DVD!
photo credit: kevinspencer
What is the True Quality of Your Milk?
by Bill Gehm, UdderlyBetterMilk.com
Most, if not all consumers expect that the milk they consume is of high quality. The primary measure of quality in the dairy industry is somatic cell count which is measured in numbers of cells per milliliter. A somatic cell is a white blood cell and is present in the milk in elevated levels due to a bacterial infection. The current U.S. legal limit is 750,000 cells/ml. This equates to about 375 million white blood cells in a medium sized glass of milk. High SCC levels in milk are not desirable for many reasons which include the fact that with the presence of high levels of SCC, bacteria or both will result in activating lipolytic and proteolytic enzymes that breakdown milk fat and protein resulting in off flavors and shorter shelf life. Since these enzymes are heat stable and not completely inactivated by pasteurization, milk protein and fat degradation continues even in refrigerated pasteurized products.
The question now becomes what is the true quality of milk being processed. The University of Minnesota disclosed in the Journal of Animal Science that less than 26% of the herds of that state were capable of consistently delivering milk with an SCC under 400,000 and that only 38% could consistently meet the legal limit of 750,000.
This information prompted me to determine what the data is for New York State dairy herds. A local milk processor was contacted and willingly provided the data for herds shipping milk to that processor. A review of that data revealed that the SCC results were very similar to those for Minnesota. Another processor was contacted and rudely stated that the data was not going to be made available. I then submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to NYS Department of Ag & Markets requesting the SCC data for NYS dairy herds.
The request was made in August of 2009 and was followed by mixed periods of silence, questions, requests to reduce the amount of data and finally a denial of the request by Rebecca Smith stating that the basis of denial was that the request was “too broad or vague to address”. I had provided numerous responses to questions and even provided specific web site addresses containing the data and details to simplify the request. It is my opinion that NYS Department of Ag & Markets simply does not want to disclose the facts regarding the “quality” of milk being accepted for human consumption.
The limited data received from the one NYS processor shows that quantities of milk are being accepted that do not meet the legal maximum allowable SCC limit. The data also shows that many herds are not capable of meeting the level of 400,000 which is not considered to be high quality milk. The average of the data is all that the industry speaks of. The average of the herds producing milk with an SCC below 200,000 with herds producing above 400,000 is typically just under 400,000. This basically means that the poor quality milk with high SCC and high bacteria is being diluted with better quality milk to meet the average.
The questions to be asked are the following. Why is NYS unwilling to release milk quality data? Why is milk being processed for human consumption that exceeds the legal limit? What is the true quality of the milk that you drink?
William Gehm
William Gehm was raised on a 70 cow dairy farm and consumed raw milk daily until his father retired from farming. He obtained a B.S. in Applied & Engineering Physics from Cornell University and a M.S. in Electrical Engineering from Syracuse University. His early career was as a Laser Physicist followed by numerous years leading teams of engineers designing mechanical packaging for aerospace engine and flight controls. Throughout that time period his father operated a small dairy farm and battled mastitis and the associated failings of the universities in addressing this costly problem. It was his frustrations with veterinarians and universities blaming dairy farmers for unacceptable milking performance and poor milk quality delivered by conventional milking machines that drove him to research and develop an innovative milking system. The success of that product evolved into a company marketing innovative dairy equipment products worldwide. The focus remains on enabling dairy farmers to be successful in providing quality milk while milking cows in a humane manner to increase their productive life. To learn more about this breakthrough product, visit my Copulsation website. I have also put up a site about Cornell Dairy Research on my system, and a consumer site called Udderlybettermilk.com.
Note from Kimberly:
Bill sent me the SCC data he received from one milk processor. The SCC data is under the column titled OSCC and the numbers are in thousands. Fifteen tests had a U after them, those are over the legal limit and unsatisfactory. That does not mean that the milk was not processed for human consumption. It just means that the farmer was notified to make an improvement within a specified time period. Visit Bill’s Udderly Better Milk website and contact him if you’d like to see the report or any other documentation.
13 Comments
Let me get this straight. By mixing the good quality milk into the horrible stuff, they’re hoping that this mathematical averaging will somehow make the bad stuff go away? That’s like mixing soap into feces and calling it clean.
Whats the data on raw milk?
Whats the data on pastured cows… as compared to those… I assume eat grains?
Very interesting. I would like to know how pastured cows measure up to grain fed cows too.
Fascinating. So mixing contaminated milk with non contaminated milk is acceptable to our rulers. Helps explain why I just can’t stand the taste of factory milk anymore.
Where are the food safety agencies that are supposed to protect us? Oh, they are apparently using all their resources to persecute farmers who produce real milk and consumers who drink real milk.
.-= Stanley Fishman´s last blog ..S 510 Threatens Our Freedom =-.
Yes, I’d also like to know what the typical count is in raw milk.
I wish there was some way to publicize on TV or major newspapers about the FDA raids on raw milk farms and their contrasting lack of interest in contaminated, pasteurized milk sold to the public as “safe.”
.-= Joanne Unleashed´s last blog ..Doreen Hannes on Food Safety and the Future of the Family Farm =-.
Those interested in the topic of organic dairy SCC can search the internet using the search string “SCC organic dairy”. I found a site at http://www.extension.org/article/18645 that compares organic dairy SCC to conventional. The data shows that the typical organic dairy had a worse SCC. This may seem illogical but it could be due to the reduced options for treating the bacterial infections. Both organic and conventional dairies are going to have the same teat canal damage and bacterial invasion problems if using a conventional milking machine. I did some quick searching on pasture dairies and found information at http://www.csuchico.edu/agr/farm/dairy/health/LindaTikofskyPresentation.pdf. The main difference the data shows is that there is less mastitis during the pasture season but unfortunately that season is not typically 12 months out of the year for most locations in the US. Once the cows are forced inside due to inclement weather the situation is similar to confined dairies.
The bottom line is that mastitis is the most significant problem in the dairy industry world-wide regardless of conventional, organic or pasture. They all have a common factor and that is the milking machines used to milk the cows. If you truly want to know the quality of your milk ask the source of your milk to see the detailed records. Don’t simply accept the average and don’t just look at one month’s worth of data.
A pasture-based raw milk producer in Texas posted on a discussion group today that her last SCC count was 143,000.
.-= Joanne Unleashed´s last blog ..Doreen Hannes on Food Safety and the Future of the Family Farm =-.
Please consider that according to the Michigan Working Group on Unprocessed Fresh Milk that SCC counts are highly beneficial when consumed raw and therefore alive.
SCC counts are only a problem when pasteurized and they are killed and start to rot.
I consider SCC counts nearly irrelevant as a food safety issue and not really that important when considered in animal health either. What is much more important are the conditions and the feed given to the animals and whether pathogens are being found.
Mark McAfee
We have been averaging around 170-200,000 SCC.
75% of our cows are under 70,000.
Which is perfect udder health.
Which is pretty amazing considering we milk once a day; our SCC we are told by everyone that supposedly ‘knows’ – that we wouldn’t be able to control it. Ha!
Our Plate count is typically under 10. Coliform counts of three, zero. We do a good clean job with healthy cows. We produce raw milk, not pre-pasteurized milk.
Scott
Can someone point me in the right direction as to where I’d find information on the safe criteria of farm raw milk and other dairy products? I know there is a standard raw milk sellers must follow and I’d like to know what it is and implement something similar here in Morocco as the all important knowledge of raw milk is gaining movement. Thank you.
Alma, see the link in the first paragraph of this post, it is to the Michigan Raw Milk Working Group. They have lots of good information that may help you.
http://hartkeisonline.com/2010/03/26/know-your-raw-milk-history-advises-dr-ted-beals/
Perhaps we should just stop drinking the milk of other species. I wouldn’t drink my dog’s milk nor would I drink giraffe milk… Just because we’ve been brainwashed to believe that milk is healthy doesn’t make it so. I don’t care if it’s grass-fed or grain-fed, it’s the milk of another species of animal. A very large animal at that whose milk is designed to make their babies get very large very quickly. Poor cows. I feel so bad for them. I don’t want their milk, or their pus or hormones or DNA in my body.