by Pete Kennedy, Esq.

On paper the sale of raw dairy products for pet consumption is legal in all 50 states; the trouble has been that in many states regulators have improperly prohibited the sale of raw pet dairy by producers and distributors. Recently in New Jersey, pet owners and other supporters of raw dairy were successful in defeating an attempt by the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDH) to stop the sale of any raw pet dairy products in the state.

On January 14, NJDH sent cease-and-desist letters to distributors and retail stores selling raw dairy products for pet consumption, threatening enforcement if they continued to sell raw pet dairy. Health officials followed up on the letter by raiding multiple pet food stores and confiscating raw dairy. There were no allegations that raw pet dairy was causing any illness.

NJDH exceeded its lawful powers in two respects. First, it is the New Jersey Department of Agriculture (NJDA) that has jurisdiction over the production and sale of all feed for animal consumption. Second, New Jersey regulations allow the sale of raw pet dairy in the state.

Manufacturers of raw pet food dairy sell their products in dozens of New Jersey pet stores. Reaction from pet owners and other supporters was strong against NJDH. Many contacted NJDH, NJDA and their legislators to complain about the state action. Representatives for raw pet dairy manufacturers and advocates made their case to the two agencies about how NJDH had exceeded its authority.

On April 20 Rhea Landig, the executive director of Species Alliance, held Pet Food Justice in Branchburg, an event featuring speakers on the health benefits for pets and humans of raw dairy as well as the regulatory climate and laws governing raw pet dairy production and sales. Speakers included Weston A. Price Foundation president Sally Fallon Morell, Rutgers professor Joe Heckman, Cathy Alinovi of the Next Generation Pet Food Manufacturers Association, Susan Thixton of the consumer advocate group Association for Truth in Pet Food and Billy Hockman of Answers Pet Food, one of the manufacturers hurt by the NJDH action.

The event showed the potential for collaboration between those advocating legal raw pet dairy sales and those supporting legal raw milk sales for human consumption. If raw milk sales for human consumption were legal in New Jersey, NJDH never would have taken any action against distributors and retail stores selling raw pet dairy. On May 10 NJDH issued a public statement: “Distributors and retailers selling raw milk pet food will not be subject to enforcement action by the Department of Health.” With state regulators acknowledging the legality of raw pet dairy sales, it would be good for New Jersey to get on with the business of legalizing raw milk sales for human consumption; the ban has lost New Jersey farmers millions of dollars in sales to Pennsylvania dairy producers. The time to act is now; currently, there are 40 Grade A dairies left in the state.

The post Raw Pet Dairy Now Legal in New Jersey appeared first on Real Milk.

The media have been taking their cues from press releases issued by public health departments that have been giving the advice to pasteurize all milk. However, the solution to avoid getting brucellosis is far different from what public health 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.”

First off, the three cases of brucellosis are the only known cases attributed to raw milk consumption over the past 20 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/bison herds affected by brucellosis in the U.S. has been less than 10 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 that there are about 100 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 being 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 (also known as undulant fever) attributed to drinking raw milk in the U.S. are extremely rare.

The “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 (i.e., 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 in the three individuals 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 from brucellosis 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.

In the meantime, the media fear-mongering continues on. 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 have thought it was just 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 an agenda ever gotten so much mileage over three illnesses?

A fear-inciting 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 19 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.

——
¹ “Brucellosis Affected Cattle/Bison Herds by State, FY 1997-2018” graph [PDF]. USDA-APHIS National Brucellosis Eradication Program (September 10, 2018), https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-disease-information/cattle-disease-information/national-brucellosis-eradication/brucellosis-eradication-program

² “Facts About Brucellosis” [PDF]. 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) [PDF], https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-disease-information/cattle-disease-information/national-brucellosis-eradication/brucellosis-eradication-program

⁴ “Fast Facts: Brucellosis, Undulant Fever” [PDF]. 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 [PDF]. 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 [PDF]. 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” [PDF]. ScienceAlert.com, Carly Cassella (February 15, 2019), https://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-dangerous-to-drink-raw-milk-the-cdc-warns-for-the-umpteenth-time

The post Cutting Through the Propaganda on Raw Milk and Brucellosis appeared first on Real Milk.

Earlier this year the state’s Grade A dairies were receiving around $14 per hundredweight (one hundred pounds of milk), that figure shrunk to $12 after deducting transportation costs (moving the milk from the farm to the processing plant of the farmer’s dairy cooperative). According to one of the speakers at the summit, the average cost of production for the dairies is $18.50, a path to bankruptcy.

Dairy farmers know the FMMO pricing system robs them of revenues they should be earning but the pricing is complicated enough so that it is difficult to figure out exactly how the FMMO denies them income that should rightly be theirs. Most dairy farmers are captive to the FMMO and the commodity pricing system; they belong to a cooperative which bottles and markets their milk. In that situation, individual farmers do not set their own price.

Four ways a dairy farmer can escape or survive the commodity system are:

• Own bottling and pasteurization equipment; this is a major expense most dairy farmers cannot afford.
• Find a creamery willing to bottle and pasteurize an individual farmer’s milk, something that’s not easy to do. Jared Weeks, a dairy farmer from Ringoes, who spoke at the summit, has been able to find a creamery in Pennsylvania to take some of his milk for bottling and pasteurization, but few, if any, other dairy farmers in the state have been able to make the same arrangement.
• Make value-added dairy products, such as butter, cream, and yogurt; again, this is typically a substantial expense most dairy farmers cannot afford.
• Sell or distribute raw milk for direct consumption – this is a less expensive way to escape or survive the commodity system whether the farmer is selling direct to the consumer, distributing direct to the consumer through a herd share agreement or selling to retail stores.

New Jersey is one of seven remaining states that do not allow any raw milk sales or distribution. Legislators began introducing raw milk bills in the New Jersey General Assembly back in 2006; since that time New Jersey has lost more than half of its remaining dairies.

The New Jersey Department of Agriculture is not opposed to legislation legalizing raw milk sales and/or distribution; it is the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) that opposes raw milk legalization. The health department sees raw milk as a health threat but a recent Canadian study found, “The rate of unpasteurized milk-associated outbreaks [in the U.S.] has been declining since 2010. Controlling for growth in population and consumption, the outbreak rate has effectively decreased by 74% since 2005.” According to the Centers for Disease Control from 1998-2016, there were only seven (7) foodborne illness outbreaks attributed to the consumption of raw goat milk, an average of about one outbreak every three years.

Raw milk sales or distribution was not on the agenda for the Dairy Summit. The focus was on individual dairy farmers having access to or building a processing plant that would bottle and pasteurize milk as well as manufacture value-added dairy products. Jon McConaughy, the owner of Double Brook Farm in Hopewell, estimated that it would cost $450,000 to build a processing plant. Daniel Wunderlich, Dairy Program Coordinator for NJDA spoke about having a group processing plant that would bottle both conventional and organic milk. McConaughy said, at this time the New Jersey General Assembly had not allocated any money towards such a project. There were speakers for various agencies of USDA and other organizations who spoke about loans to farmers for marketing and dairy processing plants and equipment but how can farmers qualify for a loan when they are already deeply in debt and are losing money with every shipment of milk they make to their cooperative. Dairy farmers need a decent price for their milk more than they need a loan.

Even though the FMMO wasn’t a topic at the Dairy Summit, the information speakers presented was still an indictment of the commodity milk pricing system.

Tom Beaver, Director of Marketing and Development for NJDA said that New Jersey dairies produce one percent (1%) of the milk New Jersey residents consume. NJDA has established a Jersey Fresh logo that in-state producers of milk and other foods can put on their labels to promote their products. If it looks like the state is down to 48 Grade A dairies because New Jersey consumers don’t want to purchase milk produced in-state, that is not so.

Beaver said that NJDA recently conducted a Jersey Fresh Milk Consumer Survey throughout New Jersey and all five boroughs of New York City; 85% of those responding to the survey “indicated an interest in buying Jersey Fresh milk; 23% of those surveyed would be willing to pay a premium, with the average premium being $1.74 above what respondents are currently paying for a half gallon.” What is wrong with this picture?

Dairy farmer Pete Southway, owner of Springhouse Creamery in Sussex County, said that the fifty cows he milks only provide 7% of the milk residents of his county need. McConaughy estimated that producers free from the commodity system and the milk cooperatives could take in as much as $104 per hundredweight (about $9 per gallon). The demand for local milk is there, it’s not the lack of consumer demand as much as the commodity pricing system that are driving dairies out of business.

Retired dairy farmer John Pugh attended the summit. Pugh, who is 97 years young, recalled how once the FMMO went into effect that he switched his herd from Guernseys to Holsteins, placing greater emphasis on the quantity of milk production and less on quality. Legalizing raw milk sales and distribution in New Jersey is a way to put more quality milk on the market and to revive the dairy business in the state that the FMMO helped destroy.

============
About the top photo:
“Let the Good Times Flow for National Dairy Month!”
Posted 6/4/2015 by Dana Coale, Deputy Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service’s Dairy Program
Source: https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2015/06/04/let-good-times-flow-national-dairy-month

The post Raw Milk – Rx for Dairy Crisis appeared first on Real Milk.

Update: Spring 2018

The New Jersey Department of Health (NJDH) has been busy recently on the raw milk front. In one investigation NJDH sent cease-and-desist letters to various dropsites at private residences. The dropsites were allegedly distributing raw milk and raw milk products to customers of an out-of-state dairy. In another action, NJDH was investigating a New Jersey-based food buyers co-op obtaining raw milk from multiple out-of-state producers. The department was trying to determine which of the producers was responsible for an illness caused by the consumption of raw milk. The two cases represent an opportunity for the state to evaluate its law prohibiting the sale and distribution of raw milk and acknowledge that the law needs changing.

The cease-and-desist letters threatened the families operating the dropsites with fines for distributing raw milk. This isn’t the first time NJDH has taken this kind of action. In 2007, NJDH also sent cease-and-desist letters to individuals having dropsites at their residences. The difference from the investigation eleven years ago is that NJDH sent letters to considerably more dropsites this time around—not surprising since demand for raw milk has been consistently increasing for years. Otherwise law-abiding citizens will do what they have to do in order to obtain raw milk in states like New Jersey where the sale is banned; whether NJDH will admit that or not, it’s the reality.

In the case of the food buyers co-op, NJDH was having a difficult time trying to determine which dairy was responsible for making a member of the club ill with brucellosis. There were media reports discussing the NJDH investigation but none reporting that the department had identified the producer responsible for the illness; it is clear that NJDH was having problems with traceability.

If you combine the growing demand for raw milk among New Jersey residents along with the traceability issue NJDH has been having with out-of-state dairies, it would be a good move for the state to consider legalization. An appropriate first move for the state would be to allow by policy the distribution of raw milk through herdshare agreements; under herdshare contracts, raw milk consumers obtain an ownership interest in the dairy animal(s) enabling them to obtain raw milk and hire the farmer to board, care for and milk those animals. Herdshare programs are closed-loop arrangements in which there is a high level of traceability if there is a suspected illness—something NJDH should appreciate after what it has been through.

New Jersey dairy farmers have lost millions of dollars in potential revenues to Pennsylvania raw milk producers (there are less than seventy Grade A dairies left in the state) but that never moved the state government to end the prohibition on raw milk sales and distribution. What could change the state’s position though is the difficulty its health department had in conducting an investigation of foodborne illness, combined with the fact that demand for raw milk among New Jersey residents will only continue to further increase. Allowing the distribution of raw milk through an arrangement outside the stream of public commerce would be a good first step for the state.

The post New Jersey: More Reason to Legalize Raw Milk Sales appeared first on Real Milk.

IOWA House File 2055 (HF 2055) would allow the unregulated sale of raw milk and raw milk products on-farm and through delivery. There is a labeling requirement that there be a statement on the container notifying consumers that the product has not been inspected and is not subject to public health regulations. Bills have also been introduced in the Iowa legislature that would legalize raw pet milk sales (HF 2057) and the distribution of raw milk through herdshares (HF 2056) but HF 2055 is the only raw milk bill the legislature has considered so far. On January 30 a subcommittee of the House Committee on Local Government recommended passage by a 2-1 vote; the bill is now before the full committee. Iowa is one of the remaining states that prohibits any raw milk distribution.

LOUISIANA companion bills, Senate Bill 188 (SB 188) and House Bill 437 (HB 437), have been introduced that would allow the on-farm sale of either cow milk or goat milk of an average of 500 gallons per month. No permit is required but producers are subject to inspection and must comply with milk testing, herd health, and sanitary standards as well as a labeling requirement that there be a warning that the raw milk may contain harmful bacteria. The bills are a reintroduction of Senate Bill 29 (SB 29) that nearly passed in 2016. SB 29 passed out of the Senate and was defeated in the House committee by one vote.

MASSACHUSETTS Senate Bill 442 (S.442) and House Bill 2938 (H.2938) are companion agricultural omnibus bills that include provisions which would officially legalize herdshare agreements and would allow the off-farm delivery of raw milk by licensed dairies. Under the bill, farmers with no more than twelve lactating cows, goats or combination of cows and goats can enter into herdshare agreements with those wanting to obtain raw milk. There must be a written contract that includes a statement that the raw milk is not pasteurized nor subject to inspection by the state Department of Health nor the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR). MDAR has power to issue rules on testing but cannot require testing more frequently than once every two months. The bills allow from a licensed raw milk farmer to deliver raw milk to a consumer with whom the farmer has a contractual relationship, including through the farmer’s agent and through a community supported agriculture (CSA) delivery system. The bill gives MDAR power to issue regulations governing delivery; the regulations must allow for non-mechanical refrigeration. The bills have passed out of the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture and will likely next be assigned to the Senate Ways and Means Committee.

NEW JERSEY Assembly Bill 502 (A502) is the same bill that has been introduced the prior three legislative sessions, A502 allows for the on-farm sale of raw milk and raw milk products by a licensed dairy. Producers must comply with labeling, signage, herd health, and milk testing requirements. The bill also legalizes herdshare agreements and states that no permit is required for the distribution of milk through a herdshare contract. New Jersey is one of the remaining seven states that prohibits any raw milk distribution. A502 has been referred to the Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.

TENNESSEE House Bill 2229 (HB 2229) and Senate Bill 2104 (SB 2104) would have allowed the unregulated direct sale from producer to consumers of all foods except meat, on the farm, at farmers markets and other venues. There were labeling and signage requirements but no licensing or inspection under the bills. The bills were both defeated in committee; under current law, the distribution of raw milk and raw milk products is legal through herdshare agreements. Herdshare programs have been thriving in the state.

UTAH Senate Bill 108 (SB 108) has passed through both the Senate and House and are on the desk of Governor Gary Herbet. SB 108 allows the delivery and sale of raw milk through a mechanically refrigerated mobile unit by licensed dairies. Currently only the on-farm sale of raw milk by license holders is legal unless the producer has a majority ownership interest in a retail store (only one of the state’s ten licensed dairies meets this qualification). SB 108 also allows for the unlicensed on-farm sale of up to 120 gallons per month by unlicensed dairies if the producer is in compliance with labeling, recordkeeping, milk testing, and milk cooling requirements. Producers wanting to sell under this exemption must notify the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF) that they are doing so. UDAF has power under the bill to order a producer to stop selling raw milk if the producer’s dairy is linked to a foodborne illness. The department has the power to levy administrative fines against producers who have been linked to a foodborne illness outbreak.

VIRGINIA Senate Bill 962 (SB 962) and House Bill 825 (HB 825) would have officially legalized and regulated herdshare operations. State policy in Virginia has long been to leave the many herdshare programs existing in the state alone. The original versions of both bills would have criminalized the refusal of either farmers or consumers to turn over copies of their contracts to government agencies. Both bills stated it was illegal for anyone besides the party to the contract to receive raw milk; in other words, giving raw milk to family or guests would have been a crime. Criminal penalties for violations of the bill’s requirements were up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine; every day the violation continued would be a separate offense. The bills also required that the herdshare contracts contain a clause that shareholders assumed joint liability if the herd or any milk produced by the heard was responsible for any injury or illness. SB 962 was in Senate committee and shortly afterwards was stricken in the House committee.

For further updates on the progress of raw milk legislation, go to the bill tracking page at realmilk.com.

The post STATE RAW MILK BILLS – 2018 UPDATE appeared first on Real Milk.

The cease and desist letters threatened the families operating the dropsites with fines for distributing raw milk. This isn’t the first time NJDH took this kind of action. In 2007 NJDH also sent cease and desist letters to individuals having dropsites at their residences. The difference from the investigation eleven years ago is that NJDH sent letters to considerably more dropsites this time around; not surprising since demand for raw milk has been consistently increasing for years. Otherwise law-abiding citizens will do what they have to in order to obtain raw milk in states like New Jersey where the sale is banned; whether NJDH will admit that or not, it’s the reality.

In the case of the food buyers co-op, NJDH was having a difficult time trying to determine which dairy was responsible for making a member of the club ill with brucellosis. There were media reports discussing the NJDH investigation but none reporting that the department had identified the producer responsible for the illness; it is clear that NJDH was having problems with traceability.

If you combine the growing demand for raw milk among New Jersey residents along with the traceability issue NJDH has been having with out-of-state dairies it would be a good move for the state to consider legalization. A good first move for the state would be to allow by policy the distribution of raw milk through herdshare agreements; under herdshare contracts raw milk consumers obtain an ownership interest in the dairy animal(s) enabling them to obtain raw milk and hire the farmer to board, care for and milk those animals. Herdshare programs are closed-loop arrangements in which there is a high level of traceability if there is a suspected illness; something NJDH should appreciate after what it has been through.

New Jersey dairy farmers have lost millions of dollars in potential revenues to Pennsylvania raw milk producers (there are less than 70 Grade A dairies left in the state) but that never moved the state government to end the prohibition on raw milk sales and distribution. What could change the state’s position though is the difficulty its health department had in conducting an investigation of foodborne illness combined with the fact that demand for raw milk among New Jersey residents will only continue to further increase. Allowing the distribution of raw milk through an arrangement outside the stream of public commerce would be a good first step for the state.

The post Raw Milk Legalization — What Is New Jersey Waiting For? appeared first on Real Milk.

Republished with permission of American Farm Publications Inc. and The New Jersey Farmer newspaper.

In New Jersey 86 percent of farm gate revenues comes from sale of crops and only 14 percent from sales of livestock, dairy or poultry products.

This percentage revenue stream from animal products places New Jersey near the bottom among states.

Expanding opportunities for livestock farming, especially pasture-based production systems, can significantly improve the sustainability of agriculture. When farmland is planted to perennial grasses and legumes to feed livestock, carbon is effectively removed from the atmosphere and sequestered in soils.

A recent survey of the Mid-Atlantic region showed that soils under pasture contain 62 percent more organic carbon than soils under row crops.

In contrast to many states that have large livestock industries and an over-abundance of manures, New Jersey has a deficit of local animal manures for building soil fertility.

Thus, diversifying New Jersey agriculture to include more pasture-based livestock systems would provide local manures for soil fertility and carbon sequestration as a sustainable way to build soil quality.

At more than fifteen thousand dollars per acre, New Jersey farmland is among the most expensive in the nation. For comparison, neighboring Pennsylvania and New York have per acre farmland values of about five thousand dollars and two thousand dollars, respectively.

Demand for Raw Milk

Demand for fresh whole fat unprocessed milk, commonly referred to as raw milk, has increased markedly.

By some estimates about ten million people in the United States consume milk raw. Currently about half of the states in the U.S. allow raw milk sales. Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania are states in the Mid-Atlantic region that permit raw milk sales. Interestingly, most large milk-producing states permit raw milk sales.

New Jersey currently does not permit raw milk sales and ranks forty-fourth among states in terms of dairy production.

In Pennsylvania, farms with raw milk permits increased from about twenty-five to over one hundred fifty in the last decade. Within that same time frame the total number of dairy farms in Pennsylvania declined by about a third due to consolidation. The total number of cows in Pennsylvania has remained about the same.

Those dairies with raw milk permits tend to maintain small herds and market directly.

Raw Milk in New Jersey

Legislation that would allow sales in New Jersey and several other states is pending.

In New Jersey, a bill that would have permitted raw milk sales overwhelmingly passed the Assembly in spring 2011. A Senate hearing was held in December 2011, but the bill was never voted on.

The same bill was reintroduced on February 2, 2012 when after a hearing by the Assembly Agriculture Committee the vote was five in favor and zero opposed. With no senate hearings scheduled in 2012 or 2013 the bill expired. In 2014, however, a bill was introduced once again to permit raw milk sales; the Assembly version is numbered 543 and the Senate version is 1285.

An unknown number of New Jersey raw milk consumers travel to neighboring states to purchase raw milk. Ironically, these New Jersey consumers travel past local farms that want to, but are not permitted to sell raw milk.

The potential economic impact on New Jersey agriculture may be illustrated by one notable example of a Pennsylvania organic raw milk dairy farmer who supplies many New Jersey consumers.

This particular farmer from central Pennsylvania currently operates weekly drop points in Eastern Pennsylvania at two locations on the west bank of the Delaware River.

At just one of the two raw milk drop points, this dairy farmer serves over two hundred fifty families—nearly all of them crossing over the border from New Jersey.

In addition to organic raw milk, which sells for seven dollars fifty per gallon, this farmer also sells organic pasture raised eggs, chicken, turkey, beef, and pork, and sometimes even vegetables and apple cider.

Well more than one hundred thousand dollars of annual sales take place at just one of the two drop points and sales are still expanding (personal communication with this Pennsylvania dairy farmer).

Milk, more than any other food, is what regularly brings people to the market place. Many retailers sell milk simply to bring traffic to the market and this drives the sale of other products. Farm fresh organic grass-fed raw milk is a particularly strong magnet that attracts shoppers and leads to the sale of many other farm fresh foods. This point has been demonstrated by examples showing that whenever a farm discontinues sales of raw milk, sales of all other farm products drop markedly. It is evident that the New Jersey farm economy is disadvantaged from marketing local farm fresh foods by the current law prohibiting the sale of raw milk.

Raw milk consumers want good quality and strongly prefer milk from grass-fed cows with minimal grain feeding.

New Jersey has favorable climatic and soil conditions for growing grasses that would support economically viable pasture-based raw milk dairies. Also, with the large population density of New Jersey within driving distance of farms, the Garden State is well positioned for direct on-farm sales of raw milk from small- to modest-sized dairy operations.

Case Studies

Two case studies described below serve to illustrate the economic viability for raw milk dairy farming.

In 2010, Joel McNair, editor of Graze Magazine described the potential economics of a small pasture-based raw milk dairy. He assumed that the dairy would be selling whole raw milk produced by just twenty cows directly to the consumer. He projects a production level of twenty thousand gallons of milk selling for five dollars per gallon.

This would result in an annual gross income of one hundred thousand dollars. (Alternatively, if the milk price is set at seven dollars per gallon, the annual gross income may be one hundred forty thousand dollars).

This twenty-cow dairy would require about forty acres of good pasture land along with a simple barn, and a small milking facility kept exceptionally clean.

A second example is of an organic forty-three-cow dairy operation that in 2008 had a net farm income of about twenty-two thousand dollars from selling its organic raw milk to a processor for pasteurization. If one made the assumption that all of that raw milk would instead be sold directly to consumers at six dollars per gallon, the net farm income may be raised to three hundred forty thousand dollars. This estimate is based on figures provided by an organic dairy farm in New England.

The real economics of raw milk dairy farming probably lies somewhere between these two models. Certainly a dairy farm selling to processors cannot automatically switch over to raw milk sales without changes and upgrades in the production system. Also, milk production decreases as cows are transitioned from a high-grain diet to predominately pasture and forage feeding. Furthermore, because raw milk sales rely on direct marketing, time and effort are required to develop a customer base. Raw milk consumers tend to be well educated and rather discriminating in terms of production system and food quality. The “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” philosophy very much applies to the raw milk market.

Market Size

Another approach to the question of the economic potential of raw milk is to use some assumptions to estimate the size and value of the market. By assuming that about 3 percent of the population (percentage based on CDC survey of several states in the USA conducted in 2007) of New Jersey are or want to consume one gallon of raw milk per week at seven dollars per gallon, the value of that raw milk is estimated to potentially be about ninety-five million dollars annually.

These scenarios suggest that permitting raw milk dairy farming in New Jersey would present new economic opportunities and potentially reinvigorate dairy farming in the Garden State.

Also, worth noting is the fact that direct marketing of raw milk within New Jersey would facilitate marketing of locally produced meat, eggs, vegetables and fruit. At the present time, due to the probation of raw milk sales, millions of dollars in potential local farm income is leaving New Jersey to surrounding states.

Positive Economic Impact

A survey conducted in 2009 by the Massachusetts chapter of the National Organic Farming Association (NOFA-MA) of raw milk diaries in Massachusetts indicated that permitting raw milk sales had a positive economic impact in that state. Massachusetts may serve as a model for New Jersey because the states are of similar size and population density. A summary of the Massachusetts survey is available at this link: http://www.nofamass.org/programs/organicdairy/pdfs/RawMilkinMassachusetts.pdf.

Some have argued that food safety concerns with legalizing raw milk sales could result in an outbreak that would damage the market for all milk. However, this argument must be considered in the context that no food can be guaranteed to be perfectly safe, including pasteurized milk. Two notable examples of pasteurized milk outbreaks documented in Journal of the American Medical Association: In 1985, more than one hundred sixty-eight thousand people were sickened with salmonella from pasteurized milk; and in 2007, listeria from pasteurized milk was linked to three deaths. It is questionable whether the market for pasteurized milk suffers significantly from illnesses and death linked to pasteurized milk.

People drinking raw milk are passionate about their food choice. They like the taste or believe in or have personally experience health benefits from drinking raw milk. They will find one way or another to procure raw milk.

The real question is whether that raw milk will come from a local dairy, a herd share, a family cow . . . or from another state?

[include content_id=6691]

The post What Raw Milk Sales Would Do for New Jersey appeared first on Real Milk.

The post NJ Raw Milk Bill Hearing Tomorrow appeared first on Real Milk.