# How young is too young to drink raw milk?



## Dana (Dec 7, 2009)

I have a customer who'd like to buy milk for her son who is about 18 months old. I don't know if this is safe for him or not? Any thoughts?


----------



## Rambar Ranch (Oct 25, 2007)

We gave raw milk to our grandson who is staying with us from the time he turned 1. He was lactose intolerant and had to drink the soy formula so as soon as he turned 1 we turned him over to raw goats milk and he did great. 

If I had to buy the goat milk I doubt I would have given raw, but since it was from our own goats and we knew the health status of them, I had no qualms about giving it to him raw.

Ray


----------



## Bella Star (Oct 27, 2007)

My grandson was a failure to thrive baby,they tried numerous types of formulas and he still was not able to tolerate anything they gave him so we tried goat milk and the pediatrician knew it was raw milk and was surprised how well he did and told my ddnl to keep doing what she was doing but to give him Polyvisole vitamin drops because they will lack _?___ (memory loss) drinking raw milk. 
*** I did take my doe's to the vet and checked them for everything Qfever,TB,Brucelious,CAE and CL as we all started drinking raw milk. I usetobe a nurse so I really watch for cleanliness and I also milk by machine. My grandson was around 6-8 mo. old
Other sick kids have been sent to me hunting raw milk , seems that more tanned skinned people have more problems with cow milk. I would not even bother with canned goat milk as I couldn't drink or cook with it and our baby goats or dogs wont drink it as it's AWFUL ! My daughter had problems with drinking cow and formulas,I had her in hospital 2x, I put her on carnation canned milk mixed with 50% water and some Karo syrup and she did great however if I had thought or knew about goat milk I would have put her on it. 
Goat milk is drank by more people in our world than people that drink cow milk !!


----------



## swgoats (May 21, 2010)

Babies under one year need a formula made from the milk rather than straight milk because it has the wrong carb, protein, fat balance for the human infant and can hurt the kidneys. Anemia can also result as there are insufficient levels of certain vitamins. Whole milk is fine for kids over a year. Here are some good links:

http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/feeding-infants-toddlers/goat-milk
http://www.westonaprice.org/childrens-health/recipes-for-homemade-baby-formula

As far as it being raw, if you believe raw milk is safe, it is safe for babies. I raised my special needs son on formula made from raw goat milk, and he was very healthy and never sick.


----------



## jdranch (Jan 31, 2010)

Never used it for my babies but have heard numerous stories of goat's milk helping babies who had colic or struggled with formula. Dr. Sears had an article up about it awhile back- http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/feeding-infants-toddlers/goat-milk


----------



## Trysta (Apr 5, 2011)

I used formula until my kids were 1 yr old, and then pasteurized whole milk until they were 2. Did use raw (cow) milk after 2 yrs old (we didn't have goats at that time!). My two boys are 6'4" and 6'1" and never sick, so I guess it worked!Now we all drink goat milk and love it, my daughter takes bottles of it back to college, since she misses it when she's gone!


----------



## KJFarm (Oct 26, 2007)

Well, speaking here from the voice of experience.............we started in dairy goats in 1958 when I was chronically ill with allergies and Asthma. It helped to save my life, LITERALLY. Since that time we have raised hundreds of infants, from preemies on up, on straight raw goat milk. Doctors have been amazed at how well it is assimilated. It is a 1000 times better than any man made formula. We have the mothers add folic acid to a bottle once per day, that is all that needs to be added, and only until babies start on vegetables. Don't want to ruffle any feathers, but you've come 50+ years late to convince me that it shouldn't be given to infants of any age.


----------



## NubianSoaps.com (Oct 26, 2007)

If you read the formulas at Weston Price and Sally Fallon they make little to no logical sense. Goatmilk is as close to breast milk as you are going to get, adding carrot juice to milk? Really? Why? Goats have babies the same size as ours, in fact with Nubians my children were larger than my nubian kids  

Janie ruffle all the feathers you want! Vicki


----------



## KJFarm (Oct 26, 2007)

Thanks for your permission Vicki :biggrin It's sad that there's so much misinformation about goat's milk, and the people who put it in print, probably have little to no experience with it at all. Lots of doctors are anti-goat's milk, they don't have a clue, how valuable it is for health. They just have book learning knowledge. I've always contended that doctors are against it, because the milk cheats them out of money, when babies quit coming into their office with constant allergy issues, and stomach ailments. I nursed my babies for 6 weeks, then they went on goat's milk. I can count on one hand, how many times they went to the doctor because of sickness. They have excellent teeth and have never had a broken bone - their ages are 35 & 33. My grandchildren have been raised on it, and they are extremely healthy!!!


----------



## doublebowgoats (Mar 6, 2008)

Go Janie! We need experienced people to spread the truth about goat milk.


----------



## swgoats (May 21, 2010)

The folic acid is easy to fix, but there *is* too much protein verses human milk. Human milk is the highest in lactose of any milk, and lactose is important for brain development. Personally, I like the Dr. Sears formula. It is easy and quick, and makes sense to me when you read the rationale. I used lactose instead of sugar. But yep, there are many people who survived on straight goat's milk. If I were supplementing breast milk, I wouldn't bother mixing formula. No matter what I think it is far superior to any formulas. My son was even allergic to hypoallergenic, and no way was I subjecting him to soy (messes with the hormones).

Vicki, I don't see carrot juice in the formula recipes?


----------



## Ozark Lady (Mar 21, 2010)

In 1987, I had a failing to thrive baby. I was nursing, but just not enough milk to keep him gaining.
We tried many formulas, with no good results. Due to my own milk allergies I was drinking, raw goat milk, from my goats.
One day, in desperation I filled his bottle with raw goat milk... he did great! He was about 3 months old.
The pediatrician checked him over, and was elated at the results. The pediatrician, said it was as close to my breast milk as it was possible to get. I was not asked to supplement anything else, perhaps because I was still nursing in addition to the goatmilk bottles.
However, I weaned him within a few weeks, bottles were just easier, and he preferred them. He grew up strong and healthy, with no allergies, and no major health issues. We tried pasteurizing it, and he was hungry and dissatisfied with it... but raw and he was happy. He gained weight and quickly stopped being a failing to thrive baby.

Then in 1999, I had a granddaughter who simply could not tolerate formula, again, raw goat milk to the rescue, she is now a lovely 12 year old.

For me, raw goat milk is a miracle food for babies of any age. Especially when forumulas and human breast milk just aren't working out!


----------



## Bella Star (Oct 27, 2007)

Natural is always better !! Remember pasteurized is "DEAD" milk and so all kinds of man made synthetic crap has to be added to the formulas and this makes some already ill children sicker. A pair of twins boys that just got out of the hospital didn't have the strength to walk and see the goats as mom was desperate for goat milk as the Dr. had put the twins on a feeding tube type of formula that REALLY looked and smelt horrible and the twins would not drink the stuff,anyway the twins tried the goat milk and loved it !! They didn't complain about stomach pain and kept it all down .. they thrived and grew on the raw goat milk ! Folic Acid is needs to be added if the child is young but other than that Goats milk is like breast milk .... and goat milk and goat products are catching on fast about being healthy and in demand !


----------



## Qvrfullmidwife (Oct 25, 2007)

My "credentials"--owner/operator of a licensed goat dairy, licensed to sell pasteurized and raw milk.. Licensed midwife for over 20 years. Mother of 12 children, all of whom drink raw milk and whose children were started on goat milk as young as three days.

We have had customers able to wean their babies of the naaaasty pre-digested formula that is so $$$. We have had babies hospitalized for failure-to-thrive end up thriving on our milk. We have pictures of babies who were on reams of medications for digestive issues such as throwing up blood who are now doing wonderful on our milk. Our low-temp pasteurized milk.

We drink raw here. Our almost 16 month old is on raw now. But I did NOT give it to her until she was past the age of one. I feed my babies pasteurized until they are toddlers (which this child, at 18 months is). That being said, my children are also exposed to the bacteria here on our farm. I would be hesitant to sell it raw to someone who I knew was giving it to someone under 2 or 3, depending on what they were accustomed to, how strong their immune system is.

In general--with few exceptions we are blunt with those who we know are planning to drink raw milk while pregnant or feed it to very small babies. We discuss the potential pathogenic bacteria and their possible ramifications and we let them chose. Those few exceptions are those who we feel have been thoroughly educated by the pro-raw side--those we may well refuse to sell raw milk to. Cases are out there of people who did not do thorough research but who instead relied on one-sided information. When those people get sick (which may happen despite what the pro-raw websites say) they invariable say (to their attorney) "but no one warned me...they just told me how healthy it is..."

Goat milk is the closest out there to human milk (except, I believe for mouse milk but try getting inflations on them! LOL) but this is NOT the same as "as good as". Yes, the goat milk formulas out there aim at trying to add certain things that goat milk are low in but add their own set of risks such as allergies and...raw liver to a baby? REALLY?! I do tell moms whose babies are on goat milk only to give baby liquid vitamins because goat milk is low in certain important nutrients when compared to breast milk. Those who are nursing and supplementing with goat milk (as I did) I tell to supplement themselves with high quality vitamins and a great diet and let the breastmilk carry the weight for where the goat milk is lacking.

But the biggest concern is bacteria. I have had pro-raw people tell me "no one has EVER gotten sick from drinking raw milk!" and that is simply untrue. If you or me is exposed to listeria we likely may not even notice we are ill. If a pregnant mom gets it--her pregnancy is toast and that baby may be born with severe issues--if not stillbirth. Listeria targets fast growing prions--brain matter. Fast growing? Science speech for babies or the unborn. Can you guarantee that there is no listeria in your milk? How do you know that Princess tripped when she was getting up on the stand because she is a klutz, NOT because she is in the early stages or listeria? Even in states like TX where we are tested for just such pathogenic bacteria as this, lets be brutally honest--all that means is the day that the inspector showed up I was good. It tells nothing about the presence or absence of such bacteria a week later. Got cats around? (and although young cats are far more likely to be the culprits, cats of any age or gender are potential transmitters). Toxoplasmosis has been proven to be passed via raw milk. Again, I might not even notice that I had it. My unborn baby? That is another matter. Same for the immune compromised, among who it can cause a neurologically caused blindness. And guess what? The state doesnt test for that one.

For the vast majority of the population a lower temperature pasteurized milk rather than the high temp flash pastuerized is a reasonable alternative. Is it a perfect alternative? Of course not. For most, though, what you lose by pasteurizing at 145 is a sacrifice probably worth taking when weighed against the risks of raw for the vulnerable segments of the population. Shoot, they even tell you to pasteurize donated human breast milk. Sort of like a seatbelt. Most of the time it is not needed. IN some circumstances it may even be deadly--as in if you cannot get a baby out fast enough and there is a fire. Yet we recognize that it is for those "what if" situations that we use seatbelts all the time. Why can we not recognize that there are times when it is appropriate to be cautious?

And I will go one step further down the road to offensive and insulting and say that I think one of the biggest stumbling blocks out there to making it easier to legally sell raw milk are those who refuse to recognize that there may be health risks to it for some people. I have heard people go so far as to say not only that no one has ever gotten ill from raw milk (untrue) but even that you could practically hide Jimmy Hoffa's body in there and the natural good bacteria would protect anyone drinking that milk,citig anecdotal accounts of dead rodents in bulk tanks, etc. ?!?! If the state is at all inclined to allow it, it will be because they feel that there is consensus on ways to minimize potential public health risks. As long as raw milk people are saying "risks? what risks?! they know that there will be no consensus and no reasonable precautions. Yes, there may never be that willingness to compromise, but I can tell you that as long as they can point to those who deny what science can show they have great ammunition on their side. I have sat through the hearings, I have heard the give and take of legislators who were inclined to find reasonable and responsible compromise and can tell you than sadly, some of raw milks biggest proponents prove to be raw milk's biggest detractors. 




We pasteurize for baby goats but deny that baby people might need the same protection?


----------



## Bernice (Apr 2, 2009)

And I'm adding to the testimonials here about feeding goats milk to infants. I have two grandsons who could not tolerate formula and vomited everything up. One even ended up in the hospital. We started feeding him raw goats milk and what a turn around! That was the oldest grandson. Recently the youngest, the baby, experienced the same, so started feeding goats milk. It turned their health around, they gained weight and stopped the vomiting, saving their lives! I would recommend it even if there were no illnesses involved. It's pure, natural, and so good for you! 

I, like Janie, will never be convinced otherwise! :soap

I'll look at those links when i get back from my cardio therapy this morning!

As for selling raw goats milk, well being careful is #1....it's illegal in many states and plus, you have to trust the person you are selling it to!


----------



## Bernice (Apr 2, 2009)

LeeAnne....I for one do not agree with your post this morning, but that is me and my humble goatie opinion! I need to leave in a bit but when I get back I shall go into further details. Albeit, you raise some excellent points, however, if you are going to provide such information then substantiate with research articles and hard data! I know it's a pain, however, it will lend credence to what you are attempting to articulate!


----------



## nightskyfarm (Sep 7, 2009)

I raised all of my children on raw goat milk. I will say the milk from my own animals, I did not buy milk. They all started drinking it at 6 months. My oldest 21 and only this past winter for the first time in his life did get put on antibiotics for an upper respiratory infection. My other 2 are 16 & 18 and have never been sick enough for any drug. We also produce much of our own food which also makes a huge difference.


----------



## Ashley (Oct 25, 2007)

My cousins baby was fed raw goat milk because her mom didn't have enough milk. She did beautifully on it.


----------



## KJFarm (Oct 26, 2007)

I know "religious" matters are against forum rules, but hopefully this won't get me into too much hot water. Proverbs 27:27 tells us to drink this milk, no where does the Bible say to drink cow's milk. God never intended for us to drink pasteurized milk. As far as pasteurizing for baby goats, that's for the prevention of CAE here. That is not a risk for humans, if it were, I would be a classic CAE victim!!! This generation is sick because of all the processed foods we eat, when we should be doing thing's naturally, God's way. All germs and bacteria are not a bad thing, they can actually be helpful in keeping us well. :soap


----------



## Caprine Beings (Sep 19, 2008)

Now I am hopping in on this conversation.

Lindsey was born 2 1/2 months premature, weighed 2lbs 11 oz. She did fine on my milk but I dried up too fast with her being in NICU up in Spokane and me down here in Clarkston...despite breastpumping. She was switched to formulas at the hospital and stopped growing and had diarrehea. She was brought down to Lewiston to the hospital and they fought to keep weight on her. When she finally weighed enough to bring home I was instructed to find someone who raised dairy goats. Now you can posh all you want that a Doc would say that...but thats what they had to do to get her gain any weight and to keep anything down. So I did and she did well...until we moved away and she was tried on formula again, stalled in growth and the diarrehea came back. So she was put on the evapo/karo diet and that worked. Goats milk on the west coast was very expensive...nothing we could afford over there. When we moved back to Clarkston Lindsey was once again put on goats milk + childrens vities and grew like crazy.
Don't tell me that there are too many proteins and other such stuff for us to digest. Goats milk IS the most digestable milk out there and my daughter is the proof! I am not going to listen to hogwash about it either because she is 20 years old and quite healthy compared to most CP dianosed people and she is very healthy. Rarely does she go to the doctor now. I can tell a difference in her motor reflexes when she is on cows milk or goats milk and her cognitive level is effected as well.
Have the milk tested yes for your own thoughts on safety but don't preach that goats milk is bad for growth when I have living proof in my home right here.
You won't be able to argue with me because it will be a one sided arguement with yourself.
Tam


----------



## swgoats (May 21, 2010)

Goat milk is an absolute God-send for kids with CP. They wanted my son on a feeding tube, and I wouldn't have it. He could suck, so he was going to eat. He needs thickened liquid so it was really no biggie for us to mix up a batch fortified however we liked. We had to mix anyway. In fact, our formula changed monthly as we experimented with what helped and what didn't. Joe has low intake so we needed to add fats, coconut milk, etc. He has delayed gastric emptying so high protein foods shut down his digestion. As long as urine is pale, it is unlikely any damage is being done to the kidneys by the extra protein, but it is good to watch for it. Since my son had low intake due to oral motor insufficiency, I need to be extra careful. He drinks whole raw milk now with add ins for calories. He's 3.5 years old, and the only doctor he sees is his neurologist. He's never sick.


----------



## Dana (Dec 7, 2009)

thanks guys! Sooooo much good examples and advice!!!


----------



## Trysta (Apr 5, 2011)

I am with LeeAnne: pasteurize for the young ones. I have seen what a bacterial infection can do to a baby (not mine but a friend's) and NOTHING is worth that and I believe there's no problem with pasteurizing until they're 2. Goat milk is fantastic nutritionally, but bacteria do grow in milk and some of them are dangerous.


----------



## Sondra (Oct 25, 2007)

How right you are Janie!! no flack from me either  Will say this my sis who is now 60 yrs old when born weighed in 10+ lbs and was born with rickets. for some reason my mothers milk disagreed with her and she lost many lbs. They tried everything finally the doctors told mom you'll have to find someone who has a goat or this kid won't live. Needless to say she is now alive and well and still doesn't drink cows milk.


----------



## dragonlair (Mar 24, 2009)

My third son was raised from birth on raw goat milk from our herd. He was never sick, never had stomach issues like his brothers, grew like a weed and never had dental problems until he grew up, went away and didn't drink goat milk unless he stopped by to visit. He also slept all night long, every night, from the day he came home from the hospital at 2 days old. The doctor had a fit, so I stopped going to him and found one who had a more natural approach to child rearing.

I will say that someone reported me to the state dept of human services, who had a fit too. They all but ordered me to feed my kid formula. I refused but there was nothing they could do because he was so healthy.


----------



## Qvrfullmidwife (Oct 25, 2007)

Bernice which of my comments do you need data for? 

I cannot give you names of those who have made the outlandish raw statements that I quoted--those were private conversations. I can quote you the data regarding listeria, toxoplasmosis and the like, gladly.

I am not sure what exactly you would disagree with me about, to be honest. We drink raw. I feed it to my children. We jumped through the state's hoops to be able to sell it legally. We dragged the entire family to the Capitol in order to give testimony supporting a relaxing of the prohibitions against selling it. I simply happen to believe that raw milk is not always guaranteed to be 100% safe and thus is not appropriate for everyone.

With all due respect (and I mean this sincerely, recognizing your long history in goats), which part of this do you find that you have disagreement with?


----------



## Ashley (Oct 25, 2007)

> I simply happen to believe that raw milk is not always guaranteed to be 100% safe and thus is not appropriate for everyone.


Nothing is :biggrin

But you are statistically more likely to get hurt in a car wreck on the way to get your milk than from drinking the actual milk.


----------



## Qvrfullmidwife (Oct 25, 2007)

Perhaps. But I have no legal or moral responsibility for that. If I know that raw milk may not be appropriate for someone and I do nothing to challenge their misconceptions and they get sick--what is my moral obligation then?


----------



## Qvrfullmidwife (Oct 25, 2007)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7120593
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5644a3.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5751a2.htm
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/970186-overview
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC242777/

Yes, there are more instances of food-borne illness in pasteurized milk--but this is expected simply due to the huge number of people who consume pasteurized product. There is food-borne illness everywhere, from every food. The fact remains, however, that milk is an excellent medium for bacteria growth--good, bad or indifferent. Why do you think it is used in labs to grow cells?

Y'all do what you want. I believe, philosophically, that this is a matter of consumer choice. For me--I do not drink raw when pregnant and I do not feed it to young babies. The risk may be very small--but if you are one to whom that occurrence happens it is 100% and a baby is too precious to not do all you can to protect it. I fail to see why this would be controversial. We do not feed honey to the very young...there are many things that we recognize is not appropriate for ones that young. When it comes to supplying it to others for use such as this--again, y'all do what you want. For me, I want to know that the customer is absolutely informed as to risks as well as benefits. If I feel that they are not, I prefer not to sell to them. This is not to avoid liability and legal ramifications because no matter what someone says, if their child dies all bets are off. This is for ME because I cannot imagine sleeping at night if I found out that our milk caused someone to have a miscarriage or severe, life-threatening kidney damage and the consumer had no inkling of the real risks as opposed to hearsay or information on some website.


----------



## Ashley (Oct 25, 2007)

Qvrfullmidwife said:


> Yes, there are more instances of food-borne illness in pasteurized milk--but this is expected simply due to the huge number of people who consume pasteurized product. There is food-borne illness everywhere, from every food. The fact remains, however, that milk is an excellent medium for bacteria growth--good, bad or indifferent. Why do you think it is used in labs to grow cells?


I hope continuing this conversation isn't taken as being hostile. I'm not looking to be. Just talking here. It's just an area of a lot of interest to me.. But raw milk is not a very good medium to grow bad bacteria. It has an immune system, and several different layers of it from white blood cells to different types of enzymes to bacteria. To have enough bad guys to overcome that immune system will generally result in a product that stinks and tastes bad. So it's got a pretty good safety system built in to it. This is typical, usual, normal, but no, not guaranteed. Just like all other foods we eat. No guarantees. My questions is, why is it that raw milk is so often held to a different safety standard that other foods?

Cooked milk, however, will grow whatever bacteria gets in it because it has almost no immunity (some enzymes are left).


----------



## buckrun (Mar 7, 2008)

I find it a good discussion as well but full of conflicts since our legal system makes you liable for the safety of people who refuse to be responsible for themselves. The libertarian part of me says anyone that lets their nasty cat in the house to jump on the table and sleep with the baby after pawing around in it's poop really doesn't get to say anything about safety and cleanliness of food at all :rofl

My question would be - why is a test considered relevant or necessary for something that is so illusive if it is true that



> all that means is the day that the inspector showed up I was good. It tells nothing about the presence or absence of such bacteria a week later.


Sorta makes a joke of the entire system. 
So if it is actually so very important and life threatening why base a rating of someone providing food to the public on tests and inspections that cannot really ascertain the quality of the product in a consistent way? Doesn't seem all that 'safe' to me.

Our main customers for years were part of a health and wellness group. Most of these people were older and had medical issues that were not working out so well with conventional therapies. They were adamant about the benefits they felt and saw from raw milk and raw milk soft cheese even tho all of them were doing this against doc orders and many had immune function issues including a cancer survivor who had few lymph nodes and no colon. My kiddos had all they wanted as soon as they could hold a cup. Seems like lots of milk down the hatch with no issues to just be blind luck but perhaps it was. I am thankful to have been helpful to so many people who are convinced that raw GM is of benefit to them. But they did come to me with quite a bit of knowledge and knowingly ask for raw products. I met with the group and explained my management and they came to see my goats and they were grateful and appreciative that I was willing to do this labor for them. And aghast when I took a year off

We have lots of great stories about goat milk and health turnaround after handing out the stuff for 30 years including my nephew who was a failure to thrive taking a dive until we started sneaking him goat milk :biggrin You can guess the rest....

I agree we are obligated to protect the least among us as best we can and information is a good start. 
And a greatly reduced reliance on the legal system would be another.
This is a great discussion!
Lee


----------



## Qvrfullmidwife (Oct 25, 2007)

Data, ashley? And please--studies, not compilations of anecdotal observations, let's keep the playing field level.


----------



## Qvrfullmidwife (Oct 25, 2007)

And to play fair, let me see if I can find a study--done by 'the industry' that supports the idea of natural antibacterial properties to raw milk. I have read and saved it, now I just have to find where I put it! it is not meant to be pro-raw but is.


----------



## buckrun (Mar 7, 2008)

If you start using studies you MUST state who performed them under what structure and who FUNDED them!
Stating the results only is nothing more seriously supportable than hearsay. To form an opinion on how relevant a study is you have to be informed about how it was set up- how it was pursued and who suggested the topic and who paid for it.

There was a quote recently in the news about how studies are constructed now. 
A special interest group comes in and says- perform a study that shows >>>> fill in the blank.
The outcome is predetermined- and the researchers then work to support that 'finding'.

Lee


----------



## Horsehair Braider (Mar 11, 2011)

Yes, but the point of science is, it has to be reproducible. If others can not get the same results, using the same methods, that "study" is thrown out eventually. That's how that whole "cold fusion" thing came down. No one else could get the same results. 

Even though people are now trying to put in their own agenda in science, it is self-correcting. It may take time, but eventually the types of "studies" you are talking about, where someone pays someone else to say X, will be acknowledged as the biased documents that they are. And as an example of the very thing you are talking about, despite years of the tobacco industry claiming there was no link between cancer and their product, and posting "studies" that showed this, those eventually got thrown out and we now know that cancer and cigarette use is linked. 

When someone posts a link to the study, the info about who performed it and how should be included. If it's really a study, that is part of the document. As far as the funding? Hmm, that can be problematic... after all, a company that produces flour for baking won't be very interested in funding a study about CAE in goats. So in some ways, it will make sense that a certain company funded a certain study - it was relevant to them. Still I can see the point that where the money comes from can matter.


----------



## Ashley (Oct 25, 2007)

Qvrfullmidwife said:


> Data, ashley? And please--studies, not compilations of anecdotal observations, let's keep the playing field level.


I can get you data from a microbial expert. But it will have to be later.


----------



## Bernice (Apr 2, 2009)

Hi LeeAnne,
Thank you for sharing those links, they were very informative. As for the data&#8230;..really, statistically there is no way that data on either side of this discussion will prove anything because numbers can be crunched and manipulated through distinct statistical formulas regarding levels of significance, sample populations, and variables. So let's toss that request out. ?

If I understand you correctly you are not condemning nor criticizing anyone's decision to allow their family to drink raw milk since your family does as well. That's not the issue, the issue is not advocating for raw milk sales and see such as being hazardous? You support your claim with recent articles regarding individuals who made a conscious decision to purchase raw milk, consume it, and then perish or become seriously ill from the bacteria. You are especially worried about the health of babies and pregnant women. What are your thoughts and proposals for changing raw milk sales, what are you a specifically a proponent of? The problem is there are so many regulations out there to begin with which restrict farmers as it is. Not to mention having to battle Monsanto and the ever increasing popularity of laws outlawing small organic gardens that have popped up on the news recently. Here is the problem: people choose to do consume what they want, raw milk, nasty hot dogs, or smoking cigarettes. Maybe more regulation on consumer's decisions because people obviously are not intelligent enough to understand the warnings and consume products harmful to them. What about butter and the relationship to heart attacks? But&#8230;.margarine never molds no matter how long it sets out and vegetable oil was originally invented to use as jet fuel as thus scientifically is one molecule away from being jet fuel. Should I sue Land O' Lakes for my recent heart attack because I consumed butter for years which clogged my arteries and I ended up with a heart attack? It's no different than the raw milk claim. Hmmmm&#8230;not a bad thought! ') (Ha&#8230;NOT!) Just like the tobacco lawsuit. If an individual chooses to consume a product they KNOW has risks then how is it right that they can sue afterward and win?



> "In general--with few exceptions we are blunt with those who we know are planning to drink raw milk while pregnant or feed it to very small babies. We discuss the potential pathogenic bacteria and their possible ramifications and we let them chose. Those few exceptions are those who we feel have been thoroughly educated by the pro-raw side--those we may well refuse to sell raw milk to. Cases are out there of people who did not do thorough research but who instead relied on one-sided information. When those people get sick (which may happen despite what the pro-raw websites say) they invariable say (to their attorney) "but no one warned me...they just told me how healthy it is..."


Form a legal standpoint you have done a good job covering your tail, however, even though we educate invariably there will be those individuals who will buy milk raw and then once they are sick will blame it on the milk, pasteurized or raw and will then proceed to sue for the ranch! While you raise a good point about pasteurizing milk to sell to those who do not understand raw, I don't agree that this is going to serve to really prevent. 


> "But the biggest concern is bacteria. I have had pro-raw people tell me "no one has EVER gotten sick from drinking raw milk!" and that is simply untrue. If you or me is exposed to listeria we likely may not even notice we are ill."


There is a risk to consuming any dairy product or food raw, but lets not just limit this to raw milk. This needs to be expanded to include vegetables and meats as well. Veggies and meat being major hot beds for e-coli. Remember the spinach e-coli situation?



> "How do you know that Princess tripped when she was getting up on the stand because she is a klutz, NOT because she is in the early stages or listeria? Even in states like TX where we are tested for just such pathogenic bacteria as this, lets be brutally honest--all that means is the day that the inspector showed up I was good. It tells nothing about the presence or absence of such bacteria a week later. "


Would one of your suggestions for precautions be to milk in a bubble lest we risk exposure to harmful bacteria entering into raw milk? Are industrial farms that are supposedly regulated and inspected safer than the small 2 goat operation? Let me clarify something here to clear up any misconceptions that may arise out of buying canned or pasteurized goats milk in the stores. I've been privy through visits and assisting with milk testing producers who shipped milk. I've seen many a filthy milking parlor where the poor goats came in coated with mud because they didn't have a barn. Got wormer? Even though as a producer one is to pull a milking animal used for milk consumption that has been wormed I knew many producers who did not. Why? Because they needed the money from the milk and could not afford to pull. Now all this milk gets put into their tank. Then it is picked up 4 days to 7 days later (has to be tested for antibiotics first) and mixed in with the milk from other producers. This all goes to said milk processing facility where it is processed and put on store shelves. This is the reason why I will not drink milk from the store. Sure, all the bacteria is killed, but what's left? I've been around in the goat world for a long time as you mentioned, and I have gained many experiences through my own or through my mistakes or successes and those of others. I'm still learning almost 30 years later! I personally choose to not sell raw goats milk. I could have when we lived in Arkansas where it is legal but didn't because I don't trust the hidden agendas of others. I won't risk getting sued, all it takes is the wrong person and the right set of circumstances. Even though I choose not to I still support the rights of others who wish to. Laws set precedent which then change and infringe on our rights. Soon we won't have any. You can't save a, "Stupid Consumer" no matter how many laws you change. When consumers get smarter I might.

In the end of all this you provided information to think about. Maybe even persuade those selling raw milk to be more cautious. In the end though, chores will be done, the goats milked, and the milk set aside for selling as, "raw milk" will still be, "raw milk." But maybe, just maybe, there may be one that will consider changing. The question is, will your words and articles presented make a difference? If we all start drinking almond milk we won't have to worry! :biggrin


----------



## Ashley (Oct 25, 2007)

> There is a risk to consuming any dairy product or food raw,


 or cooked.


----------



## Trysta (Apr 5, 2011)

I am still with LeeAnne, because milk IS an excellent media to grow bacteria. We all know bacteria grow exponentially if we let our milk sit for a while before we cool it, that's why we all have our system to keep it cool or get it cooled ASAP. I can give a person perfectly good raw milk, and he can dawdle a bit on the way and voila, he gets sick and.......it's my fault (well, no, maybe not, but the law will make it my fault), so I am not taking that risk.


----------



## Ashley (Oct 25, 2007)

Ronald Hull is a microbiologist and a food safety expert. This is a transcript of his expert testimony in a court case regarding raw milk. 
Entire transcript of both his and Dr Ted Beals' testimony in this case can be found here: http://www.realmilk.com/documents/expert-testimony-0508.pdf

Here are quotes from Dr. Ronald Hull. 


> "5 Q. Have you published research on that subject?
> 6 A. Yes, I have. *If Listeria, for example, is
> 7 inoculated into raw milk, then they're killed actively by
> 8 the raw milk's natural antimicrobial systems. *
> ...


Sorry about the numbers. I don't have to time to fix them



> "22 Q. Dr. Hull, let's describe milk a little bit. 23
> A. Yes. 24
> Q. Is all milk the same? 25
> A. No, definitely not.
> ...


I stand by my statement, raw milk is *not* a good media to grow pathogenic bacteria. It is, however, a good media to grow good bacteria.


----------



## BrokenHalterFarm (Feb 16, 2010)

I remember an iconic photo of an African American slave boy (maybe 2yrs old?) suckling on a goats teat.

Now , Im not saying the way things were done many moons back was right or wrong.
But it's something to think about thats for sure....

But then again I have the stomach of an old vulture. =P


----------



## Trysta (Apr 5, 2011)

This is about cow colostrum, but it shows that bacteria growth can be exponential regardless of antibodies in the raw milk (colostrum is extra high in antibodies), showing that raw milk is a good medium for bacteria growth.

http://www.calfnotes.com/pdffiles/CNCE0698.pdf

Just adding another piece of info to the discussion while realizing that I sure did enjoy that nicely cooled glass of raw milk I just had, but then again, I think I am immune to everything after working with animals all my life!


----------



## buckrun (Mar 7, 2008)

> regardless of antibodies in the raw milk (colostrum is extra high in antibodies


My understanding is that antibodies in colostrum are for particular things. Specific activities. 
Not for fighting random bacteria that spoils milk because the milk is actually if we choose to remember intended for young goats- or young cows- direct from the teat. The antibodies in colostrum are for imparting immunity to the very particular things (including vaccinations) that the dam has encountered during the building of her immune system to her young while their system is open to receive it. Not to keep milk from spoiling from introduced contaminants which under the normal use (suckling infants) would never occur.

Lee


----------



## Trysta (Apr 5, 2011)

_But raw milk is not a very good medium to grow bad bacteria. It has an immune system, and several different layers of it from white blood cells to different types of enzymes to bacteria. To have enough bad guys to overcome that immune system will generally result in a product that stinks and tastes bad. So it's got a pretty good safety system built in to it._ [/quote]

I agree, Lee, just reacting to the above statement, and to someone else stating that raw milk is not a good medium to grow pathogenic bacteria in.


----------



## Ashley (Oct 25, 2007)

Colostrum has a different makeup than regular milk. That said please review the data I provided that is specific to pathogens in milk. I didnt catch any such data on the link provided about colostrum. The link regarding colostrum is talking about coloforms. *Of course raw milk will grow coloforms which does NOT differentiate bEtween beneficial or pathogenic bacteria. The vast majority of coloforms will be beneficial.*

While culturing colostrum with bacteria will probably not cause a problem to a calf ( like I said, it has a different makeup than regular milk so I've not seen data specific to colostrum and can't say for sure) I would make a guess that this culturing might degrade the white blood cell content of the colostrum. Even though it would increase beneficial bacteria and enzymes, the white blood cells would be more important thus making it undesirable to allow colostrum to culture before feeding it to your calves. Or the author may be worried for no reason. Like I said there isnt data provided.


----------



## Ashley (Oct 25, 2007)

Btw I'm on my iPhone sorry for any typos. They are hard to fix on this thing. And I totally spelled coliforms right.


----------



## Trysta (Apr 5, 2011)

But (Coliforms) also include some of the major causes of foodborne illnesses! I guess we will have to agree to disagree...


----------



## Ashley (Oct 25, 2007)

It's like trying to proove that orangutans are living in Chicago because there are living creatures there. Just because something is alive doesn't proove what it is. Very few bacteria are actually disease causing. Coliforms are more likely to be harmless or helpful than bad. It just shows a lack of sterility. Sterility meaning dead basically. Since raw milk is never sterile, you have to do something other than a coliform test to see if it contains pathogenic bacteria.

ALL raw milk will test positive for coliforms unless treated in some way like with bleach to kill the good bacteria present.


----------

