For those interested in sourcing real raw milk locally to you, subscribe to herdshare.com

http://herdshare.com

Buy a cow (or part thereof) and pick up your dairy products at your local farmers markets, fresh out of YOUR cow. Talk about food security.

We are working towards creating a certification for raw milk with RealMilkAustralia.com. So all raw milk provided either through retail suppliers or via herdshares comes from cows farmed in a way that makes it the most healthy and therefore safest possible milk.

In addition to the reasons listed I understand that the pasteurization of milk was also part of the plan to eradicate TB. As such it played a successful part in this as, because of the method of keeping cows, that is, in large herds, questionable cleanliness, etc, the spread of this disease was rife and transmitted to babies and children quite readily. Along with vaccination and farmers now mostly keeping clean dairies, we have mostly eradicated this. But without question milk straight from the cow would be best. I would like to have a cow with calf in my large property but am mindful of many other factors. However there are several dairies near me that are, through deregulation and large imports of dairy products, in the process of closing down. I can't help thinking what a shame this is - we are losing too many of our agricultrural industries and the world has only now recognised, it seems, that in the not too distant future, the world, including Australia, will be food-stressed.

Thanks, Helen, for your timely and informative article.

I've been buying organic milk for the family for several years and find now that if I go to get it from a supermarket in the latter part of the day it's frequently sold out, so I've been assuming for a while that it's popularity is growing.

I myself have a dairy intolerance so was interested to read about the digestive enzymes being destroyed in the pasteurisation process. I will definitely give the raw milk a try and see if I can tolerate that. I have have been advised to before and did consider it, but must admit I've been conditioned to believe it was risky. I appreciated reading the history behind that mindset and why the risk today shouldn't be an issue.

I think more testing needs to be done. There's a wealth of literature that shows that raw milk is NOT SAFE.

It can transmit a number of diseases including polio, tuberculosis, scarlet fever and some suspect that prion diseases (such as mad cow) can be transmitted this way also!

Not enough research has been done to show the safety of raw milk or organic products in general and so I think they should not allow the sale of these products until they are PROVEN TO BE SAFE!

Bugsy, I respect your point of view. How about providing some evidence yourself concerning the proven risks of drinking raw milk?

By the way, what are the safety risks of organic food? Again, some firm evidence would be good. I know I'd prefer to take my chances on wholesome organically grown food than I would on food grown in lifeless soils full of synthetic fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides and which is then sprayed, snap-frozen, transported huge distances, irradiated and whatever else is done to it before we eat it.

It might look good and some of it might even taste good but the nutritional content in most of it is inferior to that grown organically. To gain the goodness you did in a 1950s apple, you now need to eat three from today's supermarkets

Thank you Helen for a long overdue article on the problems with milk.
You only have to taste real milk fresh from the animal a few times, and you dont ever want to go back to the rather tasteless product on the supermarket shelf. Nearly all foods are much more nutritious when eaten very fresh and as close to their raw, unprocessed state as possible for that food.
The problems that led to widespread pasteurisation are now under control by other means. There is little TB in Australia and milk is not a major way of the disease being spread. Herds are regularly tested nowadays, for brucellosis, mastitis etc.
Perhaps if a major epidemic of TB broke out in Australia the public could be alerted to boil their milk before using for the period of the epidemic.
I dont drink much milk (as my Dad used to say it is a food for baby cows) but when I do I certainly prefer organic, and my wife regularly obtains "raw" milk as she is a keen milk eater (not drinker).

I find it very hard to take anyone seriously once they use the word. Now I could go into good reasons why milk is treated the way it is, but it would fall on deaf years. When someone starts thinking that natural means safe they are passed logical discourse.
For the rest.
Pasteurization of milk was first suggested by Franz von Soxhlet in 1886.
Some of the diseases that pasteurization can prevent are tuberculosis, diphtheria, polio, salmonella, strep throat, scarlet fever, and typhoid fever

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_milk

Having now looked at Helens Website it's safe to say Helen ideas can be dismissed out of hand. Next she'll be telling us drinking our own piss is good for us.

Kenny

Urine is quite sterile - some people Do drink it (not my 'cup-of-tea'), others (Inuits) use it as a hair rinse.

With modern dairy methods, I see no problem with drinking raw milk. Also, as a child, in a rural town, I often drank fresh cow's milk - still warm from the cow from the farmer across the road. Also ate fresh field mushrooms, berries and an assortment of grass stems. No doubt all of it was good for the immune system.

Therefore, perhaps you should not be so instantly dismissive - you might just learn something.

Interesting article Helen.

It is a no-brainer that organic is healthier, particularly food grown as close to your locale as possible but pasteurization is a tricky one.

My father grew up on raw milk and often told stories about fighting with his siblings for the thick rich cream floating on top. Another friend from England grew up with raw milk being delivered from the local farmer but her mother would boil it before refrigerating it for human consumption.

So many conflicting views and studies on pasteurization make it difficult to come to any firm conclusion in relation to the disease control aspect. Perhaps the past concerns about TB are no longer relevant now that we are TB free and I wonder if cows raised on organic pastures, not overcrowded and managed under a strict hygiene regime' would have the same propensity for disease as mentioned by others above.

I can see that anecdotal evidence suggests that some people (normally allergic to milk) have no ill effects when drinking raw milk due to the presence of enzymes which are destroyed by pasteurization. And scientific research demonstrates that some nutrients are lost in the process (although some argue only small amounts - like 6-10% of Vit C and thiamine).

Anything that has grown without chemicals and artificial fertilizers has to be better as rule, but unless I am just another victim of pasteurization brainwashing, I remain unsure. It is certainly food for thought and something worth further investigation.

Evidence Bronwyn? All you need to do is use Google Scholar.

Here's an excerpt of some of the hazards...

Milk diseases:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/252/15/2048
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1416328
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/281/19/1845

raw milk and cheese:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WFP-4HCKH28-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c7b8889ceacc00f5561c04c8d3374bae

If you think that TB is under control (at least in Australia), just think on the idea that the WHO estimates that 2 billion people in the world are infected with it, and it is considered the world's leading cause of death from a single infectious organism, killing at least 2 million people each year.
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/artic/microbes_in_sickness_and_in_health_publications_national_institute_of_allergy_and_infectious_diseases_niaid.htm
The reason that Australia and other countries have lower rates is because of vaccination and pasteuristion, although in the USA, they also have these and the prevalence there is estimated at between 10 and 15 million people.
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/t/tuberculosis/stats.htm

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1308574

Organic meat production does not guarantee animal welfare:

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0301622604001150
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0301622602003093

including higher helminth infections:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TD7-44TCYKN-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3777606d5d92ba84da5cd126fdd1aa32

same goes for chickens (at least in Sweden, but I suspect elsewhere also):
http://www.actavetscand.com/content/43/S1/S37

Oh sure, you may argue modern dairy methods will save you from gastro-enteric infection or worse (tuberculosis, scarlet fever) from raw milk, but how do you know? Who tests the farms? or the milk? is it even tested?

Who is regulating the organic industry?
Where's the uproar for stronger controls for companies and farms gambling with our health? There's certification,certainly, but who's testing the products to make sure they are free of disease?

More research and stronger regulation is needed.

Organic and 'raw' products healthier? No evidence to say that they are, it's just a belief system.

You guys will pay through the nose if it fits with your ideology.

Personally, I'm getting my kids vaccinated and letting them drink pasteurised milk and eat normal safe products. If they don't like it then there's no need to panic there's plenty of other ways to get the nutrients without the risks.

Oh, and Bronwyn, the apparent 'statistic' of "To gain the goodness you did in a 1950s apple, you now need to eat three from today's supermarkets" needs evidence of it's own. Did you do the study yourself?

*Anything that has grown without chemicals and artificial fertilizers has to be better as rule*

That of course is highly debatable. I've heard of organic meat
farmers, feeding their livestock "certified organic soya meal"
from China. I'd rather that you eat it then me lol.

What do you mean by "artificial" fertilisers ?

Plants take up their nutrients in the form of N, P, K, etc,
no matter where those nutrients come from. They can all be
labled as "chemicals" no matter from which source.

Phophorus basically is mined where birds used to crap alot,
Nauru, Christmas Island etc. Eventually its turned back into
superphosphate.

Potash comes from potash mines in places like Canada, natural
deposits. Its basically crushed rock.

N is still natural N, in the form of natural gas, eventually
turned into plant available forms.

The point is, farming is not hunter gathering. If you
extract nutrients from the soil, you have to put them back,
or you are mining, not farming.

Nutrients have to come from somewhere. Now in China they
use human excreta on some of their crops and recycle nutrients
that way. That of course could then be classified as "organic"

OLO is now given to posting the thinly veiled rants of sales and business people spitting sour grapes because they couldnt get a sale.

These people might put their energy into improving their sales schtick and/or marketing spin.

This one is a classic... they dont want MY product therefore THEY have a problem.

Also, people are getting a bit weary of all this lean, mean and green organic spin. As a business owner, the gains are often marginal at best. Often they are more trouble than they're worth. And become little more tham poorly performing, thinly veiled marketing and advertising. Local paper adverts are much more effective.

In this green/organic area, you need to imbue this stuff with sentiments like 'ethics' with a heavy dose of faux guilt and latent shame and responsibility or whatever. BUT, people resent being coralled in such an obviously cynical way. And its getting to the point that no matter how you spin it, folks are just gonna reject it because they dont believe in it anymore.

And this article is all cynisicm. Its all motivated by self interest.

Now, if you were REALLY being honest and ethical, you would be telling people to NOT DRINK MILK. And to lay off the caffeine too. And to stop milling around cafes and restauraunts, wiling away the time, whilst CONSUMING, CONSUMING, CONSUMING. Which. lets face it is the root cause of mass-production, farming and food processing practices that pump out very large yields of food with sub-standard nutrional value. In fact so sub-standard, that foods are routinely fortified due to their lax nutrional content. "Empty Hydrocarbons" is what l like to call them.

You are fighting a fundamental conflict of your ethics versus your pusuit of money. The only ways to solve it are to lie to yourself about it or accept the irreconcileable conflict and do it anyway.

All the best. This is how business is... full of compromise.

Coming from a farm I wouldn't drink raw milk because of possible salmonella, this is despite cows being TB tested and in good healthy condition.

As a business owner I wouldn't sell raw milk because of the possibility of being sued if anyone fell ill. With pasteurised milk I have a guarantee of quality, a standard.

If a person wants raw milk in their coffee while out they are welcome to bring it with them in a vacuum flask. It would be very doubtful if the risks and inconvenience of supplying raw milk would be worth the trouble and adherents would be unlikely to pay a sufficient premium for it. Then there are those who would want it skim.

aw gee, trade. I love the stuff.

Raw milk is potentially dangerous. That is why pasteurization was invented.

http://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/cheesespotlight/cheese_spotlight.htm

There have been a number of deaths and illnesses in Washington State, US associated with raw milk http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5608a3.htm?s_cid=mm5608a3_e

Even in cow share operations.

Raw milk is not too dangerous taken straight from the teat, but storage gives the chance for disease organisms to build up.

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2007/NEW01576.html

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/rawmilk.html

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~acrobat/milksafe.pdf

The author’s statements about pasteurization are wrong and easily refuted.

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2004/504_milk.html

The simple fact of the matter is that pasteurization is a well-established public health benefit with substantial scientific support. Now if we can just get over these anti-science accusations and back to the job of feeding people safely.

Yabby

As a farmer yourself you should know that artificial fertilizers mainly involve nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium without replacing other micronutrients or trace elements and they don't do much for soil structure. Also these fertilizers are spread at a higher rate than the plants need and ends up running off into water systems and create major pollution (including eutrophication).

I know from my own experience as an organic grower that soil nutured with compost, composted manure, rock dust, leaves, green manures, seaweed etc produces better vegetables.

A few years ago, an episode of ABCs Landline demonstrated farmers in Western Victoria using denser tree lines around their pastures benefited not only from the positive effects on soil erosion but on soil fertility from leaf litter. It was followed up later to see if the results were still evident and they were. A recent Landline episode featured a group of farmers in Young NSW producing high nutrient compost for those wishing to decrease the use of articifical fertilizers.

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s2240246.htm

I would ask you to keep an open mind Yabby, I know it is hard to change the habits of a lifetime and even harder to challenge ingrained methods and beliefs in agriculture but even farming methods can change and develop for a greater good. :)

*I would ask you to keep an open mind Yabby, I know it is hard to change the habits of a lifetime and
even harder to challenge ingrained methods and beliefs in agriculture but even farming methods can
change and develop for a greater good. :)*

Ok Pelican, I ask the same of you, but I also ask you to question voodoo agriculture
and at least accept that science can be of benefit for us to understand what we are doing. Sorry, but burying a cowhorn does not do it for me.

It seems to me that you are confusing bad farming practise with good farming practise and that in WA, we are actually a long way ahead of you, when it comes to broadscale
agriculture. Compost is great for your veggie patch, but not the best method, when it
comes to growing a 10’000 acre wheat crop for instance.

Good farming practise involves tissue testing etc and applying various nutrients, including micro nutrients. Organic matter levels, soil carbon levels etc, are in fact
rising with no till/deep till farming, as it was too much cultivation which destroyed
soil structure and organic matter levels in the first place.

Green manuring crops in some years works as well for those who also use bagged
fertiliser as those who don’t. The point is fertilisers are not “artificial”, some
forms are simply more concentrated then others. I admit that mistakes can be
made more easily with concentrates, so it is safer for dummies to stick to organics :)

If a farmer keeps applying more N,P or K, when in fact the plants are short on
zinc or copper, etc, that is simply bad farming, not the system which is flawed.

Voodoo goodness me Yabs, you are showing your own bias here. Not sure how you get voodoo out of organic when it is a natural way of farming and is less 'interfering ' of the natural state than traditional agriculture ie. attempts to work with nature not against it as with permaculture.

But you can always be relied on for a fiery retort Yabby (although you were quite polite this time).

I like to think I do keep an open mind hence why I mentioned my doubts about raw milk and also why I choose not to indulge in other activities like visiting homeopaths etc. Not everything marketed as 'natural' is necessarily good for us and sometimes it may not even be 'natural'. Each situation or practice should be judged on its own merit. I agree that some farmers using fertilizers may make better judgements and analysis to ensure that application methods are sound, not all traditionalists could be bad - not statistically possible. :)

Based on your argument about dummies and agriculture, and given the state of the Murray Darling Basin, increase in blue green algae, excessive land clearing and other effects of high nitrogen runoff in our waterways (just to mention a few), you better go tell some of your mates in the industry to switch to organics pronto. ;)

PS: burying cow horns with cow poo is a biodynamic method devised under the Steiner view of the world, NOT organics although the two may cross paths on occasion.

bennie,

l love the stuff too. Used to drink a litre or two a day. Its especially good when its cold enuff to give ya that slight bolt of pain to the noggin.

l pretty much stopped cold tho. Since then, my allergies have cleared up. l have a couple of nieces and milk is like poison for them, they have very high food intolerances. Something that is becoming quite widespread. These days, some kids travel with a shot in case they get bowled over by a peanut. Arguably, this is a product of the a sort of commercialised adulteration of the food production process and if anything an arguement against processed foods (and for raw).

Cow milk just aint that good for the human gut. And milk has a nasty thing in it called casein.

Then again a drop in a brew cant hurt.

Ah Pelican, I might be more open minded about all this then you are! For I am
on record on OLO for suggesting a number of times, that permaculture might in
fact be the way to solve the third world food crisis, rather then trying to force
Western farming methods on them. They have the land and labour after all.

Permaculture is ideal for small scale and home grown food production, I have never
disputed that. That is quite different to large scale grain production, as we practise it,
where organic farming is largely a failure.

Voodoo farming is what I call things, when people take on a touchy feely religious
fervour about their farming methods, rather then good science. That was evident
in the very article which you posted a link to.

I won’t comment on the Murray Darling, as its at the other end of the country, so
not my area of expertise. No doubt cows crapping in the river along its banks does
not help the algal bloom story. Yup, some overuse concentrated fertilisers.
The rising cost of those, should assist to make them use them more wisely in future.

The thing that you have to remember is that hunter gathering was the natural state,
farming was interfering with nature in the first place. I have yet to be convinced
that large scale cultivation of soil, over and over again to kill weeds, is better then
applying a litre of Roundup. I’ve seen too many peoples soils wash away with
cultivation, which is what organic farmers rely on, when they try to grow grain crops.

What we did wrong was simply to try and adopt European farming to Australian soils
and in some respects it has been a big failure. What you are now seeing is Australian
technology emerging to solve Australian problems. The result is higher crop yields
with less rainfall, better soil health and higher soil organic matter levels. We are
doing all this with concentrated fertilisers, which in this case makes far more sense
then anything which you have suggested :)

.

trade, just wondering what makes casein nasty?

I think you make a good observation about the increasing levels of allergies. It could be because of how "clean" we keep our children and their environment- anti-bacterial wipes, household germ killers etc.
http://voanews.com/english/Science/2008-05-29-voa31.cfm

rojo, Monday, 2 June 2008 10:54:58 PM: "I think you make a good observation about the increasing levels of allergies. It could be because of how "clean" we keep our children and their environment- anti-bacterial wipes, household germ killers etc."

You can tell that to the Aboriginal children who are very much at risk from the lack of basic hygiene in their environments eg., soap and water after the toilet and before preparing and eating food.

However the risk of salmonella alone in raw milk should dissuade you from feeding it to infants and at-risk adults.

Returning to coffee houses and other sellers of prepared food, if I was in that business, there is no way you could convince me to store and supply raw milk because the possible pathogens leading to cross contamination and food poisonings. There is also the likelihood that some of the growing ranks of litigious customers, upon finding out that raw milk was being used, could target my shop for the usual "give me $30k and I will go away" shakedown that is so common for small business owners.

rojo--just wondering what makes casein nasty?

On Monday, Radio National's Health Report titled 'Health Controversy surrounding Milk' featured a professor from Deakin Uni who discussed his review of work done investigating a couple of cow's milk proteins A1 and A2, the former being investigated for a possible link to type 1 diabetes and other illnesses-- Casein was mentioned. There is an audio transcript available,(sadly not a text transcript for this programme).
I used to drink raw milk when I lived in a rural area, but I knew the milker, who was fanatically clean. I also boarded someone's milking goat when they were vacationing without ill effect, but would never trust raw milk from just anywhere.

I continue to question the benefits of cows' milk and ask why we humans are the only mammals who continue to drink milk after weaning?

While I prefer to purchase organic products wherever possible, I also endeavour to glean as much information as possible on the product.

Interestingly, those countries who have the highest consumption of cows' milk also have the highest rate of osteoporosis.

More surprising is Yabby's naivety of agricultural practices in his own state (and others.) There is cause for concern when farmers in Australia have availed themselves of free "fertilisers" which happen to be human faeces suitable only for disposal at a Class 4 landfill.

It's a "solution" being embraced by governments around the world. Farmers get free fertiliser and officials wave goodbye to their toxic sludge.

However, much of these free "biosolids" or sludges in WA have come from the infamous hazardous waste plant, Brookdale, which was covertly handling PCBs and the most hazardous industrial wastes in the state. These biosolids contain heavy metals, unmetabolised pharmaceuticals etc.

"Cornell University in the US raised more concerns in a study on sludge use. Among its chief concerns was the presence of dioxins.

"It said: "Some crops grown on sludge-treated land are fed to animals, cows and other herbivores that ingest soil as they graze. The greatest route of human exposure to dioxin, a human carcinogen, is through consumption of meat and dairy products."

"Lee Bell, of the WA Contaminated Sites Alliance, said people had every right to be worried. "We only test for a small range of contaminants and we have guidelines that are not legally enforceable," he said.

"There is not an adequate regulatory regime in place to control the use of biosolids in our agricultural markets and it is very easy for contamination to get into our food supply by biosolids."

Information on the use of human faeces and sludges in Australia's agriculture industry is suppressed - consumers are kept in the dark. There is no requirement for labelling.

Consumers are entitled to more!

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,15729670-2761,00.html

*While I prefer to purchase organic products wherever possible, I also endeavour to glean as much information as possible on the product.
There is cause for concern when farmers in Australia have availed themselves of free "fertilisers" which happen to be human faeces*

Ah the joys of organic farming lol. Its all certified you know,
no superphosphate or potash from Canada in there at all!

Yabby

Your propensity to manipulate the truth and your hatred of organic farming is well known on OLO.

None of the farms mentioned in the link I provided are certified organic. Lol!

*A recent Landline episode featured a group of farmers in Young NSW producing high nutrient compost for those wishing to decrease the use of articifical fertilizers.

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s2240246.htm

I would ask you to keep an open mind Yabby,*

It seems that only Sydney sludge is good enough for those
organic growers :) That was posted by Pelican, an organic
grower, on 31-5.

cornflower, despite being raised on raw milk from our then dairy I do not advocate raw milk consumption, and definately not for infants. Casein exists in pastuerised milk too, and is in effect the milk protein. I don't see the problem with it, and I was wondering what made it "nasty" in trades view.

So how many aboriginal kids suffer allergies or asthma?
"There was a much lower rate of allergy amongst the Aboriginal children" http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s330451.htm

Thanks digiwigi, I'll have a look, but i did read this the other day:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23704825-23289,00.html

dickie,
"why we humans are the only mammals who continue to drink milk after weaning?"
Not true, dogs and cats love the stuff, they like other animals just don't have a domesticated cow collection and can't get it themselves. They probably would if they could.

The International Osteoporosis Foundation doesn't present a negative link between milk and osteoporosis(that seems to be a conclusion drawn by peta,viva or similar groups and spread amongst themselves and gullible followers).
Quite the contrary,
"Lactose intolerance has been shown to be associated with low bone mass and increased risk of fracture due to low milk (calcium) intake"
"Studies in children and adolescents have shown that supplementation with calcium, dairy calcium-enriched foods or milk enhances the rate of bone mineral acquisition"
http://www.iofbonehealth.org/facts-and-statistics.html

Human sewerage(treated) should be used as fertiliser, otherwise the nutrients are simply being stripped from farmland . We can make nitrogen fertiliser easily enough while natural gas supplies last, but known deposits of accessible phosphates and potassium are limited. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1746303.htm
Of course there will be some like Rosemary Morley who can't accept natural cycles, and that recycling happens elsewhere in the world- natural or otherwise.

By the way it was the biological plant's waste that was class 4 landfill, not the human faeces component (from your link). All endeavors should be made to keep such waste seperate, it's not legal to pour it down the drain in WA is it

Rojo

Dogs love chocolate too which can kill them. Please let me know if you are able to find a vet worldwide who recommends feeding cows' milk to a cat or a dog. Cows' milk is notorious for causing diarrhoea in cats.

Dairy products (especially milk, fermented cheeses and yoghurt) should not be fed to dogs as most dogs are lactose intolerant and their levels of lactase (responsible for the digestion of milk sugar) decreases with age.

"The International Osteoporosis Foundation doesn't present a negative link between milk and osteoporosis(that seems to be a conclusion drawn by peta,viva or similar groups and spread amongst themselves and gullible followers)."

Rojo. I have not obtained my information from “Peta, Viva or similar groups” and like Yabby, you should refrain from describing those who oppose your views as “gullible”:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050805064340.htm

http://www.upc-online.org/health/121603milk.htm

http://www.notmilk.com/kradjian.html

“By the way it was the biological plant's waste that was class 4 landfill, not the human faeces component (from your link)."

Rojo. Again you distort the facts. Trucks often brought mixed loads, which resulted in cross-contamination of waste streams. Simply put human faeces was mixed with industrial hazardous waste. This plant was "regulated" by the Department of Environment.

I am privy to FOIs obtained on the operations of Brookdale. Are you?

The “biological” sludge (human faeces) was deemed suitable only for a Class 4 landfill. In my opinion it should have gone to a Class 5 landfill. Instead, it was given free to farmers and the public. It was also sold as soil conditioner. The overwhelming evidence reveals that the “treatment” was shabby indeed, if in fact it was treated at all. Class 5 is the most hazardous and I would suggest that the sludge in question was suitable only for that grade.

And while I realise that human sewage is a problem and does need to be recycled in a safe manner, I, unlike you, are not so “gullible” as to believe that government regulators and operators of the intensive production of dairy cattle, are yet operating with any altruistic motives.

I would again advise: "Buyers beware."

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19394839&BRD=1698&PAG=461&dept_id=220548&rfi=6

http://www.prwatch.org/taxonomy/term/106/9

*I, unlike you, are not so “gullible” as to believe that government regulators and operators of the intensive production of dairy cattle, are yet operating with any altruistic motives.*

Ah those evil operators of dairy cattle! Thats ok Dickie, you
just keep buying those yummy organic veggies grown with human
sludge and pay extra for them, as you should. Farmers deserve
to make a quid too. On the question of how gullible you are,
well umm, as long as you believe in how you spend your money,
I am sure that some farmer out there will take it from you :)

.

rojo, Wednesday, 4 June 2008 12:08:35 AM

One swallow does not make a summer and that single study has raised more questions, not answers.

Now what about the number of Aboriginal children that suffer from deadly diseases like dysentery or food poisoning, which basic hygiene could eradicate?

Pasteurized milk is heated to destroy harmful organisms and anyone who feeds it to infants or at risk adults is asking for trouble. If you want to have raw milk then go ahead but don't expect the remainder of the population to subsidise it for you.

Yabby the article I linked to was just one example of farmers (people like you) using treated slugde (no pathogens) as fertilizer to improve soil conditioning. It has worked.

I have visited a plant where human manure is treated by separating the solids and then burning them off in a furnace to kill any remaining pathogens. The ash that is left has been used quite successfully.

The only trepidation I have with sludge is that there may be other contaminants in it such as heavy metals which could easily get into the sewage system.

Anyway, most organic farmers do not use this sludge so you can rest easy. I have also visited a nut grove, an apple orchard and a market garden where organic methods are applied with great success.

The difficulty with organics as you rightly say, is with the larger scale concerns and the cost involved to convert. Once an organic system is established it is not as difficult as you infer to continue with these practices but naturally it is a case by case basis depending on climate, soil type, access to water etal.

Research on large scale organic farming was being researched from the 'soil health' perspective end at the CSIRO until funding was cut for organic research in favour of GMO etc. Farmers raised concerns about declining soil fertility and declining organic carbon.
I believe this is short sighted.

Sometimes I don't believe the prejudice against organic farming especially a comment made by another poster on a different thread knocking organics such as 'free range eggs' as some sort of hippie left wing nonsense. Don't people realise that free range eggs is how eggs are produced in the wild and how they were produced until man decided to put them in cages to live out their lives in appalling misery. Now suddenly natural is considered voodoo and has been politicised for some reason I cannot quite fathom.

*Anyway, most organic farmers do not use this sludge so you can rest easy*

Pelican, I can rest easy anhyhow, its Dickie who has her knickers in
a twist about sludge. Dickie also claims that I hate organic
farming, which is rubbish.

My point all along is that both organic and normal farming have
their roles, as long as they are done in a wise manner. I've
seen so called biodynamic farms go from bad to worse, year after year,
as their owners made yet another excuse as to why things were not
working as they thought they would. I've also seen some of the
no till farms, where chemicals are used, with paddocks full of
earthworms.

So my point is, its not all black and white, one system having
all the answers and the other being evil. Good farming practise
is what its all about, which means an understanding of soil, plant
nutrition, etc.

I agree with you about free range chooks.

Where the voodoo comes in, is when people approach all this
with emotional, religious kind of fanaticism, claiming that you
will die if you don't listen to their preachings. People get
sick of it and simply don't believe them. Fair enough.

Rojo

"I think you make a good observation about the increasing levels of allergies. It could be because of how 'clean' we keep our children and their environment- anti-bacterial wipes, household germ killers etc."

I think there's something in this theory. I think it's also quite possibly related to the way our immune systems are being increasingly compromised through the accumulative effects of chemicals, heavy metals, immunization, radiation, fluoride and all the other largely inescapable hazards of modern western living.

Pelican

Love your take on organic farming and agree with every word.

"I have visited a plant where human manure is treated by separating the solids and then burning them off in a furnace to kill any remaining pathogens."

Pelican

Your post is worthy of merit and I'm aware of human waste being incinerated for use in agriculture which will indeed enrich soils.

However, when you combine heat, carbon and chlorine, the potential for the formation of dioxins arises. Chlorine is used extensively in Australia to decontaminate public water schemes. It is well known that dioxins like hanging around sewage farms.

Therefore, incineration needs to be strictly regulated. We cannot continue solving one problem by manufacturing another.

Despite statistics showing that farmers have an elevated rate of cancers, which dozens of scientific researchers attribute to the use of chlorinated pesticides, the "Yabbys" in conventional farming continue to scoff.

Dioxins are not regulated in Australia. The last time I checked, one sample testing for dioxins costs in the range of $2 thousand.

Incomplete combustion of waste containing chlorine, such as starting up and shutting down a kiln, can form dioxins which often reside in the ash. The greatest source of human contamination of PCDDs is from the consumption of meat and dairy products - livestock which ingest dioxins whilst grazing. Dioxins have invaded the entire food chain - even the Inuits of the Arctic are now contaminated, a result of their marine diet.

If human waste ash is to be used on pastures where livestock and poultry graze, then I can only say that this practice would be totally irresponsible. I would certainly restrict the use of this product to undisturbed, non-grazing areas.

Australia is signatory to the Stockholm Convention. Over 90 countries have agreed to commence the "Elimination, prevention or reduction of the "dirty dozen" of chlorinated compounds though the "bad boys" of these nations, Australia and America, sought exemptions to continue using some chlorinated chemicals.

Ninety nations with their "knickers in a twist" Yabby? Either you've a conflict of interest or you prefer to operate in the dark ages.

And remember: "First do no harm."

http://www.besafenet.com/Sludge.htm

http://www.pops.int/documents/guidance/beg_guide.pdf

Hi dickie and thanks Bronwyn :)

"And remember: "First do no harm."

I agree dickie and thanks for your post - I wasn't aware of the dioxin issue with incineration so I will follow that up.

I should add I do not personally use human manure (from any source) but am open to any new method that might aid organic farmers. But as you rightly say, there is always a risk of creating another negative impact or side-effect while trying to solve another problem.

Yabby I have not found too many proponents of organics the same as religious zealots. In the main they are people hoping that science and governments will focus as much research and funding on more natural methods of farming as they might on, say GMO. I have seen many more a zealous and angry GMO advocate than any organic farmer defending their 'cause'. :)

(Ps. Not saying you are one of those Yabby as I don't know your stance or attitude on this)

Pelican, research for agriculture in general is being cut back,
unless its directly industry funded, as with say GRDC, through
grower levies. Then you as growers have a direct say, as crop
growers do, but it will cost you. People like CSIRO are moving
out of agriculture, into things like climate change etc.

GM certainly has a role to play in plant breeding, but I don't
see it as black and white as others do. If say a newly mutated
rust strain threatens world wheat crops, GM could save those
global crops, unlike any other technology. OTOH the main focus
is on Roundup ready GM at the moment and my problem with that is
that Roundup is such a valuable tool in farming these days, that
growing plants resistant to it is perhaps asking for trouble.

I remind you that in "conventional" plant breeding, it is not
unknown to treat seeds with dna mutating chemicals, as perchance
those mutants might have characteristics that the breeder is
looking for.

So each case has to be examined separately and evaluated. I was
reading today that European organic food processors source a third
of their soyabeans from China, which is the largest organic
farming nation. They prefer Chinese "organic" soyabeans to US
gm soyabeans. Not me lol, I'll let you organic people eat those
Chinese beans :)

Meantimes let's hope that Dickie has found a sludge free organic
shop, so that she could untwist her knickers

cornflower, wow you sure cut me down in flames. ouch.

If you are really asking what I would prefer- allergy or dysentry I'd pick allergy. My observation was simply about allergies and their prevelance, I said nothing about creating unhygienic conditions to combat such.

You were the one who questioned about aboriginal children taking the argument beyond allergies, and then complain when at least some evidence is presented in my favour. Good one.

Are you joking? I said I would not advocate raw milk to anyone, certainly not infants. or at risk people. I grew up before that info obviously. I haven't consumed any for 25 years.

dickie, not ignoring you I'll be back later. I didn't say milk was good for cats and dogs, just that they love it. I don't feed dogs chocolate for that very reason.

First of all we should take care of the health only....
Because if we were healthy we can earn money at anytime...

helen

Alcohol abuse affects millions. This site has a lot of useful information.

http://www.alcoholabusecenter.com

Helen, I am sorry, but I fail to see the relevance of your post. Are you suggesting that drinking raw milk has a link with alcoholism or are you just spamming?

dickie, sorry for the delay, i know how prompt you like me to be.

your 3 links fail to prove any definate statement that milk is anything other than beneficial with regard to osteoporosis. The first on ovarian cancer "supports a hypothesis" for the cohort studies[3] but not the case-control studies[18].

You present an argument by Karen Dawn, a self professed "spokesperson for the animal protection movement"- what would you expect her to say?

As to Dr Kradjian, I have to laugh, either he is the basis for "cows' milk is for calves" and the "why not rat milk?" or he's further perpetuating vegan propaganda. (probably because rats bite, are small, and were hard to hand milk). How about the "pus" factor? he does realise thats in human milk too?
I couldn't agree more with the importance of breast milk, and wouldn't recommend cows milk in it's place either.
Lactose is a problem for those who are intolerant- I think you'll find they avoid milk anyway, and obviously that doesn't make it bad for the majority of caucasians who aren't intolerant. It does make the increasing demand for dairy products in china a little incongruous.

Why would I be, or want to be, privy to anything about Brookdale? If the newspaper article I read at the time was misleading I'll get over it. It said the sludge was destined for clas 4 landfill but didn't say what level the human waste required. I did assume it would have been less than industrial waste. Didn't the toxic waste plant close years ago?

"You present an argument by Karen Dawn, a self professed "spokesperson for the animal protection movement"- what would you expect her to say?"


Rojo

You were a dairy farmer, therefore what can we expect you to say? Do you believe the authors in the links provided have evil intentions?

All informed people are free to choose whether to consume intensively farmed milk or not and hopefully remain free to express an opinion - particularly when they are concerned about any dietary health implications.

Therefore I advise that I object to consuming antibiotics which are used in animals for human consumption. Antibiotics are used extensively in subtherapeutic doses to promote growth by increasing weight gain and improving feed utilisation.

In Australia, more antibiotics are used on a tonnage basis in animals than in humans.

One such antibiotic is the glycopeptide avoparcin. In Australia, it is registered for use as a growth promoter in chickens, pigs, calves, beef and dairy cattle. It is also approved for prophylaxis of necrotic enteritis (caused by Clostridium perfringens) in broiler chickens.

There has been little consideration for or consultation with consumers who are force-fed these drugs through the food chain.

There is now a very real danger that this abuse of antibiotics is producing antibiotic resistant bacteria that can cause disease in humans and animals. These diseases will be increasingly difficult to treat because of the antibiotic resistance.

The Brookdale Hazardous Waste plant closed during 2004. However, the operations are now conducted at Total Waste Management in Kalgoorlie just 500 metres from a restaurant (with an evaporative A/C) and a fuel depot.

Toxic emissions and odours were so foul that over 400 Kalgoorlie citizens went on a protest march to no avail.

However, the company finally used yet another chemical to mask the odours emitting from the evaporation ponds. This was sufficient to gag the citizens.

Masking odours (the canary in the coal mine) does not mitigate the odourless and invisible gaseous emissions of hazardous chemicals which can be unwittingly inhaled by communities in close proximity to the plant.

Could this be the fate of some of our used up, intensively farmed dairy cows?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1_BOAF7qvk

um dickie, hello. You said you didn't get your info from peta, viva and the like, but really you do if you use someone like Ms Dawn as a basis for your ideas.
"Their African-American brothers and sisters, who ingest on average more than 1,000mg of calcium a day, are nine times more likely to experience hip fractures."

Hang on, aren't 90% of "blacks" lactose intolerant according to Dr Kradjian, why would we then assume that the 1000mg is from milk? And what about the life expectancy of the Bantu?

I'm sure osteoporosis is uncommon in china, but not because they don't drink milk.

Do I think the authors have evil intentions? No dickie I don't think they have, I believe they truly are "doing it for the animals" , the end justifying the means. They see things differently to the majority, but happen to think they have exclusive access to "enlightenment". What I don't like is people lying to further their cause, outright or otherwise. If the cause is so "right" why doesn't the truth stand on it's own feet.
Why not simply leave it at "we don't like the exploitation of dairy cows", provide factual evidence and have people make up their own minds as to whether that is a sufficient reason to give up milk.

You are free in my book to bring whatever you like to the table about intensively farmed milk(meat, artichokes, lavender...) and if it's truthful you have nothing to worry about from me. It's the "informed" part that can be a bit troubling.

Your reticence to consuming antibiotics used in animals for human consumption is duly noted. To those who feel the same a large amount of organic animal derived produce is available for purchase in a supermarket near you.

For the rest:
"In Australia and Europe, farmers are banned from using antibiotics used in human medicine on animals. "Food in Australia is safer than it's ever been and of the highest quality," [Prof]Bryden says. "I'm staggered by these popular misconceptions"

http://www.smh.com.au/news/diet/ethical-eating-fads-and-facts/2007/01/17/1168709825145.html?page=fullpage

Rojo

Your propensity to use the ad hominem is becoming tiresome and reveals that your debate is influenced by self-interest and not worthy of response. You know little about lactose intolerance or the symptons.

http://www.sciencewa.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1955&Itemid=587

Furthermore you audaciously claim "What I don't like is people lying to further their cause, outright or otherwise."

Touche Rojo and here's an example where the Chicken Industry advise:

"The Australian Chicken Meat Federation endorses the use of antibiotics in chickens in two important ways:

"• therapeutic agents - used to treat bacterial infection

"• preventative agents - used to prevent disease occurring in healthy animals."

Antibiotics ARE growth promoters and I must ask: "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" Why are antibiotics being force-fed to healthy chickens?

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/2001938.htm

In addition could you provide any peer reviews on Professor Bryden's assertion that "In Australia and Europe, farmers are banned from using antibiotics used in human medicine on animals."

All other scientific journals claim the opposite. Researchers at the University of South Australia reported in the journal:

"The major influences on the amplification and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria are the therapeutic use of antibiotics in human medicine and their use in livestock for therapy, prophylaxis and growth promotion."

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s380300.htm

"By 2006, the use of antimicrobial agents for growth promotion was no longer approved in the EU; however, this inappropriate use of antimicrobial agents for food animals continues in North America and Australia." (Science Direct 11/7/07)

The British Society of Animal Science reported:

"There had been controversy both in Europe and the USA about possible carcinogenic risks in beef from cattle implanted with stilbenes. In July 1981 they were banned in the EU with the agreement of all member states. (They are also banned in the US and other major cattle-producing countries.) These substances are still approved for use in the US and other countries, including Australia, Canada and New Zealand."

I suggest you take your vacuous argument to the scientific institutes I have cited.

dickie, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

None of your osteoporosis articles had any scientific (let alone logical) merit and thats my fault for pointing it out? Then you proceed to tell me I don't know much about lactose intolerance . A very poor assumption on your part, but I don't expect any better. Certainly no-one could have anywhere near the "knowledge" you possess, could they now? Even you have no idea how you have come to that conclusion, and so the only reason you say such a thing is to belittle me. You've said similar things to me before, I guess it has something to do with insecurity and self esteem. Try not to do it at my expense.

"Antibiotics ARE growth promoters" actually that is totally incorrect. What antibiotics do is enable growth to happen uninhibited. In the absence of retardent pathogens antibiotics would do nothing to further growth rate. Take a moment and think about it.

"Why are antibiotics being force-fed to healthy chickens? " Isn't the point to keep them healthy? From your link: "It's administered in drinking water" hmmm force fed, typical of your propagandist approach. It doesn't help credibility.

"The major ..... growth promotion."
where does it say in your quote that human medicines are used in animals? Or in any of your quotes? Don't you think "antibiotic-resistant bacteria" can relate to the antibiotics actually used in animals?
I don't understand why you use terms like "vacuous argument" when you only end up strenghtening my points. Even you couldn't find a source saying human medicines are used in Australian animals, but good attempt to muddy the waters nonetheless.

sadly your information is becoming less and less believable, once upon a time it was good, accurate even, what has happened?
Your comprehension is lacking a bit too, I'm sorry to say. Surely you have noticed too? it's been quite apparent on the peta thread, but I didn't want to say.
In all honesty, have a chat to your doctor. my concern is genuine.