eradication/reduction programs of the vectors that have included pesticides, rodent control, and also lifestyle changes.
NJ bill would "ALLOW" sale of raw milk.
philly.com
http://wwwphilly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/pennsylvania/20090511_ap_njbillwouldallowsaleofrawmilk.html
More ‘lawmakers" taking note of us.
My complaint is with the for-profit medical care! LOOK at the difference in prices I quoted. Please tell me WHY a rabies shot for a dog is $5, but for a human is $250! Come down off that educative pedastool and look at it from my point of view for a split second.
I KNOW that brucellosis and other diseases abound in 3rd world countries, and am not about to recommend my son drink raw milk there. Talk on my level, please, I implore you. You entirely ignored the point in my post, for the sake of "safety." That is what I abhor in vaccine promoters. You aren’t talking to uninformed people here. Otherwise, you read like an Aventis employee, who doesn’t give a flying hoot about anyone’s health, but wants a higher bonus. And who am I to know that isn’t the case? I say that I had to sit through an hour sales pitch for my son to get a yellow fever vaccine, and your response is, …all those other vaccines are important. Hey, what about the sales pitch, dude? What about the prices? Are you deaf?
Tell me, Lykke, what are you doing to promote and facilitate the improvement of health in 3rd world countries, other than SUPPORTING the sale and promotion of overpriced, unaffordable but necessary medicine and vaccines? My guess is absolutely nothing. Why would you not care that a human rabies vaccine is $250, and only care that it is necessary? Give me a better reason than what comes up first, and I’ll have more respect for your posts.
Passport Health:
$ 55 Office visit
$ 90 Hepatitis A
$135 Menactra (Meningitis)
$ 70 Polio (booster after 18 for where he’s going)
$ 80 DTP (booster recommended every 5 years, tropical regions)
$ 85 Typhoid
$130 Yellow Fever
$ 35 Travel Diarrhea kit with 10 Cipro pills (can’t get that without a script)
Doctor’s visit
$ 10 Co-pay
Local family-owned pharmacy
$430 70 Malaria pills (Malarone)
$1155
Now, my son is home from college 2 weeks before leaving. I could have taken the extra time to go to the health department for typhoid and Hepatitis A, cutting my bill by $94. They may have been able to give the Polio, Meningitis, and DTP also for much cheaper, but didn’t know to recommend them to me on the phone. So my son wouldn’t have had them on a visit to the health department before going to Passport Health, thus requiring yet another trip to the health dept. after finding out they were recommended, and at 2 1/2 hours away, and not having thought to have the local health dept. number on me, I don’t suppose I would have taken the risk they wouldn’t have them or wouldn’t give them, to pass those 3 vaccines up. I DID save at least $2/pill on the malaria pills by taking the risk of not buying them at Passport Health.
The problem here is that I work 40 hours per week. I don’t have a lot of weekdays off in 2 weeks to get all this running around done. I also have 3 other children and a farm.
This list doesn’t include all the other stuff – mosquito netting (Cabela’s), 10% permethrin (feed store), 30% DEET (Rite Aid), water purifier (Walmart).
My son’s trip is VOLUNTEER WORK. It is paid for through a SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM. Is this kind of money ethical?
I think not. What I think doesn’t have words.
Sounds like you have a "real job" too. I hope your son enjoys his trip and returns safely with lots of good stories to tell.
As far as I know, herds are no longer tested for brucellosis in the US. Rabies is still a big problem here – not with "free roam" dogs, but with cows, who often get it from skunks.
Seems like the US isn’t so different from the rest of the world after all.
I’m not a farmer, I live in the city limits, so I don’t know much about "shit" either, however I will tell you what I do know about bovine excrement.
If you feed the cow its mother-natured designed food -green grass-that grows on healthy soil, you will have nothing to fear even if you fell face first into a patty! Not so, with bovine excrement that has come from a cow fed ANY OTHER KIND of diet, and crowded together in a CAFO type environment. Not only are these animals unhealthy, and live only 1/2 as long as there healthier counterparts, their sad enviroment is the "petrie dish" of our now more dangerous pathogens.
As to the little girls quesiton, it has to be the differences in alimentary canal structure of each individual animal, and its digestive processes that makes the south end product look different. That’s my guess: one of our farmers will be able to answer more specifically.
BTW, I really appreciated your first post on rabies today. That was illuminating. Thank You. Alyssa