Risking business - Raising the raw milk debate, again

True but if you read my second link you will see that the analysis was done on a per serving basis. So that adjusts your ratios. Like I said I don't see anybody shouting for the immediate cessation of sales of lunch meat even though you have a 10 times greater chance of illness from it.

I don't have a problem with regulation, let dairies sell raw milk and test their milk on a regular basis to be sure it is safe. I am fine with that. But they won't do that, they just rail against what a health hazard it is without any studies or any facts to back up that claim.

You lost me here I am afraid. E coli for example is ingested and travels through your digestive system and eventually into your kidneys (HUS) and destroys them. It is not a bloodstream infection. Your brain, heart and muscles are not affected.

Ok not sure why you brought it up then?

Yes they are because currently I don't have any milk producing animals. If it is illegal to buy it then they are telling me I can't drink it.

Most infections stay in the system where they start and cause their damage in that system. So one that starts in the heart moves into the circulatory system, one that starts in the gut moves through the digestive system. One that makes the leap into all your systems is called sepsis and it is very serious and often fatal. Does that make sense?

I'm thinking you can get Salmonella in a lot of places, its the nasty infection from the hospital that nearly killed the poor guy. Hospitals are known hot beds of nasty infections and many of them have pretty poor records to protect you. I think the focus of this article is rather scewed. This dairyman ought to have known the risks involved with raw milk if he was producing it and still chose to drink it.

Just my thought.

Edit: BTW, I think that milk that travels and is mixed in large lost OUGHT to be pasteurized, that is a dangerous way to handle it.

__________________
~ Carol

I agree on both points!

I checked out the link, but could find NO mention of dairy cattle! It appears they're raising some beef cattle. I don't think that's the subject at hand. Try again?

For the record, I have no problem with any research done to improve the health and welfare of dairy cattle. In fact, it troubles me that the U.S. government is devoting far less money to dairy (and ag in general) research these days. The fact that today's cow produces 4x as much milk as her counterparts did in 1950 is the result of past research. There are still things to be learned and improved upon, though.

Shifting gears ... you know, when the raw milk issue was first debated here, I was staunchly in favor of prohibition or, at the very least, strict regulation. I didn't want to see the industry as a whole receive a black eye due to naive consumers being sickened by drinking raw milk. And, obviously, I didn't want to see people harmed.

Participating in these debates has changed my outlook, though. I really do believe a warning label, and perhaps some health department PSAs, ought to suffice. People dumb enough to drink the stuff can live with the consequences! Think of it as a little pasteurization for the gene pool. Sounds OK to me!

__________________
"I love all of this mud," said no one, ever.

Yes, that is what I thought to be true. I didn't agree in the OP story that the man got a bacterial infection in his blood from raw milk. So I was asking in case there was something I was missing.

Wow !!, willow girl, have we gotten you converted? And Patt, Haypoint will debate you on this issue till the cows come home. I have a question, don`t know if anyone covered this. How did the sons of this older gentlemen that drank the milk and got sick, know the milk was tainted? >Thanks For Now, Marc

__________________
Our Diversified Stock Portfolio: cows and calves, alpacas, horses, pigs, chickens, goats, sheep, cats ... and a couple of dogs...
http://springvalleyfarm.4mg.com

Yep! After all, people who forget history are condemned to repeat it.

Won't be me or mine suffering, so why should I care? (Even when I hand-milked my own cows, I always pasteurized the milk.)

__________________
"I love all of this mud," said no one, ever.

Thats pretty harsh Willow, I don`t smoke, drink, do any drugs, I guess my living on the edge is drinking Raw {real} Milk >Thanks Marc

__________________
Our Diversified Stock Portfolio: cows and calves, alpacas, horses, pigs, chickens, goats, sheep, cats ... and a couple of dogs...
http://springvalleyfarm.4mg.com

We were setting up my milking system last night. I see how easy it will be for me to make sure everything is scrupulously clean. A larger dairy just can't do it- and why should they if 750,000 something bits of bacteria are allowed? Pasturizing it will take care of that, right? I will have one cow to test - if we get a high count, I will know right where to look. It will be worth my time to search out the trouble and fix it. I will take my system over 750,000 dead bacteriums in my drink, thank you. Or was that 700,000 dead ones and 50,000 live ones? But whose counting, right?

they do it continuously. Many large dairies receive bonuses for low SCC. Some pay their employees a piece of that as incentive to follow procedures designed to keep the SCC low.
Any herd on test gets each animals milk checked monthly. Large dairies with automation have several methods for keeping track. From the milker prestripping to the machine actually checking temps during milking to catch problems before they can be seen.

SCC and mastitis are some of the biggest issues for dairies and most take them very seriously.

__________________
Deja Moo; The feeling I've heard this bull before.

Somatic cell count (SCC) is NOT a measurement of environmental bacteria in the milk. They're two separate things, not be be confused. Also, Sammy is right about premiums, etc. Farmers, like the rest of us, want to make as much money as they can and one way to do so is by shipping good milk! So most make a concerted effort to get those numbers down.

As a tester, I never saw a herd even APPROACH the SCC limits allowed under law. My worst herd (SCC-wise) was a small family farm milking 20 cows in a tie stall barn. Some of my best herds were the big mega-dairies. Imagine 1,200 cows with a 90-lb. average and a SCC around 100,000. That's pretty schweet!

I dunno. Maybe we do too much to coddle foolish people? What if we let the ones who were so inclined buy raw milk, ride motorcycles without helmets, do drugs, not vaccinate their kids, not wear seat belts, etc.? In most cases, their decisions would harm only themselves or their offspring, and the apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree, so no great loss. Wouldn't the problem take care of itself within a few generations? In the meantime, the foolish ones would serve as an example to the rest.

For the record, if you're drinking milk from your own cows, you've probably developed some immunity from being exposed to pathogens while handling those cows, so the risk isn't as significant. I always pasteurized my milk because I felt it was a small inconvenience for the potential benefit, and I gave a great deal of it away to non-farming family and friends.

__________________
"I love all of this mud," said no one, ever.

It didn't say but that was my question too. So far Haypoint appears to disappear when he sees statistics and official government websites to back up my claims.

This is really funny! According to your view we should all be dead since we did not vaccinate our children and we have drunk raw milk for 9 years now, some ours and some from others. Strangely enough all 3 of my boys grew up strong and healthy in spite of our attempts to kill them.

I assume you do not eat lunch meat? Or is it OK since a government official hasn't declared it evil to you?

Actually as the herd size increases it becomes much easier to keep things clean. Relative to the number of animals, there are a lot less things mechanically to check in a large parlour than in a small tiestall barn, plus the larger systems are newer and use a lot better technology for monitoring and washing. Also it becomes a lot easier to set and follow good protocols and routines in larger operations. Also, that one animal with a high count will have a much higher impact in a small herd than in a large herd... yes you can test and find them, but the tests can take 2-3 weeks to get back in some cases.

Couldn't find a link to bacteria counts but I've seen the numbers and you almost always find average bacteria counts decrease as herd sizes increase. Same goes for SCC, this is the link to the 2009 US DHI averages. Note that at EVERY increase in herd size, average SCC decreases (you're looking at Table 3). The same is true on both counts here in Ontario... the smallest herds have the most bacteria and SCC in the milk, the largest herds have the least. Various reasons, but it goes back to protocols and routines, better equipment and technology, better monitoring, and the simple fact that when somebody is milking 8 hours or more at a time, they get REALLY good at it or they get fired.

http://www.aipl.arsusda.gov/publish/...i10/sccrpt.htm

__________________
The internet - fueling paranoia and misinformation since 1873.

Regarding the story posted by the OP, the poor guy spent 5 days in the hospital for the samonella poisoning, and everything else in the story was caused by the hospital!

So, based on this story my observation is that hospitals should be shut down since there is too much risk involved with going to a hospital when you are ill.

We each have our own experiences and beliefs. My family has drunk (but never sold) raw goat milk for over 7 years now. None of us has gotten sick from it. However, my wife and I both became ill after eating at Taco Bell. Didn't require a doctor, just your basic upset stomach and diarhea.

These anecdotal stories can go on and on. I know our milk presents risks, but I also know our goats eat a natural, pesticide free diet. Our milk is as pure and fresh as humanly possible. Can the supermarkets make that claim?

__________________
The government can't give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
--Dr. Adrian Rogers

I don't have a problem with milk being pasturized. I don't have a problem with raw milk. I do have a problem with the government telling me that I have to drink pasturized milk. (I would anyway, just as I always wear a seat belt, I just don't think the government should force me to.) Here in Georgia, we just passed a law that forces people in pickups to wear seat belts. I have only driven trucks and have been wearing seat belts all of my life, but, I resent this law that will not change my life in the least.

Where will this go next? Will it soon be that you can only use just so much salt? That you can only watch so much TV in a day? That you can only be out in the sunlight for a pre-determined amount of time? You can only eat a certain amount/type of food. You body mass index can only be in a pre-determined range? Is the government going to tell you what your college major must be? How many children you can have? What you can read?

Every time one of these Nanny State laws is passed, we lose more and more of our freedom. See the writing on the wall. If you say that you don't care about seatbelt laws or bans on selling raw milk because it does not matter to you because you prefer pasturized milk or you always wear a seatbelt anyway, just think. Next time they could be telling you that you can't eat that steak, or, you can't read that particular book, or, you have too many children already, you must not have any more. Of course all of this will be for the "good of society" . Personal freedom is what built this nation. We seem to be giving it away at break neck speed. I hope we can take some personal responsibility before it is too late.



http://www.dostersheritagefarm.com

“Thanks, Patt, this is what I was finding too. I have yet to find a bacterial infection of the blood that is caused by raw milk. The OP said the man had salmonella AND a bacterial infection in his blood. You made some great points.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by haypoint
I'm no doctor, but I don't understand how an infection can go from your heart, a muscle, to the brain, without traveling through the circulatory system?
Patt then wrote: “You lost me here I am afraid. E coli for example is ingested and travels through your digestive system and eventually into your kidneys (HUS) and destroys them. It is not a bloodstream infection. Your brain, heart and muscles are not affected.”

Patt, let me bring you up to sped, Callieslamb wrote, “Thanks, I was trying to figure it all out last night, but it is hard to find a website that addresses this issue directly without going over my head in the first 2 sentences. I can see the body producing antigens that are delivered by the blood stream, but that doesn't make the bacteria found in the blood stream, does it? Or am I splitting hairs? My dad had an infection in his heart valve for almost a year, but it never progressed to his blood stream to spread through out his body. He did have some break off and travel through his body and enter his brain, causing a severe stroke. But, again, it didn't become a whole-body infection - and his didn't come from raw milk, I am just using him as an example of infections. In fact, when they went in to replace the valve, his whole heart had been affected by the infection and it fell apart on the operation table. A great surgeon saved him anyway. so what's the difference say salmonella and a bacterial infection of the blood?”

So, that was my reply. I couldn’t understand that if bacteria can’t (or seldom do) enter the blood stream, how does it travel from heart to brain. So, I sought the answer from a professional.

Bacteria is large (relatively) and seldom gets into the blood stream. However the toxins associated with or sloughed off from bacteria do get into the blood stream. So if you have a bacterial infection in your digestive tract, the toxins from that do get into your blood stream. Your body fights that, white blood cells build up, Those bits break off and plug other veins, causing strokes, heart attacks, etc.
While we are talking about bacterial infection of the digestive tract, we are not just talking about the uncontrollable watery cleansing. That’s part of it. But it is also an attack on the lining of every part of your digestive system. This is an infection of serious concern.

Quote:
Originally Posted by haypoint
An acre of corn can produce from 125 to over 200 bushels of shelled grain. An acre of average pasture cannot come close to producing that much protein. In my area, cattle are trucked here for summer pasture, allowing the home farm to grow the crops, trucking the cattle instead trucking the grain. This is done out of simple economics, not tradition. Please don't digress into one of the 5 or 6 "hot topics", grain fed vs grass fed. This raw milk debate is enough of a bone to chew, all by itself.
Patt wrote:”Ok not sure why you brought it up then?”

Patt, I think this is a discussion between several people and not a debate between you and I. This will take a long time if I have to put the comments of others into each posting I make, just so you’ll know what others have written.
I was responding to the comment of Callieslamb, “Similar to our method of raising millions of acres of grain so we can transport grains back and forth across the country to feed-lot our beef when the same acreage if put in pasture would support more cattle. Tradition or modern science?” I was responding to the comment, then attempting to channel the discussion back on track.

Quote:
Originally Posted by haypoint
The government isn't telling you you can't drink raw milk. That's not the topic. Does the government have the right to set standards and enforce them for the sale of food? The answer is clearly yes. They have the support of the general public, too.
Patt replied, “Yes they are because currently I don't have any milk producing animals. If it is illegal to buy it then they are telling me I can't drink it.”

There are many things that are illegal to sell but legal to use. This is a discussion on the sale and regulation of milk. For example, there are places where it is legal to smoke dope, but illegal to sell it. See the difference? Maybe that’s not such a good example. OK, I can eat meat, but I can’t sell it. I can grow fruit trees, but I can’t sell them. Regulations set the standards. My meat must be USDA inspected and I must be licensed. My nursery must be inspected and I must be licensed.

If you sell me raw milk and I get sick, is the law coming down on me for illegally buying it or are they going to hunt you down? I think we can both see the dramatic difference between selling and drinking.

Has anyone read the book, "The Milk of Human Kindness is not Pasturized" Lynn Miller of Small Farmes Journal used to sell it. Slanted against what I believe, but an interesting read.

double post, sorry.////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Who is the "WE" being referenced here? What constitutes foolish? Isn't ingesting or injecting toxins into your body foolishness? That seems to be what a lot of people do on a regular basis, especially in the form of "legal" drugs or vaccinations.

Is respecting an individual's right to pursue happiness (i.e. making their own decisions) coddling them? Is coddling the right term, though? It seems rather patronizing. Perhaps that is the result of one considering her position superior to the presumed positions of uneducated/wacko/foolish people while failing to recognize her own ignorance?

Fundamentally, don't people have the right to choose for themselves? In this case, don't individuals have the right to choose what they wish to drink, whether you or anyone else thinks they are foolish? Many of them probably feel the same way about you, with just as much justification for their position.

mudburn

__________________

The greatest waste in life is life itself.
H. L. Roush, Sr. (Henry and the Great Society)