From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.bio.food-science
Subject: Re: Cell counts in Milk
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 17:05:46 +0000

In article <5ese1b$9l5@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, John True
<jtrue@expert.cc.purdue.edu> writes
>Somatic cell counts are an indication of infection in the cow. Such as 
>mastitis. Infected cows have a higher count than healthy cows. 

OK. This is what I thought. Indeed as I understand it this is
mostly/entirely due to infection in the udder. As such it was a useful
guide to milk hygeine quality in the days before instruments capable of
counting individual bacterial cells became available. Unfortunately
somatic cell count also increases with age, so the very tight
specifications on somatic cell counts in milk are detrimental to the
passing on of good genetic material. For example a cow that has reached
the age of 10 or 14 will most likely be high yielding, naturally
resistant to diseases, have high fertility and high yields and will
probably have significantly better feet and udders. Otherwise they would
have died or been culled earlier. Hold onto this thought for a bit.

>The infected cows will of course have a higher number of microorganisms
>in their milk which will most likely result in a shorter shelf life. 

[NB I am not sure this is applicable to pasteurised milk.]

So a BETTER guide to milk hygeine quality is a bactoscan reading where
individual bacteria are fluorescently tagged and counted. Since in the
UK BOTH systems are in use, one presumes one is redundant. A better word
would probably be obsolete. Since one is less accurate, results in less
efficient production and thus a higher cost product it is perhaps time
to review the criteria.

>There is a limit to the number of somatic cells allowed in a sample of milk
>though I can't remember it. If anyone is still interested I'll look it up.

This has varied over the last ten years. It was 1200 (probably K) cells
per ml. This was then dropped to 1000, and now rests at about 500 (400
from July) and the top bonus milk comes in below 150.

So my question is, is milk with a bactoscan of under 10 k/ml and a
somatic count of say 400 inferior to milk with a bactoscan of 100k/ml
and a cell count of 100? Indeed, does the buyer (the dairy) care either
way? If not, why have the criteria?



-- 
'Oz     "Is it better to seem ignorant and learn,
         - or seem wise and stay ignorant?"

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.bio.food-science
Subject: Re: Cell counts in Milk
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 06:37:30 +0000

In article <01bc22a5$6b4eb600$0100007f@savtech.demon.co.uk>, Leslie
Coveney <lescov@savtech.demon.co.uk> writes
>I'm sure you realise that the general hygiene test, the Bactoscan, will be
>measuring bacteria that come from external sources - dirty milk lines etc.,
>as well as from the supposed ill health of the cow. The two tests are,
>therefore, complimentary and neither is redundant.

I am aware of this. However nobody seems to know why the cell count
should be of any value to a dairy if a bactoscan is also done. 

Certainly individual cow cell counts can be of value in spotting
persistant sub clinical mastitis in an individual animal. However
setting levels under 100 also results in culling perfectly healthy and
genetically superior older cows. Persistant subclinical mastitis cases
are usually many hundreds to thousands for *individual* cows.

Quality tests are important, but should set minimum levels for a
specific purpose.

-- 
'Oz     "Is it better to seem ignorant and learn,
         - or seem wise and stay ignorant?"

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.bio.food-science
Subject: Re: Cell counts in Milk
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 21:17:44 +0000

In article <5ev78j$jd0@nntp.interaccess.com>, "James R. Eilers"
<jreilers@interaccess.com> writes

>Ok, I stayed out of this for some time, because I thought someone
>better suited would step forward (I quit practicing dairy sanitation
>10 years ago).  Since no one better has come forward, I'll put my
>$0.02 in to see what happens.

Excellent.

>Oz is right in that cell counts are performed 'because we always
>have', at least to a certain extent.  Originally, I think the common
>wisdom was that milk from cows with infected udders simply couldn't be
>good stuff.

I agree with your statement. However we are talking different orders of
magnitudes. Cows with infected quarters typically deliver SCC of over
1000, sometimes vastly more than this. I am talking about cows with cell
counts (individuals that is) of around 100-150. Ten years ago you would
probably be very hard pushed to find ANY delivery of milk under 200+,
and most were probably in excess of 400. (UK).

>In practice (at least ten years ago), a high SCC on a tankload of milk
>indicated to us who bought it that the producer had general sanitation
>problems in the manner he maintained his herd and milking operations.

Correct. A high cell count then would be 600+. [Average for the
delivery].

>Producers who had consistently high cell counts were more likely to
>produce milk with high plate counts and to slip up and ship milk
>containing antibiotics.....all net effects of sloppy practices.

Well, they wouldn't ship milk with antibiotics in for long. Producers
who do so have to pay the whole disposal and full milk price for the
delivery. (UK). This is pretty punitive, and quickly becomes fatally so.

>More specifically, however, there are perfectly good economic reasons
>for dairy producers and processors to worry about cell counts.
>
>Somewhat contrary to Oz's assertions that older cows will have higher
>counts naturally, but are otherwise perfectly good producers, cows
>with high counts do not remain good producers.  

At the levels I am talking about (100-150) this simply isn't true. These
cows do NOT have mastitis, clinical or otherwise. They are simply older
and as a result have rather more porous udder tissue. Ten years ago
these cell counts would have been considered very excellent indeed.

>Cows with high counts
>produce less milk than cows with low counts; an individual cow whose
>count increases will lose milk production.

This is true, but backwards (in the absence of disease). Essentially the
udder passes a number of somatic cells naturally, there is thus a high
dilution factor for a high yielding cow, and a low dilution factor for a
low yielding cow. So cell counts increase with decreasing yield. This is
well documented but not surprising.

>Dairy processers, specifically cheese makers, want lower cell counts
>because the yield of cheese thay produce is affected.  Milk with
>higher cell counts contains less casein (cheese protein) and more
>non-casein preteins (whey proteins).  I know this relationship has
>been experimentally confirmed; if memory serves both Dr. Tom Everson
>and Dr. Dave Barbano have published in this area.

This is quite interesting. Certainly high yielding cows typically
(although there is a high genetic and food intake effect) produce lower
protein% than low yielding cows. I was not aware of differences in the
partition between casein and non-casein proteins. Could you discuss this
in a little more depth? For example one might imagine that the casein
level might well vary with stage of lactation since older calves (would)
take milk into the rumen (where the casein level is of no importance)
rather than into the abomasum where the coagulation of the casein is
important. I am assuming a cow with no mastitis in this situation, of
course.

>Neither of these cell count effects are related directly to bacterial
>load.

True. However once again the cell count may be marking other
physiological effects in a crude and ambiguous way.

>Anyone with more recent information who can add to this?

I very much hope so.

-- 
'Oz     "Is it better to seem ignorant and learn,
         - or seem wise and stay ignorant?"

Subject: Re: Cell counts in Milk
From: jreilers@interaccess.com (James R. Eilers)
Date: Feb 26 1997
Newsgroups: sci.bio.food-science

Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Cows with infected quarters typically deliver SCC of over
>1000, sometimes vastly more than this. I am talking about cows with cell
>counts (individuals that is) of around 100-150. Ten years ago you would
>probably be very hard pushed to find ANY delivery of milk under 200+,
>and most were probably in excess of 400. (UK).

During my experience in Wisconsin, USA, we referred to "subclinical"
mastitis.  The idea was to capture cows who weren't truly infected,
but had higher than desired SCC's.  I don't recall that we defined
subclinical cases by specific count ranges.

We were not, however, hard pressed to find counts under 200 (which I
assume to mean 200,000 cells per ml).  We paid producers a hefty
premium for maintaining low plate counts and SCC's.  A good number of
producers routinely maintained counts under 100,000.



>>Producers who had consistently high cell counts were more likely to
>>produce milk with high plate counts and to slip up and ship milk
>>containing antibiotics.....all net effects of sloppy practices.

>Well, they wouldn't ship milk with antibiotics in for long. Producers
>who do so have to pay the whole disposal and full milk price for the
>delivery. (UK). This is pretty punitive, and quickly becomes fatally so.

A more recent practice....the days of sulfamethazine in the U.S. (and
elsewhere I assume) brought a great deal of attention to this problem.
When I started in the business 20 years ago, antibiotic containing
milk caused the producer a slap on the wrist, and the processor a
bunch of spoiled cheese; processors compete here for thr priviledge of
buying milk, and we didn't want to anger producers.  That started to
change once the Bacillus stearothermophilus  (much more sensative)
method replaced Bacillus subtilus, and continued when publicity was
given to sulfa.  The industry then became more afraid of consumer
outcry and began to really crack down on offenders.  Modern methods
are better still, but there was a time that a vet I know of used to
advise dairymen not to worry about withholding milk because the drugs
prescribed weren't detectable at the plant lab!



Jim said:
>>Cows with high counts
>>produce less milk than cows with low counts; an individual cow whose
>>count increases will lose milk production.

Oz said:
>This is true, but backwards (in the absence of disease). Essentially the
>udder passes a number of somatic cells naturally, there is thus a high
>dilution factor for a high yielding cow, and a low dilution factor for a
>low yielding cow. So cell counts increase with decreasing yield. This is
>well documented but not surprising.

Jim responds:
I'm not competant to argue the physiology.  What you say seems to make
sense, but is still contrary to common dairy husbandry practices from
my 10-years-outdated experience.  In the US we maintain "Dairy Herd
Improvement Associations"  (DHIA) which offer standardized methods of
monitoring cows milk output, composition, and cell counts as tools for
managing herds.  DHIA maintained cell count records based on the
premise that the cell count affected milk production, not that it was
a product of dilution factor.  Sorry I can't quote literature sources
for this; it would help a bunch.

Jim said:
>>Dairy processers, specifically cheese makers, want lower cell counts
>>because the yield of cheese thay produce is affected.  Milk with
>>higher cell counts contains less casein (cheese protein) and more
>>non-casein preteins (whey proteins).  I know this relationship has
>>been experimentally confirmed; if memory serves both Dr. Tom Everson
>>and Dr. Dave Barbano have published in this area.

Oz said:
>This is quite interesting. Certainly high yielding cows typically
>(although there is a high genetic and food intake effect) produce lower
>protein% than low yielding cows. I was not aware of differences in the
>partition between casein and non-casein proteins. Could you discuss this
>in a little more depth? For example one might imagine that the casein
>level might well vary with stage of lactation since older calves (would)
>take milk into the rumen (where the casein level is of no importance)
>rather than into the abomasum where the coagulation of the casein is
>important. I am assuming a cow with no mastitis in this situation, of
>course.

I wish I could be more specific.  I'm more of an ad hoc dairy
scientist than actual practitioner.

Here are some leads toward references (from memory) that might help.

Van Slyk (sp?) and Price published work that linked casein content to
cheese yield.  Also doing related work was Dr. Tony Ernstrom from Utah
State and his protege Dr. Rodney Brown.  I think Tony has retired, but
Rod Brown was a Dean at Utah State last I knew.


Oz, 
Are you interested in actively pursuing this subject outside this
discussion?  I still have contacts inside the US dairy community who
could steer you toward  better literature references.  Otherwise,
let's see who else is watching who wants to call eiether of us "all
wet".

Jim



Jim Eilers
jreilers@interaccess.com
http://homepage.interaccess.com/~jreilers/

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.bio.food-science
Subject: Re: Cell counts in Milk
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 07:09:33 +0000

[Apologies for lack of snip. It proved tricky in this post.]

In article <5f06hg$sj1@nntp.interaccess.com>, "James R. Eilers"
<jreilers@interaccess.com> writes
>Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Cows with infected quarters typically deliver SCC of over
>>1000, sometimes vastly more than this. I am talking about cows with cell
>>counts (individuals that is) of around 100-150. Ten years ago you would
>>probably be very hard pushed to find ANY delivery of milk under 200+,
>>and most were probably in excess of 400. (UK).
>
>During my experience in Wisconsin, USA, we referred to "subclinical"
>mastitis.  The idea was to capture cows who weren't truly infected,
>but had higher than desired SCC's.  I don't recall that we defined
>subclinical cases by specific count ranges.
>
>We were not, however, hard pressed to find counts under 200 (which I
>assume to mean 200,000 cells per ml).  We paid producers a hefty
>premium for maintaining low plate counts and SCC's.  A good number of
>producers routinely maintained counts under 100,000.

In 1986. I am impressed. You probably paid more than the 0.1% premium we
get here. They existed in the UK, but were rare. I wonder what the
*average* was?

>>>Producers who had consistently high cell counts were more likely to
>>>produce milk with high plate counts and to slip up and ship milk
>>>containing antibiotics.....all net effects of sloppy practices.
>
>>Well, they wouldn't ship milk with antibiotics in for long. Producers
>>who do so have to pay the whole disposal and full milk price for the
>>delivery. (UK). This is pretty punitive, and quickly becomes fatally so.
>
>A more recent practice....the days of sulfamethazine in the U.S. (and
>elsewhere I assume) brought a great deal of attention to this problem.
>When I started in the business 20 years ago, antibiotic containing
>milk caused the producer a slap on the wrist, and the processor a
>bunch of spoiled cheese; processors compete here for thr priviledge of
>buying milk, and we didn't want to anger producers.  That started to
>change once the Bacillus stearothermophilus  (much more sensative)
>method replaced Bacillus subtilus, and continued when publicity was
>given to sulfa.  The industry then became more afraid of consumer
>outcry and began to really crack down on offenders.  Modern methods
>are better still, but there was a time that a vet I know of used to
>advise dairymen not to worry about withholding milk because the drugs
>prescribed weren't detectable at the plant lab!

Ahhh. Must have been heaven there for the dairy producers. :-)
For a while at least.

>Jim said:
>>>Cows with high counts
>>>produce less milk than cows with low counts; an individual cow whose
>>>count increases will lose milk production.
>
>Oz said:
>>This is true, but backwards (in the absence of disease). Essentially the
>>udder passes a number of somatic cells naturally, there is thus a high
>>dilution factor for a high yielding cow, and a low dilution factor for a
>>low yielding cow. So cell counts increase with decreasing yield. This is
>>well documented but not surprising.
>
>Jim responds:
>I'm not competant to argue the physiology.  What you say seems to make
>sense, but is still contrary to common dairy husbandry practices from
>my 10-years-outdated experience.  In the US we maintain "Dairy Herd
>Improvement Associations"  (DHIA) which offer standardized methods of
>monitoring cows milk output, composition, and cell counts as tools for
>managing herds.  DHIA maintained cell count records based on the
>premise that the cell count affected milk production, not that it was
>a product of dilution factor.  Sorry I can't quote literature sources
>for this; it would help a bunch.

I would be most interested in any suggested mechanism (other than
subclinical infection) why cell count should correlate inversely with
production. I can however see a point in breeding for low cell counts
since payment is affected. However quite often breeding other points
reduced the prime aim.

>Jim said:
>>>Dairy processers, specifically cheese makers, want lower cell counts
>>>because the yield of cheese thay produce is affected.  Milk with
>>>higher cell counts contains less casein (cheese protein) and more
>>>non-casein preteins (whey proteins).  I know this relationship has
>>>been experimentally confirmed; if memory serves both Dr. Tom Everson
>>>and Dr. Dave Barbano have published in this area.
>
>Oz said:
>>This is quite interesting. Certainly high yielding cows typically
>>(although there is a high genetic and food intake effect) produce lower
>>protein% than low yielding cows. I was not aware of differences in the
>>partition between casein and non-casein proteins. Could you discuss this
>>in a little more depth? For example one might imagine that the casein
>>level might well vary with stage of lactation since older calves (would)
>>take milk into the rumen (where the casein level is of no importance)
>>rather than into the abomasum where the coagulation of the casein is
>>important. I am assuming a cow with no mastitis in this situation, of
>>course.
>
>I wish I could be more specific.  I'm more of an ad hoc dairy
>scientist than actual practitioner.
>
>Here are some leads toward references (from memory) that might help.
>
>Van Slyk (sp?) and Price published work that linked casein content to
>cheese yield.  Also doing related work was Dr. Tony Ernstrom from Utah
>State and his protege Dr. Rodney Brown.  I think Tony has retired, but
>Rod Brown was a Dean at Utah State last I knew.

A brief precis would be helpful. Certainly casein content would be
closely related to cheese yield, but how does casein content become
*directly* related to cell count other than through other effects I have
commented on. (In the absence of disease).

>Oz, 
>Are you interested in actively pursuing this subject outside this
>discussion?  I still have contacts inside the US dairy community who
>could steer you toward  better literature references.  Otherwise,
>let's see who else is watching who wants to call eiether of us "all
>wet".

On the whole I prefer discussions through a group. It allows other
informed people to come in, and opens the discussion out. With luck it
might generate other technical discussions that might enliven this
group.

Please also bear in mind that my original question was "Do dairies
actually care about the cell count, or is a bactoscan a much more useful
test that has effectively superseded it?"

-- 
'Oz     "Is it better to seem ignorant and learn,
         - or seem wise and stay ignorant?"

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.bio.food-science
Subject: Re: Cell counts in Milk
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 06:55:30 +0000

In article <5f2oap$l31@epx.cis.umn.edu>, Dell Erickson
<ricks@tc.umn.edu> writes
>Greetings,
>
>I have lurked this NG for sometime and suddendly this thread stikes
>home. I am not a farmer, (my Brother-In-Law is-- Northern Minn.) but
>would like your ideas on the probably of converting milkers into beef.
>
>In brief this is what my B-I-L told me:
>
>1. Purchased 25 additional cows last fall;
>2. Milk processor said many cells in milk this winter;
>3. Tried to find cause; discovered electricity in milking system;
>something about the udders and electricity;
>4. Electric Co. could not find source;
>5. Retested, has "bad kind" of cells, can't use for milk or cream;
>6. Said no cure.
>
>I doubt the new cows have anything to do with this. A simple grounding
>of the milking system would seem at least a temporary remedy to the
>errant electricity. Seems strange that "bad cells' won't reverse if
>cause is eliminated.
>
>They may (unless he can reverse this and/or find off-farm employement,
>will) lose their farm over this.
>
>None of this makes sense to me.
>Ideas?


I am not aware of the American dairy situation, since I hale from the
UK. However I have a memory of reading that US milk production has
increased enormously and prices fallen heavily in recent months. If this
is the case it may simply be that the dairy has cheaper sources of milk,
or ones that it is easier/cheaper to collect, and is simply dumping your
B-I-L.

Checkout the contract.

OTOH maybe I am too cynical.

-- 
'Oz     "Is it better to seem ignorant and learn,
         - or seem wise and stay ignorant?"

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.bio.food-science
Subject: Re: Cell counts in Milk
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 13:59:57 +0000

Well, we seem to have ground to a halt on this topic.

To sum it up as I see it:

1) It would seem that my original statement that cell counts are of no
value to a milk processing dairy where milk bacteriological quality is
also monitored is indeed correct.

2) Whilst there may be dairy herd management advantages to knowing the
somatic cell count there is no reason why a processor should pay extra
for milk with a low somatic cell count, and probably none do.

So for milk to have a price premium based on cell count is odd, to say
the least. (UK only). For it to be an EC specification is odd also.

-- 
'Oz     "Is it better to seem ignorant and learn,
         - or seem wise and stay ignorant?"

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.chem,sci.med,alt.cows.moo.moo.moo,
	alt.cows.are.nice,alt.cows,alt.college.us,alt.cooking-chat,sci.environment,
	sci.edu,sci.materials,sci.research,sci.misc,misc.education.medical,sci.logic,
	sci.life-extension
Subject: Re: MILK bacteria
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:40:50 +0000

In article <332DD85A.14F7@arnotts.com.au>, Andrew Kennett
<arnotts@arnotts.com.au> writes

>BTW if you take raw milk and drink it pretty soon after getting it from
>the cow you probably be OK because the bad bugs haven't had time to grow
>to high enough numbers.

This is good news for the thousands of dairy farmers and their staff and
children. Actually, not really since they never worried anyway. It
should, however, be reassuring to consumers that the farmers who produce
their milk drink it raw so that the added safety margin of
pasteurisation should make it well, hypersafe.

NB Even bugs that can grow at low temperatures don't grow very fast
under 4C.

-- 
'Oz     "Is it better to seem ignorant and learn,
         - or seem wise and stay ignorant?"

Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.chem,sci.med,alt.cows.moo.moo.moo,
	alt.cows.are.nice,alt.cows,alt.college.us,alt.cooking-chat,sci.environment,
	sci.edu,sci.materials,sci.research,sci.misc,misc.education.medical,sci.logic,
	sci.life-extension
Subject: Re: MILK bacteria
From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 15:42:09 +0000

In article <33329940.4C4E@alumni.caltech.edu>, Chad Nelson
<chnelson@alumni.caltech.edu> writes
>Although I don't have the original post, it is my understanding that the
>current guidelines for pasturization (and general warnings about
>drinking raw milk) are geared toward preventing the transmission of
>Brucellosis (from a potentially infected cow).

No. Most western countries have eradicated brucellosis for decades. It
is primarily to reduce any in the milk so as to improve shelf life and
reduce infection. However it is important to realise that fresh milk
today probably contains a tenth the number of bacteria than
it did twenty years ago. Indeed on the old TBC test for bacteria modern
milk is typically under 10,000 per ml, and I believe that many soft
drinks have a maximum allowance of 20,000 per ml. Given that fresh milk
comes from a cow, without treatment, and is a fabulous growth medium I
personally find this staggeringly low.

-- 
'Oz     "Is it better to seem ignorant and learn,
         - or seem wise and stay ignorant?"

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: MILK bacteria
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 15:47:43 +0000

In article <19970321085801.DAA26830@ladder01.news.aol.com>, KnoppDairy
<knoppdairy@aol.com> writes
>Reply from a dairyman's point of view:
>
>We drink our milk unpasteurized with all the natural vitamins (and yes,
>bacterias....there are good bacterias also).  Our families have been
>dairymen for as far back as anyone can remember, no-body has had any
>health problems from drinking unpasteurized milk. 

Typical of a dairy farm in the UK. The only notable thing about health
problems we find in staff that drink fresh milk is that they don't have
health problems. For my permanent staff here we lose significantly under
1 day/year due to illness. I find it hard not to suspect that this
amazingly low rate of illness in the face of high fecal contamination is
not significant. Indeed I strongly suspect that the regular exposure to
animal pathogens that is inevitable on a farm with animals is the reason
for the low illness rate. This ought to provide a caution to excessive
hygeine.

And as for eating cheese ........

-- 
'Oz     "Is it better to seem ignorant and learn,
         - or seem wise and stay ignorant?"

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.chem,sci.med,alt.cows.moo.moo.moo,
	alt.cows.are.nice,alt.cows,alt.college.us,alt.cooking-chat,sci.environment,
	sci.edu,sci.materials,sci.research,sci.misc,misc.education.medical,sci.logic,
	sci.life-extension
Subject: Re: MILK bacteria
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 23:05:52 +0100

In article <x4h67xs5ayr.fsf@Steam.Stanford.EDU>, John McCarthy
<jmc@steam.stanford.edu> writes

>In California in the 1930s it was possible to buy unpasteurized
>milk produced in specially inspected dairies.  Alas, there were
>enough incidents of disease so that this loophole was plugged.

Actually you can still buy unpasteurised milk ("green top") in the UK,
although it's getting hard to find.


>I believe tuberculosis was the main disease that pasteurization
>protected against originally.

Originally, well, quite a few. Brucellosis for one and actually when
milking was done in rather unhygienic circumstances, poorly cooled and
left around for long periods you could get quite a few pathogenic
bacteria growing with enthusiasm.

Today a well run dairy farm should produce milk with a Total Bacterial
Count (bactoscan) of under 50K bacteria per ml which is comparable to
what you would find in bottled soft drinks. The herd will be TB and
brucellosis accredited and so the risks are pretty small. Milked by
hygeinic machines and chilled to <4C within minutes of leaving the cow
helps greatly of course. And all this at substantially lower prices (in
real terms) than 30 years ago.

-- 
'Oz     "Is it better to seem ignorant and learn,
         - or seem wise and stay ignorant?"

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.chem,sci.med,alt.cows.moo.moo.moo,
	alt.cows.are.nice,alt.cows,alt.college.us,alt.cooking-chat,sci.environment,
	sci.edu,sci.materials,sci.research,sci.misc,misc.education.medical,sci.logic,
	sci.life-extension
Subject: Re: MILK bacteria
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 23:34:00 +0100

In article <334fd813.24254959@news.binc.net>, Charlie
<robin@mailbag.com> writes
>I think think rather know there are safer ways to get those organisms
>than drinking raw milk. How can you tell when mastitis first manifests
>itself unless you do what is called in the dairy industry as a somatic
>cell count ? 

Well, a somatic cell count is only done (at best) once a month. A good
herdsman and a milkline filter will pick it up very quickly. Good thing
too since he probably drinks the (untreated) milk too.

>Tell me one organism besides Streptococcus acidolphus
>that you want ?

Um er , dunno. Staph aureous? Ahem.

However it has to be said that the proof of the pudding is in the
eating. All my staff (and their children, and mine come to that) drink
untreated mild from the bulk tank. Four staff in 20 years (five
including me) have taken about six days off in total in that time
excluding physical injury etc. My son has had one day off from school
due to illness and he is now 15. I find this to be very typical of farms
whose staff drink untreated milk. It's NOT typical of the population at
large.

Interestingly farm workers on cattle farms, who must be exposed (ha ha
ha, ever been muckspreading?) to EC O157 seem never to suffer from it.
Odd, since they are indisputably the section of the population that
should be at an appallingly high risk.

Go figure.

-- 
'Oz     "Is it better to seem ignorant and learn,
         - or seem wise and stay ignorant?"

Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.chem,sci.med,alt.cows.moo.moo.moo,
	alt.cows.are.nice,alt.cows,alt.college.us,alt.cooking-chat,sci.environment,
	sci.edu,sci.materials,sci.research,sci.misc,misc.education.medical,sci.logic,
	sci.life-extension
Subject: Re: MILK bacteria (NOT eradicated)
From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:34:01 +0100

In article <brunncj.193.00897A0D@vetmed.auburn.edu>, Cindy Brunner
<brunncj@vetmed.auburn.edu> writes
>In article <cAgelEAkcnTzEwe6@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> 
>writes:
>>Well, in that case let's face it, there were a LOT of lucky people.
>>Having said that there is no doubt that there were several cattle
>>diseases that were distinctly bad for people. Brucellosis and TB are,
>>however the only two I can think of, and that may be the lot.
>>Fortunately both of these have been eradicated in the cattle of most
>>first world herd for some decades.
>
>Although this is not my area of expertise, I can no longer ignore such 
>erroneous--and potentially dangerous--statements as the one quoted above.  
>Other contributors to this thread have already pointed out that routine 
>pasteurization is designed, in the U.S. at least, to minimize the risk of 
>transmission of such zoonotic diseases as tuberculosis, brucellosis, 
>listeriosis, and Q-fever.  

Well, and a few others such as E.Coli and assorted salmonellas at least.
However as far as I am aware none of these in chronic.

>The poster's statement that the causative agents of 
>those diseases "have been eradicated in the cattle of most first world herds 
>for some decades" might be accurate, although I confess that I know as much 
>about prevalence of those infections in Europe as the poster apparently does 
>about their prevalence in North America (that is, very little).

I *cannot* believe that it is legal in the US to sell milk from herds
that are not accredited free of Brucella and TB. Q-fever doesn't seem to
exist in the UK, at least I have never heard of it, although I am aware
from Promed that it seems to be quite common in Australia. Listeriosis I
have never heard as being transmitted in FRESH milk, only in cheese and
other 'processed' milk products.

>  Even so, to 
>suggest that pasteurization is no longer necessary because the relevant 
>microorganisms have been eradicated from "most" herds is to ignore the reality
>of periodic outbreaks of those illnesses among human populations in 
>"developed" countries.  

You have misunderstood me. I at no time said it was unnecessary, merely
that on UK farms (and indeed farms in the US and Europe from the
comments that have been made on this, and other threads) it is usual to
consume untreated milk and that this doesn't appear to cause any
problem. Interestingly there has *not* been a plethora of people saying
how ill they became on drinking such milk, in fact if anything the
contrary. I have a number of doctor friends from college and they ALL
(and their families) consume vast quantities whenever they come to stay.

I like to think it keeps my antibody titre high, and exercises my immune
system. Mind you I also think of that when muckspreading, tell me, is
this a higher risk occupation than drinking unpasteurised milk? What
about sewage workers, I wonder?

>Unfortunately, despite many decades of public health 
>education (or attempts, at least...), some people persist in drinking 
>unpasteurized milk, or consuming other dairy products (e.g., cheese and 
>butter) produced from unpasteurized milk.  

Yup. Well it tastes quite a lot nicer, however I would thoroughly
support your statement and recommend that nobody drinks milk or other
unpasteurised milk products without taking responsibility for all and
any risks of infection they may or may not catch. Personally I will
continue consuming mine untreated, as will the rest of my family. Anyway
we must be immune to all the other nasty bugs in our herd by now. I also
LOVE soft cheese from unpasteurised milk, but I would strongly warn
others NOT to eat it. However I shall carry on taking this risk.

I would suggest every one else stays well clear.

[Mind you I wouldn't consume unpasteurised milk from quite a few
countries. Say much of Africa and Asia for one.]

>As has been stated by others, the 
>risk of acquiring infectious disease from dairy products produced by a single 
>healthy cow might be less than the risk from products produced from a 
>large, commercial "pooled" source--unless, of course, that one cow is 
>infected.  

On the other hand the disease monitoring, control and hygeine in a large
herd is probably rather better than for a single housecow.

>Routine, mandatory pasteurization, plus other animal 
>disease control measures such as sale-barn testing, import/export regulations,
>government-imposed quarantine, and slaughter of infected animals, have given 
>us the low prevalence of these diseases in humans that we now enjoy.

Ho ho ho ho. It maintains the eradication of disease in our dairy herds
that the dairy herds enjoy. The main sufferers of brucella were herdsmen
and vets, and of course the cows that aborted and thus got culled.

Pasteurised milk is here to stay, and quite right too. Not least because
of the significantly improved shelf life of the product. Leave my
untreated milk out in the sun for a hot summers day, and blow me, I get
a quart of fresh yoghurt!

-- 
'Oz     "Is it better to seem ignorant and learn,
         - or seem wise and stay ignorant?"

Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.chem,sci.med,alt.cows.moo.moo.moo,
	alt.cows.are.nice,alt.cows,alt.college.us,alt.cooking-chat,sci.environment,
	sci.edu,sci.materials,sci.research,sci.misc,misc.education.medical,sci.logic,
	sci.life-extension
Subject: Re: MILK bacteria (NOT eradicated)
From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:51:08 +0100

In article <E8oD3L.n1u@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au>, Ian Staples <staplei@p
lanet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au> writes

>Wasn't it found that dairy maids who had been infected with cow pox
>were more or less resistant to small pox?  But I guess that was from
>their interaction with cows rather then just the milk as such.  

Certainly was, the pox typically appeared on the hands first. Now this
thought produces a deep internal chuckle. How do you think the press
would react to milk being sold from (literally) poxy cows milked by hand
by a milker with exposed poxes on his hands? I suspect that they might
get somewhat aeriated, forthright even, possibly they might conceivably
start a 'scare horror' story? 

The mind boggles.

Then cut to scientist trying to explain that this was, <gasp, pause for
breath> a very good thing <Oz is now weeping with hysteria> and designed
to protect the population <gasp> from serious disease and they should be
thankful that this sort of thing <convulsions> goes on on the modern
dairy farm of the 1800's.

<Oz recovers manfully as tears run down his face.>

Ahem. Yes, you were saying?

>However,
>your point is well taken and I suspect we are a little too hygenic in
>general these days, so we succumb rather badly when challenged with a
>bit of "off" tucker or other biological threat.  Mind you, it would
>be interesting to see a balance sheet of the pros and cons of our
>present condition, if such could be compiled with any credibility.

The trick is to be regularly exposed to LOW doses of pathogen. Accept
the odd minor illness than can easily be shrugged off and save the
antibiotics for when they are REALLY needed. However this would
*require* that the whole world does the same. Fat chance. However those
with active and widely challenged immune systems should be able to
survive better than those without. EC O157 being a good example, it is
unarguable that the group definitely most heavily exposed and on a
regular basis is cattle farmworkers, yet they are notable for not
succumbing to the disease. Pause for thought here.

>[Concerning unpasteurised milk and other dairy products:]
>>Yup. Well it tastes quite a lot nicer, however I would thoroughly
>>support your statement and recommend that nobody drinks milk or other
>>unpasteurised milk products without taking responsibility for all and
>>any risks of infection they may or may not catch. ...
>
>We had unpasteurised milk when I was a child, but it had to be boiled
>before drinking and it tasted foul!  

It does, doesn't it. Best drunk with coffee IMHO.

>As a result, I didn't drink as
>much of it as I should have, and I suspect I'm suffering from that
>deficiency these days.  (The pasteurised milk in bottles in Brisbane
>was quite nice by comparison, but I only got down to visit rellies
>about three times in 14 years, so that didn't make up the deficit. :)

Don't worry about it, I doubt you do anyway.

-- 
'Oz     "Is it better to seem ignorant and learn,
         - or seem wise and stay ignorant?"

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.chem,sci.med,alt.cows.moo.moo.moo,
	alt.cows.are.nice,alt.cows,alt.college.us,alt.cooking-chat,sci.environment,
	sci.edu,sci.materials,sci.research,sci.misc,misc.education.medical,sci.logic,
	sci.life-extension
Subject: Re: MILK bacteria
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:13:51 +0100

In article <E8oC95.MKF@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au>, Ian Staples <staplei@p
lanet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au> writes

>I assume our standards have not changed dramatically in the past couple
>of decades, so your 50k/ml is equivalent to the last figures I saw here
>(which date back to 1979 if not earlier).  This applied to pasteurised
>milk and cream.  Non-pasteurised products were permitted to 150,000/ml.
>These were (are?) the legal standards.  The "advisory" standard was (is?)
>not exceeding 50,000/ml at the farm gate.
>
>These figures are for total bacterial colony counts.  When it comes
>specifically to the coliform bacteria, the tolerance is nil!  (I.e.
>"absence of coliforms in 1 ml" for pasteurised milk and cream.)

Just a small comment on measurement of TBC's. 

The TBC colony counting method is slow, and does miss some bacteria that
do not grow on the medium used. On this test we mostly managed under
10k/ml (often in the 1 to 3's and occasionally zero), but the premium
standard was under 30k/ml.

The current UK test is the bactoscan that uses immunofluorescense to
pick all (OK, well virtually all) the bugs up without requiring lengthy
culturing. From memory there is a difference in the reporting of sixfold
which makes the old 30k/ml (culture) now 180k/ml (bactoscan), but the
standard has been set much tighter at 50k/ml. It's interesting that this
effectively has significantly tightened the tolerance allowed, without
appearing to and without paying any more premium.

As I understand it even beneficial, or at least non-pathogenic, bacteria
particularly lactobacillae (yoghurt starter) are counted by the
bactoscan, but not the culture plate method. Since these are natural
bacteria of the mamillary tract their relevence might be considered
doubtful.

-- 
'Oz     "Is it better to seem ignorant and learn,
         - or seem wise and stay ignorant?"

Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.chem,sci.med,alt.cows.moo.moo.moo,
	alt.cows.are.nice,alt.cows,alt.college.us,alt.cooking-chat,sci.environment,
	sci.edu,sci.materials,sci.research,sci.misc,misc.education.medical,sci.logic,
	sci.life-extension
Subject: Re: MILK bacteria (NOT eradicated)
From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:06:21 +0100

In article <33557980.1925981@news.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm McMahon
<malcolm@pigsty.demon.co.uk> writes

>It would be interesting to compare the health of sewage workers with a
>similar group of workers in some other industry.

Well, I know several sewage workers not least because we use quite a bit
of sludge. None seem to take time of work for illness more than a day
every couple of years. One, since retired, took two day off sick in his
entire 30 year spell at the works.

I don't know what others think but I would imagine this to be
significantly below average.

-- 
'Oz     "Is it better to seem ignorant and learn,
         - or seem wise and stay ignorant?"

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.bio.food-science,alt.cheese,alt.food
Subject: Re: Raw Milk Cheese - Opinions Anyone?!?
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 22:35:40 +0000

In article <nosjean-1711972146280001@pcb-briolay.univ-lyon1.fr>, Olivier
Nosjean <nosjean@univ-lyon1.fr> writes

>In article (Dans l'article) <347095d3.1456506@wingate>,
>danders3@waun.tdsnet.com (Dale Anderson) wrote (écrivait) :
>[...]
>>  The possibility that you and your staff may have been immunized over
>> the years doesn't mean much to those who may not have such immunity.
>> Pathogens like listeria can be downright deadly to those who lack such
>> immunity.

Well, I got the reply before the post but I guess this refers to a reply
to my post.

>We come to the question of immunity, and to me that's the point ! Wouldn't
>there be a sad tendency in post-industrial countries to try to control and
>regulate all aspects of food/health ??

A very valid point that we are prone to completely forgetting. One can
only obtain immunity by exposure. This is important enough to be worth
saying again.

One can only obtain immunity through exposure.

We know what has happened to groups of humans who have avoided, through
isolation or 'improved hygeine', exposure to common environmental
pathogens. I will name two.

1) Polio
2) Measles

We all know what happens to people who catch these diseases for the
first time in adulthood, a *very* high mortality.

We all know that whilst some immunity is (more or less) lifetime
(measles), some immunities are transient (cholera). We also know that
people chronically exposed to pathogens (doctors, nurses) often seem to
be immune or nearly so. Now I am of course being oversimplistic. The
*dose* of pathogen *IS* important. Multiple low doses tend to be
overcome through immunity (thus maintaining it), but a big dose and you
succumb. The trick is to maintain a low exposure that is more-or-less
symptom free.

However to ensure complete sterilisation of the food we eat and the
environment we inhabit is likely to result, IMHO, in far from
symptomless infection when we inadvertantly become exposed to pathogens
that others shrug off without effect. I consider this to be a rather
dangerous route to take. Interestingly the hygeine conscious people I
know always seem to be sick.

We should bear in mind that *some* people may be particularly
susceptible to particular pathogens due to their genetic makeup and for
these people even very small exposure can be fatal. Life is tough, or
rather, nature is tough.

>In France, it has always been taken for granted that a good meal ends up
>with local cheese and Burgondy wine.

This is not uncommon in England too, which is why my spelling and
sentence structure may well be a little incohernet.  Hic!
(Tarn, though).

>We would all be surprised to know what some remote populations on the
>globe (isolated French villages ??, kiding !) ingest time to time : rotten
>meat,

We call it game in the UK.

>animals cooked with the guts,

Bloaters (fish salted with their guts).

>raw-I-don't-know-what,

Steak?
Fish?
Lettuce?

>air-fermented
>stuff...

Proper bread, real youghurt, beer, wine?

>And they've been living like this for generations, without any
>problem.

"Sophisticated local cuisine".

>Ok, we don't need to go to these extermes, but isn't the debate also about
>the general decrease of our immunological resistance ?
>Should we really favor this ???

No. IMHO.

--
Oz

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.bio.food-science,alt.cheese,alt.food
Subject: Re: Raw Milk Cheese - Opinions Anyone?!?
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 18:55:30 +0000

In article <348088d1.20420361@news.easynet.co.uk>, J Ralph Blanchfield
<jralphb@easynet.co.uk> writes
>Hello Oz and Everyone,
>
>>Oh, I am going to die, I am going to die. My family is going to die. My
>>staff and their families are going to die. Woe is me. Woe is I.
>>
>>We all drink unpasteurised milk straight from the bulk tank and have for
>>decades ...
>
>No Oz, woe is not you -- at least not yet! You may have become
>immunised to (some?) milk-borne pathogens. On the other hand you may
>merely be sitting on an unexploded bomb. I recall making the same
>comment to a food production manager whom I warned of an unsafe
>microbiological practice in his department, who insisted "We have been
>doing it like this for years and never had any problem" and continued
>unchanged. Several months later his department had to be shut down for
>several weeks, after the "unexploded bomb" went off.

I think there is a difference. Firstly quality control in the modern UK
dairy unit is absolutely incomparably better than twenty, or even ten,
years ago. This renders historical statements irrelevent.

The milk today is randomly sampled 52 times a year and tested for
(amongst other things) TBC (total bacterial count via bactoscan). The
premiums for keeping milk under 30 k/ml are very useful (particularly as
the farmgate price has dropped by 30% in 18 months). To achieve this
requires consistent and unremitting attention to detail.

Of course the figures for 10 & 20 years ago are not available but 20
years ago I would not be at all surprised to find figures of over 1000+
l/ml and ten years ago probably 100+ k/ml. Bearing in mind that many of
these bacteria will be non-pathogenic lactobacillae and milk is rather
hard to maintain bug free, I am personally impressed.

As to immunity to common environmental bugs, I am all for that as you
know.

>Then again, I recall not many months ago a survey (from recollection
>in Canada),reported on FSnet. found a significantly higher level of
>food poisoning among farm families than the rest of the population.

Measured how?

>So have a care, my friend. We don't want to lose you.

Me neither!  :-)

>>Ralph has drunk unpasteurised milk from the bulk tank, in his tea.
>
>Yes, I  well remember. I made a choice between taking a risk and
>offending my good friend, and I chose the former.

I would not have been offended, and I think you knew that. You were
certainly warned (as everybody is) of any potential risks and that you
consumed it at your own risk.  :-)

>But that exactly
>illustrates my point. I knew it was raw milk, and I knew the
>significance of that information.  It was an _informed_ choice.

>My postings have been concerned with the need to provides the public
>generally with the information and its significance so that they too
>have a _real_ chance to exercise an informed choice.

Well, what *is* the 'informed choice'? It has to be said that cowmen and
dairy farmers are known to have essentially zero days off per year and
yet they pretty much all consume raw milk. The two do not go hand in
hand if raw milk really is a health hazard.

You still haven't answered my question about the comparison of the
bacteriological quality between soft drinks and milk when both have a
bactoscan about 30 k/ml.


--
Oz

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.bio.food-science,alt.cheese,alt.food
Subject: Re: Raw Milk Cheese - Opinions Anyone?!?
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 06:56:38 +0000

In article <3474ad6e.27354386@wingate>, Dale Anderson
<danders3@waun.tdsnet.com> writes

> Being an inspector now, I have problems with reliance on this test.
>I've seen pipelines nearly cheesed shut, with perfectly good plate
>counts on the bulk tank sample. Darned if I would use that pipe as a
>straw though. There's a lot more to this than just the total plate
>count.

Well I don't know what test you used, nor what the criteria for failure
were, but I can utterly assure you that this would long since have
failed in the UK. Even for the rather more primitive plate test the sort
of thing that can bring on failure can be as little as minute traces on
a tiny swivel valve seal face. I know, this was the hardest trackdown we
ever had (not least because we didn't know there was a seal there). The
seal looked clean, felt clean and was only considered worn due to the
paranoia we were under, however changing it completely solved the
problem.

In any case you must be over-egging this one. A pipeline with cheese
deposits, let alone 'nearly cheesed shut' shows abysmal levels of
cleaning and would have failures all over the place for many months if
the test is good and the levels set tightly enough.

>That count could be way low, but would you feel comfortable if
>the latest E-coli was what it consisted of?

It depends on the level of infection. Personally I would prefer to
ingest small amounts, get mildly sick (perhaps), and become immune. It's
better than coming across it at a high dose later (say whilst
muckspreading, or at someone's wedding) and die.

I am still waiting for comments about the bactoscans of 30 k/ml vs
mineral water.

--
Oz

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.bio.food-science,alt.cheese,alt.food
Subject: Re: Raw Milk Cheese - Opinions Anyone?!?
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:52:29 +0000

In article <34757dd2.50308759@wingate>, Dale Anderson
<danders3@waun.tdsnet.com> writes
>Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In any case you must be over-egging this one. A pipeline with cheese
>>deposits, let alone 'nearly cheesed shut' shows abysmal levels of
>>cleaning and would have failures all over the place for many months if
>>the test is good and the levels set tightly enough.
>
> I'm afraid it just doesn't work that way. I've seen people tear their
>hair out in a situation like yours, and I've seen filthy equipment
>with a low count. It's just not as simple as having a test one can
>depend on.

What was the test and what are the levels where milk cannot be sold, and
typical bonus levels? Without this it's meaningless. You will note that
I gave both from the onset.

>>It depends on the level of infection. Personally I would prefer to
>>ingest small amounts, get mildly sick (perhaps), and become immune. It's
>>better than coming across it at a high dose later (say whilst
>>muckspreading, or at someone's wedding) and die.
>
> FDA estimates the infective dose of E-Coli 0157:H7 is *10 organisms*.

No, they have suggested that *some people* can be infected by 10
organisms. Personally I doubt this. The amount ingested is *inferred*
from uneaten portions, however bacterial infection can be very patchy
and who is to say that the piece that actually caused the infection did
not contain 10^7 organisms?

In any case it is well known that people can be asymtomatic and be
carriers so the dose on, say, a toilet door handle might easily be in
the many millions and yet never be tested. In short I have serious
doubts over these statements unless most of the population is
effectively immune.

>How much is "just enough?" In the case of children or the elderly? I
>agree with Ralph here. Taking such a stance is (especially on a
>national basis concerning foodborne illness) is nothing short of
>playing Russian roulette. Especially when we have readily available
>proven things like pasteurization to deal with the issue.

Except is doesn't deal with the issue. Most of the EC0157 cases in the
UK occur in old people's homes or at weddings (or similar group
functions). Strange how all those other people who also bought food from
the same source did not also go down with it in droves. Well, of course
it's not strange IMHO. The main criteria IMHO is the hygeine status in
these situations, which I can spell out if you like, rather than
wherever a trace contamination came from. This is even more evident if
you believe the '10 bugs cause the disease' rubbish.

--
Oz

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.bio.food-science,alt.cheese,alt.food
Subject: Re: Raw Milk Cheese - Opinions Anyone?!?
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 07:29:56 +0000

In article <34773bef.5922250@news.easynet.co.uk>, J Ralph Blanchfield
<jralphb@easynet.co.uk> writes
>Hello Oz and Everyone,
>
>>Of course the figures for 10 & 20 years ago are not available but 20
>>years ago I would not be at all surprised to find figures of over 1000+
>>l/ml and ten years ago probably 100+ k/ml. Bearing in mind that many of
>>these bacteria will be non-pathogenic lactobacillae and milk is rather
>>hard to maintain bug free, I am personally impressed.
>
>"Milk is rather hard to maintain bug free". Exactly.  Moreover when we
>are talking about food poisoning risk it is not TBC but pathogens that
>are involved.

Unfortunately the bactoscan tests for all bacteria and is not confined
to pathogens. It will pick up lactobacillae as easily as E.Coli.

>It was the occurrence of pathogens revealed in recent microbiological
>surveys by ADAS and the UK Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) of
>raw milk on retail sale that alarmed the UK Advisory Committee on
>Microbiological Safety of Foods (ACMSF) to the point that, at its
>meeting on 18 September 1997,  it recommended the banning of the
>retail sale of raw milk in England, Wales and N Ireland, resulting in
>the UK Government proposing legislation for that purpose. (It has been
>banned in Scotland for many years).

Frankly I don't see posted reports of large numbers of people being
infected due to raw milk on a regular basis. It IS unfortunate that it
tends to be the smaller and less efficient farmer who sells such milk.

>Maybe I was just dying for a cup of tea after a longish drive :-)
>Whatever, I made a choice.
>But you have just fully conceded my case. "You were
>certainly warned (as everybody is) of any potential risks and that you
>consumed it at your own risk."  Exactly! -- that is precisely the sort
>of information that consumers of cheese made from raw milk should have
>in order to be able to make an _informed_ choice!

Frankly I doubt whether anybody buying raw milk would NOT be aware of
what they were buying. It is after all a niche product produced by a
tiny minority of dairy farmers, usually by people buying it at the farm,
or having it delivered by the farmer. It is not, after all, on 'general'
sale.

>>It has to be said that cowmen and
>>dairy farmers are known to have essentially zero days off per year and
>>yet they pretty much all consume raw milk. The two do not go hand in
>>hand if raw milk really is a health hazard.
>
>Measured how ?  Anecdotally only? Or are there national statistics to
>support those assertions? Anyway, see also previous comments re
>possible acquired immunity or unexploded bomb.

When you have many tens of thousands of farmers and farmworkers
consuming the product one might imagine that any 'unexploded bomb'
should have long since gone up, n'est pas?

>>You still haven't answered my question about the comparison of the
>>bacteriological quality between soft drinks and milk when both have a
>>bactoscan about 30 k/ml.
>
>Actually you said "mineral waters".  I did not deal with it because it
>is not relevant.

Don't wriggle, it's not like you.  :-)

Of course it's relevent since you are not suggesting putting similar
warnings on mineral water.

>As stated above, when it comes to food poisoning
>risk, its not TBC but pathogens that matter.

Correct. In the case of milk products the TBC grossly overstates the
contamination since few of the bacteria are in fact pathogens. Most are
lactobacillae, a few will be staph aureus (the same one you will find on
skin), and most of the remainder will be non-pathogenic anyway.
Obviously so or we would have a very sick cow. The main reason for low
TBC's is to improve reliable production for the youghurt and cheesmakers
and to improve the keeping quality of the raw milk.

Eh? I hear you say, who cares about the keeping quality of raw milk?
Well, it's not generally known but farmers take their milk down to 4C
within minutes of it leaving the cow. From that point on it is carried
in insulated (but NOT refrigerated) tankers and placed in insulated (but
not refrigerated) stores at the dairy. As I understand it raw milk with
TBC's in the 30 k/ml will keep fresh for two to three days at 6C
allowing dairy staff to have weekends off. Of course the farmer still
has to work weekends, and pay for the refrigeration, and he gets 50%
more (in actual terms, about 1/4 in real terms) than he got in 1976.
Most things have increased by at least 10x in that period so the
consumer (or more exactly the dairy companies) are getting a very good
deal. For some unaccountable reason they still moan about it though.

--
Oz

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.bio.food-science,alt.cheese,alt.food
Subject: Re: Raw Milk Cheese - Opinions Anyone?!?
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 17:45:50 +0000

In article <3475a8ff.61362621@wingate>, Dale Anderson
<danders3@waun.tdsnet.com> writes
>Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>What was the test and what are the levels where milk cannot be sold, and
>>typical bonus levels? Without this it's meaningless. You will note that
>>I gave both from the onset.
>
> Doesn't make much difference, really.

Eh? Of course it makes a difference. The levels could be anything from
1000 k/ml to 30 k/ml, and the test *does* make a difference since older
tests (particularly plate methods) missed whole species of bugs.

I sincerely hope you aren't referring to somatic cell counts.

So, what was the test, and what were the levels?

>>>>It depends on the level of infection. Personally I would prefer to
>>>>ingest small amounts, get mildly sick (perhaps), and become immune. It's
>>>>better than coming across it at a high dose later (say whilst
>>>>muckspreading, or at someone's wedding) and die.
>>>
>>> FDA estimates the infective dose of E-Coli 0157:H7 is *10 organisms*.
>>
>>No, they have suggested that *some people* can be infected by 10
>>organisms.
>
> Which is an "infective dose," no?

No. If you are going to take this then milk is the least of your
worries.

> All the same, you're supporting my position that wha's happening is a
>dangerous sort of "Russian Roulette." This "I didn't get sick so let's
>not worry about it" concept isn't good public safety policy, IMO.

Grief, I am NOT saying 'don't worry about it'. I am saying that the risk
is miniscule compared to other risks, and the gaining of immunity is a
benefit. In all the EC0157 outbreaks only one farmer (a sheep farmer)
got the disease, despite the fact that cattle get it, and spread it
about, as well as humans. There are benefits as well as risks, however
they are disregarded.

>Neither is "well no one's reported an illness with my food product
>yet." The latter head in the sand attitude is what knocked Hudson
>Foods on the head.

I take Ralph's comment to heart. Practices should be good and should be
regulary reviewed. I don't think Hudson had random bacteriological tests
52 times a year, did they?

>>Except is doesn't deal with the issue. Most of the EC0157 cases in the
>>UK occur in old people's homes or at weddings (or similar group
>>functions). Strange how all those other people who also bought food from
>>the same source did not also go down with it in droves.
>
> Maybe people did. maybe they didn't.

Not reported in the press anyway.

>When it appears to be an
>isolated case, some just blow it off as "feeling bad," or the "stomach
>flu." Few, on an individual basis, run to a doctor if they have a case
>of the runs

I should hope not. It shows your immune system is functioning.

>or vomiting demanding a stool culture be taken.

but this is another matter. However, when we are abroad in asia the
whole family gets this for 4 hours within the first 3 days, and after
that we are all fine. We don't go to the quack for a four hour sickness.
In passing this happened (in Turkey) to a family I know very well. The
husband (who was no more ill than the rest of the family) demanded and
got antibiotics. He was sick every 4 days (the rest of the family were
not) and only got well when a local told him to stop taking them. The
tendency these days to avoid using our built-in and (generally) very
effective immune system doesn't make bugs go away.

>The reason
>the group functions get more attention is because of an obvious link
>that gets put together.

No, it's because there is often very poor hygeine which allows
unrestricted multiplication or easy spread at high doses.

>>Well, of course
>>it's not strange IMHO. The main criteria IMHO is the hygeine status in
>>these situations, which I can spell out if you like, rather than
>>wherever a trace contamination came from. This is even more evident if
>>you believe the '10 bugs cause the disease' rubbish.
>
> As I pointed out before, we also have bad "hygene status" on some
>farms. Without some sort of a definable "kill step" in a process, one
>is heading for possible disaster. And, in the end, it's those who
>don't have the immunity, like the old and young, who suffer.

Hmmm. Without immunity they either stay in a sterile box (like very
small babies) or will sooner or later go down with something. Keeping
elderly adults sterile, but living at least some sort of life, is
difficult. In passing I noted with interest that both my kids, as soon
as they could crawl, went and ate dirt from our garden. It was
impossible to stop them without restricting their development. It never
effected them as far as I could see, and they are both very healthy. I
still wonder if that is natures way of their getting a good dose of bugs
from the local environment.

--
Oz

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.bio.food-science,alt.cheese,alt.food
Subject: Re: Raw Milk Cheese - Opinions Anyone?!?
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 21:29:29 +0000

In article <depreej.330.00094E78@lincoln.ac.nz>, "Depree, Jonathan A"
<depreej@lincoln.ac.nz> writes
>>>Aside from the issue of toxin production (covered in another post)
>
>>which is not relevent to raw milk,
>
>Sort of. Staph aureas is not usually a problem in raw milk or cheese because
>it is usually supressed by the other bugs. Usually. Sometimes there can be a
>higher loading of staphs due to mastitis in one of the cows, or something
>happens to suppress the other bugs and give the staphs a boost.

1) Nobody in their right mind puts mastitic milk into the bulk tank. The
TBC's would go ballistic, you would lose your premium and hit the
(severe) penalty zone. Also it's illegal.

2) Pre-clinical mastitis milk might go in and cause (in a herd of
typical size) elevation of TBC's to the 70-100 mark and consequent
panic. However these levels are still low, and since the milk is cooled
to 4C within minutes growth, and hence toxin production, effectively
ceases from that point onwards.

We are not talking about slow tapwater cooled milk that sits on a
milkstand in a churn for 4 hours and then has a 4 hr drive to the dairy
(at probably 20C in summer) these days. We has gorn modern.  :-)

--
Oz