Maine farmer Eliot Coleman tends to his newly arrived chickens. When I last saw Eliot Coleman prior to this past weekend, it was 1973 and he was still clearing boulders and tree stumps from his farm fields on Maine’s Cape Rossier to add to the small plots he had under cultivation. I was a reporter with The Wall Street Journal, and profiled him in two articles, two years apart, that were among the most widely read in WSJ history to that time. (Here’s a link to the first article reprinted in Mother Earth News, inexplicably minus my by-line; I haven’t found an Internet version of the followup, in 1973.)
Now 71, Coleman still patrols his fields with great determination and energy. The boulders and tree stumps are pretty much gone, replaced by pasture, mobile greenhouses, and fields resplendent in beautiful kale, broccoli, lettuce and other vegetables. He’s since achieved fame as one of the world’s foremost authorities on organic gardening, and in particular, on raising organic vegetables year-round in hostile environments like that of Maine.
Last Sunday, I re-traced the long ride I last took 37 years ago on back roads along Maine’s beautifully rugged coast to visit Coleman, and his wife, Barbara Damrosch (who is herself a well known writer on organic gardening). The one-room house where he and his family lived then, and the small camper where I and other guests bunked, are long gone, replaced by a spacious light-filled home with lots of guest rooms.
I quickly discovered that Coleman’s fame–he’s written three books, plus done videos and dozens of workshops –hasn’t made him any less contrary or opinionated than he was when he settled in on 60 acres of land he purchased for $33 an acre from back-to-the-land pioneers Helen and Scott Nearing in 1969. In fact, he’s adopted the Nearings’ approach of encouraging others in sustainable agriculture by selling off about 20 acres in pieces to others who want to pursue the same dream…and at the same $33 an acre.
There will be more fame upcoming in a few months, when a book by daughter Melissa Coleman (who was two years old when I first visited) hits the marketplace. It’s her remembrance of growing up on what has become a celebrity farm and in a celebrity family (and deals in part with the impact of The Wall Street Journal articles I wrote way back when).
Coleman is always exploring new farming adventures–he was especially proud during my visit last Sunday of his efforts to grow artichokes and ginger. So I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised to learn that Coleman’s next farming project involves bringing in animals. He’s just acquired some chickens (pictured above), and within a few weeks, expects to bring in perhaps half a dozen cattle–for both raw milk and beef.
He says he’s had animals at different times since I last saw him, and he’s spoken out about the misguided efforts to blame meat eating for contributing to climate change, such as in a 2009 Grist article, in which he states, “If I butcher a steer for my food, and that steer has been raised on grass on my farm, I am not responsible for any increased CO2. The pasture-raised animal eating grass in my field is not producing CO2, merely recycling it (short term carbon cycle) as grazing animals (and human beings) have since they evolved. It is not meat eating that is responsible for increased greenhouse gasses; it is the corn/ soybean/ chemical fertilizer/ feedlot/ transportation system under which industrial animals are raised.”
I still had to adjust to the idea of Eliot and meat, since when I was with him in the 1970s, he was strictly vegetarian, though he and his wife milked a goat to provide milk for their daughter. I remember eating kale for the first time, and not exactly savoring a dinner of kale and oatmeal, factory-fast-food type that I was then.
He says he’ll use the raw milk for his family and farm help, but plans to slaughter his own beef, and make at least some of it available to neighbors. Now, as we all know, that’s a big no-no in regulatory la-la-land, where all beef, pork, and lamb are decreed to be slaughtered factory-style, under government supervision.
But Coleman says he’s been following the food rights movement, and is ready to join in. “That Aajonus (Vonderplanitz) is definitely a lunatic, but we need lunatics to counter the over-regulation. I’m probably not as much a lunatic, but I have my lunatic side.” He also hangs out with lunatics, having become good friends over the years with well known Virginia farmer Joel Salatin; indeed, he and Salatin are leading workshops on farming at a two-day conference in Colorado in a couple weeks put on by another of Coleman’s daughters, Clara Coleman. And he’s been encouraging Heather Retberg, a neighboring farmer fighting regulatory excesses described in my previous post.
In his study, I spotted a copy of Wise Traditions magazine published by the Weston A. Price Foundation, and asked Coleman about it. “I first read Weston Price’s writings back in 1967,” he told me. It all made a lot of sense then, and continues to do so today, he says.
***
I have to chuckle at the outrage expressed by Milky Way and Gord Welch following my previous post, over the milk-lotion-raw-milk in Canada. It’s a trick, a work-around, a distraction, they are suggesting. As if the regulators don’t use tricks and distractions to impede the supply of raw milk. Efforts to force colored dye in raw milk, or shut down food clubs via so-called building code or health code violations, or intimidating retailers not to carry raw milk–those are all tricks, but of a much more sinister sort.
The reality is that we are in a war, so what’s wrong with the side taking all the hits fighting back? Michael Schmidt’s arrival in British Columbia has changed the dynamic, because he’s respected as an important warrior. The aggressors know that Michael Schmidt fights back, so they decided maybe they should deal with him.
To Gord Welch’s very tired use of the “what about the children” refrain, I’d just say, what about the right of parents to feed their children a food that may well improve their health? ?
And what did I say about children? I spoke of parents and concern for their legal standing. In my mind, parents who feed pasturized milk to their children are hurting their children. Those who feed them raw milk are helping them. My concern is about the potential problems for parents who are feeding their children lotion, eh. I can just picture it now in the school lunch room: "What'd you bring for lunch today? Oh, a sandwich and some lotion." Child goes home, tell their parents that friend had lotion for lunch today. Parents call child protective services and there we go…
As for the name change trick (the treaty), I am glad that people are still getting their milk. My point is that it is in no wise a victory, a move forward or as Milky Way suggests, overall helpful. The pet's milk thing is somewhat understandable… but lotion…? The treaty is good for Schmidt, Home on the Range, Fraser Health (gov't) and possibly the customers of Home on the Range. That's good for them and I'm glad for them. I'm sure everyone is much more comfortable.
The most important thing of all in this matter: last week I wrote that the Home on the Range had a problem for *selling* raw milk – not the fact that it was raw milk per se. I was attacked for that idea. And now the solution is to not sell raw milk, but to sell lotion. Hmmm…. Milk is an intensely regulated product – lotion is not. The key to the whole issue is that they were not in compliance with laws regarding *selling* things – and now they are.
They know they don't have a leg to stand on,but they do have the threat of violence and the willingness to use violence against us,so it is prudent to give them a way to save face.
If we'd been selling milk, the Criminal Justice Branch of BC would have prosecuted us, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture who administers the Milk Industry Act of British Columbia. If found guilty, the fine would've been $10 per count!
What happened is a "quango" – quasi-governmental agency" – wrote a regulation with absolutely no good reason, to catch us. And thed did so without consultation with anyone, let alone the ones they very well knew were most affected. Much the same as happened in California to Organic Pastures.
for nit-pickers who apparently have nothing better to do than sow discord … do us the courtesy of at least familiarizing yourself with the laws you pretend to comment on. The Milk Industry Act of BC uses the term 'sale', 'selling' over and over. It categorically exempts someone who is only a 'producer', versus a 'vendor', from the requirement to par-boil the milk
the Home on the Range model was in the nature of a Limited Partnership. When I set it up, I did not go ask the Registrar of Companies for permission to use and enjoy my property = our cows, our milk – because I don't have to. Is that what's bothering you, Bunky = Gord Welch / the troll?
what comes through in the criticism of a simpleton is : you reveal yourself as so utterly conditioned in the public fool system that you don't know what ' private property' is. Assertion of private property is the anti-dote for communism : especially, the Stalinist Milk Marketing scheme
cp
If this kind of treatment is permitted here… perhaps it's not for me.
BC is a strange place, for sure. Where else are goats "cattle"?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/business/03psych.html?hp=&pagewanted=all
The FDA regulators should be investigating this problem rather than shutting down a one cow farm.
Regulator types reading this blog are you embarrassed that you let this happen? Or don't you care? You constantly moan about the children and the elderly but you do nothing to protect them.
How is that underhanded? Gosh, I suppose we could dump it on our pumpkins, but wait, it is winter. There aren't any pumpkins growing. You can't donate it to a shelter, because nobody wants to feed the animals pink milk.
Then there are the nice farmers who ask a few neighbors, "Hey, if you help me pay for the cow, it can be partly yours, and we can share the extra." Having grown up with a family cow, I can go for that. We help put our two cows back in when they get out. If the custodial parents of said cows were sick, we'd help milk them. It is kind of like shared custody. Okay, the government came up with this absurd idea that we "buy" this milk. No. We take part in their ownership. That is how a herd share works.
I beg to differ. If you want to go to the store, and buy your milk and eggs, that is your choice and your problem. Just don't call what I'm doing, "underhanded." Thanks.
Good for Eliot Coleman. I have my dad's old copy of the Nearing's books.
[Beals said a process called competitive exclusion naturally fights off the bacteria in raw milk. In the process, beneficial bacteria push harmful bacteria out of the milk, ridding it of pathogens, he said.].
This is bullshit! It has been proven in studies to be bullshit! One of the main leaders in this movement continues to spread lies to people about the safety of raw milk. I would like to meet Ted Beals someday and have him look at me in the eyes and tell me that raw milk has the capacity to naturally kill pathogens. Even better, Id like to have him look my son in the eyes and tell him the same thing.
This is the type of down right nonsense that drives me absolutely insane about the raw milk movement. Just tell the truth about raw milk so that people can make an informed decision of the risks. Heres the truth: if cow shit gets in the milk, it could kill you if modern medicine is unable to save you from the destruction a pathogen can do to the human body.
http://www.safetables.org/victim_wall/display.cfm?id=97 .
Mary McGonigle-Martin
his CV and the transcript of his testimony in the Michael Schmidt trial, convince me that Ted Beals is one of the most qualified people in the world on the topic of raw milk….if this theory of 'competitive exclusion' is just wishful thinking, then, are you saying he holds this concept, flying in the face of his half-a-century of experience as a scientist, pathologist, university professor? … for what?
please point me to the studies to which you refer : likely Professor Beals has a few in support of his theory. Real science progresses as contradictory approaches are resolved by experiment ; results being = demonstrable and repeatable
Michael Schmidt cleaves to this school of thought : he lets the milk rest for a day before it gets jarred-up, and sent off to town. No-one has been reported getting ill from the milk in 20 or so years.
Gordon S Watson
Are you implying that pasteurization can be used to meet this "zero tolerance for pathogens" standard?The Zero tolerance standard is simply an unattainable standard no matter what you do to the milk.Overall the safest milk is going to be from healthy animals and clean and careful milking and immediate cooling.No ,one time, "silver bullet" like pasteurization can make the milk safe without these things.Lactic acid bacteria,on the other hand ,are like an immune system .They compete with "pathogens" for the nutrients in the milk and actively kill those "pathogens" continuously unless they are inhibited by chemicals or heat shock(pasteurization) that are intended to kill "spoilage bacteria".
You are still caught up in blaming the "pathogen" for illnesses that are really caused by substances or procedures that destroy milk's natural immune system.Without it's destruction,lactic acid bacteria,naturally in milk,does keep the relative numbers of opportunistic bacteria to a minimum.Relative numbers is what matters.To do damage the opportunistic bacteria have to outgrow the lactic acid bacteria.Show me any research that shows that this happens without inhibiting the lactic acid bacteria in some way.
Guess I sometimes get confused as to when you are being straightforward and when you are being cynical. Seems to me you are demanding some sort of perfection in the underdog's fight for access to raw milk. Fortunately or unfortunately, wars aren't fought that way. There are many battles along the way. From what I can see, the enemy was close to eliminating Home on the Range, and now Home on the Range is distributing raw milk, all thanks to the intervention of Michael Schmidt. You can quibble over the details of how that was accomplished, but for BC raw milk drinkers, this is a victory, albeit one small victory in what the government insists on making a major long-term war.
Mary Martin,
One of the big problems in terms of the claims and counterclaims over raw milk is a dearth of research. As just a few examples, we don't really know the health benefits, what types of people might benefit most, what types of people might be most at risk from tainted raw milk, and all sorts of other matters. The reason we don't is that our government and public health community, among others, don't want to know. They are locked into a scientific view more than 100 years old, one that serves the purposes of a huge and profitable industry, and are tenacious in their refusal to re-examine it.
David
I'll say it here for the final time (without any name calling or put-downs), since Gordon Watson has expressed himself for the final time:
Any herdshare agreement which is based on the exchange of a certain amount of money for a certain amount of milk has been and will continue to be the buying and selling of milk – which the government has the right to regulate – under any of the applicable laws it choses. In spite of every good intention in a herdshare agreement when milk is the basis of the transaction, milk is being sold. The only way in which a herdshare agreement can truly provide a service is if the basis for the contract is the care of the cow. That means all fees for these services are based on the housing, pasturing, feeding, etc. costs.
I'm sorry for posting anything on here with which you do not agree. So sorry – I have a different opinion. Perhaps I'll make this my last post and continue to peacefully drink my legally produced and obtained raw cow's milk fit for human consumption – and feed it to my children.
Miguel, I didnt say anything about pasteurization being the answer. Actually people dont need to consume milk. We are the only mammals that do so after the nursing period is over; and from another mammals milk. Also, I dont need to show you any research about anything. My child is the research. You and I can have an intelligent conversation about this topic after either you or one of your loved ones spends 2 months in the hospital after eating something that has been contaminated with a pathogen. After an experience like that you may have a paradigm shift.
David, you were at the AMVA conference. The BSK study was examined in detail. This study has been used in the movement as proof that raw milk kills pathogens. This is the bullshit I refer to. Ted Beals then has the audacity to condemn Amanda Rose for having the courage to address this issue. In the latest version of the Untold Story of Milk, Sally (the publisher) didnt include the BSK study in the book as it had been in previous versions. Why is that? You and I both know that it was because the original interpretation was false. The BSK study did not prove that raw milk killed pathogens.
It seems to me that WAPF has enough members to be able to gather enough donations to fund a study. Why hasnt that happened?
Mary
Antimicrobial Factors in Milk
Karen J. Losnedahl, Hong Wang, Mueen Aslam, Sixiang Zou, and Walter L. Hurley
08/05/1998
TAKE HOME MESSAGE
Milk contains several antimicrobial activities, including lactoferrin, lactoperoxidase, lysozyme, and possibly N-acetyl–D-glucosaminidase, which may be involved in protecting against mastitis, protecting against bacterial growth post-harvest, and protecting the consumer of the milk product.
Milks of different species contain different amounts of the various antimicrobial factors. Cow milk has high lactoperoxidase, but low lactoferrin and lysozyme, while human breast milk has high lactoferrin and lysozyme, but low lactoperoxidase.
The ability to alter the activity of these anti-microbial factors in cow milk could have an impact on shelf-life of raw milk and development of additional health and functional foods based upon these factors.
INTRODUCTION
Milk is an established and healthy food source of energy, proteins, vitamins, and minerals. In addition to its value as a nutrient source, interest has arisen in the ability of milk to kill bacteria and in how this knowledge can be applied to mastitis control, human health, and functional foods for people. A number of proteins found in milk under various conditions exhibit antimicrobial activity. For example, immunoglobulins (antibodies) are protective proteins that are important in the transfer of passive immunity from the mother to the neonate. The young of many mammalian species are not born with an effective immune system. The immunoglobulins protect the neonate from infection until their own immune system is developed. Immunoglobulins are a component of the natural defense mechanism. They are synthesized in response to the presence of foreign particles, such as bacteria and viruses. The synthesis process is specific for the foreign particle that is present, resulting in an immunoglobulin structure that is capable of recoginzing the foreign particle and eliminating it from the body. Immuno- globulins are found in high concentrations in colostrum, the first milk, and in low concentrations in milk. In addition to the immunoglobulins, other proteins found in milk are thought to have antimicrobial activities. Four of these proteins will be reviewed in this article: lactoferrin, lactoperoxidase, lysozyme, and N-acetyl–D-glucosaminidase (NAGase).
LACTOFERRIN
Lactoferrin, an iron-binding glycoprotein, was first isolated from cow's milk and subsequently from human milk. Lactoferrin is present in large quantities in mammalian secretions such as milk, tears, saliva, and seminal fluid, as well as in some white blood cells. Lactoferrin is one of the minor proteins naturally occurring in cow milk at an average concentration of about 0.2 grams/liter. In colostrum, the lactoferrin content can be as high as 0.5 to 1 grams/liter. During the dry period, lactoferrin concentration in mammary secretions from dry cows increases until about 30 days after drying off. The highest lactoferrin concentration found in cow mammary secretions is about 50 to 100 grams/liter. In human milk and colostrum, the reported concentrations of lactoferrin are 2 to 4 grams/liter and 6 to 8 grams/liter, respectively. In its natural state, lactoferrin is only partly saturated with iron (5 to 30 percent). Lactoferrin has many proposed biological functions, including antibacterial/ anti-inflammatory activities, defense against gastro-intestinal infections, participation in local secretory immune systems in synergism with some immunoglobulins and other protective proteins, provision of an iron-binding antioxidant protein in tissues, and possibly promotion of growth of animal cells such as lymphocytes and intestinal cells. A role for milk lactoferrin in iron absorption by the intestine has long been postulated, but remains unproven.
Most micro-organisms need iron for growth and lactoferrin has the potential to inhibit the growth of bacteria, and even kill them by depriving them of iron. The effectiveness of the antibacterial activity of lactoferrin depends on the iron requirement of the organism, the availability of exogenous iron, and the concentration and degree of iron-saturation of lactoferrin. It has been shown that 'natural' lactoferrin is bacteriostatic against a wide range of micro-organisms, including gram-negative bacteria with high iron require- ments (coliforms, which are major mastitis pathogens), and also against some gram-positive organisms such as Staphylcoccus aureus (also a major mastitis pathogen), bacillus species, and Listeria monocytogenes. Lactic acid bacteria in the stomach and intestine have low iron requirements and are generally not affected. There is also evidence that on certain streptococcal mutants and Vibrio cholerae, lactoferrin can exert a direct, bactericidal effect that is independent of iron-deprivation.
LACTOPEROXIDASE
Peroxidase enzymes can kill bacteria by oxidative mechanisms. Peroxidase activity occurs in various exocrine gland secretions including saliva, tears, bronchial, nasal, and intestinal secretions, as well as in milk. Milk peroxidase is known as lactoperoxidase, which is one of the non-immunoglobulin protective proteins and a prominent enzyme that plays a role in protection against microbial invasion of the mammary gland. Each lactoperoxidase molecule contains one iron atom. Bovine milk contains concentrations of about 0.03 grams/liter. In bovine colostrum, the lactoperoxidase content is very low, but increases rapidly after 4 to 5 days postpartum. The level of lactoperoxi- dase activity in human milk is about 20 fold lower than that in bovine milk.
Lactoperoxidase itself has no antibacterial activity. However, together with hydrogen peroxide and thiocyanate, lactoperoxidase forms a potent natural antibacterial system, the so-called lactoperoxidase system. Both hydrogen peroxide and thiocyanate are naturally distributed in animal and human tissues, although they are generally in very low concentrations. The antibacterial effect of the lactoperoxidase system is mediated by the reaction of hydrogen peroxide and thiocyanate under lactoperoxidase catalysis and the resultant generation of short-lived hypothiocyanate, which is thought to be a major antibacterial substance. The antibacterial property of the lactoperoxidase system is based upon inhibition of vital bacterial metabolic enzymes brought on by their oxidation by hypothiocyanate.
LYSOZYME
Lysozyme is an enzyme present in the milk of some species, especially human milk. There are two types of lysozyme. One type is found in the hen egg-white and is known as chicken-type or c-lysozyme. The other type is found in the goose egg-white and is known as goose type or g-lysozyme. Human and equine lysozymes are considered to be the c-lysozyme type. However, cow milk may contain both c- and g-lysozymes because both types are found in various other body fluids and in the stomach tissue of the cow. Lysozyme kills bacteria by disrupting the glycosidic bond between the two components of peptidoglycan, a constituent of the bacterial cell wall.
Lysozyme activity is nearly undetectable in cow milk, but very high in human milk (0.12 grams/liter). The concentration of lysozyme is highest in human colostrum and pre-colostral milk. The limited lysozyme activity in cow milk increases due to mastitis and high somatic cell counts. Heating cow milk at 75C for 15 minutes destroys 25 percent of the activity of this enzyme. However, human milk lysozyme is more heat stable than cow milk lysozyme.
Lysozyme possesses antibacterial activity against a number of bacteria. This enzyme usually functions in association with lactoferrin or immunoglobulin A. Lysozyme is effective against Escherichia coli in concert with immunoglobulin A. It causes lysis of some species of salmonellae in association with ascorbate and peroxide, both of which are present in low concentrations in milk. Microwave irradiation can decrease the activity of lysozyme against Escherichia coli. In addition, lysozyme can limit the migration of neutrophils into damaged tissue and might function as an anti-inflammatory agent.
N-ACETYL–D-GLUCOSAMINIDASE
N-Acetyl–D-glucosamindase (NAGase) is an enzyme whose activity has been implicated as an indicator of tissue damage during mastitis. It is a lysosomal enzyme that is secreted in large quantities in the mammary gland during involution and inflammation. The NAGase enzyme has also been found in other bovine secretions, such as uterine fluids. The specific function of NAGase in the mammary gland is not known, however, recent research has suggested that NAGase may exhibit some antimicrobial activity.
During lactation, cow milk normally has low NAGase activity. Similarly, NAGase is low in mammary secretions in the early dry period, coinciding with the period of highest incidence of new intramammary infection. By the mid-dry period, however, NAGase activity is at its highest in mammary secretions, concurrent with the lowest incidence of new intramammary infection. Therefore, the high levels of NAGase activity, along with elevated lactoferrin concentrations, in the mammary gland during the mid-dry period may contribute to increased antibacterial activity found in mammary secetions at that time.
There is a relationship between the presence of pathogens in the udder and NAGase levels in milk. Marked increases in NAGase activity resulting from the presence of major mastitis pathogens have been observed. Since NAGase has been found in uterine fluids, it has been suggested that NAGase may have a role in the bactericidal function of the uterus as well. Researchers have studied the bactericidal effect of NAGase on several bacterial pathogens commonly found to infect the cow uterus. Of these pathogens, Actionmyces pyogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, Strepto-coccus agalactiae, and Pseudomonas aeroginosa were inhibited by NAGase, while the Escherichia coli and Enterobacter aerogenes were not inhibited. Although these results can not be directly extrapolated to bacterial strains that cause mastitis, they do lend support for such an antimicrobial function of NAGase in the mammary gland.
APPLICATIONS
Antimicrobial substances have important applications in the dairy, animal production, and human health industries. Based on the physiological and functional properties attributed to lactoferrin, a number of interesting and innovative possibilities for the application of this natural protective protein can be considered. Health and functional foods, sports nutrition capsules, and drinks containing lactoferrin are being developed. Lactoferrin is already being used as an ingredient in infant formulas.
The antibacterial properties of the lactoperoxidase system also have been applied to animal production and clinical medicine. For example, due to the lack of cooling equipment, many farmers in China are faced with the problem of milk spoilage during storage and transport. In order to preserve the quality of milk, Chinese scientists are teaching farmers how to activate the lactoperoxi-dase system in raw milk. Addition of a small quantity of sodium thiocyanate and sodium percarbonate added to fresh raw milk is effective at reducing milk spoilage. For a small cost (about ten cents per 100 pounds of milk) milk spoilage can be delayed without harmful effects to the milk or alteration of taste. Another application could be addition of lactoperoxidase to calf milk replacers as a substitute for anti- biotics. Improved performance of calves by the activated lacto-peroxidase system has been demonstrated.
Lysozyme's ability to limit the migration of neutrophils to damaged tissue means that it might be used as an antiinflammatory agent. Lysozyme could be used as an additive in hospital formulas, infant formulas, and feed products as a means to reduce swelling resulting from surgery or illness. Research has shown that feeding human and cow colostrum containing lysozyme to infants and calves can reduce the incidence of gastro-intestinal infections.
N-acetyl–D-glucosaminadase activity assays are already being used in commercial mastitis tests as an indicator for tissue damage. If further studies reveal that it does indeed have antibacterial activity, then it might be used as a natural form of mastitis control.
CONCLUSIONS
Antimicrobial proteins naturally present in milk have the ability to kill and inhibit a broad spectrum of bacteria. The antibacterial properties of these proteins make them suitable for use in a variety of applications, including the prevention of mastitis in cattle and for improving the health of man.
science 17 December 1999:
Vol. 286. no. 5448, pp. 2245 – 2247
DOI: 10.1126/science.286.5448.2245
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
NEWS OF THE WEEK
MICROBIOLOGY:
Promising Antibiotic Candidate Identified
Martin Enserink
Pathogenic microbes are becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics, including vancomycin, a longtime antibiotic of last resort. Now researchers have come up with a possible vancomycin replacement–one that might lead to a whole new generation of antibiotics. On page 2361, a Dutch-German team shows that a small proteinlike molecule called nisin kills bacteria by latching onto a cell membrane molecule known as Lipid II and opening up holes in the membrane. Because Lipid II is the same target used by vancomycin, the result suggests that nisin, or derivatives of it, could one day replace vancomycin as a broad-range antibiotic.
Enteritidis in Autoclaved Chicken
Cecal Contents by Caprylic Acid
P. Vasudevan,* P. Marek,* M. K. M. Nair,* T. Annamalai,* M. Darre,* M. Khan,
and K. Venkitanarayanan*,1
*Department of Animal Science, Unit 4040 and Department of Pathobiology,
Unit 4089, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269
Primary Audience: Researchers, Farm managers, Extension agents
SUMMARY
Contamination of poultry and poultry products by Salmonella Enteritidis is a serious problem
worldwide. The effects of caprylic acid (50 and 100 mM) on S. Enteritidis in autoclaved chicken
cecal contents and tryptic soy broth at 40C was studied. Both concentrations of caprylic acid
reduced the population of S. Enteritidis by ?5.0 log10 cfu/mL within 1 min, with complete inactivation
of the pathogen at 24 h. Results of the study revealed that caprylic acid was highly effective in
killing S. Enteritidis in autoclaved chicken cecal contents in a rapid time frame.
Key words: caprylic acid, Salmonella Enteritidis, cecal content, chicken
2005 J. Appl. Poult. Res. 14:122125
You can get just as much cow manure breathing in air as you pass a CAFO or drive behind a cattle truck on the interstate as you would drinking milk.Breathing it is just the same as drinking it.It will end up in your digestive system so you better have a way to deal with it .Avoiding milk will not protect you from cow manure.
Lots of people drink fresh milk who have never heard of Ted or Sally.In fact people were drinking fresh milk long before Ted and Sally were born.
I do have a family member who has been hospitalized for months and near death from crohn's disease.After having part of her colon removed she will have to take some drug for the rest of her life.This was not from fresh milk.It was from a lack of the beneficial bacteria necessary for a healthy digestive system.Had she eaten more nutrient rich and probiotic foods she likely would not have suffered this problem.
Ohio judge strikes down ban on "rBGH free" milk labelling law!!
What is particularily noteworthy about this court ruling, is that the judge directly contradicted the FDA, and wrote that there IS significant difference between milk of cows treated with rBGH and those not treated.
http://food.change.org/blog/view/federal_court_strikes_down_ohio_ban_on_rbgh_free_milk_label
"In a one-two punch, the Court both freed the flow of information between producers who refrain from using artificial growth hormones and the consumers who prefer that product as well as establishing in a court of law that rBGH milk is inferior. Now those big agribusinesses don't even have a grey area to work with. It remains to be seen whether this case will be appealed again to the Supreme Court, but for now this is a major victory that sets some serious precedent, especially in light of the ongoing battle over the pending approval of genetically-modified salmon and whether or not they should be labeled."
http://truefoodnow.org/2010/09/30/federal-court-strikes-down-ohio-ban-on-rbgh-free-labels-on-dairy-products/
In striking down the rule, the Court relied on evidence presented by Center for Food Safety and other friends of the court finding that contrary to the district courts assertion, a compositional difference does exist between milk from untreated cows and conventional milk As detailed by the amici parties seeking to strike down the Rule The court went on to elaborate that the use of rbST in milk production has been shown to elevate the levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), a naturally-occurring hormone that in high levels is linked to several types of cancers, among other things. The Court also found that the use of rbST induces an unnatural period of milk production resulting in milk considered to be low quality, and that milk from treated cows turns sour more quickly, another indicator of poor milk quality.
But there aren't any human health studies yet. It costs a bundle, each consumer needs to be
screened and examined by a medical doctor, countless controls and checks for accurate diet information, including supplements, medicines, etc. and carried out for at least 3 years. If they weren't shut down by the government first.
Questions –
Certainly it must follow that the quantity of anti-microbials in milk varies depending on the diet and health of the animal, right?
Grassfed, closed herd, no grain, heritage breeds – and don't get animals from the sale barn – anything else?
If you drink raw milk and you are immune-compromised, should you look for milk with the highest cream content (and therefore more of the proteins and medium chain fatty acids)?
Would it help to you shake your milk often to distribute these proteins and fatty acids throughout the milk?
Thanks,
Blair
Does Raw Milk Kill Pathogens?
http://www.realmilk.com/does-raw-milk-kill-pathogens.html
Dr Beals' evidence is very compelling to me.
Yes Miguel, and E.coli 0157:H7 lives on money and that is how Chris became ill.
Mary
Are you trying to say that air that smells of manure does not have bacteria in it?I have read studies by Johns Hopkins where they detect pathogens in the air 2 1/2 miles downwind of CAFOs and in the air while following a cattle truck down the highway.If you think you can be safe simply by not drinking milk, you are mistaken.On the other hand ,I believe you can greatly reduce your chances of illness by avoiding ingesting things that are known to inhibit the lactic acid bacteria in food and in your digestive tract.
Why are you so very angry?…your son is alive and doing well. Bill got you a huge check. No one has died in the USA from Raw Milk in the last 37 years according to the CDC. Yes there have been some illnesses but on balance….very few considering MRSA deaths, drugs deaths, other food deaths…. CAFO produced foods.By comparison raw milk is not even listed on the list of risky foods.
The last death from milk was pasteurized milk in 2007 in MA.
It is time to move on and enjoy your life and let others prevent illness in their own kids.
I shared the testimony last week of the CA child with a horrible and debilitating Muscle TIC that made him a social outcast and caused continuous pain. No drug, no therapies in western medicine could or would help.
12 hours on raw milk and the TICs are gone….and have been gone for weeks. Mary…are you saying that this child should still suffer muscle TIC's…..
Mary….what you are doing is selfish…you are not weighing the appropriate miniscule raw milk risk levels against the huge benefits of raw milk. Especially clean tested raw milk…( lets not confuse CAFO raw milk with organic, tested, pastured raw milk ) Instead you are laying on the emotional compost so thick that you can not even see it yourself.
The science is behind raw milk. Remember that at the SB 201 hearings in CA the FDA and CDFA refused to show up. The scientsists, retailers, hundreds of consumers, the producers all showed up and laid down the official record.
It is far past time to release your emotional history and "let food be thy medicine for those that choose food as thy medicine". It is still a somewhat free country and I stand with those that intend to assure that it stays that way.
One more thing….the BSK lab tests did show that Salmonella was gone from 7 log levels to zero in 24 hours or less. The scientists even said that it was because of the action of coliforms and their colicins that kill salmonella. Listeria did not thrive and neither did ecoli 0157H7….they did not die off fast like Salmonella but they did not thrive and died off on their own curves. This pathogen death curve has been shown in published Lancet and other major medical journals. Your hatred of seeing pain in your son has completely overpowered your ability to reason. This is called being a loving mom… the next part of love is being grateful for your sons life and moving on. Not to mention your huge check from cowardly insurance companies that refused to stand-up to Marler when your son did not even have the Ecoli 0157H7 pathogen detected in his body. Not one of his tested detected this pathogen.
You should also be grateful for luck…. and the fear that insurance companies have of your attorney. This matter is settled you need to let go and move on and let other moms feed their children raw milk that is lifesaving….remember that Asthma kills 5200 people per year and raw milk heals Asthma….
Mary….heal thy self….let others use food to heal themselves as well. You do not ever ever need to drink raw milk yourself. But this is America. Others can do what they please.
Mark
"Touching contaminated surfaces or objects and then touching their mouth or putting a contaminated object into their mouth."
Many illnesses/diseases can be transmitted via the fecal-oral route and spread the disease to nearby objects/food especially if good hand washing isn't done. Airborne illnesses are spread through droplets in the air, (flu, TB, etc) which can also land on objects. Touching the infected object transmits germs to your hands; touching your nose/mouth/eyes with your unwashed hand causes you to contaminate yourself.
If someone sneezes around you, they are shooting droplets about 3ft from them, TB droplets can hang in the air for (I think I had read years ago that TB hangs in the air for over 20 min) So if that actively infected person walks down the store isle sneezing, coughing, singing or even talking and 15 min later you walk though the same area, you may have a chance of inhaling the TB bacteria. If your immune system is strong you probably don't have anything to worry about. Same with eating at buffets, yuck, people talk, sneeze and cough all over the food.
Why is it that I don't get norovirus when it goes through my health care coworkers and their children probably yearly? How come I've never suffered from C-diff despite taking care of patients with it on a REGULAR basis? How does a nurse come up with a negative MRSA nasal swab? How come when my coworkers are blowing their noses, coughing and calling off with pneumonia, I rarely have more than a day of feeling a little draggy? Why is it that their children are constantly ill, but mine, who has had raw milk since she was 1, never seems to be?
Maybe it is because we regularly ingest inulin and bacteria dense foods, on top of all the junk we eat, and our immune system is well conditioned. We feed the bacteriodetes in our guts so they can digest sugars for the lactobacillus.
When the cow stepped in the bucket, my mother strained the manure out of it, and we drank it anyway. I find it amazing that nobody in my family has Chrons or Irritable bowel syndrome.
HUS is nothing to laugh at, surely, but pasteurization and sterilization of our food will only make things worse, not better. I believe this, every time a colonization report crosses my hands from someone's nose, sputum or stool, and when I question them about their diet, it is confirmed.
Shit speaks to us, and we should listen to it. What is in yours?
I do acknowledge that there is a risk with raw milk, as with any other food, but it is MY CHOICE as to whether I take that risk and absolutely MY CHOICE as to what I feed my family. According to our laws, I can eat sushi, I can smoke cigarettes, I can drink alcohol, and I can down as much corn sugar (the "new name" for HFCS — the gov't may allow the CRA to rename HFCS as such to "clear up confusion" about their ridiculously highly processed sugar) as I can stuff in my mouth, but I can't have one of nature's delicious products right from the source? I don't need the govt to be my nanny. I research the risks and I make my decision.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/10/01/new-high-fructose-corn-syrup-scam.aspx
Also, my herd share allows for me to visit my farm and farmer on a weekly basis, to see the cows in their natural environment, to visit the pastures and the milking barn, and I love this relationship. I'm not sure I would like it as much as if I picked it up at the store in CA. I believe in "know your farmer" for as many of the foods I buy and consume as possible. In fact, this is how I operate for purchase of beef, pork, eggs and chicken. Again, the government deems it safe and OK to eat this:
http://countmyribs.tumblr.com/post/1207200876
In this case, I think I am a better judge as to what is healthy for my family and me.
Life is inherently risky — no one is going to live forever. Life is about learning and making choices, and dealing with the consequences.
Alice
Thank you for your latest post. Even though Im not engaged in the same daily activities as yourself, I find I can identify with all that you wrote. As a disabled female confined to a wheelchair I ask the same type of questions about why I am hardly ever sick and why my wellness blood panels are closer to normal than most people I know who are disabled and even those I know who are not disabled. One thing that really sticks out on my blood panels is the carbon to oxygen ratio. I dont weight bare and my system is healthfully oxygenated! Yes, I exercise as much as I possibly can, but as compromised as my physical body isyou wouldnt think that it would be capable of attaining such normal numbers on these wellness blood panels. I do more than just watch my diet, I know my farmer and my cow! Farm fresh milk is THE nutrient dense food that helps keep me healthy. And just like Alice we stay out of the 'supermarkets' and buy mostly at farmers markets or our meat from local farmers.When we purposely build up our immune systems we cant help but being healthier. It has paid off handsomely for meand Im one of the subclass of persons that the mainstream health industry warns that farm fresh milk would be too dangerous to ingest. I dont think Im being misled by my blood panel reports. And I certainly believe in consuming products from animals that have been raised and fed as nature intended.
Humbly,
Alyssa
If raw milk doesn't kill pathogens, then why does the FDA mandate that raw milk cheeses be aged at least 60 days?
Answer: because the pathogens are are killed off by the natural enzymes and cultures in raw milk, as the cheese ages.
Even the FDA, in its own twisted way, acknowledges that raw milk kills pathogens. Why can't you?
To find your local station and airtime, visit http://www.doctoroz.com/find-station
Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, is the author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America's Favorite Health Food. She is on the Boards of Directors of the Weston A. Price Foundation and the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund.
So when Ted Beals states [Beals said a process called competitive exclusion naturally fights off the bacteria in raw milk. In the process, beneficial bacteria push harmful bacteria out of the milk, ridding it of pathogens, he said.] it gives the impression that raw milk kills harmful bacteria so therefore it is safe to drink. It is bullshit!!!!
So Mark, what makes me angry? It is the continued lies told about raw milk from leaders in the raw milk community. Raw milk pushers owe it to people to tell them the truth about possible pathogen contamination. The truth is not complicated: Beware, this product could harbor deadly pathogens because the ass of the cow is near the teats. If shit gets in the milk you could become quite ill.
Bill, it takes 60 days to kill the pathogens. Some would like to see that age be 90 days just to make sure the pathogens are dead. How does this apply to raw milk? If you let it sit for 60 days it would be pathogen free? Im not sure that milk would be drinkable.
Mark, Im just going to ignore everything you wrote. Your RAMP model is getting notice. I see youre speaking at the WAPF conference about it. The majority of the document is about how to keep the cows healthy and how to keep shit or other contaminates out of the milk. It appears that the journey of the raw milk farmer iskeeping the milk shit free. Why is so much energy spent here if raw milk kills pathogens? Why did Ted Beals spend all this time helping your create a safety plan if raw milk kills pathogens?
Mary
We do not hear as much from the suffering of kids getting sick from ""Government approved'' food. It is no question that you are still emotionally caught in the anti raw milk stand ,for a good reason. At my trial where Ted Beals testified, the other experts had to concede that pasteurized milk as well can contain any pathogens and in fact any food today cannot be guranteed to be free of pathogens. I think the valuable lesson to be learned is more to look into the immune building trades of raw milk. Even anti experts agree that people used to drinking raw milk have a better immune system than those who do not drink raw milk.
The increasing pressure of deadly pathogens as a result of our current industrial farming mentality will require a fresh look at a new protection philosophy to survive in the future.
Warm regards Michael
I truly try to be empathetic regarding the ordeal your family suffered, but as time goes by, the shrill hysteria that permeates your comments makes MY blood pressure go up.
It becomes increasingly muddy trying to decipher what it is that you want. You stated that people should be given enough information to make an informed choice –
yet it is clear that you only want people to hear the negatives – however rarely they occur.
There is no consensus on the science – thinking people can see that for themselves. The pro-raw milk ideas and the FDA warnings are out there for consumers to evaluate for themselves.
Here's what angers me, here's what I think is wrong with raw milk issue:
The FDA is fulfilling YOUR demand – that people be warned of possible risks in food.
We all pay our tax dollars so the FDA can give you this info.
I resent the fact that my tax dollars are being spent to promote one side of this issue.
I resent the fact that my tax dollars are now being spent on more than just informing the public – this agency is hell bent on controlling people.
Until the FDA shows some semblance of objectivity and balance regarding conflicting opinion on the science, I think heads there need to start rolling.
Mary wrote: "This is the type of down right nonsense that drives me absolutely insane about the raw milk movement. Just tell the truth about raw milk so that people can make an informed decision of the risks."
It is possible to make safe raw milk cheese that is hours old. It is also possible to make deadly pastuerized cheese that is aged for years.
Pasteurized milk is more vulnerable to contamination post-pasteurization, precisely because it has been de-natured and killed. On the other hand, The living bacteria in raw milk have selective effects against pathogens that may come into contact with it after collection from the cow.
As a whole, *properly-produced* raw milk dairy products, particularily those that are cultured, are safer than their pastuerized equivilents, because of the diversity of beneficial micro-flora which work to exclude the bad bacteria.
After years of waiting and beating me up on this…here it is. The long awaited Source Sticker and FAQ that explains it all. It is the last one…
http://www.organicpastures.com/faq.html
FYI….we have decided at this time to not purchase outside organic raw milk for butter. We instead purchased 55 organic cows from Northern CA. They will be here next week.
Also see the OPDC Girls Scout Patch program…..nothing like Delicious Raw Milk with your Girls Scouts cookies. Nothin like dunkin your little bit of sin in a whole lot of heaven.
http://www.organicpastures.com/girl-scout-badge.html
Mark