In South Australia, it is illegal to sell raw milk for consumption but not illegal to drink it from your own cow. Although cow share programs have been used as a loophole to get around similar restrictions in the US, the South Australian authorities found this cow share program to be a “sham” to sell raw milk to consumers.

The couple appealed their guilty verdicts to the Supreme Court. Justice Tim Stanley agreed with the magistrate that the cowshare program was a sham and constituted a sale under the Food Act but was forced to grant the appeal due to errors made by the magistrate and prosecutor. The couple will face a new trial in the future.

Support the Campaign for Real Milk, join the Weston A. Price Foundation, today!

The post Australian Dairy Farmers On Trial appeared first on Real Milk.

Earlier this year, Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) reviewed Australia’s milk regulations and the released report legalized the production and importation of some raw milk cheeses. Unfortunately, the commercial sale of raw milk is still illegal (though drinking it is not).

Some believe that the reluctance to legalize raw milk sales stems from “laziness on health authorities’ part.” Australian microbiologist Dr. Ron Hull says, “They think it’s too hard to regulate raw milk, which is not true. Raw milk is regulated in most parts of the world and is just as safe as any other food.”

Read more via the The Sydney Morning Herald.

Support the Campaign for Real Milk, join the Weston A. Price Foundation, today!

The post Australians Want Raw Milk to be Less Controversial Than Climate Change appeared first on Real Milk.

A local blogger wrote about her thoughts on the unfolding events and was surprised when, shortly thereafter, the mother of one of the ill children contacted her on Facebook. The woman, who wished to remain anonymous, provided a backstory on her family’s raw milk consumption and timing of events, including why she herself was hesitant to believe that raw milk was the certain cause of her son’s illness.

“My son was diagnosed with a parasite (cryptosporidium) after having severe gastro for 10 days.  I was told that raw milk was a possible cause.  We had also visited a farm, picked up and cuddled chickens, cats and dogs from this farm and swam in a pool…all also possible risk factors for this parasite. If I could get closure on this and know for sure that it was the milk, it would give me some peace…but I am not convinced,” she wrote.

In this case, it is possible that raw milk was the cause of illness but it is not certain – and for the media and members of the public to rush to judgment without any conclusive evidence is inflammatory and threatens rational conversation about the reform of raw milk in Victoria and elsewhere.

Realmilk.com is a consumer education project of the Weston A. Price Foundation, a nutrition education nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. Visit their website, westonaprice.org.

The post Mother of Child Who Fell Ill From (Allegedly) Raw Milk Speaks Out appeared first on Real Milk.

It started about three years ago. I had a small herd of dairy cows that comprised the leftovers from my commercial dairy that had gone broke. In the meantime, I had managed a rundown milking dairy in the Darling Downs (southeastern Queensland) that the owner decided to close and sell. Most of my premium cows were sold along with the property and I was left with the “dregs” according to the expert agents. Many had suffered during the great floods of 2010-2011 and either had mastitis or the after-effects of pink eye (known affectionately as “blight” in Queensland).

I should set the scene. My farm is three hundred acres in the Southern Tablelands of New South Wales, about eighty kilometers from the nearest commercial dairies. It is no longer considered to be dairy country although in the 1800s that was what it was. I run the land along organic lines but have not pursued certification. The pastures are highly diverse and include a number of species that I favor but are usually categorized as weeds, including Paterson’s curse, marshmallow, dock, milk thistle, Scotch thistle, and stinging nettle. Clovers and medics thrive and I have added winter-dormant lucerne (the winter-active proved to be inactive), turnips, prairie grass, plantain and chicory to the inherited rye, phalaris and cocksfoot. Come summer, paspalum, Yorkshire fog and couch grasses respond to storm rains.

In the late spring of 2011, my herd of around thirty cows started to calve. The majority were first-calving heifers with a few old girls with three teats. Two of the heifers had stillborn bulls and very full, well-formed udders. One looked pure Jersey and the other a Jersey-Holstein cross. I decided to milk them in the crush using a borrowed single-bucket milker and about seventy-five meters of extension cord. At this point I should admit that all my cows had become ridiculously quiet from feeding them hay and from placing their water trough directly behind the house. When they were drinking, I would stand beside them and stroke them quietly.

Therefore the business of milking posed no problem at all, save for the Jersey’s tiny teats! Fortunately the two youngsters (who were soon named Sweetie and Stripey) tolerated me sitting beside them with the bottom crush gate open and the top closed. Their attitude was influenced by the provision of a delicious muesli-like preparation suitable for cows and horses. There was no kicking and no resentment. They milked wonderfully and it soon became evident that I was in need of milk drinkers aplenty. These two were providing more than fifty liters per day between them.

What I did with the raw milk (and continue to do) is a story for another day. However, the development of a dairying system suited to a small farm in a remote area with limited available resources is a study appropriate to many modern landowners.

Since that momentous first milking with Sweetie and Stripey, my herd has expanded to more than fifty milking cows, plus twenty dries and a further thirty joined and unjoined heifers. They are largely mongrels, being of Brown Swiss, Jersey, Aussie Red and Friesian heritage. Let me say, however, they can milk, forage, calve with ease and are absurdly affectionate. I give them all names and use this name to bring them to the milking parlor one by one. As soon as the “newbie” learns the sound of her name, she responds when called. Their primary diet is the biodiverse pasture, supplemented by hay when required. At milking they receive the horse-dairy mix at a rate of three to four kilos depending upon their condition, production and insatiable greed.

What, you ask, is different about this herd and almost all others? Firstly, they are never ill, never get mastitis and have a calf every year. They are milked once a day and they raise their calves at the same time. What calves! Playful, healthy and not an instance of scours in the intervening three years. Not one cow or calf on the property has been drenched or inoculated, very few are de-horned, no antibiotics have been required, and no lameness has been seen. Yes, there have been deaths, but very few from calving problems and everyone does lose a cow or a calf from time to time. Rightly or wrongly, I blame snakes for most of the casualties.

The milk has been tested regularly for cell count, standard plate count, E. coli and solids. Quality and cleanliness have been outstanding. Quantity has been more than adequate. If more milk is needed, the calves can be separated overnight and re-join their mothers after milking. When conditions are favorable, this is unnecessary with first-calving heifers producing more than eighteen liters per day and older cows up to twenty-five liters.

Cows, calves, and bull socialize together on pasture.

What are the financial advantages?

1. Labor is an obvious one. Being a virtual one-woman band, milking once a day is a real bonus, and there is no need for anyone other than casual labor from time to time. I have a regular supply of Wwoofers (Willing Workers on Organic Farms), and the cows are so quiet they can be milked by a novice (and a stranger) within a day or two.

2. Calf rearing: requiring no buckets, no feeding, no cares. The calves are kept clean and healthy by their mothers and both animals have the natural pleasure of being together. Even when separated at night, they quickly understand the routine provided that they can see and hear each other. Weaning of heifers is done over a week (when the calves are about five or six months old) with cows again having visual access to the calves but no physical contact.

3. The increased value of the bull calves that can be sold at four to five months as milkfed veal. A premium price for this otherwise worthless asset is a major benefit.

4. Reduced (if not eliminated) mastitis. The calves keep the cows well-sucked and free of mastitis and udder problems. The once-a-day milking probably extends the productive life of the cow as well—less pressure on the ligaments and less chance of blown udders.

5. Increased fertility. The cows and calves run with a bull and most of the cows reproduce annually. Those that do not are culled. Artificial insemination would be equally manageable if the expertise were available.

Hence there are financial, philosophical and lifestyle advantages from running calves with dairy cows. The downside is reduction in production, but the loss is, to a large degree, offset by the removal of the need to feed the calves their five to ten liters per day.

Has this been pure good luck? Is the genetic makeup of the herd relevant and were my dairy cows truly extraordinary from both production and quality perspectives? Indeed I have always purchased the best bulls I could find from highly reputable and successful stud breeders and I know I started with good stock (in spite of the opinion of experts).

I have trawled the Internet for examples of Once-a-Day Milking (OAD) blended with running calves with their mothers. Only three models are documented—one a research project from Holland entitled “Rearing Calves with Cows”¹ and two webpages—one published by Hawthorne Valley Farm,² a biodynamic dairy in Columbia County, New York, and the other the Calf-at-Foot Dairy in Suffolk, UK.³ The information provided confirms the benefits of my experiment, but is not an exact replica given that the dairy herds in question are managed in accordance with the climatic imperatives of high latitude farming. The cattle are kept in sheds throughout the winter and “nurse cows” used at these times rather than the natural mothers.

I feel sure that my practices are not unique within the Australasian environment. However, there is no literature upon which I can rely or similar enterprises promoted on the web. Therefore, I would be prepared to have my system tested and scientifically verified. A cost-benefit analysis would also be useful based upon herd size as there may be a limit to the number of calf-at-foot cows that a dairy can manage. There is also a real need to establish a relationship with the cows and this may be impossible on dairies milking more than two hundred fifty cows. This relationship is essential for milk “let down.” Cows that feel their handler is “part of the herd” will give milk freely while those that are uncomfortable with humans refuse to milk out and retain most of their milk for their calves. The production of oxytocin (the milk “let down” hormone) seems to be greater when the cow’s udder is stimulated by friendly and familiar hands. No time for this on large dairies either.

It surprised me, as a long-term dairy farmer, to discover the depth of feeling against the treatment of dairy cows and their calves. The Internet is full of objections to this treatment and countervailing prevarications put forward by industrial-scale dairy farmers.⁴ One that perplexed me suggested that humans raise calves better than their mothers.⁵ It even stated that dairy cows lack a strong maternal instinct. I can truthfully say that some years ago I weaned some calves and sent their mothers more than forty kilometers by truck to another property. Within two days, one of the mothers returned home having crossed rivers, gorges and fence lines through a National Park and private land. Is this the behavior of a cow lacking a maternal instinct?

Separated calves have a high mortality rate resulting from scours and other infantile diseases. To reduce the chance of cross-infection, the calves are usually kept apart from one another if facilities permit. They are tethered to hutches or kept in individual stalls without the opportunity to gambol and interact with their peers. Mine rest together, play together and learn to eat grass together—the same for heifers and bulls. This is the way nature intended.

The only realistic excuse that can be given for separating calves from their mothers soon after calving is purely commercial. It is based upon conservation of milk for human consumption and the financial rewards that follow. Bull calves in Queensland are “euthanized” almost immediately after birth—but this is code for shot. The farmers in that state have failed to develop a market for the wonderful meat that milk-fed vealers can produce. You might say that my system of running male calves with cows only postpones the inevitable. However, the very best bull calves are sold as herd bulls and the others have a happy life for at least four months. At the same time, they give their mothers pleasure and relief from mammary infection.

More investigation into the pros and cons of this dairy methodology is required and I intend to conduct a comparative study over the coming twelve months using my herd and a commercial, pasture-fed control.

REFERENCES
1. Jan Paul Wagenaar and Jos Langhout, ©Louis Bolk Instituut 2006
2. http://hawthornevalleyfarm.org/the-farm/dairy-herd/
3. http://www.the-calf-at-foot-dairy.co.uk/
4. http://www.dairymoos.com/how-the-baby-calves-are-treated-at-the-dairy-farm/
5. http://orangepatchdairy.blogspot.com.au/2010/02/why-do-you-take-calves-fromtheir.html

About the Author

Julia McKay is a former lawyer and a farmer from the Southern Highlands of New South Wales, Australia. She has more than forty years’ experience in dairy and beef cattle production with particular reference to perennial pastures in both temperate and sub-tropical regions. She is currently a PhD scholar at Fenner School of Environment and Society at the Australian National University in Canberra researching impediments to change in sustainable agriculture. She is also well-known for her work on natural sequence farming, a landscape system developed by Mr. Peter Andrews that recognizes the unique functions present in the oldest, flattest, driest continent—Australia.

The post Dairying the Old-Fashioned Way in Australia appeared first on Real Milk.

PJ writes that although she has repeatedly tested negative to allergies, she has experienced “…cramps, sharp pain, bloating followed by bathroom dramas” for the past 10 years.

“It’s humiliating and frustrating,” she writes, and it was enough to convince her to see if camel milk could help alleviate her symptoms. The sale of raw milk is illegal in Australia but she was able to find the country’s only dairy farmer from whom she bought bottles plastered with ‘not fit for human consumption’ labels, making it her choice whether to drink it or not.

After personally seeing how clean the farm is and speaking with the farmer about how he tests his milk for dangerous bacteria every day, she decided to experiment with drinking one glass of raw camel milk for breakfast every day for one month. She writes: “After a month, my stomach symptoms didn’t stop entirely, but they weren’t as severe. Very little cramping, and the bloating disappeared.” Plus, she almost instantly saw a flat stomach: “It was as if I’d been secretly doing up to 300 sit-ups a day and overnight I’d gained a washboard effect.”

Her personal experience seems to fit with the experiences of those she interviewed prior to her experiment, all of whom shared stories of the health benefits of camel milk to treat their Common Variable Immune Deficiency or children’s asthma or autism.

The Campaign for Real Milk is a project of the Weston A. Price Foundation, a nutrition education non-profit based in Washington, D.C. Fan the Campaign for Real Milk on Facebook.

The post Australian Reporter Details Experience Drinking Camel Milk for One Month appeared first on Real Milk.

In Australia, the sales of raw milk and raw milk cheeses for human consumption are illegal. Officers of the Biosecurity SA and the Dairy Authority of South Australia raided Mark Tyler’s dairy farm in May because they want him to register his cow-share program, which provides raw milk to share owners. Tyler refuses to do so, claiming that his operation is a legal way for shareholders to acquire raw milk as farmers and other cow owners are legally permitted to consume the milk that their cows produce.

Tyler’s “My Cow” cow-share program allows consumers to purchase a 1% share of a cow for $27.50, in addition to a monthly boarding fee. Each share yields 6.5 liters of raw milk every month. The program has been in operation for six years.

This raid and pressure from authorities has, once again, raised the issue of whether cow-share programs should be considered a means of selling raw milk to the general public – and whether raw milk sales should be illegal at all. Raw milk sales are legal in many countries, including New Zealand.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is investigating the processing and consumption of raw milk products, and there is strong opinion in support of consumer choice. Should raw milk sales be allowed, cow-share programs like Tyler’s would be subject to official quality standards which, to many, seems like a good compromise between those who believe in consumer freedom and those who act in the interest of public safety.

Read more about the issue here:

http://www.altlj.org/news-and-views/downunderallover/duao-vol-38-3/605-raw-milk-raid-at-willunga-hill-enforcing-food-safetyhttp://www.altlj.org/news-and-views/downunderallover/duao-vol-38-3/605-raw-milk-raid-at-willunga-hill-enforcing-food-safety

The Campaign for Real Milk is a project of the nutrition education non-profit, The Weston A. Price Foundation. Donate to help fund research into the benefits of nutrient dense foods.  http://www.westonaprice.org/lab

The post Cow-Share Programs Under Scrutiny in Australia appeared first on Real Milk.

BRISBANE, Australia — Queensland producer of unpasteurised cows milk, Trevor Mahaffey and one of his customers today applied to the Queensland Supreme Court for Judicial Review of a recent Cabinet decision to present legislation in Parliament to ban fresh milk from leaving the farm.

This follows a several year government campaign to wipe out Mr Mahaffey’s business because he does not fit the outdated public health regime of aiming to enforce chemically modified milk on the entire population through compulsory heat treatment of all milk. Many places, including California and about 20 other states in the U.S.A and parts of Europe allow supply of raw milk to the many and rapidly growing number of people who want it for the many nutrients not present in chemically modified milk coming from the big milk processors. It is becoming clear that treated milk may worsen osteoporosis and cause diabetes. Many consumers feel it is their right to choose fresh if they want to.

The action seeks a ruling that such legislation would be unlawful because it contravenes human rights and the (QLD) Legislative Standards Act, which requires that all legislation “have sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individuals.”

A stay is also sought to prevent the Beattie cabinet from further presenting the offending Bill to the Parliament until further order of the Court.

Such a broad, human rights and fundamental freedoms based argument may not have been argued before in Australian courts – but the result may be that, like Paul Keating’s failed political advertising ban, such legislation even if passed by the Parliament, could be disallowed by the courts.

Attached hereto as a MS “Word” file named “CabinetPleadings.doc” is copy of the Application as filed (see below)

Contact:
Bruce Bell
(07) 5491 4887
(0412) 463 777
email: brucebell@iprimus.com.au

Related documents (PDFs):

• Cabinet Pleadings
• Letter to Member of Parliament
• Affadavit

The post Entire Beattie Cabinet Sued Over Banning of Fresh Milk appeared first on Real Milk.

Briefly, only one state in Australia (South Australia) currently has a regulatory regime permitting sale of unpasteurized milk for human consumption. In the state of Queensland, one can legally sell goats milk only, unpasteurized. It would only take a regulation change to widen that to include bovine milk and the national standards allow for a state to permit unpasteurized supply if the state wishes to, but the big processors and public assumptions about the myths of pasteurization being true create strong opposition. We can only conjecture about how much influence big money may have in the harassment my client has endured and the legal absurdities the court has laid claim to as detailed below. (I am, by the way, a long term civil libertarian and a commercial consultant completing a law degree this year, and aware of the nutritional deficits of the quasi foods the transnational corporations find it convenient to market.)

When our dairy industry was recently “de-regulated,” the big processors stopped paying farmers 59 cents a liter, instead paying 30 cents (less a levy to subsidize the impact of many going broke). My client started marketing his Jersey milk (4.8 percent butterfat when the minimum is 3.3 percent) directly to health food stores as “Pet’s Milk.” A great many nutritionally aware people started buying it in large quantities and the cash flow reached a level that would allow saving this third generation family dairy farm.

Our state “Queensland Dairy Authority” then tried to entrap the farmer for supplying unpasteurized milk for human consumption but failed. They sent a “plant,” an inspector posing as a new health shop proprietor, to the farm and he was given some milk as a sample. He secretly tape recorded my farmer client saying pasteurization was bad for food values for people as well as animals. Then, on the basis that the milk laws here define “sell” as “including giving away as a promotion,” they charged him with “selling” his clearly labeled pet milk for human consumption in an unpasteurized state.

Their cooked up “evidence” was inadmissible in court, so after they made him spend thousands on lawyers, they withdrew their action the day of the court hearing, at which time they agreed to sign a deed committing them to not harassing him any further, an agreement the Authority later refused to sign and reneged on when they thought their legislation enabled them to “condemn” any milk product as “not fit for human consumption,” including, it seems, casein-based glue. We pointed this out to the supreme court as an example of the kind of absurdity requiring a court to not interpret the law that way. A proper interpretation of the law would have it that such powers can only be used in relation to milk “intended for sale for human consumption.”

Acting as zealots in protecting the poor gullible public from inadvertently drinking “dangerous” pet food, even when it is clearly labeled and none of their (legitimate) business, inspectors are now intimidating retailers. They are calling on the health food stores selling (our) “Pet’s Organic Fresh Milk” product. Although it is labeled”not for human consumption—animal food only” and there is no control under law here of (non meat) pet food, inspectors are buying retail samples of our milk when it is close to its 12-day-old recommended “Use By Date,” getting it tested and then, on their return visit to the retailer, reporting the product fails the lawful standards, is unsafe or even “dangerous” and it is implied the retailers may get fined or worse for selling it.

The national testing standard applicable to human consumption of milk which they are using bluntly states “Retail samples may not be used.” The testing regime for unpasteurized milk (where states allow that to be sold for people) provides that only fresh milk, taken from the dairy may be used and the testing must be done on a “reasonable” basis. So, apart from the fact it is an inapplicable test, they are using prohibited methodology. Only one-day-old milk may be tested at the processors under this test but they regard testing ten-day-old unpasteurized milk for bacterial levels as “reasonable,” it seems. They do not, of course, engage in testing retail samples of processed milk (which normally has a Use-By Date of up to 20 days), to compare.

The inspectors calling on the retailers are also telling them the Pet’s Milk product caused a cryptosporidium outbreak (5 cases) in people in the local area last year which they characterize as an epidemic, and therefore dangerous to people. There is no evidence to support that claim whatever. We investigated and found it was one illogical parent (all cases were siblings exposed to pets and other vectors of infection) who assumed it was the milk despite the fact that, from a batch of over 1000 liters supplied to shops on any one day, no one else contracted the disease from the milk, meaning it clearly was not the vector of infection. That, however, did not stop the Health Department putting out a press release almost saying it was. One resultant news article opened with the words “Dangerous milk” (is responsible, etc.) which dropped sales volume by two thirds. Litigation in regard to that defamation is under consideration.

We thought the health department’s files might contain data showing no science behind the press release, so we requested the files under Freedom of Information. As a ferocious impediment to disclosure, recent FOI amendments now allow for collection of very high fees, payable in advance for disclosure. We were told we had to pay $1,100 to get the documents which would take 49 chargeable hours to locate and collate. Their legal officer admitted to me (and I later swore an affidavit verifying) that she had already collated the documents in 8 hours. They did, however, have to admit in their letter advising of the prospective charges that they held 524 pages of documents on a dairy farmer with whom they had never had dealings.

Instead of paying, we commenced an action in the state Supreme Court for Judicial Review and injunctions against the Dairy Authority and subpoenaed the Health Department documents. They tried to refuse to comply, but under pressure from us, delivered to the court 292 pages of documents which they said were (all of) “the same documents” as requested under FOI. They also claimed legal privilege over 37 of those pages. We were ready to draw to the court’s attention that 524 pages and 292 pages of “the same documents” cannot add up but our action was dismissed at a Directions hearing.

Despite clear case law showing various valid claims in our case and illegitimate testing producing a nullity as a result, the particular judge found that a written threat to condemn my client’s milk in the hands of his retailers if he was still selling it by December 4th, was not a “decision” which the court could review, because it was not a decision of a “substantial nature affecting my client’s interests.” To dismiss our application, the court also had to find that the testing methods used by the Dairy Authority (described above) were perfectly valid, so the judge did find that to be so. Interestingly, in their evidence, the Dairy Authority stated that their campaign was motivated by complaints from three named large milk processors that our product was placed alongside theirs in the shops and selling too well for their liking.

We are considering all options presently, except giving up. One thing we will do in any event is set up a farmer-consumer direct supply arrangement (cow-share) and network to create a pure food lobby. The state food standards are under review this year. The meat and dairy authorities are being combined into one and we suspect pet foods may be heavily regulated under the new standards if we don’t lobby hard.

Bruce Bell is a lawyer in Queensland, Australia who is defending a dairy farmer selling raw milk as pet food.

The post Real Milk in Australia appeared first on Real Milk.