|
raw milk 
Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 17:45:05 PM PDT
|
|
Want dairy goats? Here's what you need to know. On average, a dairy goat will give 3 quarts of milk per day. The main dairy goat breeds are Alpine, LaMancha, Nubian, Oberhasli, Sannen, Toggenburg and Nigerian Dwarf. LaManchas and Nubians come from warm climates, whereas Alpines, Oberhaslis, Saanens, and Toggenburgs come from the mountains of Switzerland. Thus, the first two tolerate hot summers better than the latter four, who are well-suited to cool climates.
According to Mother Earth News, here are some key differences between these breeds.
Alpines: Upright ears and long necks, medium to large body, good milker. Coats are two-toned, usually black and white.
Oberhaslis: Usually bay (reddish brown) with black markings but sometimes completely black. This is a medium to small breed that doesn't produce as much milk as other breeds.
Saanens: The "Holstein" of the goat world. The animals are larger, usually all white, and produce a LOT of milk (for a goat).
Toggenburgs: Colors range from fawn to deep chocolate. This is a medium-size breed with long lactations. "Their inquisitive nature can sometimes become quite challenging."
LaManchas: Unique because they have no visible external ears. They are calm, gentle, and good milkers. They are a larger breed that comes in many colors.
Nubians: The "Jersey" of the goat world. These goats have floppy ears and "an energetic disposition some say is just plain stubborn." They come in many colors and produce milk with high butterfat content.
Nigerian Dwarf: This is a West African native that is "a surprisingly good milker." A full size Nigerian Dwarf goat will weigh only 30 to 50 pounds compared to 120 to 135 pounds for females in a non-dwarf breed. They are known for friendly personalities and they come in many colors. They give birth easily and produce milk with very high protein and butterfat content. These goats produce 1-2 quarts of milk per day.
One last useful piece of advice from this article: Buy a goat locally so that you get one already adapted to the climate where you live. (I recommend the entire Mother Earth News article, if you are serious about keeping dairy goats.)
|
|
Discuss
:: (6
Comments)
|
|
Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 11:12:30 AM PDT
|
|
As I noted the other day, San Diego is getting a much needed urban ag makeover. The current laws are silent on many issues and too restrictive on others. Fortunately, the city council has been incredibly responsive. They drafted up proposed rules which were heard by the Land Use and Housing committee this week.
As I've already noted, San Diego county cracked down on the proposal to allow backyard goats. I think even the goats will agree that this is very baaaaa-d.
However, the rest of the news is quite good. The proposed rules, plus some of the public comments made are below.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 1983 words in story)
|
|
Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 21:26:13 PM PDT
|
|
Parents, you might not want to let small children view the following graphic image:
Are you terrified? You should be! Because these seemingly adorable little goats.... produce RAW MILK!
The City of San Diego is now undergoing a massive revamping of its urban ag laws. Today the city council reviewed the proposed new laws covering farmers markets, chickens, bees, and goats. Only the goats might not happen after all. They are, um, dangerous.
This morning, a letter came out from the county explaining that goats produce raw milk and therefore should not be allowed. It encouraged people to instead purchase their milk, either raw or pasteurized, from legal dairies. We have exactly two dairies left in our county and neither sell to the public. Legal raw milk options are also limited and - I would contend - unacceptable.
A huge crowd of citizens came to the meeting in support of the new laws and requesting tweaks to the proposed language of the laws here and there. One woman who spoke in favor of goats at the meeting gave the council a quick lesson in pasteurization. She brought a timer, a thermometer, and a pot and explained how one should bring the milk the required temperature for 30 minutes and then plunge it into an ice bath to cool it rapidly. The council members laughed, since it is obviously very simple for people to pasteurize their own milk if they wish to.
I focused my remarks on ducks, which were left out of the proposed law, but sent in written comments that read, in part:
I'm quite upset about the notion that goats should be outlawed because they might produce raw milk. Please consider that people are permitted to buy raw meat under the expectation that they will cook it. What's more, under U.S. law, it's legal for up to 49.9% of ground turkey samples tested to test positive for salmonella. This is disturbing as ground meat can have pathogens in the center and not just on the surfaces of the meat, which means consumers can become ill unless they cook the meat extremely thoroughly. When Consumers Union tested a random sampling of fresh supermarket broilers (chicken) in 22 states, 66 percent were found contaminated with either campylobacter, salmonella, or both. Most of the pathogens detected were resistant to at least one antibiotic. And consumers are trusted to cook this tainted meat sufficiently to avoid illness and allowed to risk it if they want to cook their turkey burgers rare instead of well done. Why are we not trusted to produce and/or pasteurize our own milk?
What's more, the most dangerous food statistically is not raw milk but raw oysters - and those remain legal.
I find it unreasonable enough that U.S. citizens in much of the country cannot legally buy raw milk, but banning people from owning a goat simply because you do not want them to drink raw milk from their own goat is one step too far. Even in states with very strict laws against the sale of raw milk, farmers and their families can drink milk from their own animals without pasteurizing it.
|
|
Discuss
:: (11
Comments)
|
|
Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 18:48:28 PM PDT
|
|
Yesterday I posted a piece about the threat by Mark McAfee to send me a letter from his lawyer unless I retract some or all of what I said in my raw milk article on Alternet. That prompted comments by bloggers on this site, including some who assumed that McAfee was correct and that I had screwed up.
I did not screw up. I did do my homework. I did print the truth. I will not print a retraction. McAfee noted that he has never bottled the milk of another dairy. From my understanding, that is the truth. Also, it is my understanding the McAfee likes to stoke the controversy he provokes because it tends to gain him more business. I based my claim that McAfee had - at some point, if not now - outsourced some of his products on a statement made by McAfee himself on a blog. McAfee said:
We no longer outsource for cream or butter. Our HACCP policy closed our herd and now we produce all the products required. If we do not make it or we run out of it...then we will use ear plugs and let the crying begin.
In the past we have purchased raw cream from other organic creameries to make butter. We have not done this in a while and our policy prevents this going forward.
and
We have been buying colostrum and remember that colostrum is not a dairy product and is regulated differently
In other words, he outsourced his colostrum, a product that comes out of a cow's udder but is not regulated as a dairy product.
I should have posted this evidence yesterday, but I was sick yesterday and was not in my most logical state. I am a bit offended that some of the people on this site assumed I was in the wrong as I think it is fairly clear that I always do my homework and when I am wrong, I say so and apologize as soon as I find out I've made a mistake. I speak my mind and I don't hold back to be politically correct, but I am not hotheaded and impetuous as commenters accused me of being yesterday.
The raw milk piece I wrote took weeks to research. I read the book The Raw Milk Revolution in its entirety and spoke to people on both sides of the debate. Prior to printing the article, I let a person on either side of the debate read what I wrote to check it for accuracy. The regulator found it to be balanced. The pro-raw milk person was less pleased with it but I made a number of changes to make it more balanced in her opinion. The one thing that would have made the piece better in the pro-raw-milk person's position would be if I had quoted or mentioned some of the more hardline regulators. There are regulators out there (many of them) who would much prefer to shut down all raw milk instead of just regulating it to make it as safe as possible while still allowing people freedom to eat or drink what they wish to eat or drink. I don't appreciate those regulators any more than I appreciate raw milk advocates who refuse to accept any regulation or admit that raw milk may carry any risk whatsoever. Both sides will need to compromise if this debate is going to come to a good conclusion. And unfortunately, it seems like - at least in some cases - the fringier elements on either side of the debate are driving their opponents toward extremes instead of towards compromise. And the regulators, unfortunately, hold all the cards. That's a situation in which everyone loses.
|
|
Discuss
:: (7
Comments)
|
|
Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 15:49:06 PM PDT
|
|
Sorry for the cheesy Guys N Dolls lyric for the title. I went to bed last night feeling awful and woke up feeling worse. I've got a horrible cold. It was this low grade no big deal lingering thing until I decided to smoke some recreational herbs to commemorate my late brother's birthday two nights ago. I should have known better. When I finally felt human enough to pick up my computer, I found emails telling me that my Alternet article on raw milk was up and that there were threats to sue me from Mark McAfee. What?
I wrote this article because it seemed to me that the FDA - a highly underfunded arm of the government - was wasting a lot of time over nothing on raw milk. It's not that raw milk never made anyone sick. Rather, to me, it's a question of going after the biggest threats first and dealing with the little ones subsequently. In the case of raw milk, raw milk consumers very often have personal relationships with their farmers. Yes, some risk may be there, but the consumer is able to assess the risk much more effectively than when they buy products at the supermarket. There were many more deaths over peanut butter in the last year than raw milk. I'd rather just let the raw milk people drink their raw milk and have the FDA focus on bigger problems. A good compromise would be that raw milk follows safety regulations to make it as safe as possible while still keeping it legal.
To research the article, I spoke to both sides of the raw milk debate. I spoke to VERY PASSIONATE people on both sides. I tried to look for facts on both sides. Unfortunately, there was just about no way on earth to get the two sides to agree on one set of "facts." The regulators believed in safety data that the raw milk drinkers thought was bogus. The raw milk drinkers believed raw milk gave you health benefits that the regulators thought was, at best, irrelevant. So I tried presenting both sides and suggesting a compromise solution.
Throughout my research, one particular raw dairy stuck out - Organic Pastures, owned by Mark McAfee, the colorful California dairyman who is interested in sending me a letter from his attorney. He didn't stick out for being bad or good, just for being different. He's the largest raw dairy and he also holds a LOT of political power. Sometimes the debate over the broad question of raw milk gets hung up on issues that are McAfee-only issues, just because he engages in some practices that are unique to him. (I've drank raw milk from several sources and only McAfee's was available to me at Whole Foods, for example. Usually I get it directly out of the bulk tank at a dairy farm, for free because it can't be sold legally.)
You can read McAfee's comment below. By the time I woke up today it seemed that a huge commotion had come and gone. The Google alert for my story says "Got Raw Milk? Think Twice Before You Drink It." I didn't write that title. I didn't even make that point very strongly in my article. My writing was more about the balance between keeping consumers safe from unconscionable businesses vs. allowing consumers the freedom to take a risk if they wish to. By the time I got to the Alternet piece, the title was "The Battle Over Raw Milk: Let's Ditch the Hysterics and Give People a Choice." That's more in line with what I wrote. The subtitle said "Few foods provoke such strong reactions (for and against it) as raw milk. Find out why." That's also in line with what I wrote. Yet from the comments it seems that an earlier subtitle blamed raw milk for autism and asthma. That is the exact opposite of what I wrote. I wrote that evidence supports that it HELPS autism and asthma.
So here's what Mark McAfee wrote to me in the comments:
Please review your data and research. Raw milk and fermented raw milk helps autistic kids like no other food on earth. see www.californiarawmilk.org for testimonials from moms that say just that and more. Autistic kids have terrible disbiosis and GUT issues. One of the best food therapies is the reseeding and feeding of the missing gut bacteria. This bacteria comes from raw milk and fermented raw milks, not pastuerized dead milk or dairy products. Just like breast milk...raw milk heals like no other food.
Also...Organic Pastures Dairy has never ever bottled one ounce of another dairies raw milk...not one drop. This is a blantant lie and an untruth spoken to try and hurt OPDC and misslead our consumers.
I ask you to print a retraction or face a letter from our attorney.
Lastly....Dr. Mike Payne ( a "GOT MILK" CMAB PhD at UC Davis )has testified under oath that he does not think that raw milk is safe under any conditions. He stood against SB 201 along with CDFA and UC Davis. SB 201 established very strong HACCP type protections for raw milk in CA. SB 201 was vetoed by the governor after UC Davis ( Mike Payne ) and CDFA "back doored" the legislative process. SB 201 had passed both houses of the legilsature and was on the governors desk when it was vetoed...now Mike Payne demands a HACCP program for CA raw milk. This is an outrage and disingenious.... he speaks with forked tongue!!
Raw milk is a choice made by consumers and that is the end of the story. All of the crying and sniveling done by Mike Payne and others is irrelavent. The people drink raw milk and will defend that right at the legislature ( and they have already done so ). When the SB 201 hearings were held last year....the FDA and CDFA did not even show up ( Senator Dean Florez had invited them to please be present ) yet they did not even show.
The 50,000 people that consume raw milk in CA could careless what UC Davis or big ag sayes about their personal choices. Raw milk in CA must pass all of the standards for pastuerized milk with out being pastuerized. It is clean yet it is biodiverse,enzyme rich and very safe.
Jill....how come you never called me for an interview prior to posting this piece. It is poorly researched and is filled with political crap that is unsupported by fact or documented history in the legislature and the courts. Much of what you have said in your article is just not so....it is false.
Please call me anytime...I will give you the facts and you can confirm them.
1-877 RAW MILK....I take calls from all of our consumers everyday and I will take yours also.
All the best,
Mark McAfee
Founder OPDC
Fresno CA
Oh boy.
|
|
Discuss
:: (37
Comments)
|
|
Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 23:23:43 PM PDT
|
|
Think back to earlier this year when numerous emails were flying around about the evils of H.R. 875 and the government takeover of food. If this is the first you're hearing on the matter, consider yourself lucky. It was a lot of noise over what turned out to be nothing. Those of us who were watching Congress were baffled by the outrage expressed about the bill.
According to the rumors, the bill was secretly sponsored by Monsanto and it was going to ban backyard gardens, farmers markets, and organics. Yet, Consumers Union strongly supported the bill. I read through the bill text and didn't find anything that would possibly ban organics or farmers' markets. Most of the bill had nothing to do with farms - it covered "food facilities," a term that exempts farms and restaurants. Oh - and the Monsanto claim? Totally false. A look at Monsanto's lobbying records shows they had nothing to do with it.
According to the rumors from DC insiders, H.R. 875 was basically dead on arrival. Its sponsor, Rosa DeLauro, was not on the committee that would ultimately pass a food safety bill, the House Energy and Commerce Committee. One of the most powerful men on that committee, Henry Waxman, had also proposed a food safety bill. His bill would be the one that moved forward, not H.R. 875. Then word came down that there would be a NEW bill put forth by Dingell that combined characteristics of his previous bill and H.R. 875. That turned out to be H.R. 2749, which ultimately passed. So why the hysteria over a bill that ultimately went nowhere? And why are people so suspicious of giving the government more power to keep our food safe when clearly we have a major food safety problem in this country?
Once H.R. 2749 came on the scene, opposition started up again, although this time it was quite a bit more grounded in reality. Still, what gives? If people are dying from peanut butter and spinach, shouldn't the government have the tools to keep us safe from foodborne illness?
Throughout this time, I kept in touch with my friend Judith McGeary, who understood the opposition to the food safety bills very well (in fact, she had a hand in writing some of the action alerts... the sane, reality-based ones, that is). At the core of much of the opposition was raw milk. Through Judith, I navigated what would otherwise be a very confusing headache of food safety bill opposition.
This week, I've read through an advance copy of David Gumpert's upcoming book The Raw Milk Revolution. I can now say: I GET IT. I might not agree with it 100%, but I get it. If you want to understand the vocal opposition to food safety laws, you should read Gumpert's book too. That's not the only reason to read it though. Even if you have little interest in raw milk, I think this book is a key piece in the puzzle to understanding the backwards priorities in America's food safety system.
|
|
There's More...
:: (17
Comments, 1196 words in story)
|
|
Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 14:28:23 PM PDT
|
|
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 18:01:09 PM PDT
|
|
I must confess, I LOVE consuming an illegal substance: raw milk. Yum yum yum. I've only been fortunate enough to drink it about 3 times in my life, and all three times were on farms. Today, Alternet has posted an excerpt of a book promoting raw milk that is written by a doctor. Well, he's a doctor and I'm not so I'll let you read what he has to say. But here's my own $.02 anyway.
The way we mass produce dairy these days is not good for the cows, nor for the milk. When you feed cows corn instead of grass (or mostly grass), you're asking for trouble. The milk is less healthy from the studies I've seen, and I have no doubt that we need to pasteurize it. Anything coming out of any factory farm probably should not be eaten raw, period.
However, if a cow is raised on pasture and the milk is tested regularly for harmful microbes, then I see no reason why we shouldn't be allowed to drink it raw. Perhaps the government should require warning labels like they do for unpasteurized juice, warning that there might be negative health consequences - particularly for children, the elderly, and the immune-suppressed. But if people are taking the risk knowingly and the producer is doing everything possible to guarantee the safety of the product, then I think it should be legal.
|
|
Discuss
:: (5
Comments)
|
|
Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 17:33:35 PM PST
|
|
OK, so perhaps I'm exaggerating. But on the whole, I am not a Ron Paul fan. And I *am* a fan of a new bill he introduced to legalize raw milk sales across state lines. The bill is H.R.778 (PDF), if you want to look up the details on the Library of Congress site or email your representative to ask him or her to cosponsor it.
I realize that some people are opposed to raw milk, but I really like the stuff. Yes, you're taking a risk when you drink it, but if you choose the right dairy for your raw milk, you aren't taking much of a risk. After all, we now have fantastic techniques to test milk for harmful microbes that weren't available when we began pasteurizing milk way back when. Change.org gives a perspective on raw milk if you'd like to learn more about it, and if you'd like to read some literature by the biggest cheerleaders of raw milk around, check out the Weston A. Price Foundation.
The consumption of raw milk is legal in every state, yet its sale is currently illegal in about half the states. HR 778 would enable those living in states where the sale of raw milk is illegal-and those living in states where the sale is legal but sources are not present-to be able to exercise their legal right to consume raw milk. As Congressman Paul stated in introducing the bill, "Americans have the right to consume these products without having the Federal Government second-guess their judgment about what products best promote health. If there are legitimate concerns about the safety of unpasteurized milk, those concerns should be addressed at the state and local level."
Hooray! Now, Ron Paul, if you want to do something else totally awesome, can you please introduce a law legalizing industrial hemp?
|
|
Discuss
:: (3
Comments)
|
|
Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 15:22:11 PM PDT
|
|
I apologize for the brief, one-link nature of this first diary. I promise, I'll introduce myself more politely as soon as I'm home from work this evening.
Meanwhile, my 78-year-old mother, who was raised in dreadful fear of non-pasteurized milk, sent me this OpEd News blog entry, titled "Raw Milk and the Government/Corporate Effort to Crush It".
It's not terribly well sourced, but I hope it will provoke some discussion about raw dairy products and the corporate and government politics thereof.
I've been searching for several weeks now to find a local source (Portland, Oregon) for raw milk that doesn't involve a long drive to pastureland miles outside the city. So far, no joy, but I'm convinced that making that switch will be another plank in my personal platform of better health through real food.
|
|
Discuss
:: (17
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
|
