Various media have been waging one of the bigger anti-raw milk propaganda campaigns in memory through their reporting on a recent individual case of brucellosis (also known as undulant fever) attributed to raw milk consumption. The media are using the case, the third individual incident of brucellosis blamed on raw milk consumption in the past year and a half, to warn the public that people are putting their health in jeopardy if they don’t consume milk that is pasteurized. The illnesses occurred in Texas in August 2017, New Jersey in October 2017, and New York in November 2018, with the latest illness blamed on Miller’s Biodiversity Farm of Quarryville, Pennsylvania; there is currently a quarantine in effect prohibiting the farm from distributing raw dairy products. A cow that tested positive for brucella has been removed from the dairy herd.

The media have been taking their cues from press releases issued by public health departments, namely the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which have been giving the advice to pasteurize all milk. However, the solution to avoid getting brucellosis is far different from what public health officials and the media are telling you. In the words of one healthcare professional, “For public health officials to issue public notices that the solution to this avoidable problem is to pasteurize all milk is astonishing.”

BRUCELLOSIS FACTS

First, the three cases of brucellosis are the only known cases attributed to raw milk consumption over the past twenty years. Brucellosis is a systemic disease in cattle and humans that is caused by the bacteria Brucella abortus. At one time the disease in cows caused severe reductions in offspring and was a problem for the cattle industry. A national eradication campaign was launched in the 1950s and according to USDA statistics, the number of cattle or bison herds affected by brucellosis in the U.S. has been less than ten every year from 2003 onward.¹

The eradication program’s success has led to a huge decline in the number of brucellosis cases in humans; estimates are about one hundred cases of human brucellosis per year in this country.² In the U.S., this is mainly an occupational disease with most of the rare cases of brucellosis occurring in people who attended the birth of an infected cow and then became infected during handling of the birth tissues and fluids.^3,4

In an infected dairy cow, the Brucella abortus pathogen can proliferate in the mammary glands and then enter the milk. The pathogen can pass to humans when drinking the infected milk, but as mentioned the cases of brucellosis attributed to drinking raw milk in the U.S. are extremely rare.

A lab test called “milk ring test” is the traditional and commonly used method to screen dairy herds to detect any cows with brucellosis; the test is performed on the herd’s milk to check for the rare presence of brucella antibodies.

Two vaccines against brucellosis have been developed for calves: the S19 vaccine and the RB51 vaccine. The S19 vaccine is effective, but it has the disadvantage of causing testing for antibodies to become positive. The vaccine can make it difficult to distinguish between a vaccinated cow and an infected cow. The RB51 vaccine does not cause the antibody testing of cows to become positive, but another problem arises with its use.

The RB51 vaccine must be administered to calves before they become fertile; a side effect is that, if a cow is given the RB51 vaccine when pregnant, it may actually cause an infection with the vaccine strain of brucella in the vaccinated cow. It is, therefore, possible that if the RB51 vaccine isn’t given strictly according to the protocol, the vaccinated cow may become infected and may shed the pathogen (that is, the RB51 strain of brucella) into the milk.

Public health officials have found in all three cases of illness from brucellosis attributed to raw milk consumption, the strain of Brucella abortus discovered was the RB51 vaccine strain. In fact, in November 2017, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture sent a letter to licensed raw milk producers in the state advising them to stop immunizing cows with the RB51 vaccine.⁵

So the solution to preventing brucellosis in raw milk is not for producers to pasteurize the milk but rather to either stop giving their herd the RB51 vaccine or to make sure their vets give the calves the vaccine before the calves become fertile. Worth noting, too, is that hundreds of people drank raw milk produced by the herds responsible for the three cases of brucellosis and, as far as is known, no one else became sick.

MEDIA FEAR-MONGERING

In the meantime, the media fear-mongering continues. The latest case of brucellosis attributed to raw milk consumption dates back to November 2018, but to read the stories in the media, you would think it had just been discovered. CDC press releases on this latest case dated January 23, 2019, and February 11, 2019, are providing the impetus for the flood of media reports.

Has the anti-raw-milk agenda ever gotten so much mileage from three illnesses?

A fear-mongering statement from the February 11 CDC press release that the media have parroted is, “the CDC and state health officials are investigating potential exposures, to brucella strain RB51 in 19 states, connected to consuming raw (unpasteurized) milk from Miller’s Biodiversity Farm in Quarryville, Pennsylvania.”⁶ (The farm allegedly distributed raw milk to people in the nineteen states listed later in the release.) Being exposed to a pathogen is far different than being sickened by it; we are exposed to various pathogenic bacteria such as listeria and E. coli in the environment every day.

One headline screamed, “Deadly disease caused by raw milk has already put 19 U.S. states on high alert.”⁷ There have been no deaths from brucellosis attributed to raw milk consumption since the eradication program succeeded in substantially eliminating the incidence of the disease and possibly even long before then.

The public health agencies and their allies in the press have been misleading the public long enough on raw milk and brucellosis. It’s time for fear and hysteria to give way to science and common sense.

REFERENCES

1. “Brucellosis Affected Cattle/Bison Herds by State, FY 1997-2018” graph. USDA-APHIS National Brucellosis Eradication Program (September 10, 2018), https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animaldisease-information/cattle-disease-information/national-brucellosiseradication/brucellosis-eradication-program.
2. “Facts About Brucellosis.” USDA-APHIS National Brucellosis Eradication Program, Section “Resources” link (see question #21), https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_diseases/brucellosis/downloads/bruc-facts.pdf.
3. “How Brucellosis is Spread” section. USDA-APHIS National Brucellosis Eradication Program (September 10, 2018), https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-disease-information/cattle-diseaseinformation/national-brucellosis-eradication/brucellosis-eradication-program
4. “Fast Facts: Brucellosis, Undulant Fever.” Iowa State University, The Center for Food Security & Public Health. April 2008, http://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/FastFacts/pdfs/brucellosis_F.pdf.
5. Letter dated November 30, 2017. Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Health and Diagnostic Services, Dr. David Wolfgang (Director) and Dr. Lydia Johnson (Director, Bureau of Food Safety & Laboratory Services); accessed at https://www.yourfamilyfarmer.com/uploads/documents/RB51-Brucellosis-Letter-PDA-2017.pdf.
6. Media Statement. CDC (February 11, 2019), https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2019/s0211-brucellosis-raw-milk.html.
7. “Deadly Disease Caused by Raw Milk Has Already Put 19 U.S. States on High Alert.” ScienceAlert.com, Carly Cassella (February 15, 2019), https://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-dangerous-to-drink-raw-milk-the-cdc-warns-forthe-umpteenth-time.

This article was first published in the Spring 2019 issue of Wise Traditions in Food, Farming, and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

The post Brucellosis Propaganda appeared first on Real Milk.

Vechur cattle originated in the area around the village of Vechur in the southwest state of Kerala, India. The tiny gentle cows were so greatly valued that at one time wellwishers presented them as wedding gifts.

These native cattle have been rescued from the brink of extinction by geneticist Dr. Sosamma Iype. Dr. Iype received help from her students who volunteered to search for the last remaining cattle in remote areas and temples, where they had been protected from government policies that forbade people to own them.

First eight and then later twenty-five individual cattle were found to help preserve the precious germplasm for future generations. Over twenty-five years of dedicated hard work has been done to save these cows. Many formidable impediments and obstacles stood in the way; however ,the outcome was ultimately a success story: the Vechur Conservation Trust was created in 1998.

Now there is a wide appreciation for the great value of these little cows and their numbers are gradually being built up so that marginal farmers and others may benefit from the nourishing milk and other dairy products they provide.

The author feeding a Vechur cow

A SPECIAL BREED

Their exceptionally small, manageable size (about the size of a large goat breed), and pleasant disposition (they are often considered a family pet) plus a very long, productive life span make these cattle of particular value and winsomeness. They are intelligent, hearty, clean, disease resistant and adapted to high heat conditions, being native to tropical Kerala, India.

Vechur cows are not prone to mastitis, parasites, or hoof and mouth disease, and they calve easily. The milk of Vechur cattle is outstanding, with a butterfat content of up to five percent, and with a smaller fat globule size from that of other dairy breeds, making the milk easily digestible. This milk is considered to have extraordinary medicinal properties and there has been some research claiming that the milk from such cattle helps lower the risk of many chronic conditions such as diabetes, asthma, autism, allergies, schizophrenia, SIDS, and cardiac disease.

The Vechur breed carries the A2 beta casein gene variant which has been linked to a lower incidence of the conditions mentioned above. See web references 1 and 2 below for more information.

VERSATILE

The daily milk yield is between three to four quarts (three to four liters). The Vechur does not require much grazing space (only a quarter acre per cow), and no grain supplementation is necessary. These cows will be happy to eat a wide variety of vegetation (some of which is extremely fibrous and tough), along with grass, banana peels and other kitchen vegetative leftovers!

The Vechur cattle can also be used as draft animals and due to their small size, do not have a damaging impact on the land. Their manure does not smother the plant life in fields due to its shape and dry consistency. It is easier to handle than manure from large cows and it breaks down easily into compost. Even their urine has special properties that make it ideal for growing culinary mushrooms!

In this period of escalating climate change it is crucial to preserve such animals for current and future generations. Vechur cattle are a crucial element in maintaining the planet’s bio-diversity.

OWNING A VECHUR

Owning a Vechur is a step towards sustainability and independence from the denatured food being turned out by factory farming with genetically altered, inhumanely treated, sickly animals that require antibiotics to be kept alive for their short and miserable lives.

Corn and soy-laden grain exact a high cost financially, environmentally and are a detriment to health.

Here is the perfect cow for individuals and families, one that does not represent a huge carbon footprint and can provide you with healthy, rich raw milk.

Donations are needed to purchase more land for breeding stock in this very crowded part of India, where open land is scarce and expensive. Animal caregivers need to be paid and a high-tech facility for the freezing of semen and embryos needs to be established so that one day this amazing cow will be available for all who want one!

For further information and to make donations go to: vechur.org and/or write to patricelopatin@gmail.com.

WEB REFERENCES
1. http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/kerala/article544392.ece
2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16403684
3. Video about the Vechur: http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/26833/vechur-back-from-brink-of-extinction.html

The Vechur is an ideal animal for India!

Patrice Lopatin is a conservationist/environmentalist, trained chef, organic gardener, artist, writer of commentaries. She studies nutrition, sustainability, and animal behavior/intelligence. Patrice has run a whole foods nature retreat in Goshen, Vermont called High Meadow and visited India for several months as a volunteer assisting Dr. Iype and the Trust in any way possible. The author will be interviewed on local television in the next few months and a Youtube video will be made available with photos and film footage. To learn more about the history of the rescue of Vechur cattle, visit http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/26833/vechur-back-from-brink-of-extinction.html

This article appeared in the Spring 2013 edition of Wise Traditions, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

The post Meet the Tiniest Dairy Cow in the World! Vechur Cattle appeared first on Real Milk.

Pour ne choquer personne, je pense que “gros gibier” s’applique bien à cette maladie reconnue pour la première fois à la fin des années 1960 dans un troupeau d’élans (elk) en captivité à Fort-Colins, dans le Colorado. Ce n’est qu’à la fin des années 1970 qu’elle fut identifiée comme une encéphalopathie spongiforme transmissible. On la retrouva par la suite chez le “daim” américain (une variété de cerf?) dans les réserves de gibier sauvage du nord-est du Colorado et du sud-est du Wyoming, puis dans quelques troupeaux de gibier en captivité de quelques ranches de quelques états de l’ouest des Etats-Unis et du Canada. Bien qu’elle ait été diagnostiquée pour la première fois sur des cervidés en captivité, nul ne sait si la source originelle de la maladie se trouve dans les animaux en liberté ou sur des sujets retenus en captivité à des fins de recherche.

La CWD, le sigle est à présent à la mode et les afficionados friands de sensation le déclinent avec autant de gourmandise que celui qui s’applique à la maladie de la vache folle (ESB), est une maladie relativement rare et sa distribution géographique très limitée. Ce n’est pas parce que les curieux vont pouvoir découvrir sur le site internet du Milwaukee Sentinel plus de 50 articles sur cette maladie depuis le premier janvier 2002 et risquant de porter préjudice à la chasse dans un état particulièrement giboyeux, qu’il faille paniquer. En réalité, à ma connaissance, la maladie n’a été identifiée à l’état sauvage que dans 11 contés (l’équivalent de nos arrondissements) contigus du nord-est du Colorado, du sud-est du Wyoming et du Nebraska et un cas à été découvert sur un animal (mule deer) au Saskatchewann (Canada) par un chasseur. Bien que le nombrede cas recencés chaque année semble être en légère augmentation, on n’a relevé à ce jour que moins de 300 cas cliniques de CWD et l’augmentation du nombre pourrait aussi bien s’expliquer par une vigilance accrue des personnes en contact avec ces animaux : chasseurs, des ranchers et fonctionnaires en charge de la chasse.

Sur des animaux en captivité, on a diagnostiqué la CWD dans un petit nombre de ranchs de 5 états américains et au Saskatchewan voisin.

Transmission de la maladie

Ni l’agent de la maladie, ni son mode de transmission n’ont été identifiés de façon certaine. La seule chose que l’on sache, c’est que la maladie se traduit par des lésions spécifiques analogues à celles qui sont la caractéristique de toutes les encéphalopathies spongiformes (dites transmissibles) et l’accumulation d’une protéine prion résistante aux enzymes protéolytiques (PrPsc) dans les tissus nerveux.

En réalité, plus de 8.000 analyses effectuées sur des animaux provenant de régions autres que celles qui sont connues pour être infectées de façon endémique se sont toutes révélées négatives.

“Les barrières qui empêchent le passage de l’agent infectieux à la vache et à l’homme restent formidables”. Telle est la conclusion du journaliste du Journal Sentinel dans l’article publié le 8 août 2002, à propos du récent colloque de Denver au Colorado sur la CWD et auquel ont assisté plus de 400 personnes : scientifiques, chercheurs, chasseurs, fonctionnaires de la chasse. ” Le bétail en contact dans des enclos voisins d’élans ou de daims (cerfs?) infectés n’a jamais montré le moindre symptôme de la maladie après 5 ans d’observation” a déclaré Elisabeth S. Williams, chercheur à l’Université du Wyoming, lors de ce symposium, “et le bétail des ranchs atteints de CWD au Wyoming et au Colorado en contact avec des animaux malades de CWD n’a pas montré non plus de signes de contamination.”

A l’échelon moléculaire, une étude a montré que les barrières présentées par le mouton étaient moins efficaces que celles présentées par les vaches ou les humains, selon Gregory Raymond, du Laboratoire des Montagnes Rocheuses de l’Institut National de la Santé.

Patrick Bosque, neurologiste de Denver et professeur au service de neurologie de l’Université du Colorado, a souligné que “relativement peu d’Américains ont été en contact avec du gibier infecté, si on compare à ce qui s’est passé en Grande-Bretagne en matière de vache folle”. On a estimé que 50 millions de Britanniques ont consommé de la viande d’animaux contaminés et on n’a relevé à présent que 124 cas de variant de la maladie de Creutzfeldt-Jacob (MCJ). Les travaux de Bosque ont établi que les agents de la CWD, de la vache folle et du variant de la MCJ pouvaient s’accumuler dans le squelette des souris infectées artificiellement. Des études sont en cours pour voir si la même accumulation pouvait se produire dans le muscle. A l’heure actuelle, la seule chose que l’on puisse affirmer, c’est que le prion s’accumule dans le tissu nerveux, les ganglions et la moelle epinière des animaux atteints et le seul conseil que l’on puisse donner, c’est d’éviter de consommer ces morceaux dans les zones infectées lors de la découpe des animaux. Les centre américains de Contrôle et de Prévention des Maladies ont étudié les cas de MCJ chez les personnes de moins de 30 ans, consommant du gibier de façon régulière. Ils n’ont trouvé aucun lien de cause à effet entre la CWD et l’apparition de MCJ chez aucune des victimes.

Y a-t-il une autre explication?

La pensée unique, tant en matière de vache folle (ESB), que de scrapie (tremblante du mouton) et de CWD, et même de variant de la MCJ (vCJD), c’est que toutes ces maladies sont provoquées par un prion, une protéine mutante, qui aurait la possibilité de se répliquer, pour ne pas dire se multiplier. Cet être “semi-vivant” aurait la faculté de survivre à des températures qui détruiraient les bactéries, les virus et les parasites les plus résistants, ce qui aurait permis leur passage du mouton à la vache au travers de cervelles de moutons transformées en farines de viande.

Cette hypothèse du prion dit “infectant” ne tient pas compte d’un certain nombre de constatations. Les habitants des Iles Shetland, au large de l’Ecosse, se sont régalés durant des siècles avec des ragoûts de cervelles de moutons atteints de scrapie. On n’y a jamais constaté le moindre symptôme pouvant faire penser qu’ils avaient été contaminés par cette voie. On a aussi constaté des cas de vCJD chez des végétariens de longue date, n’ayant jamais consommé de cervelle ni de viande. Il n’y a jamais eu de bonne explication de la raison pour laquelle les vaches pouvaient contracter l’ESB en mangeant des cervelles de moutons atteints de scrapie, ni celle pour laquelle les humains pourraient attraper la vCJD en ingérant quelques dizaines de grammes de viande d’un animal contaminé?

Il faut enfin remarquer que 80% des “jeunes personnes” mortes en Grande-Bretagne de vCJD vivaient dans les zones rurales du pays, où n’habite que 20% de la population. Un groupage de cas dans le Weald District, dans le Kent, s’est produit dans une zone de production intensive de houblon, où les récoltes sont traitées avec des organo-phosphorés à des doses cent fois supérieures à la moyenne des autres cultures.

On connait les idées de Marc Purdey sur l’implication des organo-phosphorés utilisés pour le traitement et la prévention du varron chez les bovins en Grande-Bretagne au tout début des années 1980 (et aussi en Bretagne). Ce fermier bio, dispensé par la Haute Cour de Justice de Grande-Bretagne de suivre les injonctions du Ministère de l’Agriculture pour le traitement de ses animaux, a élaboré une théorie alternative à l’intervention du prion “réplicateur” dans la pathogénie de l’ESB, impliquant l’influence des organophosphorés par la carence relative en cuivre qu’ils provoqueraient au niveau du système nerveux, et le remplacement du cuivre par le manganèse lors de la synthèse du prion, transformant ainsi l’activité anti-oxydante due au cuivre du prion normal et destinée à lutter contre les radicaux libres produits lors de la transmission de l’influx nerveux au niveau des synapses, en une action pro-oxydante du manganèse (tri- ou quadrivalent) qui a remplacé le cuivre déficient de ce prion physiologique (PrP), le transformant en prion pathologique (PrPsc pour srapie), l’empêchant ainsi de remplir sa fonction d’élimination des radicaux libres et contribuant ainsi au contraire à la destruction de la cellule nerveuse par son action pro-oxydante.

Cette idée a été prouvée à l’Université de Bath par David Brown, qui a réussi à produire du prion pathologique dans des cultures de cellules, en faisant varier les concentrations en cuivre et en manganèse du milieu de culture. Les expériences auxquelles s’est livré Brown, en utilisant de fortes concentrations de manganèse avec de faibles concentrations en cuivre ont permis de reproduire les quatre changements de structure de la protéine prion, quand elle passe de l’état PrP normal à l’état PrPsc pathologique.

Purdey passe à présent son temps à courir à travers le monde pour étudier les “épidémies d’encéphalopathies spongiformes transmissibles (ESST), aussi bien chez l’homme que chez les animaux domestiques ou sauvages. Ses arguments sur la relation de l’équilibre cellulaire cuivre-manganèse du système nerveux lors de la synthèse du prion semblent solides et parfaitement logiques. Le fermier bio, devenu entre temps expert en biochimie et en physiologie, a avancé une explication de la survenue de la CWD chez les élans et les daims sauvages du Colorado et du Wyoming.

Purdey a effectué un voyage dans les zones touchées par la CWD chez les daims et élans sauvages. Il y a constaté que, dans cette zone située sur les premières pentes des Montagnes Rocheuses, la surpopulation de ces animaux affamés les obligeaient à se nourrir d’aiguilles de pin en période de disette. Or les aiguilles de pin de cette région présentent des teneurs très élevées en manganèse, en relation peut-être avec des pluies acides dues aux émanations de haut-fourneaux situés dans la direction des vents dominants du secteur. Il a constaté un phénomène analogue en Slovaquie où deux “groupages” de MJC sont voisins de fonderies utilisant des minerais de ferro-manganèse et en verreries fortes utilisatrices de composés riches ebn manganèse. Et aussi en Islande, où la scrapie sévit sur des sols présentant un rapport Haute teneur en manganèse / Faible teneur en cuivre élevé.

Finalement toutes ces ESST s’apparentent fort à la condition dénommée “Folie du Manganèse” qui sévissait et sévit encore dans les mines de manganèse, quand les conditions de ventilation sont déficientes. Dans l’ile de Groote Eylandt, au nord-est de l’Australie, où est produite à présent 25% de la production mondiale de manganèse, la population locale, essentiellement composée d’aborigènes Agurugu, présente chez une personne sur trente le Syndrome de Groote, une maladie cérébrale fatale à évolution progressive. Les chercheurs, financés par la compagnie minière, ont avancé l’hypothèse d’une défectuosité génétique amenée là, il y a plus de 300 ans, par des navigateurs portuguais! En dépit du fait que certains blancs présentent aussi ce syndrome et que l’émergence de la maladie coïncide avec le début des opérations minières.

La confirmation de ces constatations devraient fatalement finir par poser la question du bien-fondé des mesures mises en place pour l’éradication de ce type de maladies ESST, pour rassurer les consommateurs, au coût prohitif que l’on connait (1 milliard d’euros au bas mot par an pour notre pays pour la seule ESB). Avec la perspectives du même genre de dépenses, si on pousse l’inconséquence jusqu’à occire les troupeaux de moutons et de chèvres coupables d’un délit de scrapie. Avec la probabilité d’aller au devant d’un échec : la constatation de la découverte de 27 cas supernaïfs depuis la mise en place des contrôles systématiques sur les carcasses et les cadavres devrait donner à réfléchir et à préciser le pourcentage des cas totaux qu’ils représente. Pas besoin de se faire prophète pour dire dès maintenant que ces naïfs représenteront 100 des cas recencés d’ici quatre ou cinq ans, et qu’il serait bien étonnant que leur nombre se limitât alors à quelques unités, même si, entre-temps, on se soit arrangé de réaliser autrement que jusqu’à présent la prophyllaxie du varron…

The post La Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) ou maladie chronique débilitante du gros gibier appeared first on Real Milk.

For years, we have all known that raw milk production and consumption has been oppressed and hobbled by regulators and the huge dairy processors that are politically and economically tied to the regulators. After all, the processors do not like raw milk. They do not make any money on raw milk simply because raw milk does not ever get processed. Raw milk bypasses the processors and directly connects the farmer to the consumer―economically, nutritionally and spiritually.

High quality raw milk is a horror story for processors because processing is a method to fake high quality using technology to cover-up CAFO filth; and in the processing, the most allergenic food in America is created. Compounding their challenges, more and more humans cannot consume processed milk because of lactose intolerance.

High quality raw milk cannot be outsourced from China and it cannot be faked. High quality raw milk can only come from high quality ethical farmers who care and invest in their systems and conditions from “Grass to the Glass.”

THE SAFETY CARD

Processors and their friends in the FDA continuously use the Food Safety Card against raw milk. It is now time to establish a record of truth, a raw milk food safety record to demonstrate to the world that raw milk is a very safe food and can be reliably produced when standards are applied with care.

On March 25, 2010, Whole Foods Market discontinued raw milk in all of its stores nationally, including fifty-five California stores, eight stores in Pennsylvania and additional stores in Washington, Connecticut and other states. One of the leading reasons they gave for this action was the total lack of uniform national standards for raw milk. Raw milk in California was not the same as raw milk in Connecticut. Although we in the raw milk movement were not happy about Whole Foods cutting-off raw milk sales, their argument did have some validity.

Nationally, raw milk standards are literally a scattered chaotic mess, and the dairy processors, national brands and the FDA love it this way. Raw milk is illegal in some places and it is legal in other places. In some places, it can only be sold on the farm but with no signs to advertize.

Strangely it is legal to be sold in some places if fewer than 23 quarts per day are offered for sale and illegal if more than 23 quarts are sold. In some states it can be sold if you buy the cow or part of a cow. In Florida it can be bought as pet food. The U.S. raw milk situation has been intentionally configured to be a total mess.

For many years those of us in the raw milk movement saw this situation festering and brew- ing. We have heard farmers all over America saying, “Somebody help; somebody set some standards and lead us away from this chaos.” We waited and waited. Years passed and no one stood up to lead raw milk to a better place, a place of consistency, pride, safety and transparency, with high ethical standards that everyone, regardless of size or location, could achieve.

In this vacuum, The Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) was finally born in late summer of 2011. The mission was to mentor and assist farmers and to establish “Common Standards” for raw milk production. This effort would assist consumers in their efforts to find and identify high quality, dedicated, committed raw milk producers and be able to see and understand their food safety efforts.

It has long been known that few consumers really know what to look for in their raw milk producer and farmer. The evidence of safe raw milk production is not easily seen from out in front of the barn gate or from the on-farm store. The evidence lies very deep in the practices of the farmer from “Grass to the Glass.” The evidence of a farmer’s hard work and efforts are found in the quality of the water source, the temperatures reached during cleaning, the feeds given to the cows, the bacteria counts of their finished products and so many more things that cannot be easily appreciated from the outside looking in.

THE RIGHT MESSAGE

At first, many raw milk farmers saw RAWMI as big brother coming to regulate raw milk producers and tell everyone what to do and how to do it. RAWMI was initially not welcomed and in fact it was shunned by many. RAWMI learned from this speed bump and made some modifications to its voice and its mission. Instead of being the “responsible voice of raw milk,” RAWMI became “a tool and resource for raw milk producers.” This worked―invitations to mentor and help farmers started to flow in.

RAWMI STANDARDS

After working for more than eight months, RAWMI completed a vetting process that included:

1. A review of the RAWMI Common Standards by members of the RAWMI executive advisory board.

2. A review by farmers nationally and internationally.

3. A review by the California Secretary of Agriculture Small Herd Working Group members, which included the Department of Public Health, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) state vet, and members of the County Health Department Medical Directors, as well as many small dairy operators.

The RAWMI Common Standards were officially published by the RAWMI directors in July 2012. The Common Standards are unique because they do not mandate how a farmer must produce raw milk. Instead, the Common Standards set the standard for how all raw milk should measure when produced properly using whatever production systems that the farmer may choose, depending on the size and location of the operations. Each farm and location is different and those differences are embraced by RAWMI. The Common Standards also go beyond any other standards and mandate that each farm develop and follow its own food safety plan to achieve success consistently. Each plan is different and reflects the farmer’s innovations, location, conditions and size.

OUTBREAK IN OREGON

In Oregon, twenty-three people were seriously sickened in February 2012 after consuming raw milk from a cow share operation. As a result of this outbreak, RAWMI was invited to provide training and additional assistance to more than fifty small Oregon raw milk dairy farmers who made the decision to stand together, embrace standards and improve raw milk production. The first RAWMI listed dairymen came out of this training and mentoring experience.

We are very proud to announce Champoeg Creamery and its owner Charlotte Smith as being the first “RAWMI listed” raw milk dairy operation in North America. Charlotte will be speaking about her RAWMI experience and the tools that RAWMI brings to her operations at the Santa Clara WAPF convention in November 2012.

It is hoped that more small dairy operations will follow her example and join RAWMI and become listed.

TRANSPARENCY

We have seen a national trend towards some raw milk producers “secretly hiding and being scared of transparency.” We do not blame producers who hide away from exposure. In many parts of the U.S. raw milk production is illegal and hiding is required.

However, it will be very difficult to advance raw milk food safety or establish a track record of safety and increase consumer access to raw milk, if raw milk producers do not come out of hiding. RAWMI is not about hiding; it is about standing up and leading the way forward with pride and hard work.

So many small dairy operators fear government and fear exposure and this is not without merit or good reason. RAWMI is a tool that can help farmers understand their own challenges and manage these challenges. RAWMI is a tool to allow transparency of the bacteria counts that each farmer should be so proud of. RAWMI is a way for consumers to be able to identify high quality sources of raw milk and know that a third party has audited their systems.

A RAWMI Listed Dairyman is connected to a broader brotherhood of like minded dairymen who challenge themselves every day to achieve excellence. These RAWMI listed dairymen act as mentors for one another and support each other in times of need. Most importantly, a RAWMI listed dairyman has a plan to help him avoid a time of need.

When the RAWMI listed seal is seen, consumers will know what they are buying and feeding their families.

Not everyone will embrace this new openness. Not everyone will want to stand up and establish a track record where there was none before. RAWMI is for pioneers who want to change the world and make it a healthier place for all to live, one baby, one family and one farmer at a time. RAWMI listed farmers will be a group of pioneers who will fear little because they will have done the hard work to assure excellence in their raw milk products.

The line to become RAWMI listed has formed and we now have many farmers interested and have submitted applications to follow Charlotte’s lead. A brave new world of transparency and openness has been established and now it is up to us to join and support RAWMI as we establish a track record and prove that raw milk is safe and healing.

THE BENEFITS TO FARMERS

Each RAWMI listed farmer will have their own portal at www.rawmilkinstitute.org to display three essential pieces of information about their operations. That information includes:

1. The farmer’s story and website.

2. A copy of their RAMP food safety plan showing the “Grass to Glass” efforts that they make to assure the very best raw milk possible.

3. Raw milk bacteria counts and testing results.

This type of transparency is something that consumers have been quietly demanding for years. It is also a way for the hard work and efforts of the farmer to be displayed and appreciated. When one hundred dairies are listed and showing their data, the FDA will have a pretty darn hard time denying the cold clean raw milk facts.

CALIFORNIA

It is interesting that not all localities have embraced RAWMI. In California, for instance, the political climate for micro-dairies has been less than inviting. In fact the situation in California is dynamic and changing. In 2013, a bill will be introduced in California to legalize the sale of raw milk off the farm as long as the farmer has three or fewer cows and sells to the final consumer directly off of the farm.

The draft is not final, but the content has pretty much already been negotiated with all the powers in charge. This happened as a result of the efforts of the “CDFA Small Herd Working Group” and the engagement and work of CDFA, Department of Public Health and the state vet along with cow share owners and yes, RAWMI was at all seven of the meetings.

This is huge progress and signals a “cease fire” in the CDFA attack against the California family cow and local consumption and sale of raw milk. RAWMI has been a part of the development of the voluntary self-certification standards that were drawn up at the working group, but RAWMI still appears to be an outsider for some micro-dairies because of the distrust for political process that so many of the family cow operations have had with state regulators. Some would rather hide than engage. As time passes more and more of the California small dairies are changing their attitudes and RAWMI is becoming more of a resource as transparency and food safety become more essential in the relationship between farmer and consumer.

In other states this political dynamic appears to be a reflection of the local situation. In Oregon there is little or no hesitancy to engage and become transparent.

FOOD SAFETY IS THE FUTURE

Food safety and testing are all new to most micro-dairies. Time and demonstrated RAWMI utility will change things. I can imagine a time when raw milk dairies will brag about their RAWMI testing numbers and RAWMI will become a place to read consumer raw milk testimonials that are FDA-banned at their own farmers’ websites. RAWMI portal data will become something you take to your bank or your insurance agent for access to lower premiums. RAWMI portal data will be a household reference point for consumers seeking to learn about their food sources. We should all work to accomplish this as a goal. It will be good for farmers, consumers, cows, the earth and America.

The evidence collected by RAWMI is irrefutable and everyone, even our government, will be able to review and see the facts for themselves. RAWMI is a market builder and teaching organization.

Market building and teaching are the two most effective tools that can be used against the highly corrupt pasteurized milk commodity systems that ignore consumer health, raw milk test data, CDC and NIH research science and farmer sustainability. After all, the processors love a farmer that sells them milk at below cost.

It has been said that things are cheaper if you can steal them. That is exactly the paradigm of thought that runs through the minds and checkbooks of modern day processors and their dairy farm-killing, allergy-causing, lactose intolerance-inflicting brand interests.

Raw milk has entered a new century and will become a food with a new earned respect because of the hard work of farmers and the direct support of their consumers. RAWMI is a tool to get this done.

If you would like to become RAWMI listed or you know a farmer that could be assisted by RAWMI, please contact us. We are a 501c3 non-profit that is at your Raw Milk service.

Visit www.rawmilkinstitute.org and donate your dollars to assure that this vision and its goals are accomplished. Our farmers need this support and our next generations need this food. A unified voice with common standards for safe clean raw milk is rapidly becoming reality and soon many farmers will be RAWMI listed and supported.

RAWMI is allied with Cow Share Canada and shares a similar vision and mission.

This article appeared in the Fall 2012 issue of Wise Traditions, the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

[include content_id=1029]

The post Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) appeared first on Real Milk.

Biological farming is a dynamic system of farming that works with natural principles. Its purpose is to make a profit by growing healthy, mineralized foods that are nutrient-rich and of maximum quality for people. In order for this to occur, all stages of production including soil, forage, crop, animal, business and lifestyle management must be healthy and interdependent.

The biological cycle begins in the soil and is based on a healthy population of balanced microbiology—such as bacteria, fungi, protozoa and earthworms—which require soils with an adequate supply of properly balanced nutrients including, but not limited to, nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, sulfur, zinc, manganese, iron, boron and additional trace elements.

The biological farming approach that we use here at Otter Creek Organic Farms aims to improve and balance soil and forage/crop mineral levels by using a balanced fertilizer program, growing green manure crops, practicing proper tillage, employing tight crop rotations, utilizing a wide diversity of plant species, and measuring and monitoring all of these aspects.

Mineralized soil produces high quality forages, which yield healthy productive livestock; cows that have minimal or no health complications, breed back easily and efficiently produce ample, high quality milk with potentially fewer dollars invested in fertilizers, off-farm feed and supplements, and minimal vet bills.

You can see how biological farms often have a decreased cost of operation. As if that weren’t good enough, now consider that using a biological system often facilitates the transition to organic production and you’ve got a recipe for maximizing farm profits.

MEASURING FARM HEALTH

An essential starting point for implementing a biological or organic system is a beginning farm evaluation. Possible components of this evaluation include the right kind of soil test, feed and pasture tests, and visual soil and pasture assessment using a method that measures specific soil and pasture characteristics. Once this information is gathered, we have a baseline starting/reference point and can then put together a livestock, fertility and crop improvement plan based on those data.

Testing must be part of an ongoing monitoring system. After all, if you can’t measure or know whether you are making improvements, how can you have confidence that you are on the right road? Tests, however, can only give us clues about our feeds and soils. The more we monitor with both tests and observation, the more complete a picture of improvement we can get, although tests themselves are often incomplete. That said, we often take soil samples every three years because major changes that would show up on a soil test are usually gradual.

Just as soil tests don’t measure what’s in a soil (they only measure nutrients that are easily extracted and assumed to be usable by the crop), feed tests only measure parts and pieces of the feed but certainly not everything. They are only calculations—assumptions and estimates based on the “normal” range. Tests give us clues as to what is going on and offer a starting point, but we need to be detectives, gathering data from many sources in order to find out what is really going on. Testing is a management tool guiding our fertilizer and farming decisions. However, we find that the practice of intentional observation (which means slowing down and making time to observe) is often what separates out the best farmers.

If you raise crops in the “usual” way, such as using N-P-K soluble fertilizers and lime according to pH only (instead of taking into account levels of available calcium), have pure alfalfa stands and conventional corn, the estimates for test result ranges are more accurate because the tests and ranges are based on that conventional farming system. But with biological farming, the feed test results are going to be less predictable and those calculations and estimates may be far less accurate.

We have our soil tests performed at Midwest Labs and our tissue and feed tests at Dairyland Labs. To get the most accurate mineral results on forage tests, we use a wet chemistry test, rather than NIR (Near Infrared Reflectance). We obtain a series of complete tests throughout the growing season being sure to harvest at the proper time to insure maximum energy palatability and digestion.

Forage tissue testing (including trace minerals) is very important because it tells you what nutrients are actually getting into the plant. We are looking for limiting factors, ratios and health promoting indicators. All this diverse data plus whole-farm observation gives a much better picture of the soil-plant interactions in your forage production system.

LIVING, MINERALIZED SOIL

Every nutrient has a function both in plants and animals and they all need to be provided, and in balanced proportions. The nutrients you put in a soil affect the nutrient uptake in the plant, which in turn affect digestibility, energy, flavor, mineral balance and protein quality of the plants.

There are two basic choices for providing nutrients to plants. One option is the use of soluble N-P-K chemical fertilizer. With this opinion, highly soluble chemical fertilizers essentially use soil merely as a medium through which the soluble nutrients travel to the plant. They may reduce the availability of the soil nutrients, reduce clover numbers, and cause soil health to decline over time.

For example, you can grow large quantities of nutrient-deficient feed with the use of soluble chemical nitrogen and potassium. Although it looks like you’ve grown a lot of feed, mineral uptake, balance and energy can certainly be short. You’ll need to feed more of this lower quality forage and add livestock supplements to maintain production levels.

Soluble nitrogen makes soils “lazy.” It encourages grass growth (rather than legumes) and interferes with calcium uptake in the plant. We believe it also has a negative effect on palatability, digestibility and animal health, and creates too many incomplete proteins, an opening for insect problems in the crop and health issues in livestock.

The second option is based on keeping soil microbes healthy so they can build humus and provide nutrients to the plant. The job of the successful biological and organic farmer is to get the soil mineralized and keep the soil habitat for the microbiology as close to optimum as possible so those microbes can build humus and govern the supply of nutrients to the plants. Soil health needs “air,” water, a healthy “home,” and the proper food. How do you do this? With proper tillage and soil mineral balance.

Additionally, when soil microbes build humus, which is the primary determinant of soil health, large amounts of carbon are sequestered from the atmosphere back into the soil.

THE BIG FOUR

There are four indicator minerals in plant tissue testing that tell a large part of the story about what’s happening on the land: calcium, boron, phosphorus and magnesium. These are indicator minerals because a complete biological system is required to get these four minerals up to the desired levels.

Grow or buy forages where these four minerals are high in the plant (for that plant species) and they will be the most palatable, digestible feeds you can deliver to livestock. Let’s look at each individually.

Calcium is the “trucker” of all minerals, meaning it largely governs plant availability of the other minerals. For this reason we consider it the most important soil nutrient. Among other attributes, calcium affects energy and digestible energy in plants, and is essential to microbe health. There is also a strong correlation between plant calcium levels, legume growth, soil health, reduced weed pressure and quality forage.

A vital baseline to biological farming is provision of enough soluble calcium to the plant. For calcium to be high, you will need adequate soil levels of actively exchangeable plant soluble calcium. (With high nitrogen, potassium ormagnesium levels, calcium levels may not be adequate in the plant. The goal is as close to a 1:1 ratio with potassium as possible and at around 2 percent calcium in feed tests.)

Just because the soil pH is within the ideal range (6.5-7), it does not mean you will automatically have high plant uptake of calcium, that additional calcium does not need to be applied, or that the soil doesn’t need lime. Providing a diverse supply of calcium sources is highly beneficial, even if pH is already at a “good” level.

There is no “one-size-fits-all” when it comes to different sources of calcium for different soil situations. However, one rule is that smaller amounts more often seem to work well on most soils. Calcium sources include calcium nitrate, gypsum, Bio-Cal®, OrganiCal® and HumaCal®, rock phosphate (if you also need phosphorous), burnt lime, and activated calcium (note that not all of these are organic). Choose the right source for the situation. Often, supplying a humate source with calcium yields good results. Organi- Cal® and HumaCal® have humates added. Fieldgrade lime is insoluble and performs well on low pH soil, when incorporated, because it needs the “acidity” of that soil to break down the calcium carbonate and make it available to the plants.

Spraying on a few ounces of a plant stimulant calcium may help by serving as a short-term fix but it won’t do in the long run. Remember, an alfalfa crop removes two hundred fifty pounds per acre of the available soil calcium.

Boron and calcium seem to work together. We like to call calcium “the trucker of all minerals” and boron “the steering wheel.” Boron is needed in relatively small volume, but it governs calcium uptake and sugar movements, both critical factors in producing more plant energy and plant pectins (the highly digestible carbohydrate that is closely associated with calcium). Boron is relatively easy to get in plants and to manage. It’s an anion (meaning that it is negatively charged), so it’s a highly soluble, leachable mineral, and thus readily available to the plant. For us in the Midwest, we normally add one pound per acre each year to fields, and sometimes more based on soil type. Some people in the East apply two pounds of actual boron annually.

Phosphorous at high levels in the plant is a great indicator of healthy, biologically active soils. Phosphorous exchangeability and organic matter are needed by the plant at high levels, but large amounts of phosphorous are often tied up in the soil, unavailable to the plant. Commercial phosphorous dumped on the ground does not simply get sucked up into the plant as nitrogen and potassium do. In fact, putting on soluble phosphorous has a negative effect on plants’ symbiotic interaction with mycorrhizae, the soil fungal group that aids in getting phosphorous into the plant.

We like to use natural rock phosphates, certain plant species, and biological activity to extract the phosphorous and convert it into a chelated, organic, plant-available form. Phosphorus and magnesium are synergistic; they are team-mates and should be at .35 percent or higher on feed tests. These are energy minerals, both of which are vital to production through photosynthesis and also to transportation. These two minerals are extremely difficult to get into the plant.

Magnesium is an indicator of many things, a major storyteller of soil balance and health. Magnesium levels can be high in the soil and yet be low in the plant. Magnesium carbonate (dolomitic lime) isn’t plant usable unless something breaks it down—this is carried out through soil biology acids, plants extraction or sulfurs. One more issue to keep in mind: there is an inverse relationship between potassium and magnesium. The higher the soluble soil potassium, the more potassium and the less magnesium the plant takes up. In order to get high plantmagnesium, you must not overdo potassium. Good biological activity along with a variety of plants to feed soil life is part of the success of getting magnesium into the plant.

SULFUR

Sulfur is needed to make proteins and build humus in the soil. Our Midwestern Bio-Ag consultants have suggested that we should really have “The Big Five,” not “The Big Four,” because sulfur should be added to the list of basic soil minerals. In order to get magnesium uptake in the plant, sulfur needs to be in good supply, so you can’t get ideal levels of “The Big Four” without good sulfur levels.

Each year a minimum of twenty-five pounds per acre of sulfate sulfur needs to be added to most soils. The goal for our feed test is a 1:1:1 ratio of phosphorus, magnesium and sulfur.

QUALITY FORAGE

Cows are designed to eat a variety of forages (not grain), so utilizing high levels of diverse, nutrient-rich, high quality forages for an extended grazing season is the focal point of biological farm management. We want to assist cattle in production with high quality forages fed at the right level. We are not interested in pushing that cow into high production with lots of grain at the expense of the cow’s health and the health of the consumer.

Dairy nutritionists have parameters for what it takes to keep the cow producing well. What is missing from the forage has to be supplemented, quite often at a substantial cost, in order to meet the cow’s requirements. Because it takes time to get soils minerally balanced and healthy, extra supplementation to a cow’s ration is likely needed until the soil is balanced. Once quality forage production is achieved on the farm, more minerals and nutrients are provided through those plants and less supplementation is required. High quality, nutrient-dense forages offer more energy due to improved digestibility of the plant carbohydrates, resulting in more sugars, pectins, hemicellulose and other materials that are more digestible by the rumen bacteria.

Many farmers notice a difference with biologically fertilized crops, saying that they feed better even though they may or may not test differently. We also find that we can get better utilization of these minerals in the feed as they break down during the digestive process. Also, with the newer, improved Relative Forage Quality (RFQ) test, we do believe that we have moved a step closer to an accurate assessment of feed quality.

Keep in mind the fact that there are flaws associated with the current protein test techniques. For example, true protein is not measured in these tests, rather, nitrogen is, and then it is multiplied by 6.25 and the resulting number is assumed to indicate protein levels. In truth, proteins are made up of amino acids—carbon chain compounds with nitrogen attached, and some also carry sulfur and other minerals. If these minerals are lacking and nitrogen is in excess, the amino acids can’t be made and thus you have incomplete proteins. On the other hand, if extra nitrogen is available due to over-application or too much manure, then free nitrogen can get in the plant. The test can’t tell the difference; this free nitrogen is calculated as protein, but in fact it may not be.

MANAGING NUTRIENTS

There are two nutrient areas to consider: the first is soil correction to achieve soil balance, by supplying nutrients that are lacking, based on a complete soil test.

The second is crop fertilizers. These inputs are above and beyond soil correction inputs. These are specific blends for the crop you are growing and the soil type you have. A crop fertilizer doesn’t correct soil deficiencies and should be a balance of all nutrients, not just N-P-K.

The nutrient sources we are often managing on a grass-based dairy are manure, compost, and fertilizers (nutrients).

Fertilizers are rated on water solubility and price per unit. But what about the fertilizer’s effects on soil and soil life? How available is it to the plant? Are the nutrients stable, or will they leach away before the plants can use them?

You can do things to enhance nutrient uptake and fertilizer efficiency, such as adding carbon and balancing the soluble types with the slow release types. Balancing soluble to slow-release fertilizers provides timed release of nutrients.

Composting manure with lots of carbon stabilizes the nutrients, changing manure from a soluble to a slow release nutrient source.

With liquid manures, applying a light application of lime prior to manure application and a surface aeration is a good idea. Smaller, more frequent lime additions are more beneficial than larger doses. On low-phosphorus soils adding rock phosphate to liquid manure is a beneficial practice. We also like to add BioCal® when spreading liquid manure to help stabilize, optimize, and balance the use of nitrogen and potassium.

Foliar feeding with fish, molasses, kelp, magnesium sulfate, and/or micronized minerals is not a bad idea. This is an “extra” or short-term fix, not a replacement for a good soil mineral management program. Remember to include Epsom salts (magnesium sulfate) in your foliar program to help meet the annual needs for sulfur.

Nitrogen and highly soluble salt fertilizers can stimulate a “big pile” of low-nutrient feed, but we need to also consider energy and cow performance on these kinds of feeds. What impact do these materials have on soil life, root development and plant health?

You have to earn the right to reduce or eliminate nitrogen from your fertilizer program. As a biological farmer, you can “grow” nitrogen. If you set the conditions, then, in time, on most soils purchased nitrogen won’t be needed because the biology provides it. Healthy soil microbes are able to convert (fix) nitrogen from the air, which requires a microbe food source such as tilled-in green manure crops, cover crops or green carbon. Microbiology also provides nitrogen via legume nitrogen-fixing nodules and legume digestion when incorporated into the soil. Healthy, well-aerated soils with nutrient balance and diverse plant species naturally have a good nitrogen-to-carbon balance. Keep in mind that calcium favors legume production while nitrogen favors grasses.

TILLAGE

We believe that careful, properly timed, shallow tillage is vital. Improper tillage can do severe damage to the soil structure and microbes. When major soil corrections with lime or minerals, or improvements in soil structure are needed, how do you do that by pouring things on the surface? Sometimes you need to till to apply soil correctives and till to re-establish pasture species. For our crop farming, we like to shallow till to incorporate nutrients and plants, and if needed, till the subsoil to loosen compacted soils and allow deeper root growth.

Zone tillage, shallow incorporation of plants and residues, and deep ripping work well on many farms. We do believe that subsoiling with a Yeoman plow or ripper (along with deep-rooting annuals and a good fertility program) has a place on a grazing farm and does a lot to relieve compaction, which often is a much bigger problem than realized.

MANAGEMENT BOTTOM LINE

You can’t let the soil put limits on the plants by limiting the type, quality, or amount of forage grown; and you can’t let the cow put limits on the plant, either through improper grazing management or soil compaction.

SIDEBAR

SOME TYPICAL SOIL TESTING RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THE BIG FIVE

PENNSYLVANIA FARM

Soils on the Pennsylvania farm are high in potassium, magnesium and phosphorus, but slightly low in calcium and sulfur. We suggested treating the pasture with 1000 pounds per acre of low-magnesium dolomite applied once and then, if further testing shows a continued need, again in two years. For fertilizer, we recommended a Custom Blend for High-K Soil, which is low in potassium. It has an N-P-K rating of 0-0-0 but contains 12 percent calcium, 2 percentmagnesium and 7 percent sulphur, plus trace minerals and salt. The ingredients of the blend include fine, pelletized gypsum (calcium sulfate, sold as Cal-Sul), HumaCal, magnesium sulfate, potassium-magnesium-sulfate, composted and pelleted chicken manure, Redmond salt and a trace mineral blend, all permissible for this organic farm.

Soils on the farm in southern Maryland are low in calcium, phosphorus and especially sulfur and potassium but very high in magnesium. In addition, the soils are very sandy, which calls for more frequent but light applications of fertilizer. We recommended the application of gypsum (calcium sulfate) at 250-500 pounds per acre each year, along with a blend of fertilizer with an N-P-K rating of 8-9-9 to be lightly applied every three months. The blend contains HumaCal, ammonium sulfate, monoammonium phosphate, potassium-magnesium-sulfate and a trace mineral pack. We also recommended applying one ton per acre of chicken litter, twice a year, for one or two years in order to get more organic matter into the thin soil.

TRACE MINERALS

PENNSYLVANIA FARM

Soils on the Pennsylvania farm are low in manganese, copper and boron, have adequate zinc and are high in iron. We recommended a trace mineral mix called the Charger, composed of compost and sulfate forms of zinc, manganese and copper, along with borate.

Soils on the farm in southern Maryland are low in all trace minerals except iron. We recommended our conventional trace minerals pack, which is made up of sulfate forms of zinc, manganese and copper, along with borate and additional ingredients.

See also their Short Course in Cow Management.

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Winter 2010.

Gary Zimmer heads Midwestern Bio-Ag Products & Services, a manufacturing and consulting company that operates on over 5,000 farms, in 15 states with 80 consultants. He runs Otter Creek Organic Dairy Farm with his son and daughter in Wisconsin. He taught agriculture for many years, holds a graduate degree in dairy nutrition and lectures widely on the subject. He is the author of The Biological Farmer, and Advancing Biological Farming.

Rebecca Brown is a consultant in the Mid-Atlantic Region for Midwestern Bio-Ag. She grew up on a farm, studied agriculture in college, and has managed several grass-based livestock direct-marketing farms. While working on dairy farms for a year in New Zealand, she realized she enjoyed sharing information with farmers. She then spent nearly a year working and studying at Zimmer’s Otter Creek Farm before returning to the East to become a consultant. She can be reached at (774) 521-6100 or brownsuffolk (at) hotmail (dot) com.

The post The Framework of Biological Dairy Farming appeared first on Real Milk.

Do everything you can to get the livestock healthy and comfortable. Whether she harvests her own forages or you harvest and store the feed for her, quality forages and cow comfort are the key to healthy, productive cows and profitable, successful dairying.

Cow science is cow science, whether you graze or store feeds, are organic or not. You cannot violate the principles of the cow. If the parameters are violated—which in most circumstances means the dry cow is getting an excess of  potassium, nitrogen, or protein and a lactating cow is deficient in some nutrient—train wrecks occur. The challenges are balancing nitrogen, digestibility and energy for the cow’s diet, and getting her comfortable and stress free.

Ration balancing is difficult with grazing. Common sense and “eye” of the master are essential.

Grazing is a less expensive way to harvest, plus it eliminates molds and provides fresh vitamins and exercise. Cows are designed to eat forages. Have a minimum of 65 percent of the diet as forages.

Grass-based cow genetics are key to efficiently producing milk in a pasture-based operation.

Quality protein, energy, minerals, vitamins, and effective fiber are essential in forages but whatever is missing from your forages is what needs to be supplemented to the cows. Starting nutrition in the soils can improve forage quality over time, but you have to earn the right to not supplement the cows.

Free-choicing minerals is another good idea. This is not in place of trying to add minerals known to be short in the soil and feed, like calcium, magnesium and trace minerals. The minimum free-choice mineral program starts with a good, natural salt (we also like to free-choice kelp alone or mixed 50/50 with salt), a 1:1 mineral, a high calcium mineral like CharCal® and finally, a buffer. We also use a montmorillonite clay called Dynamin.

Adding carbon to the cow diet (dried molasses, some grain, plant charcoals, CharCal®) helps absorb extra free rumen nitrogen. Also make sure sulfur is used in soil fertility programs for quality proteins.

Corn silage and good “dry” hay help match high-protein, low-fiber, high-moisture, out-of-balance forages and early spring pasture growth. Place a bale or two of hay in the fields during the period of lush green grass.

Milk cow feed and dry cow feed are not the same. Grow special forages for each group. Get an excellent dry cow program in place in order to rebuild the cow. If you don’t have low-potassium, “good” grassy hay, buy it. It’s your cheapest investment of the year.

Feeding the extras—vitamins, selenium (in many areas), yeast, kelp, direct-fed microbials—is certainly beneficial for many farms. Your job is to do everything you can to get that cow healthy and comfortable. Some additions don’t have immediate visible paybacks, but health and breeding improve when the whole program is implemented.

Water is essential: clean, fresh and available in adequate amounts.

Our ration: We have one total mixed ration (TMR) for the whole herd, and in addition offer free choice minerals. Due to our forages’ higher protein content, we haven’t used much supplemented protein for many years. Corn silage does fit our program to help lower total protein and some of the minerals. Our ration this winter was about twenty-five pounds corn silage as is, fifteen pounds high moisture shell corn, a couple pounds of dry hay and the rest a mix of the haylage bales. Free choice the cows get a mineral balance mix, some charcoal, yeast, kelp, direct fed microbials, enzymes and vitamins. Our summer ration keeps the corn silage and grain levels similar but we may supplement oats and other small grains for some of the corn. We graze as much as possible starting with cereal ryes in the spring then move on to established pasture, summer annuals, and new seedings and ending in the fall with oats, peas and brassicas. We do use some straw, dry hay or dry baleage in the TMR for effective fiber.

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Winter 2010.

Gary Zimmer heads Midwestern Bio-Ag Products & Services, a manufacturing and consulting company that operates on over 5,000 farms, in 15 states with 80 consultants. He runs Otter Creek Organic Dairy Farm with his son and daughter in Wisconsin. He taught agriculture for many years, holds a graduate degree in dairy nutrition and lectures widely on the subject. He is the author of The Biological Farmer, and Advancing Biological Farming.

Rebecca Brown is a consultant in the Mid-Atlantic Region for Midwestern Bio-Ag. She grew up on a farm, studied agriculture in college, and has managed several grass-based livestock direct-marketing farms. While working on dairy farms for a year in New Zealand, she realized she enjoyed sharing information with farmers. She then spent nearly a year working and studying at Zimmer’s Otter Creek Farm before returning to the East to become a consultant. She can be reached at (774) 521-6100 or brownsuffolk (at) hotmail (dot) com.

The post A Short Course in Cow Management appeared first on Real Milk.

We have a small, grass-based, family dairy and have been selling raw milk, raw milk cheese and other farm products. The information you provide helps considerably.

We have a mixed herd of Jerseys and Holsteins.  When all the trends for dairy farms were going in the direction of quantity, we stayed with the bulls whose daughters had the highest milk quality.  We didn’t stress our Holsteins at all.  As a matter of fact, our highest butter fat cow is a Holstein who most recently scored 6.3 in butter fat.

Our Holsteins consistently keep up with the Jerseys in solid counts, and they certainly don’t need antibiotics to keep them healthy.  So the Holstein cow should not be condemned when it isn’t the breed that ought to be boycotted, but the genetic practices that have no concern for milk quality.

Betty Sue Robie
Watsonville, California

Letter to the Editor of Wise Traditions, published in the Fall 2007 issue

Editor’s response: Your point is well taken. When we talk about “modern Holsteins,” the stress is on “modern.”  Holsteins that do well on grass and produce milk with a high fat content are fine. We have made some adjustments at realmilk.com to reflect this fact.

The post Modern vs. Traditional Holsteins appeared first on Real Milk.

Author Rose Marie Belforti spends some quality time with her Dexter cow.

By Rose Marie Belforti

My husband and I have a great interest in the promotion and conservation of the Dexter  breed and hope to bring awareness to the importance of raising and farming with Dexter  cattle. Our small cattle can do important work for sustainable agriculture. There has been  an amazing surge over the years in goat ownership, and there are numerous goat  cheeses on the market now. The Dexter can have the same acclaim. A “contented cow” is   joyful thing to behold!

Although there are a few Dexter dairies in the British Isles,  Australia, New Zealand and Canada, we are not aware of any at this time in the United  States. Our hope is that Dexter cattle will become more popular as we begin the trend  back to local family-run operations and away from large corporate factory farming. Our  small cattle have a lot of work power, and we think it is time for them to show off a bit. Our  dairy has grown out of a passion for “the little mountain cow,” and love for their rich, high  butterfat milk.

Dexter cows measure 34-42 inches at the withers. They do wonderfully on pasture and do not need any other supplements, although if one wants to feed a little grain or alfalfa, that is fine to boost the milk production a little, or give them extra energy after calving. But they  will do just fine on quality grass hay and pasture. Their milk supply is somewhere between  two and three gallons a day at the height of lactation, and the butterfat is high, like that of a  Jersey. The advantages of Dexters are that they eat less, take up less space and are  easier to manage than a full size cow. Moreover, they have not been bred to the hilt for one  trait, such as milk or beef, so their genetics are stronger, giving them an advantage  over the overbred breeds like Holsteins. They are “easy to finish,” which means they are ideal for grass-fed beef projects.

Dexters calve very well and do not require vaccinations in most areas because they are so hardy. They are clever, intelligent and interested—with spicy personalities! They make  good friends too!

We grass feed and pasture our cattle, and we use no drugs or other  additives in their feed or care. The milk is as clean and fresh as can be! We love our cows—each one is a friend and unique. They are part of the family. Their well-being comes first in our thoughts before  production concerns. Therefore, we make sure they mother their calves for as long as  they can before we wean the calves. Our cattle always have access to pasture, and are never confined. Since we are a small operation, we can have a humane approach to dairying. Caring for the cows is as important to us as milking them for cheese. That is very important in a world where dairying seems to forget tovalue that sacred animal—the cow!

With great appreciation, we thank all those who have helped us get started, and especially  we thank the greatest Beryl Rutherford, who kept Dexter cows in England for so many  years and introduced us all to the hope of having a chondro-dysplasia-free herd. Although  she is retired now, she has, through correspondence, been instrumental in rescuing us at  our most chaotic moments when training our cows, tending to their ailments, and all  aspects of hand milking and dairying. Without her advice and good humor, we would  certainly have given up!

We love the closeness we have with our herd. I think they like it too! Having quality time  with them twice a day, training them to become docile milkers and teaching them polite  manners in the milk parlor has been very rewarding. Don’t let anyone ever tell you a Dexter cannot be milked! We can tell you, after an entire summer of training one of the most stubborn gals ever—it can be done! Stick with it. Routine is the key to the heart and mind  of a Dexter. Do the same thing every day—that is what they like best. After a while, this  routine becomes what you like best too. It has been a very rewarding experience for us, and we look forward to many years of enjoyment making our new product and being with  our family of milking Dexters.

Let’s hope there is new interest in raising Dexters for the work they can do to bring milk to  our tables. We hope that our model for a Dexter dairy will inspire others and be an  example for others to build their their own dreams. Dexter milk is exquisite, and well worth our efforts.

See also Rose Marie’s article on setting up her small-scale cheese processing plant.

This article appeared in the Fall 2007 edition of Wise Traditions, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

The post Have a Dexter Dairy Cow appeared first on Real Milk.

Quick tips from Tim!

What They Test for in Raw Milk

• Specific Pathogens: Testing requirements vary by state. Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp, E. coli O157H7 and Staph aureus are considered the most dangerous.
• Somatic cell count or SCC: White blood cell count present in the milk. This indicates the general health condition of the udder and levels of mastitis infection, as well as indications of overall cow health and environmental pressures affecting the animal.
• Plate count: Indicates the overall cleanliness of milking equipment and the bacteria levels within milking equipment.
• Preliminary Incubation (PI): This is a test of a family of equipment bacteria that grow in cold temperatures. They are non harmful to humans but they shorten the shelf life of the milk.
• Coliforms: A test for general air and ground-borne Coliform bacteria (E. coli), which gives a good indication of the cow prep prior to milking and the quality of the environment the animals in question are exposed to.

My Safety Regime for a Small Farm

• Somatic cell count less than 300,000 on yearly average. My levels are under 200,000.
• Plate count less than 10,000 p/mL. Mine routinely ran 1000 or less.
• Coliform count less than 10 p/mL. Mine was always less than ten.
• PI count less than 50,000 p/mL.
• Johnes-free herdwith 100 percent of herd tested.
• TB-free herd.
• Brucellosis vaccination for heifers between four to eight months. All purchased cows meet same requirements before brought on farm.
• Pathogen tests monthly of E-coli O157H7, Salmonella, Listeria monocytogynes, and Campylobacter for a period of six months then drop to quarterly tests.
• Monthy bulk tank cultures that identify mastitis types, equipment bacteria, as well as environmental contamination the cows are exposed to.
• Mastitis type testing on questionable quarters; cull all Staph. aureus-positive cows.
• Milking system checked by professionals every six months.

In my opinion, all tests for pathogens should be done at state-certified labs. On-farm testing is a few years away as the culture of the tests can be spread and infect animals if not handled properly and destroyed with an autoclave.

This article appeared in the Fall 2006 edition of Wise Traditions, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation. It is part of Tim’s longer article on the 93rd IAFP Annual Conference.

[include content_id=1665]

The post Safety Regime for a Small Farm appeared first on Real Milk.

One of the most frequent questions we receive at the Foundation is the following: should you, or can you, make yogurt from raw milk? The controversy arises from the fact that the naturally occurring enzymes and bacteria in raw milk are destroyed by too much heat. Destruction of enzymes begins at 118°F and is complete at 180°F. So, if that’s true, why doesn’t everybody want to make yogurt with raw milk? It’s because raw milk yogurts oftentimes have a different texture from yogurts made with heated or pasteurized milk.

Left to its own devices, fresh milk sours naturally. This is not due to the enzymes in the mix, but to naturally-occurring lacto-fermenting bacteria found in raw milk. Those bacteria produce lactic acid that sours the milk by reducing its pH., i.e., making it more acid. While the uninitiated might think this is milk to be thrown out, the wise know this acid condition actually preserves the milk against spoilage. In days gone by, the Irish housewife typically soured fresh milk overnight by the dying fireplace in preparation for making soda bread the next morning.

FERMENTED MILK HISTORY

Frank Kosikowski, a food scientist at Cornell University, classifies fermented milk in four different groups. The first group is “acid/alcohol” milk products such as kefir and koumiss. Kefir (which, by the way, does not rhyme with “reefer” but is stressed on the second syllable and pronounced “keh-FEER”) is made with kefir grains, called “gift of the gods” but of unknown origin, which initiate a dual lactic acid/alcohol fermentation process. Traditional koumiss is made with mare’s milk and named for the horse-herding Kumanes tribe that lived on the central Asian steppes until 1235. It is fermented by a combination of acid producing L. bulgaricus and the alcohol-producing Torula yeast. (With mare’s milk in short supply most koumiss today is made with cow’s milk, but since the two milks are not the same composition, making koumiss can be a complicated endeavor.)

Kosikowski identifies the second class of fermented milk as “high acid” Bulgarian sour milk cultured exclusively with Lactobacilllus bulgaricus. The third category is “medium acid” acidophilus milk and yogurt, the main type of yogurt produced in the United States. It is primarily cultured with Lactobacillus acidophilus, a slow- and low-acid producer. The fourth category is “low acid” cultured buttermilk and cultured cream.

Today, most yogurt starters, even the “Bulgarian” one I recommend, combine at least two different bacteria. The presence of two bacterial strains, one high acid and one low, moderates the acidity of the finished product. For example, Streptococcus thermophilus ferments at 110°F to 112°F and produces .9-1.1 percent acid, Lactobacillus acidophilus ferments at 100° to 112°F and produces 1.2-2 percent acid, and Lactobacillus bulgaricus grows at 110° to 116°F and produces 2-4 percent acid. My favorite yogurt starter is 50:50 L. bulgaricus/S. thermophilus.

CONTROLLING BACTERIA

Now let’s get back to the “to heat or not to heat” raw milk controversy. What happens when you don’t heat the milk is that while the enzymes are preserved, the milk also retains its own natural complement of bacteria that will naturally sour the milk. These undisturbed bacteria will also compete with any added culture resulting in a different fermented product. Controlling the conditions of fermentation, most importantly temperature, the yogurt maker can achieve varied results by adding small amounts of microorganisms from tested and tried established cultures.

Most yogurt makers heat milk sufficiently to create a tabula rasa into which the new bacteria are dumped to do their handiwork, but the temperature needed for this will be many degrees higher than 110°F. Whatever temperature the milk will be heated to, in my opinion it is best to begin with raw milk. It is not homogenized so you get a wonderful cream on top. It has not had milk solids added to it, so it won’t stick to the bottom of the pan. Most important, raw milk has not been pasteurized, which is a violent, rapid-heating process that has a very detrimental effect on the proteins in the milk. A slow, gentle heating on your stovetop will more effectively preserve the integrity of fragile milk proteins, especially if you remove the milk from the stove as soon as the desired temperature has been reached.

When you start with raw milk, you can decide yourself how high a temperature you want to take the milk to–a modest 110°F, that will preserve enzymes and some of the competing naturally occurring bacteria, or to the more traditional 180°F, which is hot enough to kill competing bacteria. The texture, taste and thickness of the finished yogurt will be determined by the choices you make at every stage.

HEATED YOGURT

My own preference is for heated yogurt, which results in a smooth, thick product. I begin with raw milk which I slowly and gently heat to 180°F and then let it cool until I can stick in my finger for 10 seconds, which is around 110°F. When it has cooled, I add a rounded teaspoon of “Bulgarian” culture, which is really only 50 percent true Bulgarian, as explained previously. The finished yogurt comes out sharp, smooth and wonderful.

ANTIBIOTIC EFFECTS

I want to pass on something I learned while researching the article. I have always made a gallon of yogurt at a time in four quart jars, and kept them up to two months. It does not spoil easily, so my family and I would happily scoop away at it until it was gone–adding our own preserves, maple sugar or honey. My favorite yogurt concoction is a couple scoops of yogurt, sprinkled with a tablespoon of freshly ground flax seed and topped with a quarter or half of a grated apple–applesauce is good, too.

But if master yogurt maker Max Alth is correct, milk begins to exhibit “antibiotic” powers as soon as the lactic acid bacteria start to curdle the milk–either naturally or in the process of making yogurt–and a peak is reached about seven days later. And according to Alth, the antibiotic effect disappears about a week later. At its most effective, the antibiotic strength of yogurt is equal to about .06 penicillin units per cubic centimeter, or about nine units of penicillin in every 8 ounces of yogurt. I have not confirmed this information, but if that’s true, in the future I plan to make smaller batches of yogurt more often.

Anna’s Bulgarian Yogurt

I have had the great fortune of living close enough to a Bulgarian friend, Anna Pavlova, to get a container of yogurt every so often from her as a starter. If you don’t have a Bulgarian friend, a company in California sells a Bulgarian-style Yogurt Starter^®. (See www.natren.com and look in their specialty items.) This wonderful product is a combination of 50 percent Streptococcus thermophilus and 50 percent Lactobacillus bulgaricus. Each bottle is decorated with the picture of a Bulgarian woman.

8 cups milk (I prefer whole raw milk)
1/4 cup yogurt from a previous batch
or 4 teaspoons of Natren yogurt starter
as directed on the bottle
2 glass quart jars with lids, sterilized

Over low heat, slowly bring the milk to at least 180°F, or until a ring of bubbles forms around the edge of the pan, but don’t boil. Let cool until you can keep your finger in the milk while you count to 10. Divide yogurt starter or reserved yogurt between two wide-mouth quart-size sterilized glass jars. Pour in about 1/4 cup milk and stir to incorporate the starter. Fill the jars with the rest of the milk and screw on the lids.Wrap the jars in a warm blanket and let sit overnight in a warm place or for at least eight hours. Unwrap and place in the refrigerator. I know you will enjoy this creamy, healthy yogurt.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Max Alth, Making Your Own Cheese & Yogurt, Funk & Wagnalls, New York, 1977
Frank Kosikowski, Cheese and Fermented Milk Foods, 1966.

QUICK RAW MILK YOGURT

In the Middle East, yogurt is a thick drink, not something you eat with a spoon. To make raw milk drinkable yogurt, place 1 quart raw milk in a glass container and add 1/4 cup yogurt. Place in a warm place (such as a warm oven) overnight. The milk will sour and become slightly thick and perhaps lumpy.

You can drink this as is, or whisk it to make it smoother. In Iran, the traditional yogurt drink is quite salty, so you may wish to add some unrefined salt. The addition of salt makes drinkable yogurt the perfect beverage for a hot climate. Of course, you may also use your drinkable yogurt to make smoothies by blending with fruit and a natural sweetener.

Another method, suggested by raw-foodist Aajonus Vonderplanitz, is to warm milk to about 80 degrees and add a small amount of good quality commercial yogurt or yogurt from a previous batch and put in a yogurt maker. Leave in the yogurt maker much longer than called for in the instructions, that is about 8 hours or overnight. Results may not be consistent and the product tends to be thinner than heated yogurt.

MARIA’S RAW MILK YOGURT

We are grateful to Maria Garcia for coming up with this wonderful raw milk yogurt, and to Kristina Boudrezux for working out the details. This recipe makes a smooth, thick yogurt loaded with beneficial stuff for your body. It requires no electricity, and ensures a high quality product using glass, versus plastic, for yogurt culture growth. It is easiest to start at night, after dinner, and let it set overnight. You will wake up to yummy yogurt for breakfast.

Ingredients:
1 quart raw, organic whole milk
1-8 ounce container Brown Cow whole milk yogurt, plain flavor (for the first batch)
or 3-4 tablespoons reserved yogurt from the previous batch

Tools:
Keep all of your utensils very clean, making sure there is no soap residue. This is especially true of the “mother” container, described below. Keep the metal lids out of the dishwasher, as this will cause rusting.

• Nissan Thermal Lunch Tote thermos JLN 1400X), all plastic containers inside removed.
  (Available from 300 N. Martingale Road, Schaumburg, IL USA and in local stores)
• 1 quart class container with metal, 1-piece lid, sterilized (boiled), then dried and cooled to just warm.
  (The 32-ounce Paragon Jar from California Glass Co. fits the Nissan Thermos)
  (510.635.7700 or http://www.calglass-pcc.com)
• The “mother” container, a glass container with air-tight seal,
  4 tablespoon size to hold the starter for the next batch, sterilized
• Small whisk
• Measuring spoon for 1 tablespoon
• Milk or candy thermometer

Method:

1. Take the yogurt starter (Brown Cow, or container from a prior batch–the “mother”) out of the refrigerator for 1 -2 hours, to bring to room temperature.
2. Warm the 1 qt glass jar, if not already warm. Rinsing in hot water will do.
3. Heat the milk in a pan to 110°F, then remove from heat immediately.
4. Take a small amount of the warm milk into a separate bowl, then whisk in 3-4 tablespoons of the yogurt starter. Stir the mixture back into the main bowl of milk.
5. Pour the milk-yogurt mixture from the pan into the warm, 1 qt glass jar and seal loosely with the lid. Make sure to leave about 3/4 inch of air at the top of the jar so the culture has some space to grow. Place the jar into the thermos and close. Put it on the countertop, and let it set overnight (8 hours).
6. In the morning, remove the glass jar from the thermos and put it into the refrigerator.
7. When you first open the yogurt jar, have your smaller container ready for the mother. There will be some delicious cream on the top. Before you do anything else, scoop out 3-4 tablespoons of yogurt (the “mother”), place it in the mother container, and put the mother in the refrigerator for later use to start your next batch–instead of using the Brown Cow.
8. The yogurt and mother both last about one week. Enjoy your yogurt! Try adding a bit of honey for fun.

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Spring 2005.

Linda Joyce Forristal, CCP, MTA, is the author of Ode to Sucanat (1993) and Bulgarian Rhapsody (1998). Read more of her “In the Kitchen with Mother Linda” food features on the WAPF site. Visit her website at www.motherlindas.com.

The post To Heat or Not To Heat: A Yogurt Question appeared first on Real Milk.