# All Out Attack on Raw Milk



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Think about it. As the milk comes out of the udder, it touches the animal's skin. And while some barns are incredibly clean, well, it's not like cows (or goats) use toilets and wipe carefully. The milk comes into contact with the hands (or gloves or clothing) of the person milking, or the machine that does the milking, and it's unlikely that any of those are bacteria-free. It sits in containers that aren't bacteria-free either. Insects are known to hang out near animals, and sometimes they get into milk.

Even if you could make all that perfectly clean, or you could drink it straight from the (wiped clean) udder, it's possible that the milk itself could have germs. After all, milk is a bodily fluid; infections get passed into it. As with people, you can't always tell when an animal is sick--especially if it is early in an illness.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/mdmama/2013/12/dont_drink_unpasteurized_milk.html


----------



## hiddensprings (Aug 6, 2009)

This debate will be going on for years. For me its a personal choice. I like raw milk, we drink raw milk, we cook with raw milk and so on. Folks that don't want to, have other options.


----------



## gone-a-milkin (Mar 4, 2007)

I didnt really take that as an all out "attack" on raw milk.

What part of the article did you find to be untrue?

I was not too surprised to find that the American Academy of Peditricians 
does not reccommend the consumption of raw dairy products.

The stats quoted in this piece are not even jacked up, IMO.

snip:
According to an article just published in the journal _Pediatrics_, between 1998 and 2009 consumption of raw milk or milk products in the United States resulted in 93 illness outbreaks, 1837 illnesses, 195 hospitalizations and 2 deaths. Most of these illnesses were from _Escherichia Coli, Campylobacter_ or _Salmonella _bacteria.

:end snip

I have read a LOT worse articles.


----------



## Tango (Aug 19, 2002)

A family cow milked by her devoted keeper, milking for her family is far more likely to keep a clean milking area and clean up the udder and equipment than a milk factory, which is why pasteurization is necessary in commercial situations. A family cow can have a test for mastitis every milking. A commercial milk parlor is nasty and their speed does not allow for the tech to catch the subtle changes in a cow's first milk that a family keeper could catch to avoid infection. They catch only full blown cases of mastitis. A cow can lose a teat before it is discovered she is mastic in a dairy. It eliminates my desire to ever come into contact with any dairy product. Pasteurization was a response to filthy conditions. 
Raw milk is no guarantee of anything. I know children who are allergic to milk even when it is raw.It is the perfect food for that cow's calf since it is a living biological fluid that ia adaptive to the calf's state of health. For the rest of us, it is just a good natural food but like peanuts or honey, it is not for everyone. And when you give it over to the monster factories and to the USDA it loses anything worth putting into my body. Not speaking for anyone else.


----------



## cooper101 (Sep 13, 2010)

Tango said:


> A family cow milked by her devoted keeper, milking for her family is far more likely to keep a clean milking area and clean up the udder and equipment than a milk factory, which is why pasteurization is necessary in commercial situations.


Been there. We've gotten raw milk from the 17-cow dairy up the street and also have had it from the tank at the 2700-cow dairy down the street. The little dairy's milk was great - no problems. Both my kids went to the hospital with campylobacter food poisoning from the big farm.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Something else you have to consider.. People who drink raw milk from their own cow daily have built up antibodies to most things in the milk that are common to that cow and equipment.. Give it to a person who hasn't built up those immunities , and a fair chance they'll spend some time sitting and praying on the pot..


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...es-again-dont-read-if-you-dont-want-know.html

Dairies, both big and small can have milk with campylobacter. Well cared for cows, in clean barns, fed excellent feed can still have dangerous bacteria in their milk. While it is possible for a family farm to test for mastitis daily, not commonly done, unless there is a problem. Plus there are a variety of other bacterial and disease issues that crop up unexpectedly.
I had a milk cow and drank raw milk. I think it is foolish to sell to others, risking your farm. Also, dangerous to buy from others that may unknowingly place you in a medical emergency. Feel free to do as you want, I just wish you are making an educated, not emotional, choice.


----------



## Fat Man (Mar 9, 2011)

gone-a-milkin said:


> The stats quoted in this piece are not even jacked up, IMO.
> 
> snip:
> According to an article just published in the journal _Pediatrics_, between 1998 and 2009 consumption of raw milk or milk products in the United States resulted in 93 illness outbreaks, 1837 illnesses, 195 hospitalizations and 2 deaths. Most of these illnesses were from _Escherichia Coli, Campylobacter_ or _Salmonella _bacteria.
> ...



Illnesses-0.000581% of the US population.
Hospitalizations-0.000062% of the US population.
Deaths- 0.000001% of the US population.

That over a 9 year period seems like a pretty good safety record to me.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Fat Man said:


> Illnesses-0.000581% of the US population.
> Hospitalizations-0.000062% of the US population.
> Deaths- 0.000001% of the US population.
> 
> That over a 9 year period seems like a pretty good safety record to me.


And that is because in the over all picture of a population of over 300+ million Out of that 300+ very very few drink raw milk. Making those figures look better then what they really are. If the entire population were drinking raw milk all of a sudden those figures would be WAY higher when looking at the big picture.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

There exists a vast difference between the number sickened by tainted raw milk and the number of cases that prove it. Many healthy people recover from a case of ecoli poisoning, and it never gets reported. When there is a near death or a large number of people, the Health Department gets involved. But generally the evidence is long since flushed down the toilet. In the small cases where there is some fecal evidence, the jug of milk has been consumed and washed out. So, there is no connection. In the case where there is a human sample, and a milk sample, then the trace back to the dairy begins. Often times, the farm bulk tank has gone through a few cleanings, since that tainted milk was produced. So, there isn't a connection to the farm, only to the milk. So, only cases where all the evidence has been preserved and the farm has an ongoing problem, does it show up as a raw milk caused illness. 
Nearly every month there is another round of people sickened by raw milk in this country. Sometimes, I report it in this thread http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/spe...want-know.html
This topic seems to have no middle ground. You are either against it or favor it. I found that those that favor it believe it is safe. I provide current information so those that want to make educated, informed choices, will have the facts. "My grand pappy drank raw milk for 40 years and never go sick from it" isn't real proof. 
I don't think another thread on raw milk will convince anyone one way or the other.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

http://www.tennessean.com/article/2...k-raw-milk-from-Tennessee-farm?nclick_check=1


----------



## goodhors (Sep 6, 2011)

I look at it as the benefits of treating the milk, out weigh the very small losses in nutrition.

Paseurization was developed BECAUSE of the problems milk had, and when fed to the general population, passed on. "First developed by Louis Pasteur in 1864, pasteurization kills harmful organisms responsible for such diseases as listeriosis, typhoid fever, tuberculosis, diphtheria, and brucellosis." These diseases are LEGENDARY killers of people for HUNDREDS of years. 

However with vaccination programs of people, children, they have disappeared from view, not the fearful threats they were to folks up into the beginning of Modern Times. Many people are even refusing to vaccinate kids, because they see no threat from "old time disease" in our present lives. Then you hear about kids who get sick with these diseases, die, when they could have been prevented.

Pasteurization of milk, trying to get the food chain cleaned up, was very helpful in getting numbers down for many years. 

As for the kids getting sick from the "big farm" milk, I don't believe most farms pasteurize their own milk in the tanks. That is done at the Milk Factory, so comparing two farms raw milk to find "better" products, really doesn't mean anything. The germs are in the air, on skin, walls and dirt of any location. The germ finding a friendly place to live, is going to thrive in milk. You can't wash an entire barn daily, and even if possible, probably wouldn't make a difference in "germs present" if you tested. Situation changes daily in such places. Just because a location is white, clean looking, washed out daily, really doesn't mean their milk is "cleaner" of germs. Dairy of any size usually does the best they can, to the standards of cleanliness needed to sell the milk with regular inspections of equipment and facilities. 

I wouldn't use unpasteurized milk, because I am not willing to take the bigger chance of disease putting my health at risk using a 'clean looking' dairy at a farm that sells, shares, trades, raw milk to people. Not worth it. You can't see germs, so I will keep going with the pasteurized milk that has been heated hot enough, cooled correctly, to kill most of them off.

These sickened folk headlines about raw milk drinkers, are in our LOCAL papers.

http://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/fo...-raw-milk-a-study-from-michigan/#.UrCoiK2A2cw


----------



## cooper101 (Sep 13, 2010)

haypoint said:


> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...es-again-dont-read-if-you-dont-want-know.html
> 
> Dairies, both big and small can have milk with campylobacter. Well cared for cows, in clean barns, fed excellent feed can still have dangerous bacteria in their milk. While it is possible for a family farm to test for mastitis daily, not commonly done, unless there is a problem. Plus there are a variety of other bacterial and disease issues that crop up unexpectedly.
> I had a milk cow and drank raw milk. I think it is foolish to sell to others, risking your farm. Also, dangerous to buy from others that may unknowingly place you in a medical emergency. Feel free to do as you want, I just wish you are making an educated, not emotional, choice.


I get that small dairies can have problems, but I believe the odds of it are smaller. When there's a safety net (in this case, pasteurization), people take more chances. The small farm knows they would have big issues selling raw milk cowshares if they aren't attentive to cleanliness. You don't have to be quite so attentive if there's a safety net.

The family we got the "campylobacter milk" from drinks it all the time; they have built up immunities. Unfortunately, my kids haven't.

I'm all for people's right to choose. I've learned a lesson.


----------



## AriesMaverick (Jul 8, 2012)

Have the nutrition habits of those getting ill from raw milk been taken under consideration?
Also, how do other countries handle their milk and how does it affect them?


----------



## Cheribelle (Jul 23, 2007)

My BIL can't drink store bought milk, they were raised on raw. :shrug:


----------



## Jennifer L. (May 10, 2002)

There's just as many bacteria on vegetables. 

And in any case, you should eat a good amount of different bacteria, anyway, or you'll croak from an immune system that was never challenged.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

gone-a-milkin said:


> I didnt really take that as an all out "attack" on raw milk.
> 
> What part of the article did you find to be untrue?
> 
> ...


They have a series attacking raw milk. Maybe done with more finesse than others, but still done..

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/hea...pasteurized/1G4YtmqJBmdmwhDa0IoigL/story.html

A study out this month adds more weight to the âriskâ side, finding that nearly 4 percent of Minnesotans sickened by microorganisms in the last 10 years had recently consumed raw milk. Assuming that far more people get sick than just those with positive lab tests, the study estimates that roughly 17 percent of all raw-milk consumers in the state were sickened.


----------



## matt090303 (Apr 8, 2006)

I drink raw milk, I like raw milk, will not give any to others, that way cannot be blamed for illness if they forgot to wash their hands before eating and get the crud. If others do not wish to drink raw milk, ok..it is their business, as it is my business to prefer raw milk. When I was young,(a long time ago) the word from the 'experts' was do not eat butter, eat oleomargarine, it is better for your heart. well folks, turned out oleomargine and other false butters are far worse for your arteries.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

Wow a lot of misinformation and supposition around here.
Modern parlor facilities have built in tools to catch mastitis before it becomes a problem . Temperature and conductivity tests can find a problem way before it shows up in your strip cup.
Most large dairies have a strict set of procedures in place to ensure they are putting out a superior product . They get bonuses on the quality of thier milk.
It is sampled ever time it is picked up and the quality of the milk as well as the clealiness of the equipment is checked.
I will admit that there may be some dairies that could carr less but I've seen that attitude in both big and small places.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

HDRider said:


> They have a series attacking raw milk. Maybe done with more finesse than others, but still done..
> 
> http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/hea...pasteurized/1G4YtmqJBmdmwhDa0IoigL/story.html
> 
> A study out this month adds more weight to the âriskâ side, finding that nearly 4 percent of Minnesotans sickened by microorganisms in the last 10 years had recently consumed raw milk. Assuming that far more people get sick than just those with positive lab tests, the study estimates that roughly 17 percent of all raw-milk consumers in the state were sickened.


Some may see 17% as a high number, others may see 17% as a low number. I find it interesting that Russian roulette with a 6 shooter and one bullet gives you 16.66% chance of getting shot, about the same for raw milk.:runforhills:


----------



## paradox (Nov 19, 2012)

hiddensprings said:


> This debate will be going on for years. For me its a personal choice. I like raw milk, we drink raw milk, we cook with raw milk and so on. Folks that don't want to, have other options.



Yeah, that! We don't drink raw milk but I can't for the life of me figure out why it is anybody's (especially the governments) place to get in the way of those who want to. Nobody is being FORCED to drink it. Other options are widely available. At the very most I can see government requiring a warning label saying it may contain bacteria that can make some people sick. After that - leave people the heck alone. 

Also - keep your  hands off my transfats!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I just bought a bottle of Organic Prune Juice. Certified Organic.
Right on the cap it said "Pasteurized For Your Safety"
Now if things like this can be still certified Organic and Still be pasteurized then milk should be also. For The Public Health and Safety 
Pasteurization is done for one reason, and one reason only to Kill any bad little germys that it may contain for the good of everybody's concern for their health.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Research: Raw Milk Illnesses Higher Than Outbreaks
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]Food Product Design[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]December 12, 2013[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]Researchers with the Minnesota Department of Health posit that the number of illnesses caused by raw milk is greater than public outbreaks indicate.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]In an analysis of 14,339 illnesses from 2001 through 2010, the researchers led by Minnesota Department of Health epidemiologist Tricia Robinson found that 3.7% of the victims had reported drinking raw milk before their illness began.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]The numbers above excluded patients who were linked to an outbreak and represented individuals who were confirmed by a lab to have become infected with Salmonella and other bacteria including Campylobacter.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]The findings, coupled with the fact that dozens of illnesses likely occur for every lab-confirmed ailment, lead the researchers to believe that the number of reported illnesses associated with raw milk is well below the number of actual ailments individuals suffer from consumption of the product. The researchers said they found a disproportionate impact on children-76% of kids under age 5 years often fell ill from raw milk after consuming the product at their own dairy farm or a relative's farm. Severe illness was noted, including hemolytic uremic syndrome among 21% of Escherichia coli O157-infected patients reporting raw milk consumption, and one death was reported.[/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

paradox said:


> Yeah, that! We don't drink raw milk but I can't for the life of me figure out why it is anybody's (especially the governments) place to get in the way of those who want to. Nobody is being FORCED to drink it. Other options are widely available. At the very most I can see government requiring a warning label saying it may contain bacteria that can make some people sick. After that - leave people the heck alone.
> 
> Also - keep your  hands off my transfats!


apparently the government thinks health and food safety is important.Food Safety Modernization Act and Animal Feed - Transcript of the Nov. 21, 2013 Public Meeting
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]Ctr. for Veterinary Medicine[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]December 16, 2013[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), the most sweeping reform of our food safety laws in more than 70 years, was signed into law by President Obama on January 4, 2011. FSMA aims to ensure the U.S. food supply is safe by shifting the focus from responding to contamination of the food supply to *preventing* it. The law applies to human food as well as to food for animals, including pets. FDA's FSMA page contains complete information about the implementation of the law, and the intent of this page is to highlight the FSMA content that will be of most interest to manufacturers and distributors of animal food.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]The transcript and recording of the public meeting concerning the Proposed Rule on Preventive Controls for Animal Food, held November 21 in College Park, MD, are now available.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif] Overview of FSMA[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif] Fees[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif] Imports[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif] Inspection & Compliance[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif] Preventative Standards[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif] Progress Reports[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif] Small Business[/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## Gabriel (Dec 2, 2008)

The subject is not important, we always have to remember that freedom is inherently dangerous.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

I would agree. If you are getting raw milk from the type of dairy our government likes, spreading disease between many crowded animals, and living in filthy conditions, fed high grain diets which increase the acidity of the rumen resulting in higher numbers of dangerous E. coli, by all means PASTEURIZE YOUR MILK!!!!!

We blame the illnesses on lack of cooking, not all the bad husbandry leading up to the contamination. I mean, if a filthy, crowded daycare had a higher rate of illness, would the answer be to clean up and reduce the number of kids, or would you keep the filth and crowding and just sterilize the utensils or something?!!

Not all situations are the same risk. If you have a single cow, living in clean conditions, not fed a high grain ration, your risks are much smaller. Perhaps even safer than pasteurized milk which can make people sick by being contaminated in the factory (Listeria outbreaks, etc). As I learned as a public health officer, outbreaks of pasteurized milk are underreported because its wider distribution makes it harder to connect cases to a single source.

Despite the risk drinking pasteurized milk, I still drink it when I need to.

Of course, the government will have you believe it is safer to drink sodas and beer because they are pathogen free. And thus we have our obesity epidemic, with the associated diabetes and other health problems skyrocketing, contributing to dramatic rises in healthcare costs. Life expectancy is declining not because of milk.

Look to your government for guidance in all things! For government loves you and cares about you! If it is government approved, it is good and true!

Politicians would never promote the interests of those with the most money, right?


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

This whole idea that raw milk is inherently dangerous, despite how it is produced, reminds me of similar thinking.

I was reading a guy on another forum who was going to get some bottle calves. He was asking what medications he needed, and provided a long list of possibilities - antibiotics, etc.

Just as many think milk is pasteurization deficient, so do many think calves are antibiotic deficient, ignoring that they got them from a questionable source, possibly colostrum deprived, and they were comingled in a salebarn contacting other possibly sick calves, and then hauled long distances while not eating or drinking and being stressed. Then possibly put in contaminated environments, and possibly fed poorly. And antibiotics will fix all that, right?

Likewise, calves in feedlots. Don't consider the stress they go through from weaning and shipping which increases cortisol levels and lowers immunity and increases risk of respiratory disease. Don't consider the high carbohydrate diet (grain, etc) that lowers the pH of the rumen (more acidic) causing ulceration, allowing bacteria to enter the bloodstream and infect the liver, resulting in significant percent of liver absesses. Nope, none of that is the problem. Those calves are just antibiotic deficient, so that is how we address the issues. 


Read these feedlot veterinarians discussing how important antibiotics are. Can't change how we do things, because big money interests won't allow it. And don't tell me, in the middle of our obesity epidemic, that we have to do things this way or we'll starve.
http://feedlotmagazine.com/archive/archive/issues/200011/new_v8n6pg89article.html


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> fed high grain diets which increase the acidity of the rumen resultin in higher numbers of dangerous E. coli, by all means PASTEURIZE YOUR MILK!!!!!


An idea put forward years agoo with no proof. It has since been proven that pasture raised animals will have the same or even higher numbers of e-coli.


----------



## Gabriel (Dec 2, 2008)

sammyd said:


> It has since been proven that pasture raised animals will have the same or even higher numbers of e-coli.


Please cite your source.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Gabriel said:


> The subject is not important, we always have to remember that freedom is inherently dangerous.


Please cite your source.eep:


----------



## redgate (Sep 18, 2008)

Like so many other topics out there, I just wish folks could agree to disagree. Like a PP said, there are plenty of choices and plenty of sources to choose from available. I am such a believer in RAW milk, I can only imagine how non-Raw drinkers would feel if RAW fans tried to push that and force it on everyone. I don't think it would be right any more than I think pasteurized drinkers pushing their agenda is right, and trying to force my family to drink pasteurized milk. I can't explain the actual reason, but what I know is I have children who have "lactose" issues (as dx medically). They break out in rashes, eczema, and dermatitis that are red, itchy and sometimes miserable. The outbreaks can last for several weeks, and have occurred every time they have consumed traditional, store bought milk. I don't know why. What I do know is that they have absolutely no issue whatsoever with raw milk. Since switching to raw milk, not a single one of my 5 children have had an ear infection either (whereas, they were so common prior to raw milk, that one of my children became severely allergic to penicillins). Again, I can't give the scientific reasons behind it. But no one will convince me otherwise either. I'd rather take the slight risk of a bacteria that can likely be treated by our modern medical treatments, than the guarantee of infection and miserable outbreaks.


----------



## arnie (Apr 26, 2012)

my old milk cow eats from the same soil that grows my veggies drinks water from the same spring there have been no new cattle on this land in a few years none have been sick I have no neabours for a mile or more there for no septic systems .we live and share the same environment and interact on a dayly basses even when she is dry I feed and scratch her head what ever germ she meets i'v met hopefully our immune systems along with the honey bees chickens and pig are kind of in cahoots the cow makes antibodies in her milk as natures way to protect her calf and as I drink her milk I also am takeing advantage of her immune system .I clean her and the bucket so I can say all these things have helped me remain healthy .I can understand importing raw milk from unknown areas ,people and animals can be very dangerious . but I can fearlessly enjoy mine here at home this being one of the reasons to chose to live in tune with nature and a 30 mile drive to the grocery store. her calf grows into my beef as he milk also helps my pig grow into a hog . no medications chemical wormers or feed from unknown places covered in poisins or who knows what


----------



## ramiller5675 (Mar 31, 2009)

redgate said:


> ... I can't explain the actual reason, but what I know is I have children who have "lactose" issues (as dx medically). They break out in rashes, eczema, and dermatitis that are red, itchy and sometimes miserable. The outbreaks can last for several weeks, and have occurred every time they have consumed traditional, store bought milk. I don't know why....


I might be wrong, but I think that lactose intolerance issues have more to do with the homogenization of milk than pasteurization. The fat globules in un-homogenized milk are different sizes which makes it slower to digest which makes the lactose easier to handle (and also makes the cream rise to the top of the milk or something). 

For what it's worth, my mother and her sisters all grew up with raw milk and all of them have lactose-intolerant problems.


----------



## redgate (Sep 18, 2008)

I don't know. The 3 children that have the worst issues are all adopted, and I know 2 of the birthmothers were lactose intolerant and never drank milk. One had lactose intolerant siblings. Before we went raw-milk, we used pasteurized but not homogenized milk from a local source, and 2 of the children still had issues. There is also a genetic factor in modern dairy cows (the mutated A1/A2 casein protein gene) that has been linked to some cases of intolerance. Whatever the reason, we tried to eliminate whatever potential source we could, went raw milk, then got goats (A2/A2 gene), and recently got an A2/A2 jersey heifer. So, a lot of factors at play, and no real way to know what the cause was, but we are very happy with our choice.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Last Spring, a family farm in Saginaw County sent an old cow to auction. She then went to slaughter. The USDA Inspector saw what looked like TB. Sure enough tests came back positive. Because Michigan requires NAIS style RFID tags, she was traced back to their farm. There is no TB for 250 miles, in wild deer. The farm doesn't buy any cattle. Basically a closed herd. But they sold 500 calves and sold thousands of gallons of milk to other farmers to feed their calves. The family thought their milk was safe. But 26,000 cattle had to be quarantined and tested because they had some of the calves from that one farm. Most of their 500 cows were infected. It really helped that the cows and calved had electronic ID and were in the database. Hundreds of cows had to be killed and incinerated. All from a herd of healthy cows. It is likely the family contracted TB, too, Sad deal. The cattle are all gone, even the barn cats and their herd dog, all victims of TB, in a State that is TB free. Hundreds of deer and other wildlife were killed and tested in a 2 mile circle around this farm, all negative. Still no idea where the source of TB was.
I know you'll still want to sell or buy your raw milk, I don't expect to change minds. But I sleep better knowing that I gave you the information, what you do with it is up to you.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

sammyd said:


> An idea put forward years agoo with no proof. It has since been proven that pasture raised animals will have the same or even higher numbers of e-coli.


 What kind of E. Coli? They are not all dangerous like O157/H7.

But if you are right, please contact this guy and share the studies with him. He is a veterinary pathologist at a university in Kentucky and cattleman who participates in Cattle Today discussions. Here is an excerpt from him:

http://www.cattletoday.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=72877&hilit=E.+coli




> We've known for 20 years or more that O157/H7 has increased acid tolerance compared to benign strains of E.coli and will survive in the GI tract of cattle on high-grain finishing rations, which, because of fermentation of the starch, tend to create a more acidic pH in the animal's forestomachs and intestinal tract than forage-fed animals. Some studies back in the late '90s suggested that switching 'finished' cattle over to a hay ration for 5 days or so prior to slaughter might be helpful in shifting the balance away from favoring O157/H7 - but other studies suggested that switching away from a corn-based ration caused prolonged/persistence of shedding, if at lower levels, so more opportunity for contamination.
> 
> Fecal contamination is going to occur during processing. It needs to be minimized, but it's gonna happen. Proper food handling, preparation, and sanitation can prevent the majority of E.coli O157/H7 infections in PEOPLE, regardless of how much fecal material might have gotten on the carcass, and into the ground beef.
> If you cook it; it will die.
> THAT is the take-home message.


 
Of course, he too, figures you have to raise animals this way - just make sure you cook the meat well. Don't question our feeding practices.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...2010/01/beware_the_myth_of_grassfed_beef.html
I've posted this study many times on these boards.


----------



## redgate (Sep 18, 2008)

I do agree with testing. I don't believe it should be mandatory on a small farm, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms! I maintain a closed herd (of goats--not sure how the cattle part will work out yet) with the exception of a buck I lease each breeding season. For that reason, and for the other assurances it offers, I routinely (every 1-2 years) blood test my herd for common diseases such as TB, Johnes, CAE, and more. The lab guy thinks I'm a little crazy, but I figure there is certainly no harm in testing. I like have that lab paper to show anyone who asks that my herd is totally negative!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

redgate said:


> I do agree with testing. I don't believe it should be mandatory on a small farm, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms! I maintain a closed herd (of goats--not sure how the cattle part will work out yet) with the exception of a buck I lease each breeding season. For that reason, and for the other assurances it offers, I routinely (every 1-2 years) blood test my herd for common diseases such as TB, Johnes, CAE, and more. The lab guy thinks I'm a little crazy, but I figure there is certainly no harm in testing. I like have that lab paper to show anyone who asks that my herd is totally negative!


Do you test your cows for BRD, the leading cause of illness and death in cattle in North America? How about BSE (Mad Cow)?
So testing is a good thing that you think should be optional for the small farm. Does that mean mandatory for the large farm? What is the cut off point between large and small?
Isn't campylobacter spread through herds during breeding? Does a blood test show campylobacter and if so is that part of your test? Isn't the test for Johnes a fecal test and only accurate when they are shedding the disease?
A blood test for TB isn't how it is commonly done, but still has a significant margin for error. I think 80 to 90% accurate. Great that you are testing at all. Yes, your herd tested totally negative for the things they tested for at the time they tested.


----------



## Gabriel (Dec 2, 2008)

sammyd said:


> http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...2010/01/beware_the_myth_of_grassfed_beef.html
> I've posted this study many times on these boards.


Thanks, I hadn't seen you post it previously. While I was aware that O157:H7 can survive in grass fed cattle, the claim that really interested me was your claim that they can have "even higher numbers". Unfortunately, your linked article only mentioned an Australian study but didn't give a link. 

It was also interesting that it (O157:H7) is apparently pretty transient, per the article:



> *Results*â_Escherichia coli_ O157:H7 was detected in 40 of 3,152 (1.3%) fecal samples, and 40 of 2,058 (1.9%) cattle had &#8805; 1 sample with _E coli_. Fecal shedding by specific cattle was transient; none of the cattle had _E coli_ in more than 1 sample.


----------



## ycanchu2 (Oct 21, 2011)

No person ,animal or mammal of any kind needs milk after it is weaned. If you want it you have the right, but it is not necessary. Milk is only for babies.


----------



## redgate (Sep 18, 2008)

I'm still learning about the cows, as we've only had them a few months, so not sure how testing will work there. I plan to test regularly just like the goats though. As far as the goats, The Johnes, Brucellosis, TB, CL, CAE, and several others can all be tested through blood. I simply submit a sample to the lab. Might testing be done during a dormant period? Sure, but wouldn't you agree that testing is better than not testing at all? As far as Mad cow, that has been strongly linked to cows eating the brain matter of other cows. Our cows come from a multi-generational line of strictly grass-fed cows, and we are pasture as well. Our cows get their protein from grass, not other cows (or chicken manure or any other animal protein). So no, I have no concerns about mad cow on my farm. I admit I don't have all the answers, but unless you want to just eliminate all livestock in the name of safety (or just all the stock not raised the way YOU like it), then I think this is another conversation where I am done. 

Haypoint, I haven't figured out whether you are just cranky by nature or just towards my posts, but I get the impression sometimes that you follow me around this forum just to prove something. I'm not interested. I dare say a man of your seeming experience could help a lot of new folks on this forum if you could offer help with a bit more tact rather than attacking anything you disagree with. I am very comfortable with my research and our way of doing things. I have said multiple times I am no expert, and I am always learning. I have nothing to prove, and am not trying to change anyone else. I'd appreciate it if you'd offer me the same respect.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

redgate said:


> I'm still learning about the cows, as we've only had them a few months, so not sure how testing will work there. I plan to test regularly just like the goats though. As far as the goats, The Johnes, Brucellosis, TB, CL, CAE, and several others can all be tested through blood. I simply submit a sample to the lab. Might testing be done during a dormant period? Sure, but wouldn't you agree that testing is better than not testing at all? As far as Mad cow, that has been strongly linked to cows eating the brain matter of other cows. Our cows come from a multi-generational line of strictly grass-fed cows, and we are pasture as well. Our cows get their protein from grass, not other cows (or chicken manure or any other animal protein). So no, I have no concerns about mad cow on my farm. I admit I don't have all the answers, but unless you want to just eliminate all livestock in the name of safety (or just all the stock not raised the way YOU like it), then I think this is another conversation where I am done.
> 
> Haypoint, I haven't figured out whether you are just cranky by nature or just towards my posts, but I get the impression sometimes that you follow me around this forum just to prove something. I'm not interested. I dare say a man of your seeming experience could help a lot of new folks on this forum if you could offer help with a bit more tact rather than attacking anything you disagree with. I am very comfortable with my research and our way of doing things. I have said multiple times I am no expert, and I am always learning. I have nothing to prove, and am not trying to change anyone else. I'd appreciate it if you'd offer me the same respect.


This topic has strong proponents and strong opponents, I doubt anyone is going to change their mind. Most of this has been hashed over long ago. Myths persist. When someone makes a statement that they feel safe because of this or that, I can't help but offer additional information that might make their choice less clear cut. Sorry if I sound cranky. I'm not picking on you for who you are, just responding to what I view as carelessness. I am trying to give useful information, even though I know it isn't welcome. Plus, many come here just to argue.
You say cows are purple, I'll disagree. You say your milk is safe because you operate a closed herd, but regularly expose your billy to other flocks. You seem to presume that an annual blood test insures your milk is safe. BSC (Mad Cow) is very rare, as far as we know, but caused the loss of a billion dollars to the American farmer. We now know that sheep tallow should not be fed to other mammals. Seems obvious now. What other farming practice that now seems normal will one day prove to be disastrous? You are new to cows. Perhaps, like me, you have much to learn. I'll share what I know, OK? But if you believe something that is factually incorrect, I'll likely respond. To me that is how we learn through discussion. Yes, a blood test is good, glad you got one done. Just don't think that they tested for everything or that it was conclusive. If someone told me they felt safe driving their car 200 miles an hour because they had NASCAR tires, I disagree and point out that there was a lot more to it than just tires.
Often this exchange of information detours to claims that big ag is filthy, small farms are perfect, and the government agencies that work hard to keep our food the safest in the world are just lazy bloodsuckers that we don't want or need.
Please go back and read the thread I started about the dangers of raw milk. It is in General Discussion, don't read if you don't want to know.


----------



## redgate (Sep 18, 2008)

Thank you for claryifing, Haypoint. That is the biggest issue with online communication---it is difficult to determine the meaning behind someone's words. I welcome your experience in terms of educating. 

I will, however, ask you to be cautious in claiming what is myth and what is not. As a biology and science major in college, I was taught the definition of "science" is "anything that can be measured." That simple fact is likely a basis for half the arguments we have on this board. Your research sources may be biased in one direction, while mine are biased in another. Some things cannot be easily measured due to all the variables involved. We know better than most how tests cannot catch everything. My 1st born had seizures for the first 8 months of life. He was a failure to thrive, doctor after doctor was clueless, and we are at wit's end. It's a long story, but through research and, we believe, divine intervention, we discovered it was our water. Nothing in particular showed up in the water test results, so we don't know what exactly caused his seizures, but once we switched our supply, his seizures just stopped, literally overnight. That began our long journey into learning about how foods and environment affect our health. And my, were our eyes opened! We did our best to review unbiased studies, and even found quite a few. We read everything we could get our hands on, talked to the "experts" in every field we could find, and attended seminar after seminar to learn. I may be inexperienced with much still to learn, but it certainly isn't for lack of trying! Just as a trained and professional veterinarian doesn't have 100% success with determining pregnancy or diagnosing illness, nor will we be accurate in every decision we make. I have already made mistakes that resulted in illness or death of my animals. However, I believe life in general is a matter of making educated decisions as best we can, then learning from our mistakes and the mistakes of others. In our case, due to a myriad of health issues, we decided to eliminate what toxins we could from our food and environment and introduce beneficial organisms as best we could. As Bible believers, we even went so far as to pull out scripture to determine what we believe God's original intent was for stewarding the land, raising our food, and getting back to the basics. Of course, I'm sure others will interpret the same scriptures in different ways, but we learned what we could, and still review continually. We have taken MANY steps in the direction we feel is best for our family, and our journey is far from over. I don't think our way will work for everyone, however, I do think that MANY of our modern day health problems would be reduced or eliminated if folks would educate themselves, and learn about the food they consume. I'm sure there will be some that still feel CAFO meat and pasteurized milk is the way to go. There will also be those who feel raw and grass-fed is the way to go. There are those who feel USDA inspected is safest, and those who feel "knowing your farmer" and his husbandry methods is the safest. I'm OK with that. As you said, once you begin educating yourself, you will likely make up your mind and it can't be easily changed. As I said, previously, though, sometimes we need to agree to disagree, not try to force what we believe to be "the only right way", and just respect each other's views. I think it's part of what makes our nation what it is.


----------



## redgate (Sep 18, 2008)

haypoint said:


> You say your milk is safe because you operate a closed herd, but regularly expose your billy to other flocks.


Oh, I just wanted to clear up this confusion for the reputation of our farm. No, we do not expose our buck. We sold our bucks. We haven't purchased does in several years, we don't show, and our does are exposed to an outside buck once a year. We work with another breeder who has built her herd from reliable breeders who test their herds as well. She has never leased her buck to others, so he has only been exposed to her goats, and my goats. I don't have the desire or ability right now to permanently house a buck, so we do the best we can to protect our herd.


----------



## springvalley (Jun 23, 2009)

I have been gone for a few months, and the topics are still the same. The neigh sayers are still the same. The the ones who believe in raw milk are still right. Raw (real) milk is as safe to drink as your well water, and sometimes better. A lot of studies and statistics can and are doctored to make raw milk look bad. The CDC has now decided to change it`s studies in some states to make raw milk look worse than it is, in order to get legislation passed to limit the sale of raw milk in that certain state. One of the reasons I have been gone, is because I have been on a raw milk advisory board here in my state. The FDA does not like raw milk, and it is trying to make the sale of raw milk very hard to do in any state that will allow it to be done. We have done a lot in this state to open the eyes of our state Government as to the benefits to the sale of raw milk. I still stand by ideals that raw milk consumption is up to the public and not the Government. And the possibilities and likelihood of having contaminated milk is very, very slim. I also believe there are so many health benefits from raw milk, pasteurization does kill off all GOOD and bad germs. Most milk now days is only a by product, all the fat has been removed and all the good bacteria has been killed, you might just as well be drinking water. Also raw milk never spoils, it just changes form. On the other hand, pasteurized milk spoils, it will get rotten. So why did we start pasteurization?? It was when mankind started selling milk that was disease laden, and chalk was added too make it look whiter, among many other things. What have we changed? Disease control, sanitation, cooling, testing, equipment, feeding, to name a few. Can raw milk make you sick ? maybe, will it ? probably not. You are more likely to get sick from store vegetables than you are from raw milk. I know there will be a couple people on here that love to get in your face about raw milk, and the sale of it too the public, but they are the few. Don`t let a few spoil it for the many, just like our government does now, A very few speak for the majority. Is the same for raw milk. > Thanks Marc


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

I stopped entering this argument on this site a long time ago because the nay sayers are worse than fanatics. But, just had to say, we've been drinking raw milk at our house for many years with nothing but good results. As a parent, I would feed my children raw milk from a known good source or no milk at all. Processed milk is worse than no milk at all in my opinion.


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

I prefer raw milk. I know what is in it, and (more importantly) what is NOT in it.

That said, if someone prefers to purchase milk from the store, go for it.

Just don't try to legislate away my right to eat what I choose to eat.


----------



## tab (Aug 20, 2002)

I usually stay away from these threads but now I can speak from experience! ( I love my cow!) Y
It was with some trepidation that I drank my first glass of raw milk in many years. What if it was teeming with bacteria? I had been careful in cleaning her and me and cooled it quickly. I also looked high and low to get it tested with no go. I took the first drink. It was really good. I waited to see if I was going to get dysentary or some other horrible potty issue, nope. Actually, some weeks later it dawned on me that an issue I had had for years, was gone. To get it back, I only need to drink milk bought at the store. That was not something expected, cool beans! Did I say I love my cow? 

I have read pros and cons on raw milk for years. I equate it to an informed decision, kind of like driving. Not 100% safe but lots that I can do personally to make it safer. I do not believe that milk that is pasteurized is 100% safe. It would take far more time than I have now to fully explain and suffice it to say, I think many of us are quite capable of making an informed decision as to what to feed ourselves and our families. Personally, I think children fed the typical diet, including a liberal dose of fast food, are in greater jeopardy of permanent harm, i.e. diabetes, than a child fed clean, raw milk.

I will also add that many years ago, the one time ds drank raw milk, he did get sick. The " friends" that brought it were rather large farmers. Wifey told me later they had had no problems with their milk, gosh no! Hubby told me yes, they had gone through an awful time, high bacteria counts, warnings from the milk plant, etc. It is in part because of that experience, lots of reading and other experiences that I am in favor of raw milk BUT knowing the source. To know your milk is dirty but it will be "ok" after processing, makes me grossed out.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

ycanchu2 said:


> No person ,animal or mammal of any kind needs milk after it is weaned. If you want it you have the right, but it is not necessary. Milk is only for babies.


 Those concerned about milk safety should agree with you - if we just quit drinking milk, we could avoid the illnesses from raw and pasteurized milk. Sodas are much safer!

Perhaps now milk isn't critical, but you could say the same for any food. 

There was a time when my northern European ancestors relied on milk for survival into adulthood. Which is why such a high percentage of that population have a gene to produce lactase as adults. Lactase is the enzyme that digests lactose, the milk sugar. In other populations like Chinese and Africans, lactase persistence into adulthood is rare, as they were not dependent on milk for survival.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence
 


> The presence of this gene is the cause of lactase persistence. Today, this haplotype can be found in 80% of Europeans and Americans of European ancestry. On the other hand, the percentage of the population who are lactase persistent in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia is very low. It is absent in the Bantu of South Africa and most Chinese populations.





> [8] These geographical distributions strongly correlate with the spread of domesticated cattle. About 5,000 to 10,000 years ago,[9] this haplotype came under very strong selective pressure. This period matches the rise of dairy farming. As dairy farming originated in Europe, they were exposed to increased lactose nutrition provided by dairy products, resulting in positive natural selection.[10] This additional nutrition provided by the dairy was very important for survival in the recent history of Europe because the supply of fresh milk leads to the favoring of the lactase persistent trait. As dairy farming spread across the globe, after the separation of Europe-derived populations from Asian- and African-derived populations, and after the colonization of Europe,[11] the strong positive selection occurred in a large region, leading to the global spread of lactase persistence.


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

Adult humans have been drinking milk for thousands of years, probably longer than humans have been cooking!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Visit - http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/raw_milk_map.htm

To see if your state allows the sale of raw milk.


----------



## Cat Hill (Nov 8, 2012)

Ridiculous, the "sterile" milk bought at the store doesn't compare with raw milk that contains the enzymes and active cultures for our bodies to digest it. There are so many people now with lactose intolerance. I have had milk from the store go "bad" in a few days but the raw milk I get from my neighbor, keeps a couple of weeks with no off smell or other signs of it going bad. In fact, if I want some soured milk for cooking, I just leave it out overnight..... try that with the so-called cleaner milk and you get some sort of rotten, fowl, junk that doesn't even resemble milk. What is it they are putting into the milk at the store these days?


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

haypoint said:


> This topic seems to have no middle ground. You are either against it or favor it.


no there is a middle ground. I worked at dairies. even went to school for herd management. My first Dairy was a small one in CA. 160 milking head. i could drink right from the tank and feel safe doing it. the largest I worked for was the largest in NC. 600 milking head. it was the cleanest in the area but I don't think I would drink from the tank. individual picked cow, yes, but not the tank.

I drink raw everyday from my own cow and I think if someone who wants to drink raw they should have that choice to do so. buy it if they want and do with it as they please. like meat, if you want it raw go for it at your own risk.


----------



## paradox (Nov 19, 2012)

ycanchu2 said:


> No person ,animal or mammal of any kind needs milk after it is weaned. If you want it you have the right, but it is not necessary. Milk is only for babies.


LOL - could you call my mother please? She has been struggling with weight for years and I have been trying to convince her that Milk is at the root of her problem. I don't have anything against it, I cook with it (mmmm gravy), and I drink one of those instant breakfast things each morning, we put it on our cereal or in our oatmeal. 

But she drinks (by herself mind you) 5 GALLONS per week! She has finally cut back to 3 Gallons and thinks that is good enough. I have tried telling her that stuff is designed to take a cute little calf that is smaller than her dog and turn it into a large cow that can see over her cute little car in a very short time period - but it just isn't sinking in. I suspect she just suffers from "butt powder syndrom" which is that condition that causes you to never want to take advice from someone whose butt you once powdered. Maybe she will listen to you


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

tailwagging said:


> no there is a middle ground. I worked at dairies. even went to school for herd management. My first Dairy was a small one in CA. 160 milking head. i could drink right from the tank and feel safe doing it. the largest I worked for was the largest in NC. 600 milking head. it was the cleanest in the area but I don't think I would drink from the tank. individual picked cow, yes, but not the tank.
> 
> I drink raw everyday from my own cow and I think if someone who wants to drink raw they should have that choice to do so. buy it if they want and do with it as they please. like meat, if you want it raw go for it at your own risk.


But the world doesn't work that way. Raw hamburger contaminated gets thrown out, along with a million pounds that was processed prior to the positive test. I guess you'd be OK with a label on that hamburger, " $1.00 a pound, Cook well"? Frankly, so would I. Consumers should expect to cook meat.
But raw milk isn't generally cooked, as hamburger is. So, in an ongoing effort to make our food supply as safe as possible, raw milk remains illegal to sell in many states. In most cases it is really a non issue. Those wanting to market raw milk wouldn't be able to come up to the grade A standards required for milk headed for pasteurization. My thoughts about milking for yourself is fine, but buying it from others or selling to others mirrors your feelings about drinking the milk from one cow is fine, but drinking from the 600 cow bulk tank not so safe.


----------



## ycanchu2 (Oct 21, 2011)

paradox said:


> LOL - could you call my mother please? She has been struggling with weight for years and I have been trying to convince her that Milk is at the root of her problem. I don't have anything against it, I cook with it (mmmm gravy), and I drink one of those instant breakfast things each morning, we put it on our cereal or in our oatmeal.
> 
> But she drinks (by herself mind you) 5 GALLONS per week! She has finally cut back to 3 Gallons and thinks that is good enough. I have tried telling her that stuff is designed to take a cute little calf that is smaller than her dog and turn it into a large cow that can see over her cute little car in a very short time period - but it just isn't sinking in. I suspect she just suffers from "butt powder syndrom" which is that condition that causes you to never want to take advice from someone whose butt you once powdered. Maybe she will listen to you


moderation in all things. I happen to not like the taste of milk...never have.
But I realize some people do and that's fine. One thing I have noticed is that almost without exception, all my friends that I know of who have bulging discs, degenerative discs, or serious spinal issues , back problems, joint issues.....all are serious heavy duty milk drinkers....the store bought milk....not raw milk. Whether it would matter or not I don't know.
Even though I don't like milk straight up.....when I was a teenager I would use it almost everyday with cereal and recall that I was always hurting my back or it would seem to hurt easily. I finally quit the cereal with milk for breakfast and my back hasn't hurt for a long, long time .....now I'm in my 50's
Was curious if your mother has any back or joint issues.


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

Haypoint says "Those wanting to market raw milk wouldn't be able to come up to the grade A standards required for milk headed for pasteurization". You just need to visit Texas. We've got lots of grade A raw milk dairies licensed by the state. 

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/HS/htm/HS.435.htm


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

haypoint said:


> But the world doesn't work that way. Raw hamburger contaminated gets thrown out, along with a million pounds that was processed prior to the positive test. I guess you'd be OK with a label on that hamburger, " $1.00 a pound, Cook well"? Frankly, so would I. Consumers should expect to cook meat.
> But raw milk isn't generally cooked, as hamburger is. So, in an ongoing effort to make our food supply as safe as possible, raw milk remains illegal to sell in many states. In most cases it is really a non issue. Those wanting to market raw milk wouldn't be able to come up to the grade A standards required for milk headed for pasteurization. My thoughts about milking for yourself is fine, but buying it from others or selling to others mirrors your feelings about drinking the milk from one cow is fine, but drinking from the 600 cow bulk tank not so safe.


there are many recipes for raw meat dishes. why should the government have a say i what i want to drink? they should be allowed to go as far as requiring a warning label. 
the reason i said what i did about the 600 cow milk tank is that i want to know which cow my milk is coming from and that i myself watched it being milked. when you get 600 cow going though 3 times a day, milked by someone who is just a worker (not a owner) and doesn't care if the cow kicks off the milker while she is peeing...
it is about the lack of caring because it will be "cleaned up" at the creamery that keeps me from drinking from their tank. but if you go to a small dairy that cares, one that you have seen and feel comfortable with, you should be allowed to choose for yourself.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Miss Kay said:


> Haypoint says "Those wanting to market raw milk wouldn't be able to come up to the grade A standards required for milk headed for pasteurization". You just need to visit Texas. We've got lots of grade A raw milk dairies licensed by the state.
> 
> http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/HS/htm/HS.435.htm


While the statute you provided is interesting, it does not detail the huge investment required to produce grade A milk. Regulations vary from state to state. But to construct a passable milking parlor, stainless plumbing, cleaning units, bulk tank, testing equipment, non-porous floors, walls and ceilings, etc. is often well beyond the scope of most homesteaders. So, in most cases, the legalization of the sale of Grade A raw milk would still be beyond the reach of most people.
Perhaps the demand for raw milk is higher because of the Hispanic population's taste for raw milk cheese, known nationally as bathtub cheese.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/nyregion/16milk.html?_r=0
http://www.turnto23.com/news/your-neighborhood/east-county/buyer-beware-of-bathtub-cheese


----------



## paradox (Nov 19, 2012)

ycanchu2 said:


> Was curious if your mother has any back or joint issues.


Yes she has all kinds of joint pain and alignment issues. But I don't know that I would blame it on milk other than it keeps her very fat which undoubtedly is hard on her joints. Also she refuses to go to a doctor, like ever, so nothing ever gets fixed. Her family had the crappiest genetics I have ever seen (bother her parents died in their 40's) and she has all kinds of issues besides joints. But I chalk it all up to genetics and then complete lack of trying to take care of any issues.


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

Actually, there are so many licensed grade A raw milk dairies in Texas that I gave up counting and there are many more that are not listed on this web site. Many are small dairies run by stay at home moms using a portable milker (I personally know them) and are very successful.

http://www.realmilk.com/real-milk-finder/texas/#tx


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Miss Kay said:


> Actually, there are so many licensed grade A raw milk dairies in Texas that I gave up counting and there are many more that are not listed on this web site. Many are small dairies run by stay at home moms using a portable milker (I personally know them) and are very successful.
> 
> http://www.realmilk.com/real-milk-finder/texas/#tx


I guess Grade A milk standards are different in Texas.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

http://www.realmilk.com/state-updates/


----------



## SimpleAcres (Jan 14, 2013)

Did you know that 78% of statistics are made up on the spot? LOL Seriously though, stats of illness leave out so much information. If 2 people have died in one decade "from drinking raw milk" then drinking raw milk is one of the safest activities of the decade!

Here's my take: raw milk is a gift from God, full of nutrients that are good for our bodies. When reasonable care is taken to ensure the health of the cattle and the cleanliness of the product, there should be no fear in consumption.
However...so much boils down to the immune system. It needs to condition itself to whatever the body eats on a regular basis. A city-bred person who gets fired up about raw milk will be fired up at the other end. I drank raw milk for years. One day I drank a quart of raw goats milk. 2 hours later I considered making out my will. Ease yourself into it and everything will be just fine.

And I must protest strongly against trading the benefits of raw for the "safety" of pasteurized milk. It's burning the house to be rid of the mice, people. Your body cannot absorb the few vitamins and nutrients that are left by the time the milk factory gets done with it. see, I'm citing a source, click here

And so I pass the soap box to the next passer-by. God Bless!


----------



## ycanchu2 (Oct 21, 2011)

I remember being told by parents years ago this story about my brother who is 6 years older than me. He was very young, I think around 3 or 4 years old and came down with some kind of illness. Doctors were unable to help him and my mother was giving him store bought milk to no avail. My Dad found someone that had raw cows milk and they started giving him that and he got better. This was over 50 years ago and he is alive and well today.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

Mercola? That's hilarious. Never any real scientific backing of any of their claims. Basically a very biased Oped.


----------



## Creamers (Aug 3, 2010)

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130611-909875.html?mod=wsj_share_facebook

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21875744

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-kids-raw-milk-idUSTRE78C75O20110913

Whether you want to use real, raw milk or not is not the issue â the issue is do you believe American Citizens... WV citizens have the right to make food choices? Do you believe citizens have the right to co-own livestock and use their animals' products?

I know raw milk is a safe food when handled properly, like all other foods, but that is not the issue for me. Yes, It has been used for thousands of years, and our grandparents and great grandparents â people much healthier than we â know it is safe.

But can it become, like produce, meats and pasteurized dairy products, contaminated, as well?

Sure. Any food source or water source can.

The CDC's own data has proven raw milk is a low risk food. We consume high risk foods each day that the government makes no attempts to outlaw. Produce like spinach and tomatoes. Meats and seafoods â all higher risks foods than raw milk.

Think of the raw foods sold all over the state â served openly in restaurants like: Raw Oysters, raw fish in Sushi, Steak served tar-tar, rare hamburger. Eggs served over easy. . .All we see is a warning label telling us we consume this at our own risk. Our right to do so isn't circumvented.

When it comes to milk, it is?

Why?

This isn't a safety issue. This IS A FREEDOM ISSUE.

When citizens aren't even free to use a naturally occurring food source that has been used in civilized societies all over the world for thousands of years, there is a Freedom problem.

Our government allows (sad that we must speak in those terms) the citizens access to tobacco. Alcohol. Pharmaceuticals over the counter known to cause side effects and death. . .but WV's government says we, the citizens, aren't to be trusted with milk the FDA and AG Dept hasn't had a hand in.

Beyond that, WV is the only state that feels it has the power to tell the citizens that we cannot co-own a dairy animal herd and use our animals' products. If you want to co-own Jersey cows with me, fine, but you cannot co-own AND use the milk from your cow or the goats we both own.



You cannot give the milk away. If it means saving the life of a calf that needs the colostrum, you cannot give it away. If it means allowing a soap making access to have a local, humanely produced milk product for their milk soap â You cannot give it to the soap maker.

Basically, this boils down to NOT BEING Allowed to by pass the FDA and Dept of Agriculture. You are not able to cut ties with the hand they have in your milk, basically.

How is that freedom? You aren't allowed to have milk unless they approve your choice in milk and have a hand in the process â how long before this applies to many other aspects of the small farm community? If you believe only in local milk that is unpasteurized, you're out of luck.

How can the state of West Virginia tell us we cannot enter into a legally binding contract with someone and share a herd of cows. How do I have rights a man who doesn't have land to keep a dairy animal does NOT have? I have land, and so I am allowed by the state to use milk from my own cow. No one else. Based on current law, not even my family living here can use it. If you aren't lucky enough to have the land or time, you are denied a right I have. . .

Whether you want to use raw milk or milk of any kind is not the issue â whether you believe raw milk is safer than factory farmed pasteurized milk is not the issue. The issue is do you believe citizens have the right to make a decision about their diets on their own without government interference? Do you believe we have the right to co-own livestock and use our animals products?

This is a Control issue, folks. This is about having over the consumers, and this is pushing BIG Agriculture over the small, sustainable farms of WV. This is robbing hundreds of thousands of dollars of income from the struggling farms in WV.

Whether you want to use real, raw milk or not is not the issue â the issue is do you believe American Citizens have the right to make food choices? Do you believe citizens have the right to co-own livestock and use their animals' products?

I know raw milk is a safe food when handled properly from healthy animals, like all other foods, but that is not the main issue for me. Yes, It has been used for thousands of years, and our grandparents and great grandparents â people much healthier than we â know it is safe. 

But can it become, like produce, meats and pasteurized dairy products, contaminated, as well?

Sure. Any food source or water source can. What? Ought we live in a bubble?

The CDC's own data has proven raw milk is a low risk food. We can pretend otherwise, of course. 

But We consume high risk foods each day that the government makes no attempts to outlaw. Mass farmed and shipped Produce like spinach and tomatoes. Mass farmed Meats and seafoods at most grocery stores â all higher risks foods than raw milk that is from healthy animals and handled correctly.

Think of the raw foods sold all over the USA â served openly in restaurants like: Raw Oysters, raw fish in Sushi, Steak served tar-tar, rare hamburger. Eggs served over easy, eggs from filthy factories. . .All we see is a warning label telling us we consume this at our own risk. Our right to do so isn't circumvented.

When it comes to milk, it is?

Why? It isn't because it is surely dangerous. You delude yourself if you believe that. Too many far more risky things are quite legal.

One can come up with many reasonably arguments about exactly what is at play, but American health isn't the issue and the real concern here. 

When citizens aren't even free to use a naturally occurring food source that has been used in civilized societies all over the world for thousands of years, there is a Freedom problem. That is fairly plain.

Our government allows (sad that we must speak in those terms) the citizens access to tobacco. Alcohol. Pharmaceuticals over the counter known to cause side effects and death. . .but ourgovernment says we, the citizens, aren't to be trusted with milk the FDA and AG Dept hasn't had a hand in.

Beyond that, my state that feels it has the power to tell the citizens that we cannot co-own a dairy animal herd and use our animals' products. Where do we live again?

You cannot give the milk away here. If it means saving the life of a calf that needs the colostrum, you cannot give it away. If it means allowing a soap making access to have a local, humanely produced milk product for their milk soap â You cannot give it to the soap maker.

Basically, this boils down to NOT BEING Allowed to by-pass the FDA and Dept of Agriculture. You are not able to cut ties with the hand they have in your milk, basically.

How is that freedom? You aren't allowed to have milk unless they approve your choice in milk and have a hand in the process â how long before this applies to many other aspects of the small farm community? If you believe only in local milk that is unpasteurized, you're out of luck.

If you aren't lucky enough to have the land or time, you are denied a right to decide if your milk is raw or pasteurized in too many states. For me, that is the real issue -

I could care even less than less if you feel raw milk isn't safe. I roll my eyes at that theory, as you roll your eyes at mine, but HOW can homesteaders argue against the CHOICE? 

Whether you want to use raw milk or milk of any kind is not the issue â whether you believe raw milk is safer than factory farmed pasteurized milk is not the issue. The issue is do you believe citizens have the right to make a decision about their diets on their own without government interference? Do you believe we have the right to co-own livestock and use our animals products?

This is a Control issue, folks. This is about having over the consumers, and this is pushing BIG Agriculture over the small farms.


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

<standing ovation for Creamers>









Egg-zackly. :bow:


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Herd shares or co-ownership is a way to avoid the law. Apparently in WV, they aren't going for it. In Michigan they have ignored it and recently officially allowed herd shares. 
I do not believe it is a control issue. I do know that healthy looking cows can produce milk with campylobacter and that makes people very sick. I know that very careful milkers in clean looking milking parlors can contaminate milk. I know that Food Inspectors test milk, meat and spinach. It gets pulled off the shelves and massive recalls result. 
Most of our grand parents and great grand parents were not healthier than us. Probably not as dern fat, but they dropped dead of all sorts of diseases, way younger than us. I think we have short memories about how unsafe food once was.


----------



## tab (Aug 20, 2002)

Since this is still quite civil,  would like to add, we as posters won'ttpersuade the "other side" as it is a pretty divisive topic. What it does do is help those reading and gathering info, many of whom don't post. I read many of these threads in my research along with some technical papers, some of which were provided as links, long before I'd venture a post. 
As I have posted many times, was taught in FFA that the best way to debate is to know the other side and the objections and rebuttals that will surely come, no matter the topic. The objections to raw milk are pretty much the same as what I was reading twenty years ago. There are smart and savvy people on both sides of this issue and so it is important to put the info out there for those trying to decide. As there is also a dollar factor in this issue, not just facts about bacteria and cultures, there will continue to be debates.
So, that said, carry on! Sorry for the lengthy post......


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

SimpleAcres said:


> Did you know that 78% of statistics are made up on the spot? LOL Seriously though, stats of illness leave out so much information. If 2 people have died in one decade "from drinking raw milk" then drinking raw milk is one of the safest activities of the decade!
> 
> Here's my take: raw milk is a gift from God, full of nutrients that are good for our bodies. When reasonable care is taken to ensure the health of the cattle and the cleanliness of the product, there should be no fear in consumption.
> However...so much boils down to the immune system. It needs to condition itself to whatever the body eats on a regular basis. A city-bred person who gets fired up about raw milk will be fired up at the other end. I drank raw milk for years. One day I drank a quart of raw goats milk. 2 hours later I considered making out my will. Ease yourself into it and everything will be just fine.
> ...


I liked your post. But I have to take exception to a bit of it. As someone has pointed out, Mercola is a quack. Please use information that isn't so poorly collected. I assume it is his site that misinformed you about the vitamin's and minerals in milk. There have been numerous studies that prove pasteurization does not damage vitamins or minerals or the ability of the body to absorb it. homogenization may increase the body's ability to absorb milk fat, but that's a story for another day. Stats for raw milk related illnesses are a tricky thing to understand. Here's why. 
Lets say I drank some raw milk a week ago (Wednesday) On Thursday, I'm a bit uncomfortable. Friday, I'm sick and call my Doctor. I get a Tuesday appointment. Sunday night, I'm real sick, but the clinic is closed. I think I have the flu. Tuesday, I'm feeling better, but go to the doctor. He finds nothing, but asks me to fill out a list of all the places I ate and what I ate over the past few days. For 99.9% of the cases, this is as far as it goes. But this rare time, I continue to be sick. In those rare .1% cases, it gets turned over to the local Health Department. The Health Department thinks it is some sort of food poisoning. But, by now, my digestive system is flushed out and no samples are available. But in this rare case, probably one in a thousand, I saved a stool sample. They decide that it is important, or they are having a slow week, they get the Lab to test it. They isolate campylobacter. They isolate a specific strain of campylobacter. Next they swab the kitchens of every place I ate since last Wednesday. By this time, my jug of milk is long gone, rinsed out and waiting for the next time I go to Farmer Brown's dairy. But, this is a rare event, maybe one in a thousand. I still have some milk left. It gets tested and the Lab proves it is the same strain of campylobacter that made me sick. So off to the dairy. By now, their bulk tank has been cleaned 20 times since my milk was drawn off. They take samples but they come back negative. So there is no proof raw milk made me sick. So, you see, there can be 10,000 illnesses from raw milk and none proven. The ones that end up in the statistics are the ones with larger groups of sick people, and an ongoing problem at the dairy. 
Big Business isn't against raw milk because you take their business. Raw milk sales, where it is legal is far less than 1%. They don't like raw milk sales because every time a group of folks get sick from raw milk, people stop buying all milk. That hurts their reputation and their sales. In states that they have been able to put the health risk burden on raw milk producers and make it so very clear to the consumers of the risk, so the public is clear that pasteurized milk is still safe, some sort of legalization is happening.


----------



## springvalley (Jun 23, 2009)

haypoint said:


> Those wanting to market raw milk wouldn't be able to come up to the grade A standards required for milk headed for pasteurization. My thoughts about milking for yourself is fine, but buying it from others or selling to others mirrors your feelings about drinking the milk from one cow is fine, but drinking from the 600 cow bulk tank not so safe.


While I agree drinking milk from a 600 cow bulk tank wouldn`t be my best advice. Some of us that do sell raw milk are Grade A standard, at least I was before we stopped selling milk to the processing plant. Inspectors will not set foot on a raw milk dairy in Illinois, we don`t exist in their minds. I know there are alot of small dairies that can`t make standards and that is a shame, but I`m still not saying that their milk is of any less value. It all boils down to choice, and that is what America was built on. > Thanks Marc :goodjob:


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Pony said:


> <standing ovation for Creamers>
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hear! Hear!!


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

I've just learned to ignore the govt trolls on the board. It's sad, though...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

springvalley said:


> It all boils down to choice, and that is what America was built on.


And ;like it or not America is also a Land Of Laws. Without them you have lawlessness. And that we can not have is people getting sick or injured because some fe3el it is their right not to follow laws of the land.


----------



## springvalley (Jun 23, 2009)

arabian knight said:


> And ;like it or not America is also a Land Of Laws. Without them you have lawlessness. And that we can not have is people getting sick or injured because some fe3el it is their right not to follow laws of the land.


That is true, and raw milk is legal in Illinois, as it is in many states. :rock:


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

I think one of the big points that gets missed in this debate is that raw milk has good bacteria in it, and that good bacteria keeps out bad bacteria. I can expect a 30 day shelf life on properly handled raw milk, can't do that with the poisonized stuff. The silly statistics about illnesses caused by raw milk are cooked up by agenda driven, government flunkies who find a jar of raw milk and say, "AHA! now we know why these people got sick" and ignore the McDonalds bag in the same fridge. Then they run tests at most likely the same lab that the aforementioned government flunky lab worker found an unexplainable cow sample with TB. I know someone who sent in a sample of store bought pasteurized milk to get tested. It had all kinds of horrible things in it, when they tried to bring this to light all of the information got lost on the desk of some brave protector of food. If the folks from the Unwise Scientists Destroying Agriculture club want to do something to insure food safety they should quit wasting time attacking raw milk and go hold a Geiger counter over some seafood entering port on the west coast for a while.


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

springvalley said:


> That is true, and raw milk is legal in Illinois, as it is in many states. :rock:


Well, there's "legal" and then there's legal...

In Illinois, you have to be careful to whom you sell, and you have to make sure that your customers bring their own containers and fill their own containers AT YOUR FARM.

Again, however, I must reiterate that the govt has no business in business. If someone is selling bad milk, they will not have any business. 

Unless, of course, they're a big corporation like Dean Foods or an egg factory or a chicken factory. Then they can sell whatever they want.

Funny how that works.... :hohum:


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

barnbilder said:


> I think one of the big points that gets missed in this debate is that raw milk has good bacteria in it, and that good bacteria keeps out bad bacteria. I can expect a 30 day shelf life on properly handled raw milk, can't do that with the poisonized stuff. The silly statistics about illnesses caused by raw milk are cooked up by agenda driven, government flunkies who find a jar of raw milk and say, "AHA! now we know why these people got sick" and ignore the McDonalds bag in the same fridge. Then they run tests at most likely the same lab that the aforementioned government flunky lab worker found an unexplainable cow sample with TB. I know someone who sent in a sample of store bought pasteurized milk to get tested. It had all kinds of horrible things in it, when they tried to bring this to light all of the information got lost on the desk of some brave protector of food. If the folks from the Unwise Scientists Destroying Agriculture club want to do something to insure food safety they should quit wasting time attacking raw milk and go hold a Geiger counter over some seafood entering port on the west coast for a while.


 
Please identify for me the good bacteria that attack the bad. Please donât use Dr Mercolaâs âdataâ. While you are at it, tell me which vitamins and minerals that are "lost/killed" in standard run of the mill pasteurization. 
I think most folks drinking raw milk from their own cow will not support your belief in a 30 day shelf life, unless it is kept very, very cold. As will pasteurized milk.
The raw milk and the data is not cooked up. The Laboratories that run the tests can and must be able to match the type and strain of the bacteria in the sick person to the type and strain in the milk. In fact most cases of bacterial infection from raw milk are not blamed on raw milk because it cannot be traced back to the milk if the milk is gone. To think that the Scientists are making wild guesses about the source shows a lack of understanding of the testing process.
Explain about the flunky and the TB sample. There are at least three different TB tests. Each has different levels of cost and accuracy. The caudle fold test is most common and is about 80% accurate. So a Vet can expect some false positive, or suspect results. A second, more accurate and more costly is then done.
I have to toss out stories that start out with, â I knew a guyâ¦..â as hearsay.
You have no understanding of the food and animals, imported and domestic, that the government inspects and the threats to our food chain that are stopped, every day, in this country.


----------



## Jcran (Jan 4, 2006)

Here in Humboldt county, California, we have laws/restrictions at least as prohibitive as WV...a grade A organic dairy in Del Norte county north of us on the Oregon border had a milk share program and a consumer contracted a life threatening case of listeriosis. That being said, I drink our goats milk raw all the time. I love Oregons common sense laws that allow small holdings to sell from farm...Jeffersonian in practice? A well informed public, blah blah blah? Know where your food is coming from....but drink raw at your own risk?


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

I know of no pasteurized milk that will last 30 days in the fridge. Most of it smells quite repulsive to me when "fresh", (ie full of dead decomposing bacteria) Raw milk in a clean jar with little air space can, and will. Heck, I just ate some unpasteurized milk that was about six months old on my sandwich, and I feel fine. Brave heroes from the USDA please save us, (if you're not to busy depopulating animals that aren't sick) The information you seek is readily available from credible sources. It is not my job to research raw milk for anyone. That is each persons own responsibility. I will say that it would be wise to introduce your body to raw milk slowly and in small quantities, just like anything. At risk of not being credible, I know a guy, whose name I will keep secret, (to protect him from government flunkies) who retired from a sewer treatment plant. When guys first came to work, they got sick all of the time. A lot of them quit because of it. But the ones who stayed on, reached a point that they never got sick, period. If someone gets sick from raw milk, even poorly handled raw milk, it is not the milk's fault. It is because they have a substandard immune system. The best way to foster a substandard immune system is to eat sterile foods. Works great until that one bacteria shows up to the party. I prefer to populate my intestines with good and bad bacteria, and be part of the fight between good and evil. As far as the government, and their self validating research, they can pry my raw milk from my cold dead intestines.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

barnbilder said:


> I know of no pasteurized milk that will last 30 days in the fridge. Most of it smells quite repulsive to me when "fresh", (ie full of dead decomposing bacteria) Raw milk in a clean jar with little air space can, and will. Heck, I just ate some unpasteurized milk that was about six months old on my sandwich, and I feel fine. Brave heroes from the USDA please save us, (if you're not to busy depopulating animals that aren't sick) The information you seek is readily available from credible sources. It is not my job to research raw milk for anyone. That is each persons own responsibility. I will say that it would be wise to introduce your body to raw milk slowly and in small quantities, just like anything. At risk of not being credible, I know a guy, whose name I will keep secret, (to protect him from government flunkies) who retired from a sewer treatment plant. When guys first came to work, they got sick all of the time. A lot of them quit because of it. But the ones who stayed on, reached a point that they never got sick, period. If someone gets sick from raw milk, even poorly handled raw milk, it is not the milk's fault. It is because they have a substandard immune system. The best way to foster a substandard immune system is to eat sterile foods. Works great until that one bacteria shows up to the party. I prefer to populate my intestines with good and bad bacteria, and be part of the fight between good and evil. As far as the government, and their self validating research, they can pry my raw milk from my cold dead intestines.


On one hand, raw milk is so pure that t stays fresh for a month, then it has such a bacterial load as to sicken most people that haven't built up, what you say is a resistance to bacteria. 
I've said it many times, but I'll repeat myself. I have no opposition to anyone drinking the milk from their livestock. But when you throw bacterial laden raw milk into the open market, you tarnish the reputation of milk in general and needless hurt many familiy farms.
But since you hate government, I thought I's share what a few slackers and flunkies have been doing. I'm sure you won't approve:
 Scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's main animal-disease research facility in collaboration with scientists around the world have intensified their efforts to find ways to curb the spread of deadly African swine fever (ASF).

[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]African swine fever is a contagious viral disease present in domestic and wild swine. The disease is transmitted by ticks moving from sick to healthy animals, by garbage containing infected meat, and on the clothing of people moving between farms. Symptoms are high fever, shock and hemorrhaging lesions. The disease kills pigs within a week of infection and has no treatment or vaccine. It does not pose a threat to humans.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]Led by USDA microbiologist Manuel Borca, researchers at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center in Orient Point, New York, are working to develop experimental vaccines with the hope that some might lead to a vaccine that can be used to control African swine fever. They also work to better understand the disease's cause and immune response, Borca said. Plum Island is a former military facility 2.4 kilometers off Long Island run by the Department of Homeland Security. With additional support from the State Department's Biosecurity Engagement Program, USDA scientists at the facility tackle other dangerous diseases like foot-and-mouth that threaten livestock health and world economies.[/FONT][/FONT]

Lots more facts about raw milk in the General Discussion section, titled Raw Milk, don't read if you don't want to know


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

haypoint said:


> Please identify for me the good bacteria that attack the bad. Please donât use Dr Mercolaâs âdataâ. While you are at it, tell me which vitamins and minerals that are "lost/killed" in standard run of the mill pasteurization.
> I think most folks drinking raw milk from their own cow will not support your belief in a 30 day shelf life, unless it is kept very, very cold. As will pasteurized milk.
> The raw milk and the data is not cooked up. The Laboratories that run the tests can and must be able to match the type and strain of the bacteria in the sick person to the type and strain in the milk. In fact most cases of bacterial infection from raw milk are not blamed on raw milk because it cannot be traced back to the milk if the milk is gone. To think that the Scientists are making wild guesses about the source shows a lack of understanding of the testing process.
> Explain about the flunky and the TB sample. There are at least three different TB tests. Each has different levels of cost and accuracy. The caudle fold test is most common and is about 80% accurate. So a Vet can expect some false positive, or suspect results. A second, more accurate and more costly is then done.
> ...


Do you work at a diary or in the diary industry?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Do you work at a diary or in the diary industry?


No, do you?:kiss:


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

To think that raw milk is without danger is foolish. To think that USDA Grade A Pasteurized milk is safe is even more foolish.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

I do hope that Pottenger's cat doesn't have your tongue.


----------



## SimpleAcres (Jan 14, 2013)

I apologize for citing a supposedly disreputable source as a case against pasteurization. So here is my second attempt. 

milk/http://www.realmilk.com/health/raw-milk-vs-pasteurized-milk/

or
http://www.healthiertalk.com/got-real-milk-1695

or
http://www.draxe.com/video/pasteurization-homogenization-raw-milk/

or
http://metabolichealing.com/education/articles/the-putrid-truth-about-pasteurized-and-homogenized-dairy/

or

The opposing view, which you may notice is a .gov site full of scare tactics and a bit of dishonesty at best.
http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-and-answers.html#hurt


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

They sell raw milk in vending machines in Europe, they will all be dead soon. Meanwhile here in the States, the FDA attacks raw milk, it's perfectly legal to sell Ritalin, Mad Dog 20-20, and Marlboro Reds. Meanwhile the USDA is playing with an African pig virus not far from where European Starlings were introduced and China is cleared for bringing in Pork. Fantastic. The CDC says that Fukushima is no big deal, but you might want some potassium Iodine tablets on hand, but whatever you do, don't drink raw milk. Did you ever consider that those above average U.S. numbers on raw milk attributable illnesses are skewed because of the high prevalence of immigrants that don't have access to refrigeration technology, but really like raw milk, any way they can get it? (yet another reason we need amnesty, raw milk statistics.) (I had to endure a lot of government authority chest thumping for that little gem!)


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

All I know is I can drink raw milk from my goats without it bothering me. The stuff from the store, not so much. It sends me to the bathroom in less than half an hour most times.


----------



## Dieselrider (Jul 8, 2008)

Interesting thread. We milk our family Jersey cow and have for the last three years. 

Had our own dairy goats before and are considering getting some again. Used their milk raw here at the time with no problems.

If I am unable to drink and use raw milk, I would rather do without than trust the store bought milk. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.:happy:


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

haypoint said:


> No, do you?:kiss:


No. 

My mistake. You appeared to be very invested in the commercial milk perspective.

I know in Arkansas the legislation is unfairly biased in favor of commercial producers to the point of making it impossible for the little guy to earn a living trying to sell anything, milk, meat etc,, off the farm.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

A nice piece highlighting agenda driven policy: http://thecompletepatient.com/artic...ickened-raw-milk-gets-interesting-food-safety

There really needs to be three categories to get real statistics, raw milk, commercial raw milk, and pasteurized. Add in the government's new statistical data generating model and it's easy to see where they get those crazy numbers. And if they really cared about food safety, they would send a nuclear warhead to Plum Island before something from a Steven King novel becomes reality.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Pasteurization was started to kill off the bad things that could make a person sick. And this has been used in many items besides milk. It IS a good thing.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

HDRider said:


> No.
> 
> My mistake. You appeared to be very invested in the commercial milk perspective.
> 
> I know in Arkansas the legislation is unfairly biased in favor of commercial producers to the point of making it impossible for the little guy to earn a living trying to sell anything, milk, meat etc,, off the farm.


In Michigan, the government has been trying to make it easier for farmers, large and small. Recently, they allowed some canned foods and baked goods to be siold, without the requirement lof an inspected kitchen. Just have to let consumers know where it came from. It is a harder balance than most understand. Protect consumers while cutting needless regulations or restrictions. Mostly the government stays out of the way for stuff you consume that you grew. Most folks have figured out ways to get around the laws. Herd shares is one way to avoid the ban on the sale of raw milk. In Michigan, the goverenment has officially accepted that scam. Because if you get sick from your own cow, the public food supply is still protected. Same for meat. Illegal to sell a farm killed beef, but if you and three others own it, you can butcher it anywhere, anyhow and have no one to complain about. So, illegal to sell the meat, legal to sell the live cow to four people and deliver THEIR cow to the slaughterhouse.
It is a common thread on Homesteadingtoday, that the government helps the big farmers but not the small farms; Then in the same breath, announce that they burn their USDA censis, don't visit their Soil Conservation Service, Extension Service or Department of Agriculture. Can't have it both ways, folks.
Don't get the idea that the focus is large farms. I think the average number of cattle on a beef farm in Michigan is about a dozen.
In most cases it isn't the government holding back the small farmer, it is a lack of salesmanship and imagination.


----------



## springvalley (Jun 23, 2009)

arabian knight said:


> Pasteurization was started to kill off the bad things that could make a person sick. And this has been used in many items besides milk. It IS a good thing.


And now that we changed so many things in the last hundred years, it is not always needed. We have refrigeration(bulk tanks), sanitation, Stainless steel, better herd health, elimination of diseases and knowledge. This is most of the main reasons that they started pasteurization, and one other reason was man was starting to get greedy and trying to alter milk before it was sold, people were putting chalk in milk to make it look white after the butterfat had been taken out. Many other reasons they used pasteurization, but I think you get the idea. I am not say pasteurization is all bad, like I have said many times before, everyone has the right to choose. > Thanks Marc :hrm:


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Pasteurization does not reduce the vitamins and minerals in milk. Lots of peer reviewed studies over the years have proved this.
Healthy looking, well cared for cows can carry a variety of disease bacteria that goes into the milk. Most illnesses caused by drinking raw milk came from healthy looking cows.
It is impractical to test for every bacteria or virus every day to insure that day's milk is safe. 
To believe otherwise is to deny the truth.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Does pasteurization affect enzymes? Does it affect the solubility of vitamins and minerals? How does the presence of bacteria prove that milk is not safe? How do you know that milk that has had it's bacteria killed, won't become re-contaminated? Are bottling plants devoid of all bacteria? How would one go about pasteurizing waxed cardboard? 

All good questions for an expert on pasteurization.

I once had a milker come down with Listeriosis. This is one of the scary ones, right? She was clinically diagnosed by a licensed vet. After she was successfully treated, (one of her herdmates was not so lucky), due to the nature of the disease, she should still be shedding listeria. I continued to drink her milk. Raw. After talking to doctors, and vets, it became obvious that since I was drinking her milk raw before she showed signs, and since I was playing in the same dirt and hay and grain that she was, I was already exposed. As was every other milker in the barn. No point in not drinking it, if I fed it to my chickens, they would just give me Listeria in a sunny side up egg. Should I sell it to someone who has never eaten a single bite of food that didn't come out of a plastic wrapper? Absolutely not. Should it be legal to sell to someone who, like me was aware of the risk? Raw milk is not dangerous, just because it is raw. There are many other factors that determine it's inherent danger. Pooled milk, improperly handled milk, and milk that the consumer isn't acclimated to is dangerous, raw or not.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Remember, your wholesome, grassfed, locavore, herdshare statistics are being lumped in with this phenomenon. : http://www.ext.colostate.edu/safefood/newsltr/v14n1s06.html

Behold, the dangers of raw milk, dumped into a tub with some fromunda culture.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

haypoint said:


> In Michigan, the government has been trying to make it easier for farmers, large and small. Recently, they allowed some canned foods and baked goods to be siold, without the requirement lof an inspected kitchen. Just have to let consumers know where it came from. It is a harder balance than most understand. Protect consumers while cutting needless regulations or restrictions. Mostly the government stays out of the way for stuff you consume that you grew. Most folks have figured out ways to get around the laws. Herd shares is one way to avoid the ban on the sale of raw milk. In Michigan, the goverenment has officially accepted that scam. Because if you get sick from your own cow, the public food supply is still protected. Same for meat. Illegal to sell a farm killed beef, but if you and three others own it, you can butcher it anywhere, anyhow and have no one to complain about. So, illegal to sell the meat, legal to sell the live cow to four people and deliver THEIR cow to the slaughterhouse.
> It is a common thread on Homesteadingtoday, that the government helps the big farmers but not the small farms; Then in the same breath, announce that they burn their USDA censis, don't visit their Soil Conservation Service, Extension Service or Department of Agriculture. Can't have it both ways, folks.
> Don't get the idea that the focus is large farms. I think the average number of cattle on a beef farm in Michigan is about a dozen.
> In most cases it isn't the government holding back the small farmer, it is a lack of salesmanship and imagination.


Salesmanship and imagination are important. 

So is finding a USDA processing plant. Those few that do exists are own by large processing companies and do not process for small farmers. The few that process for small farmers are scattered hundreds of miles part. 

I can't imagine salesmanship overcoming that.


----------



## Donsdatter (Jan 29, 2014)

My understanding is that safety in milk became a problem when dairy cows were fed the leftover mash from distilleries and their gut flora was disrupted, causing outbreaks of bacterial infections. 

There have been more salmonella outbreaks from pasteurized milk than raw milk in recent years:

http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/PDFs/pasteurized-dairy-outbreak-table.pdf

Summary:
Between 1998 and 2010 there were 2824 total illness from pasteurized milk and milk products in the US, and 8 deaths.

Maybe relying on pasteurization instead of clean conditions at the dairy is not the most reliable way to maintain a safe food supply.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Salesmanship and imagination are important.
> 
> So is finding a USDA processing plant. Those few that do exists are own by large processing companies and do not process for small farmers. The few that process for small farmers are scattered hundreds of miles part.
> 
> I can't imagine salesmanship overcoming that.


OK, you can't market your milk from your small dairy to a far away milk plant. I can't market my 5 tons of sugar beets at a far away sugar plant. Does that make the government evil? No. Chose one or a half dozen other things that you can make money doing. Get on the "buy local" band wagon. Promote your products, create your market.
Because of the extreme efficiencies of many big ag enterprises, you cannot compete in traditional market channels. So, you just need to use your imagination and salesmanship.
Time spent crying about your inability to compete, undermines your chances of success.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Donsdatter said:


> My understanding is that safety in milk became a problem when dairy cows were fed the leftover mash from distilleries and their gut flora was disrupted, causing outbreaks of bacterial infections.
> 
> There have been more salmonella outbreaks from pasteurized milk than raw milk in recent years:
> 
> ...


Over the past hundred years, there have been far more car crashes involving General Motors manufactured vehicles than there were crashes involving the Yugo. Therefore, the Yugo is far safer than any General Motors vehicle?
Same for the tiny slice of the market that raw milk represents.
Your understanding is incorrect. Healthy looking cows, fed high quality feed, can produce milk with several different pathogens. Read up on campylobacter, listeria, salmonella, and TB.

I see from the pro- raw milk web site, you offered, many illnesses from pasteurized milk involved processes that went on long after pasteurization . Sort of hard to blame pasteurization on contamination in the following cheese process. Agree?


----------



## ramiller5675 (Mar 31, 2009)

After seeing a couple of Colorado cantaloupe farmers get convicted, fined, and jailed for their role in a listeria outbreak, I'm wondering why anyone would want to risk their farm, life savings, and freedom by selling raw milk.


----------



## cooper101 (Sep 13, 2010)

haypoint said:


> In most cases it isn't the government holding back the small farmer, it is a lack of salesmanship and imagination.


This is true of any business; there will always be someone or something standing in the way of success. The one good thing about laws is there's always a loophole. The lawyers leave them in there on purpose so that they can bill hours when they argue the law in court. You just have to figure out what works; not everything will.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

So Haypoint, you say that even properly cared for cows can spread disease. Likewise, I suppose even someone who washed his hands can get sick. Therefore, we should not wash our hands?

So are you against clean cows? Why is it that the only part of disease prevention you care about is pasteurization? Why not reduce crowding and stress, and improve cleanliness and feed them better?

The answer is usually a matter of economics. It is more economical to feed a lot of grain, and to crowd cattle and to let them lie in mud and manure, than to provide bedding. More economical to have high producing cattle with big udders that get more contaminated.

So, are you against clean cattle, or do you insist they be raised like this one near my folks:


----------

