A Peek into the Future of Raw Milk: Wide Availability, Based on Serious Quality Standards?
I foresee a time, perhaps five to ten years into the future, when everyone will have access to raw milk—perhaps some at farms, but many at local stores.
Those of us who have been involved one way or another in the stings and harassment of the last few years will shake our heads and wonder, every time we purchase raw milk, why things were once so difficult.
What prompts this vision? (No, I haven’t been smoking anything.)
First off, I was referred by a reader of my article about the recent harassment of raw milk producers in New York to an intriguing web site: “Raw USA Standards: Quality, Purity, and Ethics in Raw Milk Production”, complete with a seal. Interesting idea. Kind of a Good Housekeeping seal of approval.
The list of twenty conditions and standards necessary for “the RAW USA Raw Milk Certification” includes a prohibition of antibiotics and hormones, along with a requirement that the cows “be allowed access to pasture 150 days per year at a minimum…”
There are standards for most food and other commercial products we purchase, so why not for raw milk?
It turns out these standards were developed by Mark McAfee, the owner of Organic Pastures Dairy Co.…some two years ago. He told me he’s not been able to promote the active use of these standards—he’s had various battles to fight in growing his own 300-cow dairy—but, “These are the standards we use.” He foresees the day when they, or some variation, will govern the wide availability of raw milk.
The fact that these standards are already being applied in California prompts the second reason for my vision. Major trends tend to start in California, and work their way east. McAfee’s 300 cows currently provide raw milk to an estimated 35,000 California consumers via stores throughout California, and his business is growing at close to 25% annually.
Finally, there is a great deal more interest in raw milk today than there was just a couple of years ago. Ask any farmer who produces raw milk—with little or no marketing, most are quickly inundated with customers. Ironically, the crude assaults on raw-milk dairy farmers by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and its state lackeys has probably had the unintended effect of spreading the word about the benefits of raw milk. Too many people have come to appreciate that if the government doesn’t want us to have certain nutritional product, the real reason likely has to do with objections by monied interests, rather than any serious problem with the product.
The main down side I see to this vision is that any kind of major new market will inevitably attract big-money interests. Raw milk hedge funds? Don’t laugh. Maybe with some grass-fed cattle and chickens for diversification.
In the meantime, McAfee says consumers don’t have to wait for some day in the distant future to see his quality standards applied. “When they go to a farm to purchase raw milk, they can take it along as a check list.” In other words, use it as a guide to question the farmer whose milk you’re considering purchasing. He or she may not do everything on the list, but at least you can make an informed decision as to whether enough is being done to produce a safe product.
***
I was intrigued by the various recollections from older people about farm life—and especially about a seeming reluctance to discuss the old foods and practices. I used to encounter a similar sense from my mother-in-law, who grew up on a farm in Germany. I think there is a tendency in our culture, developed over the last 60 or 70 years, to view farmers as backwards, as “hicks” and “hillbillies.”
In the old days, you were modern and forward-thinking once you substituted oil heat for woodburning stoves, flush toilets for outhouses, canned vegetables for the real stuff, and pasteurized milk for raw milk. Now, when we inquire about what it was like to grow up with raw milk, or without electricity, there is fear on some level that they’ll be viewed as hicks…and disbelief that we really could be genuinely interested. They must be thinking, what goes around comes around.
The Complete Patient
in Government policy
|
22 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (22)
Two things come to mind after reading the list of 20 conditions.
First, I know of one raw milk dairy that meets all 20 conditions, but that also raises a few grain-fed Angus on the property for the family's meat consumption. The dairy cows and the steers are sometimes located in adjacent pastures, separated by only a fence. I wonder if this compromises the safety of their milk. If so, perhaps raw milk standards should clarify acceptable conditions for all animals on the farm.
Second, I wonder if the yearlong wait to milk an animal after receiving anitibiotics is over-kill. Under these conditions, small operations would be forced to sell a milk-cow (which they basically view as pets) if she came down with a severe case of mastitus. I wonder if a shorter wait time could be just as safe.
Raw milk's saving grace (business-wise) is that it does not lend itself to mass production and shipping around the world. I do think that raw milk, along with grass-fed meats (and hopefully, an ever increasing desire to conserve energy), will lead us back to relying on more of a local/regional food supply than a global one.
I think all these questions and concerns are legitimate matters of discussion as part of a process to work out realistic standards for raw milk. In other words, I don't see McAfee's list as the final word.
It certainly would be nice if this was the primary discussion going on, rather than the one about our right to consume raw milk.
Concerning the antibiotics, I think the complaint concerning them is when they are used regularly to treat chronic conditions (e.g. constant factory farm exposure to pathogens in cramped quarters, etc.) or when they are used regularly as part of a program to increase milk production. Occasional use to treat illness is what they are for, and I wouldn't complain about their purely medicinal use to save an animal that is otherwise being raised in healthy conditions, and being fed a healthy ration since (given such housing and feeding) the animals just don't get sick that often.
The beef cattle on the raw milk farm I mentioned are exclusively grain-fed. They are kept in a dirt pen and stand in front of the grain bin all day, munching away. The jerseys are on the other side of the fence, on a large green pasture, supplemented with some grain.
I don't understand how antibiotics can be used to increase milk production, as by law (at least in my state) a cow on antibiotics cannot be milked.
My experience with antibiotics is similar to the one David decribes - a small farmer with a few cows has a need for them on a raw occasion to treat mastitus in one animal. The few times that this has happened to my farmer, she waits 7-10 days after the last dose before selling the milk from the affected animal. A few customers insist on a month waiting period, which has been a real financial hardship for her.
I don't understand the milk-safety concern with anitibiotics leading to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Assuming all of the bacteria on the farm are safe (not human pathogens), why should it matter if the occasional treatment for mastitus creates some that are antibiotic-resistant?
I guess I just have a real problem with the hard line on anitibiotics. Perhaps this stems from the fact that I have nursed 3 children and have had some pretty severe cases of mastitus myself! Mastitus really does make one quite sick, and I can't imagine dealing with a severe case without antibiotics. Also, I think many more dairy farmers would consider switching to organics if it were not for the hard-line on antibiotics taken by the organic standards.
I agree with David - it would be nice if we could focus on standards rather than rights.
Cows have a pretty complex as well as extensive gut, and they are digesting food that is more difficult to break down. I would guess that the process of restoring balance takes a bit longer. I know some farmers feed yogurt to calves, What do you do to help a cow back to health after antibiotic use? If nothing is done it would cerainly take extra months to get the bacteria form the environment and for it to successfullly implant where it needs to be. Just like with people - and it probably takes us longer because we keep washing everything.
So a cow helped back to health could be digesting properly within a month or two - and the milk would be normal. But without some outside supplementation, the milk could be affected for 6 months to a year easily. Just guessing at the numbers, the concept of differing times depending on the suport for the antibiotics is what is most important.
If a cow receives no support to restore gut health after using antibiotics, I wouldn't want to go near the milk for at least a month or two just so because it might take that long to notice if there is amore serious new disturbance with the gut - and of course the cow. And will that problem affect the quality of the milk? Absolutely.
The larger the herd the more time I would require - the small herd makes it easier to see a problem with a single animal.The early signs would be subtle.
And time of year matters as well. Cows won't pick up as many free floating beneficial fungi and bacteria in the winter. Unassisted recovery of digestive health would take months longer.
I can see that a less healthy cow may produce less healthy milk, but I can't make the connection that she will produce unhealthy milk. Could you elaborate on exactly how you feel the milk will change and become unhealthy for human consumption (assuming the anitibiotics have cleared the cows system but her gut is not yet back in shape)?
I nursed all of my children through cases of mastitus, even while on antibiotics. However, the milk from dairy cows on antibiotics cannot be sold for human consumption to protect (I believe) consumers who may be allergic to those anitibiotics.
Presumably it took a while for me to restore my gut health, and yet nobody would suggest that breast milk was not the most healthy option for my children during those weeks or months.
I can see where a recovering cow might produce milk that is lower in vitamins or minerals, or other good things, and therefore less nutritious than before, I just don't understand why it would be viewed as unhealthy.
Any light you could shed would be greatly appreciated!
If you read this article carefully you will see why compromising the cow's digestive system can make the milk harmful to your health.
http://www.highbrixgardens.com/highbrix/digestion.html
"Produce can be graded in its quality based upon its reading on a refractometer. The refractometer measures dissolved minerals and plant sugars. Another name for this is Total Dissolved Solids. This has been covered more fully in the What Is Brix? page. Credit for the concept of grading produce quality goes to Carey Reams. Arden Andersen further refined the concept of grading food similar to the grading scale used by educational institutions. In his scale produce is categorized in grades A, B, C, D, and E with grade A being excellent and near perfect and grade E being a total failure. The original chart compiled by Carey Reams, Dan Skow, and Charles Walters only listed grades A-D. Lets look at each grade in ascending order.
The Drop Out
Produce graded in the E range is a complete failure. This type of produce confers no health benefit upon consumption. It is a net negative on the body’s health. This type of food is a major contributor to indigestion, completely lacks rare earths such as iodine, chromium, and vanadium and is tremendously calcium deficient. As a result of its calcium deficiency it is very susceptible to toxins from heavy metals and pesticides. Proteins are not properly formed in this food and as a result this produce is loaded with free nitrates.
The nutritional quality of this food is so poor that it can only be brought to the market by the heavy use of pesticides. Left to nature this type of food would rot and be consumed by insects long before it reached marketability. The E grade on produce relates to brix readings lower than Poor on the Brix Chart. Is this produce in our supermarkets today? All it takes is a refractometer and you can find out. P.S. Don't eat it!"
"The Mother Lode!
Foods of high quality supply calcium, enzymes and minerals for good nutrition.Top-quality produce in the A grade are the crown jewel of foods. These foods taste so good they can only be described as heavenly. The nutrition offered by these foods are as good as they taste—outstanding. These foods have virtually no free nitrates, do not cause indigestion, and have properly formed proteins. A-grade foods have very high levels of vitamins, carbohydrates, minerals, enzymes, antioxidants, and trace minerals. As a result they have the greatest impact on improving health and providing nutrition against disease. Calcium is abundantly supplied by these foods and rare earth nutrients such as selenium, chromium, iodine, vanadium, and cobalt are well supplied by A-grade foods.
Foods in the A grade are the very antithesis of everything in the E range. A regular diet of A-grade foods leads to the greatest development of mental acuity and our genetic potential physically. A grade produce relates to the Brix Chart with refractometer readings in the Excellent column. These numbers indicate the beginning of excellent so many readings can go beyond this. A-grade foods are quite rare at present but this is changing.
The grading scale discussed here works well for checking fresh produce but what about other types of foods such as grains and animal products? These foods are not so easy to measure as to their intrinsic nutritional qualities. This is where knowing the condition of the soil is very important. Grains with a higher test weight will contain greater mineral density and are preferred over lighter weight grains.
For animal products it is important to know the feed quality of what the animals are consuming and the soil condition they are grown on. Cultural practices such as access to grass and fresh air are other important considerations when selecting animal products."
First, it is my understanding that Brix cannot be used to evaluate the quality of milk. If you know otherwise, please correct me!
That said, after reading your article and your post, I still do not have the information I need to determine that milk from cow recently exposed to anitibiotics is unhealthy or something that should be avoided. I can see where it might be less than ideal, but as far as I know, it might be within the normal variation one can expect in milk quality. I am sure the raw milk I get in January is not as nutritious as the milk I get in June, for example. That doesn't stop me from buying it in January however.
The Brix article pointed out that the most nutritious foods are also the most tasty. I can tell you that my farmers milk was just as delicious after her cow recovered from mastitus as it was before. In fact, it was better because it had been going off for a few weeks before she actually got sick.
When setting standards for raw milk, I think we need to be very careful to avoid burdening farmers with needless regulation. Requiring a small farmer to dry off at cow and feed her for a year before resuming milking seems harsh to me, esp when I haven't seen any supporting data.
I also don't see anyone calling for nursing mothers to wean their children after they have finished a course of antibiotics.
I get the felling that recommendations like these are made by people who simply view antibiotics as bad, something that does not fit within their view of how the world should work. But outlawing milk from recently treated animals, without hard supporting data on the safety or merit of the milk, is no different than the situation we have today - regulators outlawing all raw milk simply because it does not fit within their belief system.
Don't get me wrong, I am against the use of antibiotics on factory farms. But when a pastured dairy cows comes down with an occasional but serious case of mastitus, I don't yet see the harm in drinking her milk. I think I am better of drinking her milk, than I would be if I went a month or two, or even a year, without it.
I suppose I should be clearer about using "unhealthy" vs. "not healthy". I am guessing that with cows more than humans if the gut isn't normal (depleted of bacterial balance by antibiotics) it affects how the cow digests grass and weeds and sets up some problems in the gut and systemically.
Byproducts of the resulting inflammation might affect milk quality. It might even make it more dangerous if some of teh protective mechanisms aren't present -- but I really have no idea if that is an issue. Just a question.
Now the counter argument is that mammals have evolved to keep dnagerous organisms out of the milk for obvious reasons. So there may be a protective mechanism that comes into play.
So we would agree that the nutrients can't make it into the milk if the cow isn't digesting properly - which is pretyt likely. Whether the additional strain and stress to the cow's system would actually make the milk unsafe I don't know. But lacking nutrition and other important balanced synergistic characteristics, it is milk I'd rather avoid. And we have that option.
With a human mother's milk, taking antibiotics can be more directly countered, our guts seem a bit more flexible, and the choice is different. The infant needs the milk, and there are huge advantages to using the mother's milk. If the infant was being fed milk from donating moms there is no question we would eliminate any mother from donating who had recently used antibiotics. Right? But the advantages of using the mom's milk over other choices is almost always the right choice.Certain drugs you have to pump and dump, but we have a pretty good idea what and for how long.
Just two weeks ago I had the pleasure of helping a brand new mom nurse for the first time. She was in the hospital, just had a c section, and was still on an IV antibiotic for a uterine infection. Her baby was about 5 hours old. I didn't question for one moment the importance of helping that little guy to latch and get all that early colostrum. Plus the natural painkiller that would start up for the mom, and the bonding, and all the other great reasons that mother's milk is the best.
But as a consumer I drink milk for the nutritional benefit and I'm fine about being picky. And I don't know specifically how picky I should be on this one. Still learning.
The bigger issue is this: why did the cow get mastitis in the first place, and why was it so bad that it required drugs. There are many ways to prevent it, these things are generally related to production problems. If the farmer gets that end of the equation right, then even IF a cow gets mastitis, it will be much more susceptible to alternative treatments without the use of anti-biotics.
I would not eliminate any mothers from donating breast milk who had recently recieved anitibiotics. At least not without any hard supporting data. I'd be willing to bet that a woman who has been on an organic nutrient-dense diet for a long time would produce healthier milk, even after a course of antibiotics, than a long-time vegan or processed/junk-food consumer or someone who eats pesticide-laden produce, without antibiotics.
Similarly, for dairy cows, I would bet that a well-bred Jersey with continual access to organic high quality pasture would give higher quality milk, even after a course of anitibiotics, than a Holstein on low-quality pasture or grain, without antibiotics.
I just feel that if a set of standards is going to deny income to a raw-milk farmer, for any period of time, simply because of a rare need for anitibiotics, then the people writing the standard better have a pretty good argument for why the milk can't be consumed and a measurable target for when it can.
If the dairy scientists would start focusing on raw-milk as a final product, then perhaps some measurable attributes pre and post antibiotics could be found and tied to human health. Until then, maybe the folks who make cheese could give some direction.
After the antibiotic course was finished, the vet suggested a 7-10 day waiting period before the milk could be sold. By this time, it had been a month with no milk sales, so my farmer was quite anxious to start up again. She was in shock when a good number of her customers refused to buy the milk and asked for a longer wait time (a month or two).
This cow gives 5 gallons per day, for which the farmer recieves $6 per gallon. Therefore, each week without sales cost her $210. This is after the month of treatment that cost about $900 in lost milk sales, not including the vet bills.
I was amazed at how easily well-heeled suburbanites could so easily walk away from a struggling farmer who had served them well, simply because her product was, at the moment, not the most desirable milk in our area. As I wrote earlier, it tasted wonderful, so flavor was not the issue. I also made yogurt with it, so my culture seemed happy with it as well.
Some of the customers were so turned off by the need for antibiotics, that they never returned. She was milking 2 cows at the time, and now milks 5, with no need for antibiotics since, so I do not think there is a problem with nutrition or animal health on the farm. The cow that got sick is still an active and healthy member of the herd.
I think it is great to have regulations that protect the health of raw-milk consumers, provided they are necessary safeguards, esp when those safeguards represent a financial burden to the farmer.
Yes, incidents like that happen. But those are not the usual causes for mastitus.
So that farmer lost more than $900 given the lost customers, all to save a cow who probably wasn't worth much more than that.
I don't blaim her customers for not wanting anything to do with antibiotics in food animals. I don't either. The cost in human lives due to the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria is too great.
Regulations aren't the answer. This is a great example of how a direct farm to consumer relationship lets consumers set their own standards, rather than relying on third party organizations or the government.
Strict protocols that form the basis of an understanding between the customer and the farmer aren't a financial burden, but a financial boon. Just ask the farmer who captured those customers because he refuses to use antibiotics.
Do we know that the number of anitibiotic-resistant bacteria in milk increases after she recieves a course of anitibiotics? Has this been documented?
Do we know how this plays out a week, month, months, or year after treatment? Has this been documented?
If the good bacteria in milk becomes anitibiotic=resistant, and then populates the human gut, how is that bad?
What would you do with a seriously-ill cow that does not respond to alternative treatments? I'm guessing you would advocate slaughtering it and burying the body. Just wondering. Would you sell the meat?
I believe that a national set of raw-milk regulations would help the movement by increasing legitimacy for the farms that choose to comply, which in turn would bring more consumers. However, I would also welcome farms that chose to mot participate. Farmers need to be free to set their own standards.
I find it fascinating to hear all this discussion from all sides of the raw milk food chain. Farmers and consumers. This is beautiful and missing from the American culture.
As far as RAWUSA.ORG guidelines are concerned, they stand as a set of optimum guidelines for safe raw milk. There are none out there....so RAWUSA is at least a start. OPDC uses them and so far we have a 70 million servings to zero pathogens detected record. These guidelines mean something.
As you start to use them there will be areas that may need to be changed alittle for each farmer and his special set of conditions. The farmer then must realize that safety is then going to be moving that much against him however so slight. Adding grain not a problem but as you add more expect different bacteria in her manure and this goes against raw milk safety. Same goes for antibiotics. As these factors add up...so does your odds of a pathogen being found in your raw milk. Cows love grain....but too much and big problems. we want zero pathogens...that is why we use RAWUSA standards including testing. In the past raw milk has had a black eye during some time periods in our American history. Study these periods and you begin to realize the factors that cause raw milk safety issues. believe me RAWUSA is not an arbitrary set of thoughts. Each has purpose.
When you do raw milk like we do at OPDC...you start to realize that mother nature is 100% right and she is even brutal in her rightousness. Mastitis is an issue but can be dealt with effectively by using a couple of calves to suck on her all day long. Remember mother nature is right. Mankind tends to mess things up really badly and we forget that part.
This whole origin of infection and illness fight began about 150 years ago between Bernard and Pasteur. I can tell you right now....Bernard was right. It is the terrain and not the pathogen that can make us sick or keep us well.When I say terrain I mean the internal ( immune system in your gut) and the external ( like pastures ) as well. RAWUSA deals with both. Antibiotics are a great tool, but they are extremely dangerous and must be used very carefully and with a course of pro-biotics to heal the terrain that is layed to waste by modern medicine abuse.
We in this country have come so far from mother natures rules....we have much to learn and many fears to rise above. One of the biggest is the fear of bacteria.
With out them we die. We are "bacteriosapiens" with more bacteria in our bodies than mammalian cells. If we forget that, we are well on the road to illness and early death.
Raw milk brings wellness and life!!!
Mark McAfee
Mark, By what mechanism does a course of anitibiotics increase the odds of finding pathogens in a pastured Jersey's milk? Which pathogens? Have you observed this?
Thanks for that little bit of information about the calves on the cow.
Elizabeth,
Thanks for the reply.
I don't know the answers to your questions. I'd love to see the details of studies done on these questions.
I approach this from principle. Antibiotics have been a great boon to human medicine and health, when not abused. But we are on the verge of loosing this, and already have for many antibiotics. Some of these losses are attributed to use of antibiotics for livestock.
Use of antibiotics in livestock are not necessary and never were, there are other ways. The human cost in lives due to the emergence of antibiotic resistant drugs is too high to justify use in food animals.
Many customers agree, they don't want antibiotics residue or resistant bacteria. We could argue over what the supposed levels of safety are, but the sure-fire answer for the customer is absolutely no use of antibiotics.
So what do I do with a seriously ill cow? Well, first I get my production system in tune with nature and acquire the knowledge to seriously treat diseases in livestock with alternative medicine. If an animal gets sick I treat aggressively by other means. I've taken antibiotics off the table on principle. What if they don't respond? Antibiotics aren't a silver bullet. Sometimes animals treated with them don't survive either. That is just how it is.
What do I do with the animal? Well I don't give it antibiotics and sell it at auction. I know that is what organic producers do, but that goes against the principle as that animal often goes directly to feedlot or slaughter. I don't believe slaughter plants can take in downer cows anymore, so I won't be selling that meat. It really depends on what caused the sickness. I might butcher the cow for myself, or she might be coyote food.
Another option would be to treat the cow with antibiotics and then use her strictly as a nurse/brood cow. But there is some indication that antibiotic resistant bacteria may pass down to her offspring. Nor do I want her peeing pharmaceuticals on my pasture; we've got enough problems with such contamination in the water supply from humans without me adding to it.
This is where we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I could never slaughter a pregnant animal.
I could withhold antibiotics from a meat animal, but not from a pet or from a working animal, esp a pregnant working animal.
I agree that antibiotics have been grossly overused, esp for livestock. But I do not conclude from this that every use in livestock is unwarranted. If we saved antibiotics for only the most necessary cases, in both animals and people, we would not have the drug resistant problems we have now.
When organic producers take an animal, give it antibiotics, and then sell the animal into the conventional market, they are compromising the sustainablitly of their system. Which is why I think that a blanket ban on antibiotics on organic dairy farms is misguided. Selling a sick cow may reduce the use of anitibiotics on one farm, but it just increases the use on the factory farm (esp given that the factory farm will probably give that cow more than one course of anitibiotics over the course of her lifetime).
So I am very glad to hear that you would not sell a sick or treated cow. At least you stand by your principles.
I would like to see a raw milk standard that allows for more flexibility, so that my principles (a preference for anitibiotics over slaughtering or withholding treatment for pregnant animals) could be honored as well. Provided those principles do not affect the safety of the milk.
I am still waiting to see evidence or the explanantion of a mechanism whereby a course of anitibiotics will affect milk safety.