Author: admin

  • Raw milk second only to drugs in illegal trade

     

    It’s early Saturday morning, and the Brooklyn street is almost empty. Except at one half-open store, where about 30 people are lined up in the narrow aisle clutching empty backpacks, shopping bags and suitcases. At the door, a man checks each entrant, asking “Are you here for the…pickup?”

    Someone shouts “The van’s coming!” and the place burst into action. People run into the street and come back hauling heavy cartons and cooler chests. Then the store empties as quickly as it filled, as everyone lugs their contraband purchase home.

    And “lug” is the word. What’s being distributed at this store — and in countless offices, backyards, homes, churches and parking lots across the country — is milk. Raw milk.

    Apart from illegal drugs, raw milk — milk that’s unpasteurized and unhomogenized, just as it comes out of the cow — may be the most briskly traded underground commodity in the United States. By a conservative estimate, some 500,000 people in the U.S. drink the stuff, says Sally Fallon, president of the Weston Price Foundation, which is dedicated to spreading the word about raw milk — and making it legal. Her guess is that the true total is closer to a million. Even the Food and Drug Administration, which is doing its best to keep raw milk out of the mouths of citizens, has acknowledged that about 3 percent of U.S. milk drinkers drink it raw.

    It’s not that those Brooklyn milk-buyers were doing anything illegal — drinking raw milk is legal in every state. So is buying it. What’s not legal, except in eight states (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maine, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, New Mexico and Washington), is selling it to the general public. The other 42 states have a variety of bans. In some, it can be sold only on the farm. In others, it can be sold only as pet food. Some outlaw its sale altogether. Federal law prohibits transporting it for sale — even from a state where it’s legally sold — across state lines.

    Skirting the law

    That hasn’t stopped ingenious raw milk drinkers from finding ways around the rules. Some buy the milk in states where it is legal and carry it across state lines themselves. (Milky Way Farm, in Starr, S.C., does a brisk business selling raw milk in parking lots right on the state line to buyers from neighboring states where it’s illegal). Others form milk-buying clubs, which purchase the milk from a farm that’s allowed to sell it and bring it back to a central distribution point. In states where selling raw milk isn’t allowed at all, clever lawyers have taken advantage of old-time laws that let a farmer board and feed a neighbor’s cow to set up cow-share programs. Members legally own the cattle the dairy farmer is raising and milking, and — as owners — get the milk.

    These arrangements may fall within the letter of the law, but they clearly skirt its intent, so raw milk drinkers keep very, very quiet about their sources. A raw milk club in New York demands a reference from a current member before it will let you join. Joining one New Jersey club takes weeks because the club checks out each potential member (to make sure they’re not a government agent in disguise) before letting them in.

    The complicated legal arrangements make buying raw milk something of an ordeal. No running down to the corner for a quick quart: in most cases, buyers must order their raw milk online, usually by the gallon, several days before the pickup. (If you miss the deadline, you have to wait for the next one.) Deliveries are rarely made more than once a week and many are two or more weeks apart. Some buyers have to drive several hours to get to the pickup site, which is often in a hard-to find spot. “I’ve gotten lost so many times,” says Valerie Scott Massimo, a New Jersey raw milk drinker. “The house is un-findable, and they have a wooden fence six feet tall.”

    There’s good reason for these clubs to be cautious. While state authorities rarely go after raw milk buyers, distributors have gotten in trouble — late last year an Ohio raw milk co-op was raided at gunpoint by sheriffs’ deputies. And state officials regularly try to shut down dairies that sell raw milk. The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, which defends farmers’ right to sell raw milk, has a dozen cases on its docket right now. “People have the legal right to drink it,” says Pete Kennedy, interim president. “The problem is finding ways to enable them to exercise their right.”

    If many state officials get their way, exercising that right will get harder, not easier. State officials try continually to tighten the laws governing the sale of raw milk. About a year and a half ago, agriculture authorities in Georgia, where it can only be sold as pet food, proposed requiring all raw milk to be dyed charcoal gray, to make it less attractive to drinkers. (Activists beat that one back). In California, state authorities have tightened the requirements for raw milk testing, says Mark McAfee, owner of Organic Pastures, the state’s biggest raw milk producer, demanding that the milk be free not just of harmful bacteria, but of almost any bacteria at all.

    A government conspiracy?

    Many raw milk enthusiasts see a deep conspiracy behind governmental attempts to prevent the sale of raw milk. McAfee, who’s managed to get into trouble with the law even in a state where raw milk is legal (by insisting on shipping it across state lines), blames it on the drug companies. They don’t want people discovering that food can cure what they’re selling pills for, he says. “They don’t want any encroachment.”

    But a quick look at the past makes it clear why so many governmental officials hold to the need for pasteurization. B.P. (before pasteurization), many dairies, especially in cities, fed their cattle on — to put it bluntly — garbage, and their milk was rife with dangerous bacteria. Pasteurizing it was the only way to make it safely drinkable. After many years of pasteurization, just about everyone simply assumes that raw milk is dangerous stuff. Amy Osborne, a dancer, got a panicked letter from a relative — a dietician — when she heard Osborne was feeding her baby raw milk. “It made my husband really nervous,” she says. Another mother, reluctant even to have her name used, though raw milk is legal in her state, worries about whether to let her children’s friends drink it. “God forbid they get sick and blame it on raw milk, “she says.

    When a raw milk drinker gets sick, that’s generally what happens — whatever the evidence. Years ago, Massimo got sick a few months after starting to drink raw milk from a nearby dairy. Her doctor immediately blamed the milk — even though tests showed no harmful bacteria and nobody else who had drunk the milk had gotten sick. “He was totally convinced,” she says, “and he was a doctor and I wasn’t.” So she stopped drinking it.

    She started again 20 years later when — after moving to New Jersey — she developed diverticulitis and became very weak on the liquid diet that was all she could digest. Her chiropractor, Steven Lavitan, put her on raw milk, and she says she immediately began to feel better. Lavitan, who recommends raw dairy products to many of his clients, says he has even seen cataracts improved by drinking raw milk. He and others claim that raw milk can cure a host of ailments, including asthma, allergies, lactose intolerance and other digestive problems, many of which, they argue, are caused in the first place by drinking pasteurized milk. “Anything that regular milk can cause, raw milk can cure,” Lavitan says.

    It does a body good

    Raw milk lovers advance two basic health arguments. The first (flatly denied by regulators and most nutritional scientists) is that pasteurization destroys or damages many of milk’s most valuable nutrients. The second is that while it may kill dangerous bacteria, pasteurization also kills off all the good bacteria in raw milk — some of the same ones that big dairy companies are now selling as “probiotics” in pricey new yogurt and drink concoctions.

    In fact, supporters argue, raw milk is just as safe as the dairy it comes from. If the cows are healthy and the dairy is spotless, they say, raw milk is safer by far than pasteurized milk, because the beneficial bacteria naturally found in raw milk make it harder for harmful bacteria to grow.

    It’s not just health claims that make raw milk drinkers willing to go to so much trouble to get it. Milk in its natural state simply tastes better, they say — sweeter, richer and more wholesome. Ellen Whalen, a freelance writer and home-schooling mother on Cape Cod, says raw milk even goes sour more pleasantly than pasteurized milk. “Pasteurized milk rots,” she says. “Raw milk doesn’t go bad, it just changes.”

    Help on the way

    Some help for raw milk drinkers may be at hand. In late January, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, who ran for president in 2008, introduced a bill that would legalize the shipment and distribution of raw milk and milk products for human consumption across state lines. It’s an issue of constitutional rights, Paul said in a statement introducing the bill. “Americans have the right to consume these products without having the federal government second-guess their judgment about what products best promote health. “

    One raw milk defender goes even further. Max Kane, the owner of a Chicago raw milk co-op who recently finished a cross-country bicycle trip, during which he ate and drank only raw dairy products to publicize the case for raw milk, would like to see massive civil disobedience. “As long as people keep trying these little ways to circumvent the law, this bull—- is going to continue,” he says. “I think everyone should come forward and say we’re proud to drink raw milk. Otherwise it’s always going to be us running, and them chasing us.”

    If you want to try raw milk…

    Raw milk’s hard to find, Kane found out on his trip, even when, as he did, you’ve got a crew of about a dozen friends e-mailing and cold-calling farmers to hunt the stuff down. The difficulty of getting supplies extended the trip by over a week and forced Kane to cross Mississippi and Louisiana by bus, since the few dairies he could find were too far apart to sustain him. He made it across Texas thanks to a farmer who met him regularly on the road with fresh supplies.

    To find a source near you, start by asking around, especially at health-food stores and farmers’ markets. Unless you’re in one of the eight states where selling it in stores is legal, you won’t be able to buy it at either place. But you may get some leads from other shoppers.

    Keep your eyes out for fundraisers for the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund, or programs sponsored by the Weston Price Foundation. While neither organization actually distributes raw milk, both fight for it, and their supporters are likely to drink it.

    Another way to contact raw milk drinkers is to do a Web search for “raw milk” and your state; there may well be a local organization that fights for it. Start with a search on LocalHarvest.org. Or you can do what Kane did: hunt for local farmers. Check out the Campaign for Real Milk, which lists producers of raw milk and cheese around the country and also provides a useful summary of raw milk’s legal status in each state. (Warning: if you’re not in a state that allows farmers to sell raw milk to the public, the list will be skimpy. Advertising on a raw milk site is “one of easier ways to get in hot water,” notes Kennedy, who says they’re regularly monitored by federal and local officials.)

  • Exotics and sheep restore farmland

    From The Land

    There’s nothing conventional in the management of the Marshall family’s farm at Reidsdale, NSW, and nothing conventional about the results, either.

    Willows, poplars, chestnuts, oaks and bamboo are used as fodder and to regenerate farm soils and streams, running against the official preference for native species—and yet by any measure of health, the landscape is flourishing.

    Soils are friable and well-structured, ensuring that any moisture that falls on the farm stays there.

    Streams flow permanently, in contrast to when Peter and Kate Marshall and their children Keith, Gus and Rita, bought the former dairy farm ‘Woodford Lagoon’ in 1990.

    At the time, the farm—now 250 hectares—was “ruined”, Mr Marshall said, with no permanent water; compacted, acidic soil with no ‘A’ horizon, and dozens of hectares infested with broom bush.

    In one spot, water penetrated only about two centimetres deep during a 10 hour immersion under a flood.

    For much of the property, the first step toward health has been a Yeomans plow towed behind a low-ground pressure Antonio Carraro 4WD tractor. With a seven-tonne break-out on the tynes, the plow rips to 700 millimetres deep, shattering compaction and opening up the soil volume available to plant roots.

    “We’ve got some areas where we excluded the stock 20 years ago and the soil still hasn’t loosened up,” Mr Marshall said. “But the minute we’ve passed a Yeoman’s through it, everything comes to life.”

    Only sheep and goats are allowed back on the uncompacted soil, because the Marshalls have found that cattle hooves apply enough pressure to cause the farm’s soils to “plastically fail”, or compact beyond a point where natural processes can undo the damage.

    Goats have been an essential tool in the farm’s regeneration. Killing the broom with chemical wasn’t an option, Mr Marshall said, because it encourages the seeds scattered beneath the bush to germinate, requiring another dose of chemical—an ongoing vicious cycle.

    Instead, the Marshalls introduced goats to continually defoliate the mature bush and its seedlings. They settled on the Boer as the most fence-friendly and productive breed.

    Between goats, fire, mulching, blading and soil improvement—strategies designed to encourage competitive species as well as kill broom—the bush has been eliminated as a problem on Woodford Lagoon and is now being dealt with on a recently purchased block, ‘Sunnyside’.

    Having worked hard to manage broom, the Marshalls then introduced what some consider to be a range of other weeds.

    Willows, poplars, chestnuts and oaks and bamboo have all played central roles in other human cultures, where they have been valued because of their utility, nutritional value to livestock and, in the case of the trees, their ability to coppice, or quickly reshoot after lopping.

    The Marshalls are using non-invasive single-sex varieties in a grazing system they call “lop and drop”, which utilises the 20 tonnes per hectare per year of timber and vegetative growth produced by their deciduous trees.

    Lopped limbs, “long fodder”, are fed to Suffolk sheep or the goats. The leaves provide a high-protein feed, utilising nutrients drawn from deep within the soil, and are high in condensed tannins, Mr Marshall said.

    That means that less digestive activity is needed by livestock, and subsequently less methane is produced. New Zealand research suggests that condensed tannins also improve twinning rates in sheep.

    Browsing lopped limbs up off the pasture conserves grass, and reduces the parasite load in livestock. Lopped poles are also nibbled free of bark, which prevents them from reshooting where they lie.

    “Once you get used to the sight of poles on the ground, having these big chunks of carbon lying around the landscape are a good thing for many different reasons,” Mr Marshall said.

    “They roughen up the landscape, so wind speeds are slower near the ground.

    “You get different pasture species establishing against the chunks of logs as they rot down.

    “And the logs act to trap debris on the hill slopes very effectively.

    “This system mightn’t suit someone else with a different aesthetic view. But it suits us, and we think it suits our landscape.”

  • Death of Murray Darling forces farmers off the land

    The ABCTV 7.30 Report

    Towns in rural Australia are at risk of dying off as drought and Federal Government policy takes a toll on agriculture and forces a “mass exodus” in some regions.

    The town of Deniliquin in south-west New South Wales is the heart of what was once a thriving agricultural region. But after years of drought, water levels in the Murray River are at their lowest in more than a century.

    With the Federal Government offering to buy back farmers’ water allocations, some are giving up on agriculture altogether.

    Many families and businesses are struggling to survive, prompting a mass exodus from the town.

    The Wettenhall family has been farming in Deniliquin for 30 years, but they have decided they cannot go on.

    The worst drought in history means they have had no water for irrigation for three years and Adam Wettenhall says this year they are only promised a trickle.

    “It’s been incredibly tough. In fact the last three years have just been negative income, we’ve had to pull the heads right in, we’re not spending money on any machinery, we haven’t had a new machine in five or six years,” he said.

    The Wettenhalls are financially crippled by the fixed charges they are forced to pay for water they do not receive.

    ‘Exploiting farmers’

    The Federal Government is buying water directly from farmers to replenish the ailing Murray-Darling system.

    For some it is a welcome cash grab to pay off mounting debt. But Rob Brown, a financial planner in the region, says many farmers believe they are being exploited because the Government is the only buyer and it sets the price.

    “The farmers are frustrated and hurt and know they’re being exploited and the reason they’re being exploited,” he said.

    “They know the Government knows that after 10 years of drought, you’re sitting ducks.”

    Deniliquin has enjoyed decades of prosperity on the back of the rice industry and farmers were drawn to the region by an irrigation scheme they believed would make the region droughtproof.

    But times have changed and the town is experiencing an unprecedented downturn.

    Last year hundreds of people lost their jobs when the rice mill closed. The mill was once the symbol of Deniliquin’s prosperity, the largest rice mill in the southern hemisphere, capable of producing enough grain each day to feed 30 million people.

    Deniliquin’s Mayor Lindsay Renwick estimates that two families are leaving the town a week.

    “Since the rice industry has stopped we have had a mass exodus,” he said.

    Deniliquin’s future

    Now, the big question is, how will farms remain productive when the drought does break if the Federal Government has bought the majority of the water?

    Chairman of the Murray Action Group, Lester Wheatley, is worried that the Government has not considered the future of both food production and the town of Deniliquin.

    “There has been absolutely no concern, no apparent concern by either state or federal government about what we’re going to do about security for the future,” he said.

    “I’m convinced that the Government is not in the slightest bit interested in fact their attitude is more likely to be ‘Well, it’ll be natural attrition. If nobody lives in Deniliquin and everybody moves to the coast, well so be it’.”

    But the Federal Government says it is doing everything it can in the face of a changing climate.

    Minister for Water and Climate Change Penny Wong says the Federal Government is trying to keep the agricultural industry going.

    “We have to face up to a reality of a future where we’re likely to see the less water. What we’re doing is rolling out projects – seeking projects that will ensure efficiencies and continue to produce more crop per drop.”

     

  • Government fails to finance food

    From The Land

     

    CLIMATE change poses a threat to Australia’s food supply on a scale that urgently requires the attention of the Prime Minister, says industry leader Kate Carnell.

    The combination of drought, the proposed emissions trading scheme and the global downturn are all posing significant challenges for Australia’s food industry, but there is a lack of strong government direction to address the problems confronting the sector.

    “The viability of the food manufacturing sector is under threat – and if these challenges are not addressed, they will significantly impact on Australia’s long-term food security, and our capacity to be self-sufficient,” said Ms Carnell, the chief executive of the Australian Food and Grocery Council.

    The $70 billion-a-year food industry, employing 200,000 people, is Australia’s biggest manufacturing industry yet is regulated by about 20 government departments when what is needed is a co-ordinated approach overseen by the Department of Prime and Cabinet, Ms Carnell, a former ACT chief minister, said.

    The impact of drought and the prospect of a carbon trading scheme that would penalise the local industry but not foreign food competitors is highlighting the need for a national food policy.

    “This whole industry is based on available water and low-cost power and really, like any other agricultural products, if your water is not there – no water, no food – that’s a bit of a problem,” Ms Carnell told the National Press Club yesterday.

    That problem becomes more daunting if the price of power rises as a result of the emissions trading scheme, with significant knock-on effects given 90 per cent of the inputs to the food industry comes from Australian farms, Ms Carnell said.

  • Small farmers unplug from global financial crisis

    From The Land

    Highly efficient small-area farming operations are providing a solid foundation for growth for a northern NSW community based financial institution, against a backdrop of widespread global financial uncertainty.

    The 54,000-member Bananacoast Credit Union (BCU), – started almost 40 years ago by a group of banana growers who were having trouble getting finance from banks – has lifted its lending to small-area primary producers by more than 20 per cent in the past six months.

    While some of that is the result of bringing in new members who were previously bank clients, most of the increase has gone to fund new farms or expand existing farm businesses.

    Producers looking to acquire additional or larger properties, take advantage of the good North Coast season and build up stock numbers, increase their mechanisation on-farm, improve soils and build up infrastructure have propelled the credit union into optimistic ground at a time when many Australian financial institutions struggle to deal with mass downturns in the economy.

    BCU agribusiness specialist, Rod Cross, Coffs Harbour, said the coastal farmers his organisation dealt with – which cover industries ranging from beef and dairy to macadamias, blueberries, stone fruit, sugar cane, potatoes and bananas – had built businesses positioned to meet the needs of their markets.

  • Listener tests new biochar approach

    This week, Dieter has excelled himself. In response to the news story about a NZ venture to microwave biomass and produce charcoal, Dieter took himself outside, grabbed a large handfull of grass clippings and threw them into the microwave.

    He not only sent us a photograph of the results to share with you. He drove into the studio (on his no carbon, electric motor cycle) to show them to us first hand (cracked plate and all). Thanks to Dieter’s pioneering efforts you don’t have to try this at home, kids, we already know the results.

    Of course, we have already raised the issue of dedicating resources to growing forests (or any other biomass) simply to expend more energy microwaving it on the basis that the net result is a reduction in global carbon dioxide. Tim Flannery disagrees with us, so what more can we say?