A distillery dairy from the mid-1800s.
If the green holiday ad on this and other pages promoting a gift opportunity looks strange, it’s because ads in general look strange here. I don’t accept outside advertising, primarily to avoid conflicts of interest and to avoid dealing with questionable promoters.
The policy stood me in good stead when the fermented cod liver oil scandal broke in August. Unlike a number of bloggers, I didn’t have to worry about jeopardizing my income stream by reporting what was really going on, and I didn’t have to shut down my reporting at the orders of someone with a different financial interest. (And I don’t say this to disparage other bloggers; just to explain this blog’s approach.)
But the fact of the matter is that it costs money to run this blog, and I thought I’d explain that reality in this post, before providing some relevant news.
The only way the blog earns money is from the sale of my books, and from speaking engagements. Blog readers were very generous last winter when I did a crowdfunding campaign to complete production and initial promotion of my latest book, The Raw Milk Answer Book: What You REALLY Need to Know About Our Most Controversial Food.
That book came out as scheduled, and has been well received by readers of this blog, as well as by a number of raw dairy farmers who have ordered it in quantity to make it available to their new customers.
I realized from its few months in the market that it is often more useful to newbies than it is to experienced raw milk consumers, who generally have spent years following the political, health, and research aspects of raw milk. The Raw Milk Answer Book enables beginners to much more quickly get up to speed on the subject—with easily understandable and nonpartisan information—than they otherwise could.
So I am encouraging all this blog’s readers to consider giving The Raw Milk Answer Book as a special gift. It comes in three formats—print, electronic, and audio—and all are priced at $15 or less. It can easily be delivered as a gift to your relatives and friends. It has at least a couple advantages over most of the “stuff” being promoted as gifts this holiday season:
- It is a great gift for your friends and relatives who are kind of, vaguely, sort of, interested in raw dairy. These are the people who look at you kind of funny when you tell them about your raw milk habit, and then ask you curious, or even accusatory, questions. “Aren’t you afraid of getting sick?” “Do you worry about giving it to your kids?” “How do you know you’re buying from a safe producer?” Now you can just give them the book, and very quickly, they’ll be informed enough to discuss the subject intelligently with you. They won’t necessarily agree with you, but they will end the accusatory questions.
- You’ll be helping support this blog. Because this blog’s popularity has expanded, so have the costs associated with maintaining it and keeping it up to speed technologically. Over the last six months, I’ve had to move it to a new site, add new administrative tools, and upgrade the service so it is now “in the cloud,” among other steps. And even with all that, as some of you have experienced, we still have work to do to properly manage the increased number of comments. But I’ve continued to provide coverage of developments in the world of food you won’t easily find elsewhere, from the controversy over fermented cod liver oil to the ongoing government attacks on raw milk cheese to the continuing struggle of Canadian dairy farmer Michael Schmidt.
And here are a couple of new developments in the world of dairy….
First, we are seeing growing recognition in the mainstream media of pasteurized milk as the “new gluten.” New York Magazine posted an article earlier this month claiming pasteurized milk is “as controversial as gluten….Dairy and gluten have become evil twins in ‘elimination’ diets, the holistic therapy of the moment, as people swear they feel less bloated and lethargic without them.” Indeed, the article claims gluten may be taking unwarranted blame for making people feel bad—blame that should be going to processed dairy. It points to “Australian researchers who suggest that at least some of the people who think they’re sensitive to gluten (and who don’t have celiac disease, the gluten-induced autoimmune disorder) really aren’t. The true culprit, they argue, may be a group of common carbohydrates lumped under the acronym FODMAPS (fermentable oligo-,di-, and monosaccharides and polls). They’re found in foods like beans, onions, and, yes, milk—lending credibility to those ‘dairy sensitivity’ claims.”
The second recent development of interest to raw dairy drinkers is the possible return of “swill milk.” This is the stuff of sick cows in the middle and late 1800s—the nutritionally-deficient leftovers from fermented grains used to make gin and whiskey and beer.
Amazingly, the use of distillery leftovers to feed cows is making a comeback, as an offshoot of the microbrewery revolution. Proponents say the leftovers from microbreweries tend to be nutritious supplements for farm animals of all types, including dairy cows. This from one recent article:
“To be clear, the issue (in the 1800s) was not the use of spent grains as feed, but rather the mode and method of feeding. Spent grains represent a cheap, nutritious, and otherwise sustainable way to feed animals. Breweries today do not feed cows directly from their stills, nor do they confine dairy herds to tiny stalls with no exercise.”
It isn’t especially surprising to see it used to feed cows producing conventional milk; after all, such cows are generally fed grain-based diets.
But now it’s being debated as a realistic feeding option for cows used to produce raw milk, which typically are fed primarily or exclusively pasture-based diets. Here are some excerpts from one email discussion among dairy farmer members of the Raw Milk Institute (I have been asked to leave the farmers’ names out).
Farmer 1: “A raw milk consumer shared with me that during a recent beer tasting event, the brewery bragged about ‘how sustainable they were’ by saying that ‘all of their spent distillers mash was delivered to a local micro dairy’ that was also a cow share and made great raw milk!….This does not mean that cows milk when it comes from distillers’ mash fed cows is bad…but the risk for pathogens in the common environment is questionable.”
Farmer 2: “We are getting spent barley grains from a local brewery, and giving them to our pigs and chickens–this REALLY cuts down on our grain bills. Giving a little also to the cows, who love it! It’s something we could stop if persuaded that it is not a good idea. But so far have not seen any health problems. I had a friend who was a bootlegger in the 1940s and also had cattle. He said his cattle were healthiest, sleek and fat, when he gave them the mash from his still.”
Is swill milk really the next big thing? I can’t say for sure from a nutritional viewpoint, but from a branding and image perspective, it is very bad news. Raw milk opponents paint bleak images of a return to those awful days of the 1800s when many thousands died. Why help feed that image?
And thanks for considering The Raw Milk Answer Book as one of your holiday gifts.
David,
“The true culprit”, is invasive medical modalities and food-processing practices that disrupt and respectively exacerbate the immune system, thus nurturing food sensitivities in humans and animals.
For as long as I’ve been farming, the feeding of “distillery leftovers” has been an ongoing practice. Farmers bring in the wet distiller’ or brewer’s mash daily by the truckload for little more then the price of trucking it. This tends to occur mainly with farm operations that live in near proximity to a distillery or brewery.The problem with the wet mash is that it tends to spoil rapidly so it has to be fed quickly, which often leads to excessive overfeeding. The dehydrated version due to its indefinite shelf life, may be shipped to any market regardless of its proximity to the plant and is commonly used in rations for numerous types of livestock.
I personally don’t feed the stuff. However, (and you can consider me farmer 3), if used properly and in moderation, distillers or brewers grain can serve as a useful feed additive. I am somewhat familiar with its use because many neighboring farmers fed it, including my dad. Cattle love it and they will engorge themselves on it if they have a chance. Distillers or brewers grain to cattle is like chocolate to humans.
Are the grains those brewers use free of GMOs? As a consumer who wants raw milk that comes from 100% grass fed cows, because of a belief that pastured animals are eating what they are meant to eat to support the healthiest immune system, I would be hesitant to purchase raw milk from farmers who are supplementing their feed with this mash. If the grains do come from GMOs, then I guess consumers who want raw milk from cows that are free of that, we must now interview our farmers more and perhaps also look for a guarantee that cows are 100% grass-fed. Living in a farming community, I understand the financial pressures on our farmers. At the same time, I believe that the integrity of healthy raw milk must be put before other considerations, especially if a farmer is selling that raw milk to the public.
Sharon,
That would depend on the ingredients being used and whether or not the distillery or brewery specified their desire for non-GMO.
I agree, it’s always best to keep it natural. Feeding grain to cattle in moderation on the other hand is not unnatural and has certain nutritive advantages especially in colder climates or when the quality of the grass or hay is lacking.
I can understand how high quality grains can help if fed in small amounts. Personally, I’ve come to know farmers who do have farms in the cold Northeast and do 100% grass fed, year round. But they probably have enough land to make hay also for their cows to last or are able to get a good supply of non-GMO alfalfa and hay. It is a lot more work, of course. And purists like me really appreciate that and gravitate toward that product. I do believe that if more people showed more interest (both with ideas and dollars) in 100% grass fed products, it would help reduce the issues of GMO feed as well as help to educate the consumer about how cows can really stay healthy just on pasture. Requires huge commitments from the farmer, however. I get the best raw milk and raw cheeses from two different farmers in two different areas of the state of New York. These farmers are truly committed and adamant that cows don’t “need” grain. I suspect if the cows were fed grain more as a treat, it would be less of an issue too. Thanks for your response, Ken, I appreciate it.
Be careful on the 100% grassfed thing. Not everyone who claims it is. You really have to ask detailed questions. Many will say it can’t be done in some locality or another, but as you’ve found. It can if they want to.
For example the American Grassfed Associations Grassfed Milk standard allowed 20% grain feeding and feeding of dried distillers grains.
@ Pete: The only way to claim 100% grassfed in Wisconsin or any other far northern State in the USA is to feed dried haygrass during the winter months and claim it as “pasture grass”. You are simply not understanding that there is no way to keep cows on a pasture year-round in this area, and even if we could the quality of the grass goes down considerably once the winter months come – even if the cows WOULD be able to eat it. A cow – any cow – will stand in snow up to its neck and thirst to death, as well as starve to death, because they will not move the snow. I’ve witnessed this many times over the years in my neck of the woods. A buffalo will, but not a cow.
Besides, it’s dangerous to leave cattle on a pasture too far from the main farmstead because if a blizzard should hit, there’s no way to get those critters back to even a semi-protected area in time to save them, as my area discovered the hard way two winters ago.
Allowing for the “standards” of the American Grassfed Association, I would say they need to shuffle the deck and start all over again. Grassfed does not include grains or dried distillers grains. They can argue til the cows come home, but that’s something that should never, ever be allowed by anyone spouting the grassfed mantra. But the rules change and that’s where we continue to get into trouble, in regard to defining what’s what in the world of “feeding” animals.
But, that’s just my opinion.
The farmer I buy my beef from also has a business selling machinery, such as tub grinders, which he says are used to grind up such things as whole loaves of bread and commercial pastries, complete with wrappers, for animal feed. He feeds and finishes on grass, or I wouldn’t buy from him. I wonder how common this sort of feeding is, since there must be vast amounts of this stuff left unsold in grocery stores.
Gary,
Feeding commercial bread and pastries is a common practice and a whole other ball of wax. I know a number of farmers, (Amish and Mennonite included) who buy bread and pastries and feed it to their livestock. Farmers would do well IMO to steer clear of those highly processed sugar and chemical laden products. There are a number of problems that can be encountered especially when fed excessively. As far as not removing the plastic is concerned there’re tempting fate because the animals cannot digest it very well and they risk plugging them up.
We are not going to feed brewers mash to our cows, as we pursue a grain-free diet for them, but it certainly has value as a feed, and what we see other farmers using it for is not dairy so much as pig and hen production, and for supplementing beef cows who are on the “drought diet” (i.e. whatever decent supplement is cheapest to survive the drought in good condition). Really this has nothing to do with “swill milk” and everything to do with trying to feed a balanced diet that is also economically sound. Not everyone who owns a farm does it as a fancy retirement hobby, and even those who do find that they have to get creative or get out in most cases.
You say in this post:
“But now [spent brewer’s grain] being debated as a realistic feeding option for cows used to produce raw milk, which typically are fed primarily or exclusively pasture-based diets.”
I have no idea about any of the East Coast raw milk dairies, although I know they have a better growing season for pasture; but I can tell you for a fact that the 2nd largest raw milk dairy in the country (on the west coast) is produced on 0% pasture, alfalfa hay, and 16 pounds of grain per day per cow. And the owners call you a friend. How is 16 pounds per animal per day and no pasture whatsoever better than a few pounds of spent brewers grains used to maintain a balanced diet? (Brewers grains which the general public associate with craft-driven and small-scale enterprise, and not “swill milk”). If there are specific health concerns associated with livestock consuming spent brewers grains, please point us to a study. All of the farmers we know using them are aware that they must be used fresh before they spoil, and with care and moderation.
If you are going to worry about raw milk, worry about how raw milk producers are testing it, and when, and whether they believe it matters or not–then you will be on the right track.
The ethanol plants to produce automotive fuel blends (scam) create millions of tons each year of solid “waste” and this is used for cattle feed and in CAFO dairies. This is most likely the #1 source.
Oh gosh, if this is true, it really just proves how awful “industrial” milk and meat production has become.
RAWMI became aware several months ago that “local breweries” have begun to connect with “local raw milk producers”. The distillers grains feeding of local seemed like a “local, cheap, available, green & sustainable” practice. However, the science says otherwise. USDA ARS studies clearly show a connection between distillers grains and ecoli pathogens in the distillers grain fed cows. This is a high risk when associated with raw milk. An advisory email was sent to a large number of raw milk producers ( not just RAWMI Listed ) to let them know about the potential dangers.
According to researchers, distillers grains change the cows gut microbial balance. The Distillers grain fed cows gut begins to favor and encourage ecoli pathogens when a pasture or dry forage based diet does not. This has been confirmed by many peer reviewed studies. One of the main missions of RAWMI is to keep the raw milk dairy community abreast of emerging risks and provide assistance in the production of low risk safe raw milk. Several months ago, RAWMI became aware that some micro dairies were feeding distillers grains and tests revealed very high levels of ecoli pathogens in those cows manure.
As a matter of comparison, the CA Department of Health Services tested OPDC fresh cows manure several times over three years during high stress high heat periods of the year. Only three tests came back positive in over 1200 tests. All of those were in one summer. The other summers were all negative… The tests from the micro dairy in question showed pathogens in 90% of their cows manure and they were persistent. This mid western micro dairy is being studied by a respected university researcher.
As always…RAWMI advises against high risk feeding practices. It you do not want pathogens in the milk….it is smart to reduce them in the manure as a preventative first step. We all want good gut conditions that favor good bacteria…not bad.
David, thank you for writing about this. The local micro brewery movement has really taken off. That we know. We also know that cow shares and micro dairies that produce raw milk have taken off. History teaches lessons. I just hope the desire for learning from history is stronger than the economic desire for cheap cow candy. Our consumers safety must stay #1. That starts with conditions and nutrition for the cow.
Last year I was on a homestead with 2 cows, which were producing raw milk for household consumption. I’d go downtown every week and bring back a ton of spent barley still warm from the micro-brewery. Farmers were taking the stuff way for free, otherwise the brewery would have to pay to get rid of it. The cows loved it … but I cringed even as I fed it.
… obvious to me was that Gresham’s law comes in to play feeding cattle, too = just as ‘bad money drives out good’, feeds with low nutritional profiles, which can be obtained cheap, tend to displace the truly good feed.
… when I get my own place, I won’t be doing it that way. In the stock market, they like to say “the trend is your friend” … yeah, well, once you start ‘trending’ to the practices of the Confined Animal Feedlots, you’re well on your way down the slippery slope into the manure lagoons which exemplify why that model is so bad.
…
Mark, could you provide a link to that/those studies?
Indeed we can learn a lot from history if we consider all the relevant facts in perspective, rather then focus on one, and establish it as the quintessential element of truth.
Here are a couple more studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15992300
“The odds of E. coli O157 positive fecal samples from cattle fed brewers grains were six times that for cattle not fed brewers grains.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19722393
“fecal prevalence for E. coli O157:H7 in steers fed a diet with WDGS (wet distilled grains) was twice that of the prevalence in control steers…”
Dear Melissa,
The cows do not know the name of the food they are given to eat, but their gut never lies.
In the studies I have reviewed, moderate amounts of corn with dry forage was not associated with pathogen development….ecoli pathogen development was specific to distillers grains or brewers mash in the ration.
To be fair….it has not been determined at what point or percentage of total ration that distillers grains overwhelm the gut and things trend south.
This food safety subject is aside from the whole concept of butter fat and the good and bad fats created while on forage verses a grain or distillers mash based diet.
It is interesting to note the passion with which producers defend their feeding practices. We all must relax a little and take a lesson from Charlotte Smith. She teaches a great class on how to sustainability produce raw milk from three cows…a business model. Clearly…..there is a whole lot of under priced raw milk being produced and sold. Good quality, safe raw milk is not cheap and does not come from slop fed cows.
My advice….make your price point sustainable and stop cheating the cow, yourself and the consumer…In the end, a pathogen in cheap distillers grain fed raw milk will end the economic nirvana. Time for some sobriety and reflection. Proper feed for the cows is essential as is a proper price point for high value safe raw milk. Free distillers grains might be cow candy…but could it also be a deal with the devil?
If distillers grains is your thing….and you love it, then at least start testing the manure and see what you got going on. Don’t be shocked if pathogens are combing all over the place. That’s what the numbers say and the science backs it up.
This all reminds me of Foundation Farms in Oregon. Cheap raw milk…fed poor quality feeds and very little sanitation. The freedom lovers thought it was all awesome until 23 kids went to the hospital, 5 critically ill. One missed death by a quarter inch. Then the freedom lovers couldn’t be found. They ran for the hills. This defines cowardice. Freedom comes from people that take 100% responsibility for what they do or don’t do. Then freedom is deserved and earned. There is no freedom when kids are in the ICU.
Before you all start throwing tomatoes at me, consider who you love in life. It better be the kids and your consumers. If it is not the kids and their health….you should have nothing to do with raw milk.
Any and all risks should be managed and reduced. That means cow nutrition. Start studying. Google has them listed. Super easy to find..just look up “Ecoli and distillers grains fed cows USDA ARS” there are many more.
History has its distillery mash lessons…they revisit us like a ghost and a recurrent bad dream. 1860-1890s mash from rum, then ethanol for cars 1990s – 2015, micro breweries 2015. It is up to each of us to resist the temptation for cheap mash.
If a little mash is ok…..I would like to learn more about that ration and ratio. You can not eat like trick or treat on Halloween every day of the year and expect good health for your cow. However, a little piece of candy once in a while when eating an excellent diet probably never hurt anyone.
Peace….
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=225645
Here is just one if them.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080122102428.htm
Here is another one. The last one actually had some interesting yet conflicting data.
Thanks for the references Mark and David,
Unfortunately most of the studies I’ve come across that attempt to determine increased shedding of E, coli 0157:H7, (and the ones both of you provided are no exception), go about comparing the differences between types of grains including distiller’s grain, rather then grain versus forage-based diets. And when I speak of forage I’m referring to grass and legumes not corn silage! Which suggests another unfortunate aspect of these studies…they are performed in confined feedlot settings where corn silage is often the only forage these animals ever receive, (no grass or hay) along with a generous and steady supply of grain.
It has been proposed that there is a link between the feeding of corn including corn base distiller’s grain and increased fecal shedding of E. coli O157:H7. In contrast other studies have suggested that there is no such link.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/234132890_Fecal_Shedding_in_Cattle_Inoculated_with_Escherichia_coli_O157H7_and_Fed_Corn_or_Wheat_Distillers'_Dried_Grain_with_Solubles
It would be helpful if research could be found or done demonstrating the effects of feeding grains of various types and amounts to a herd of grass or hay fed dairy cattle that are not confined to a barn 365 days of the year.
http://portal.nifa.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/0412678-effect-of-distillers-grains-on-e-coli-o157h7-in-finishing-feedlot-cattle.html
More research….
Again Mark, you’ve referenced a feedlot study rather then a study done on an existing pastured grass/hay fed dairy herd. You’re comparing apples to oranges!
Remember, I am not disputing the importance of limiting grain including the fermented varieties in the diets of dairy cattle. I simply don’t buy into this notion of a complete and total elimination of such grains from their diet. The complete elimination of grain from a dairy cows diet is not practical if one intends to milk her daily and breed her in a timely manner, especially in my neck of the woods where cattle have no access to feasible pasture for over seven months of the year.
Cheyenne Christiansen runs a year round commodity 100% grassfed Holstein Dairy (organic) in Northern Wisconsin. It can be done just about anywhere.
The main hurdle isn’t climate, it is willingness to make the mental and production changes necessary to accomplish the task.
Right on Pete. I’ve visited Cheyenne’s farm and he has been here to Lancaster PA to ours. With the right mindset and gentle genetic selection of cows that perform well on high to 100% grass-fed and forage diets the transition away from grain can be accomplished. This with healthy cows to boot.
We transitioned our 200+ organic cross-bred herd to 100% grass-fed by steadily reducing grain to lower and lower amounts per cow until eliminating it altogether a bit over 3 years ago. We eliminated grain in the pre-lactating heifer (calves) diets several years prior by using a nanny/calf system and leaving them on milk for 6-7 months. While we do take a hit in some milk production we are seeing higher quality milk and very healthy cows as a result and do not wish to go back to feeding grain. We have a 90-95% breed back (yearly reproduction) rate.
Growing the highest quality pasture grass for grazing and for putting up as high quality winter feed is of utmost importance to the 100% grass-fed dairy farmer.
People need to distinguish between spent brewing grains and distillers mash. Very different products.
In both cases the the sugar is removed and much of the protein, fiber and oil remains.
Are we talking about reduced sugar corn, or reduced sugar barley?
Since we’re dealing with pasture supplements, peer-reviewed studies won’t have much to say. I bet though, that easy sugar, without enough fiber is one of the main differences between conventional and pasture nutrition in ruminants, and that taking out sugar probably makes a grain more nutritious in terms of vitamin/mineral
It also condenses negative aspects, especially corn oil which has the worst Omega 6 ratio of all the grains I’ve seen. Barley oil is much better. Barley is also non-gmo by definition, but practically all distillers grains are gmo.
I’m a farmer, and a big part of my feed system is spent brewing grains, first to pigs, but also as a supplement to cattle. Since cattle often eat grass to excess to meat their protein needs, and SBG supplement can stretch hay and forage. My animals are healthy on SBG, the only challenge is the additional protein makes it harder to marble.
This has been looked at as a compromise on the part of farmers, but no longer feel that way. The chance to upcycle landfilled waste into nutritious livestock feed is a considerable boon for the planet (yes it could be composted, but that’s not my experience with brewers up to this point, and that would still be a lower energy return)
I wouldn’t say SBG like chocolate to cattle. It has more in common with alfalfa than corn.
You present a false dichotomy. This isn’t a choice between the landfill and feeding to all livestock. It is pretty clear it should not be fed to cows. But pigs and chickens are natural grain eaters and a fine destination for distillery waste.
The RAWMI alert was triggered by the findings of a university researcher that found high levels of ecoli pathogens on a micro dairy where at least some of the animals had been fed High levels of distillers grains. 90% of the milk cows were shedding huge amounts of ecoli pathogens.
Just asking the obvious question and providing an alert and food for serious consideration and thought.,
Safe than sorry…match that with studies and the picture becomes more clear. Match it with history and it is crystal clear.
The absolute worst milk I’ve ever had came from cows fed dried distillers grain. It tasted awful and was a sickly grey color.
But people still bought it cause it was cheap and better than store milk in other respects.
Prevalence of and risk factors for Escherichia coli O157 in market-ready beef cattle from 12 U.S. feedlots.
Dewell GA1, Ransom JR, Dewell RD, McCurdy K, Gardner IA, Hill AE, Sofos JN, Belk KE, Smith GC, Salman MD.
Author information
Abstract
Determination of Escherichia coli O157 prevalence immediately prior to shipment and harvest is an important facet of the ecology of this organism, which requires further elucidation. As part of a larger study to measure the effects of within-pen prevalence of E. coli O157 on subsequent carcass contamination, fecal samples from 15 pens of cattle in each of 12 different feedlots in three states (Colorado, Nebraska, and Montana) were collected from June through September 2002. Thirty fresh fecal samples were collected from each pen floor within 36 h of shipment to slaughter. Fecal samples underwent standard enrichment, immunomagnetic separation, and isolation procedures for E. coli O157. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine which factors best predicted pen-level positive culture results, and to estimate the magnitude of association between each factor and the outcome, while adjusting for other factors in the model. Thirteen (86.7%) of the 15 pens had at least one positive sample, and the within-pen prevalence of E. coli O157 in positive pens ranged from 3.3% to 77.8%. The odds of E. coli O157 positive fecal samples from cattle fed brewers grains were six times that for cattle not fed brewers grains. The odds of E. coli O157 positive fecal samples from pens of cattle from Central Nebraska was nine times that for pens of cattle from Eastern Colorado. These data demonstrate that the presence of E. coli O157 in fecal samples from finished feedlot cattle is associated with feeding of brewers grain and geographic location. Additional studies to further characterize geographic distribution of E. coli O157 and to investigate pen-level intervention strategies should be conducted.
Mark,
You have unfortunately jumped onto this bandwagon that suggests that brewer’s grain/mash was the primary culprit with little consideration for the rest of the story.
What is “crystal clear” from history is that cattle kept in cities such as New York during the early 1800s, were fed on an “exclusive” diet of brewers mash…no grass and no hay to speak of. Pigs and chickens ran round in the city streets in order to help clean up garbage and human waste. They intermingled with the cattle who in turn wallowed around in their own waste. It sounds to me that there were multible factors involved not just the brewer’s grain per se, or rather the excessive feeding of it.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=hWLc41p5nmAC
With respect to the studies you referred to, they remain inconclusive, and because they are being conducted in feedlot settings where cattle are already being fed large amounts of grain and are under considerable stress, they are unreliable, due to the fact that the animals were already well primed to produce negative results.
But it DID produce very negative results! The best you can hope for is that pasture is beneficial enough to cancel out the bad affect.
But that won’t change the fact that brewery waste is a negative influence on cow health.
And given that as little as 5 lbs a day of barley changes the cows rumen bacterial makeup, I have a hard time believing that brewers grains in any meaningful quantity WON’T have an affect on the cow.
The “spent brew grains” that we get from our local brewery have never been fermented. It is sprouted (malted) barley – non GMO – that hot water has been run through. We feed a small amount of rolled barley to our dairy cows when they are being milked, in addition to hay and forage from very carefully managed pasture…and I honestly don’t see a problem with them getting very fresh malted, cooked barley occasionally.
In experience, they go off their heads for it. I can see how already fermented mash (which, if I remember correctly, was what the “swill dairies” were feeding) with live yeasts could really make a cow ill. The SBG ferments very quickly, so we only give them a small amount and only when extremely fresh.
Ken,
Brace yourself….but I agree with you partially. We do not know the effects of brewers distillers grain feeding on a percentage basis of total ration.
Sound like a great study. All we can do is guess and start looking at the risk and the issue.
I think it would be a great idea to check the manure and see what is growing. Why not?
Mark,
Yes, and I say this with a degree of trepidation, a properly designed, unbiased study could prove itself to be useful.
On another yet similar note, both Luke and Angie make a good point in suggesting the need to distinguish between brewer’s spent grain/mash and distiller’s spent grain/mash. Indeed, all to often in the course of discussion, the two terms are interchanged as if they are one and the same.
They are similar, yet different in that distiller’s grain/mash originates mainly from the use of corn to distill ethanol fuel or whiskey, whereas brewer’s grain/mash originates mainly from barley to make beer. Other grains may be added in either case. That being said, both byproducts are similarly marketed wet or dry and have a long history dating back several thousand years of being recognized as highly nutritious animal feeds.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/223756416_Brewers'_spent_grain_Generation_characteristics_and_potential_applications
http://www.pound-maker.ca/pdf/WetDistillersGrain.pdf
I completely agree with the necessary distinction between brewer and distiller waste. Also, there are varying degrees of quality in the SBG depending on the equipment – the microbrewery near us uses a hammer mill and their filter extracts 98% of the sugar and uses 30% less water than conventional breweries. The grains have only 2% residual sugar and are mostly dry so they do not ferment as quickly. It is a wonderful feed, we give it to our pigs and chickens.
It is my understanding that a lactating cow needs more caloric input than can be had from pasture alone.
Another problem is that ethanol production may involve the use of novel genetically engineered bacteria which have unknown affects on the cow.
Mark,
I think you were right from the very beginning. It seems to me that most participants on TCP accept the value of ‘small risks’ rather well. For example, there is only a small risk that Organic food is different from unlabelled (except perhaps for the CLA in summer milk and some fruits and vegetables). In my mind, there is only a small risk that raw milk is nutritionally any different from the same milk pasteurized by HTST pasteurization. Until a few weeks ago, there was ‘none’, but now there is a small risk that FCLO might cause harm. There is a small risk that GMOs are a problem in human diets, but most would avoid GMOs anyway.
And so. Since raw milk consumers likely view risk in a similar way, ANY suspicion that brewer’s grains or distiller’s grains might cause raw milk cows to shed more pathogenic E coli, and increase the risk of human illness, should be enough to prohibit their inclusion. Why? To protect the consumer. Why not? So raw milk farmers who are charging so much for this (milk that costs around $1.50 a gallon to produce) can make a few cents more per gallon by feeding cheaper (riskier) by-product feeds?
Yes the data aren’t perfect, nor completely aligned; but they are suggestive, and in the context that I framed this, more than enough to support my conclusion.
John
PS In my mind, it is inhumane to ask a cow to produce milk on grass alone. She needs energy (and so do her rumen microbes). Skinny grass-fed cows. Let’s help them also.
Here is an interesting and true story from Florida. Years ago a friend of mine had to send five truck loads of CAFO raw milk to the dump because of antibiotics found in the five loads of milk…why?
He fed distillers grains from a local ethanol plant.
The ethanol distiller operation had used “antibiotics to help reduce bacteria load and increase yeast activity” in the distilling process. Those antibiotics came through in the distillers grains and hence…the cow feed and then to the milk…whoops….a completely unexpected and unanticipated and illegal load of antibiotics in the milk he had produced.
Another interesting question, do you really know what is in the distillers waste? It is undefined and could include a number of things that are unknown. Just throwing it out there.
One major difference between brewers grains and distillers grains is that the chemicals and product quality for distillers is adequate for alcohol, not a very high standard. But beer is brewed to standards safe for human consumption, at least according to the FDA
Mark,
And that is why, as I stated at the beginning of this discussion, “I personally don’t feed the stuff”. There is no guaranty that today’s spent mash is not adulterated.
Pete,
Cheyenne Christiansen is a very good manager and there are a number of factors that have worked in his favor. The main one primarily being the variety of plant species he incorporates into his grazing and winter-feeding protocol. Ruminants are healthiest when an assortment of fibrous feeds is made available to them. Cheyenne has capitalized on this by introducing a number of plant varieties for grazing and winter storage that includes grasses, legumes, oats, triticale, sorghum, millet, turnips etc. This has also allowed him to extend the allowable time for grazing and incorporate an all-important crop rotation plan that in turn helps to improve soil quality, structure, and yield.
As to whether or not Cheyenne’s operation is less labor and energy intensive and produces a healthier product then mine, where I grow mixed grasses and legumes (trefoil) for hay and pasture as well as oats and barley that I harvest and feed it to my cattle during the winter months in order to supply them with much needed energy, is up for grabs.
A general observation:
some of this -distillers’ byproducts use as feed- business seems a little too fine-tuned for a robust RAMP.
Look at what has been described in some of these posts. Processes seem to demand a very high degree of precision to be okay. To say they are cheaper doesn’t cut it.
Also:
The first question, always, is “is (fill in the blank) food?” Not “is it (fill in the blarney-based advertising slogans)?”
And there will be blarney-based slogans pitching this risky business.
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
500 million dollar Class action lawsuit launched against the Ontario Government by raw milk consumers and farmers for the right to make an informed choice.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/supportmichaelschmidt/?multi_permalinks=1029257010460123¬if_t=group_highlights