Latest Research and Updates
You’ve asked for it, so we’ve delivered! You can now purchase Raw Milk Institute t-shirts, hats, and mugs in our online store.
AND, our popular Booklet on Essential Principles for Low-Risk Raw Milk is now in-stock, too!
All items in our store have free USPS shipping in the USA!
10,000 years ago, early humans spent much of their time hunting, gathering, or fishing for food. Obtaining food was the dominant preoccupation of their lives. Imagine the reality for humans living prior to the advent of civilization. You can picture them living in crude shelters, wearing animal skins and using few tools. It was not like a 14-day survival challenge where they could call for a medic and be rescued. Eating and surviving were lifelong challenges.
You can hear the crying of babies and children that were hungry. Those cries are universal and have not changed over the millennia. The natural instinct to provide for the next generation was a compelling mandate which drove instinctual and natural innovation.
Early humans nursed their young, just as all mammals do. Nursing provided optimal nutrition for babies to survive and thrive. Breastmilk is a form of raw milk, serving as a complete food source that is perfectly designed to sustain life.
People observed animals in the wild nursing their young just as they nursed their own young. By capturing goats and aurochs (ancestral cow breeds), the people were able to collect their milk in pottery vessels. These humans would have learned quickly that milk from other animals was a complete, nutritious food. Being purposely designed to sustain life like no other food, this raw milk provided a steady source of readily available food for ancient humans.
Without refrigeration, any milk that wasn’t consumed quickly would naturally ferment into cheese curd and whey. The milk storage vessels likely contained bacteria cultures from previous milkings, and hence the culturing process was naturally reinforced with these bacteria. The resultant curds could be stored and consumed over time. Curd contained a complete set of microbiome-friendly nutrients, and would be easy to digest due to its biodiversity. The humans could now bring along with them a portable supply of steady food. As long as they had sunshine, water, grass or shrubbery, and a mammal, they had food.
Scientists have ample evidence that humans began drinking raw milk from animals at least 10,000 years ago. The evidence for the early use of animal milk is found in ancient clay pottery vessels, dental remains of Neolithic humans, and bone analysis of animal remains. Ancient baby bottles provide evidence that milk from animals was used to feed human infants at least 8,000 years ago.
The origin and dispersal of domestic livestock species in the Fertile Crescent. (Zeder, Melinda)
These agriculture-based civilizations were so successful that they spread across the Mediterranean region, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East over the next few thousand years. Humanity continued to domesticate additional species of animals; throughout history, many species have been utilized for their milk including camels, cows, goats, sheep, donkeys, horses, water buffalo, reindeer, and other mammals.
Those who consumed milk had a competitive advantage over those that did not have a steady source of readily available food. This steady supply of food allowed for settlements and communities to develop. People no longer had to spend most of their time acquiring food, and could instead use their brain power to drive the development of sophisticated structures and towns. Domesticated animals became high value assets. As civilization advanced, those that owned milking mammals became wealthy and became the source of food for communities.
Selection of late Bronze/early Iron Age feeding vessels.(J Dunne, et al.)
The domestication of mammals and consumption of their raw milk provided a source of biodiverse colonies of bacteria for the human gut. When people began drinking raw milk at least 10,000 years ago, these biodiverse bacteria began the genomic adaptation for lactase production and lactase persistence genes. Lactase is the enzyme responsible for breaking down lactose into digestible form.
Humans who first began to consume milk from other mammals had not yet developed the lactase persistence gene. Nonetheless, they likely would have been able to readily digest raw milk because it facilitates the production of lactase enzyme in the intestinal tract. Archaeological evidence shows that humans were consuming raw milk for thousands of years before the widespread appearance of the lactase-persistence gene. This has led many researchers to the probably erroneous conclusion that Neolithic humans must have been fermenting or culturing milk to reduce or remove its lactose content.
In reality, “lactose-intolerance” is primarily pasteurization intolerance. Since raw milk facilitates the production of lactase, it is not likely that there were widespread issues with lactose intolerance in Neolithic populations. In all likelihood, these early populations would have been able to consume milk in its fresh form straight from the mammals, as well as in the lacto-fermented curds and whey which would form quickly without refrigeration.
Stone carving at the ancient Sumerian temple of Ninhursag showing typical dairy activities. (Dorling Kindersley, The Visual Dictionary of Ancient Civilizations)
The competitive advantage provided by raw milk is not to be understated. Raw milk allowed humans to thrive in conditions where survival would have been difficult. It allowed them to migrate and proliferate from region to region with a steady supply of food. Those populations that consumed milk further adapted by developing lactase-persistence genes. Scientists now believe that the lactase-persistence genes were spread through natural selection. This means that the reproductive capacity and/or survivability of ancient raw milk drinkers was substantially increased compared to non-milk-drinking populations. The lactase-persistence genes would have facilitated the easy digestion of milk in many forms, including boiled or cooked milk. There is current evidence of lactase persistence genes in people from regions of Africa, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. However, even those without the lactase-persistent gene can generally digest raw milk because of the raw milk bacteria that create lactase for the human gut.
A 19th century illustration of "swill milk" being produced: a sickly cow being milked while held up by ropes. (Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Weekly)
By the mid-1800’s in America, some raw milk production had shifted away from farms and into highly-populated cities. Big cities did not have pastures or clean water, and the cows in city dairies were kept in filthy conditions with poor nutrition and poor animal health. Many of these cows were fed byproducts from alcohol distilleries, leading to illness in the cows. Raw milk, which had been safely consumed by humans for nearly 10,000 years, had become a source of deadly diseases such as tuberculosis, typhoid, diphtheria, and scarlet fever.
In the late 1800's, it was recognized that raw milk being produced in these conditions was dangerous, and two solutions were proposed. Pasteurization was one of the solutions which was proposed to eliminate pathogenic bacteria in the milk coming from these filthy conditions. The other solution was to actually produce the milk in hygienic conditions with healthy animals.
It was known that raw milk was a superior source of nutrition for infants and children, so the American Association of Medical Milk Commissions (AAMMC) was established in the late 1800's to ensure a safe supply of hygienic raw milk. The AAMMC was in operation for nearly a century, certifying medical raw milk for use in hospitals and for feeding infants and children.
Pasteurization was ushered in to address filthy conditions and unhealthy cows in cities. It answered the question of how to commercialize dirty milk, rather than spending the time and energy it would take to produce clean milk from healthy cows. Clearly, over time, the pasteurization movement gained traction and became the standard for ensuring "safe" milk, yet pasteurization is known to degrade and damage many of the nutrients in milk.
Now in the 2020’s, we are in a time of widespread immune depression, comorbidities, and compromised health. For most Americans, the competitive advantage of raw milk consumption has never been a reality. Raw milk’s immune-building properties and microbiome friendly traits have been forgotten.
Instead, we live in the age of immune-destructive pharmaceuticals and antibiotics. Although life-saving in certain applications, these drugs also depress and damage the immune system and gut microbiome. Antibiotic resistance is now responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people every year in the USA alone. Furthermore, pasteurized milk is now recognized as a top food allergen and difficult to digest.
Raw milk is an innate part of our healthy immune history, and is largely missing in our sterile, sugar-laden, preservative-laced, antibiotic-abusing modern diets and medical culture. Safe raw milk has been rediscovered by those who study history and know the role of raw milk as a nourishing whole food. Raw milk that is carefully and intentionally produced for direct human consumption is wholly different from milk being produced for pasteurization.
So, the next time that someone says, “milk is for cows and not for humans,” share with them the intricate link between civilization and raw milk, and the competitive advantage that raw milk provided to humanity for 10,000 years. Many of these misinformed humans are in dire need of gut microbiome rescue like never before. Reach out to them with love, compassion and humanity. They need our support, nourishment, and education.
On Wednesday February 5th in Lancaster, PA, the Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) will present a 3-hour seminar on Producing World-Class Raw Milk.
Whereas farmers producing milk for the pasteurized market often struggle to make ends meet, raw milk farms are thriving. Raw milk presents a unique opportunity for farmers to move into an expanding market by implementing intentional practices and higher standards to produce low-risk, delicious raw milk.
Raw milk is an exceptional farmstead product that brings all the added value back to the farmer with an incentive to work on quality. By selling directly to consumers, raw milk farmers are able to obtain greater financial rewards for their work, while consumers benefit from the improved flavor and nutrition. It’s a win-win for both farmers and consumers!
This training workshop will be presented by the Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) as part of the PASA Sustainable Agriculture Conference. This class will be from 9am-noon Eastern Time.
This RAWMI presentation will focus on:
History of raw milk
Why raw milk farms are thriving
Health benefits of raw milk
Benefits of selling raw milk
Safety and risks of raw milk
Grass-to-glass raw milk risk management
Raw milk testing
Building a successful raw milk market
Registration is now open through the PASA Sustainable Agriculture at: https://pasafarming.org/conference. Make sure to sign up for Wednesday attendance if you are going to attend our raw milk seminar.
Early Bird pricing is available through January 10th. PASA offers sliding scale pricing to attend the conference. If you will only be attending on Wednesday, the Early Bird cost is $70-$160 depending on your selected sliding scale level. Scholarships are also available through PASA.
This article was written by Stephanie Knutsen, the dairy farmer who was instrumental in the successful legalization of raw milk in Delaware.
My journey to the legalization of raw milk in Delaware (DE) is quite unconventional, mainly because raw milk was not on my radar. Raw milk was illegal in DE and in the states around us, with the exception of Pennsylvania. I assumed it was going to remain so for quite some time. I certainly couldn’t make a difference, but wait… I did! Welcome to my story.
I didn’t seek out a legislator to champion the legalization of raw milk, but one found me! I received a phone call explaining that Senator Buckson was hearing from frustrated consumers about the lack of raw milk access in DE. He wanted to sponsor a consumer-driven bill to legalize raw milk sales, but wanted to tour a dairy farm and hear from DE dairy farmers before proceeding further. Little did I know that raw milk research and advocacy was about to take over my life.
We have always consumed our own raw milk from G&S Dairy Farms without hesitation. I firmly believe people should have the right to weigh the risks and benefits to choose for themselves which foods to consume and therefore, I supported the idea of legalization. But, how did we feel about selling raw milk ourselves to the public?
I wondered:
What is the real risk?
How many raw milk related illnesses are there?
Would we be setting ourselves up to lose the farm in a lawsuit while trying to save it with raw milk sales?
How could we live with ourselves if someone got really sick?
These were questions I needed answers to.
I remember sitting at the computer that night and typing “raw milk” into the Google search bar. By midnight I had landed myself on the Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) website. The next day, I received the first of numerous personal phone calls from RAWMI Chairman Mark McAfee. I was blown away with the knowledge, support, and guidance that Mark poured into me. RAWMI’s support proved instrumental in this legalization process. I was beginning to build my connections! These connections were a major key to our success story.
Many additional important connections came to me during my countless hours researching data, sifting through the bias on both ends of the spectrum, analyzing CDC datasets, and reaching out to experts across the country. The more I studied, the more clearly I saw the raw deal that raw milk had been getting! For instance, I had heard that raw milk has "life threatening" risks yet in looking at the data, I could only find 2 confirmed deaths due to raw milk in nearly 20 years. This was despite the fact that millions of people regularly drink raw milk. The CDC estimates there are 3,000 deaths annually from food borne illnesses, yet they have only confirmed 2 deaths related to raw milk in ~20 years so the risks of raw milk were being greatly exaggerated.
With a newfound passion ignited, I no longer questioned if raw milk was a good idea for our farm. I could envision a future in dairy for our children for the first time! I committed myself to making sure that DE, which is referred to as “The First State,” was not going to be known as “The Last State” in regards to raw milk legalization.
Once I empowered myself with the knowledge and facts, I needed to gather support. A failed attempt for legalization had been made ten years earlier. A friend, who also happened to be the Senate Policy Director, was able to access the recorded tapes from that failed legislation so we could understand who had opposed it and why.
Ten years ago, dairy farmers were worried someone would get sick and make the industry look bad. The Farm Bureau had been neutral about raw milk legalization, but both the Agriculture Department and Health Department were opposed. This understanding gave us a starting point for building support!
Although there were 44 family dairies in DE during the previous attempt at legalization, there were now only 13 dairies remaining. I reached out to these 13 family-run dairies in DE to share my research about safe production of raw milk. I also shared that the market for raw milk is growing and creates a path to sustainability for small-scale dairies. This resulted in an overwhelming amount of positive support for raw milk legalization by dairy farmers of Delaware.
Next was the Farm Bureau, to see if they would potentially be willing to support raw milk legalization instead of keeping their previous “neutral” position. After meeting personally with the Farm Bureau administrator, we reached out to every county Farm Bureau and asked to speak at each of their board meetings. The timing was perfect since every Farm Bureau county hosts a legislative breakfast to inform legislators of upcoming bills and policies affecting farmers.
I presented on raw milk at each of these legislative breakfasts while the bill was still being drafted. The breakfasts allowed me to reach many legislators at once in a personal way. Much of our bi partisan support stemmed from these early face-to-face meetings where legislators could hear the whole story before they even knew about the coming bill. Soon we had every county board and then the state board of the Farm Bureau voting in support for raw milk legalization.
We knew that the Agriculture Department and Health Department had previously opposed raw milk legalization. Instead of hiding what we were doing, we hoped to bring them along and give them the chance to learn more. This strategy proved successful over and over again.
With farmers and Farm Bureau on board, we were now well-positioned to meet with the Agriculture Department. Despite their longtime stance against raw milk, our Secretary of Agriculture was open to listening. I explained about consumer demand for raw milk, the economic impact to DE dairy farmers, the true risks of illness for carefully produced raw milk, and how we could further reduce health risks through regulations including bacterial testing with on-farm labs to ensure milk meets post-pasteurized standards for bacterial counts. By the end of the meeting, the Secretary of Agriculture was no longer opposed to raw milk legalization. We invited him to have input into the bill language and he eventually became our biggest and most powerful advocate!
We knew the Health Department was likely to be a tougher-sell on supporting raw milk due to entrenched beliefs about raw milk being dangerous. Senator Buckson called a meeting with the Health Department where he shared the “why” behind the legalization bill and mentioned that the bill might be passed due to bipartisan support. The Senator then invited the Health Department to provide input into the bill language to address their concerns. Although I would love to take credit for what happened in that room, all the credit goes to God. Miraculously, the Health Department agreed to be neutral on the bill!
With farmers, Farm Bureau, and our state agencies on board or at least neutral, we introduced the bill with bi-partisan support in both the house and senate. I could write a novel about every step of the way and the twists and turns we encountered, including the discovery of Bird Flu crossover to dairy! Maybe I will someday, but that isn’t the purpose of this piece. We were successful and raw milk is now legal in Delaware!
For those who want to advocate for legalization in other states or countries, I want to encourage you. Know that YOU can make a difference. Some of the keys to our success were the following.
Raw milk is no longer just farmer-driven. It is consumer-driven by the countless people and families who deserve access to this special food.
It was important to do the research and have fact sheets available with real data, including comparisons to other foods.
It was crucial to reach out to stakeholders early on, especially to those who were opposed. It was scary and would have been easier to ignore the opposition and hope for the best, but with lots of prayer and bravery I sought after conversations with such people.
An important approach that worked time and time again was to first just listen, show understanding for the concerns, find the common ground and move forward from there. By meeting people where they were, letting them feel validated and heard, and acknowledging that I too had felt that way, we were no longer enemies and we could have meaningful conversations where they were open to learning how my thoughts had changed.
It was also important to build a strong team. Some of the key players on our team were the bill sponsor (Senator Buckson), his policy director, the agriculture advisor to the governor, Raw Milk Institute, Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, Pete Kennedy (Weston A Price Foundation), and especially Peg Coleman (who provided scientific backing on risk assessment and valuable information related to the bird flu).
I learned that emails proved to have very little impact and personal interaction was the winning ticket. My advice is to build as much support as possible early on, even before bill writing is complete.
And lastly but most importantly pray! I saw God’s hand at work in this so many times and drew strength from that when I felt weary. He slayed some mighty giants for us along the way and I have to give him the praise and glory. Don’t be complacent. I knew very little about raw milk and look at what was accomplished. You can make a difference! If I could do it, you definitely can too!
On Wednesday February 5th in Lancaster, PA, the Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) will present a 3-hour seminar on Producing World-Class Raw Milk.
Whereas farmers producing milk for the pasteurized market often struggle to make ends meet, raw milk farms are thriving. Raw milk presents a unique opportunity for farmers to move into an expanding market by implementing intentional practices and higher standards to produce low-risk, delicious raw milk.
Raw milk is an exceptional farmstead product that brings all the added value back to the farmer with an incentive to work on quality. By selling directly to consumers, raw milk farmers are able to obtain greater financial rewards for their work, while consumers benefit from the improved flavor and nutrition. It’s a win-win for both farmers and consumers!
This training workshop will be presented by the Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) as part of the PASA Sustainable Agriculture Conference. This class will be from 9am-noon Eastern Time.
This RAWMI presentation will focus on:
History of raw milk
Why raw milk farms are thriving
Health benefits of raw milk
Benefits of selling raw milk
Safety and risks of raw milk
Grass-to-glass raw milk risk management
Raw milk testing
Building a successful raw milk market
You can’t register for this workshop quite yet, but save the date and we hope to see you in Pennsylvania!
Is your raw milk farmer really producing low-risk, safe raw milk?
Numerous scientific studies have shown that raw milk is correlated with decreased rates of asthma, allergies, eczema, ear infections, fever, and respiratory infections. However, improperly-produced raw milk can be dangerous! For instance, studies have shown that there are disease-causing pathogens in up to 24% of samples taken from bulk tanks of milk intended for pasteurization.
So how do you find a good source for low-risk raw milk? Keep reading for info about:
35+ RAWMI Listed dairies across the USA and Canada
Online raw milk directories
Recommended checklist to assess your local raw milk dairy
The Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) has developed a rigorous program for raw milk farmers who are dedicated to producing clean, safe raw milk. RAWMI Listed farmers develop a plan for managing the health and hygiene of their farm, receive one-on-one mentoring and guidance for low-risk optimization, and test their milk regularly to ensure compliance with the RAWMI Common Standards for low-risk raw milk. RAWMI Listed farmers meet regularly as a community to share lessons learned and stay up-to-date on the best practices for low-risk raw milk production.
RAWMI currently has 35+ Listed farms in Arizona, Arkansas, British Columbia Canada, California, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Ontario Canada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. If you are lucky enough to live near a RAWMI Listed dairy, you’ve got a great source for low-risk raw milk nearby.
If you don’t live near a RAWMI Listed dairy, the following online directories might be helpful in finding a source for raw milk:
This site has a comprehensive state-by-state list of raw milk dairies in the USA.
This site has a handy interactive map of raw milk dairies across the USA and internationally.
For raw milk in the United Kingdom, this website has an interactive map of raw milk dairies.
Since most of these dairies have not been Listed by RAWMI, it is recommended that you do some research to make sure that the raw milk you buy is low-risk. Here is a short list of things to look for in a raw milk dairy:
Make sure the cows/goats look like they're in good health, with regards to body conformation, udders, coat, etc.
Check whether the cows/goats get sunshine and have access to outdoors and some grass.
Inspect to make sure that everything involved in the milking process looks very clean, including the milking parlor, all milking equipment, bottle cleaning area, bottling area, milk jars/bottles, etc.
Find out about their process for cleaning bottles, such as whether they use hot water, washing machine, etc.
Ask to see what the udder cleaning process looks like, making sure the udders are cleaned very well, pre-dipped, dried, and stripped before milking begins.
Learn about their milk chilling process. It is best if the milk is chilled quickly to just above freezing (38-40 degrees F) in ~45-60 minutes, such as with an ice bath or other more high-tech chilling equipment.
Find out what their water source is and whether their water is tested regularly.
Find out what the shelf-life of their milk is, from fresh to souring. Cold, clean raw milk should have good flavor and taste for at least 12-14 days or even longer. Short shelf life with rising bubbles in the milk would indicate high presence of coliform bacteria, which indicates that the milk is not hygienic.
Ask about what regular testing they do, and find out specifically what their coliform counts have been. RAWMI Common Standards aim for <10 coliforms/mL of raw milk.
Take a look into the farmer's kitchen: does it look clean and orderly? Look at their truck, too. Personal practices often say so much about behaviors when no one is watching.
To really make sure their overall processes and procedures are optimal for low-risk raw milk, direct them to contact RAWMI and consider becoming RAWMI Listed.
If your local raw milk dairy is not Listed by RAWMI, consider asking them to contact the Raw Milk Institute. We provide mentoring and training, help farmers develop their own unique on-farm Risk Assessment and Management Plan, and provide ongoing support. It is FREE for farmers and helps ensure that their milk is low-risk and safe for you and your family!
You may also want to share these resources with your farmer:
RAWMI’s 4.5-Hour Online Raw Milk Risk Management Course
Essential Principles for Low-Risk Raw Milk Booklet - Available Spiral Bound or as a PDF Download
My family has been drinking raw milk for over 18 years. I drank raw milk through both of my pregnancies and raised both of my kids on raw milk since they were weaned from breastmilk as toddlers. I have purposely chosen raw milk for my family because of its exceptional health benefits and animal welfare.
Studies performed in Europe have shown that children who drink raw milk have decreased rates of asthma, allergies, eczema, ear infections, fever, and respiratory infections. Nonetheless, when I tell people that my family drinks raw milk, I often hear responses such as:
“Raw milk is dangerous!”
“Doesn’t raw milk make people sick?”
“I heard that raw milk was bad for you.”
The reason for raw milk’s negative reputation is that there are two types of raw milk! Raw milk that is intended for pasteurization is quite different than raw milk produced for direct human consumption.
When my family drives past a nearby dairy that produces milk for pasteurization, we are struck by the horrendous smell and filthy living conditions. The animal yard is completely covered with manure. The cows have no choice but to lie and stand in manure all day. It is disgusting to think that this operation is producing food for families.
Raw milk that is “intended for pasteurization” is typically sourced from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). This type of milk is actually defined under the Federal Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO). Such milk is being produced in conditions where animal health is often compromised and mastitis (udder infection) is common. Antibiotics are often utilized in these herds, and hormones are used to stimulate higher levels of milk production. The animals are housed in an abundance of manure, and there is a corresponding high rate of pathogens.
This milk is intended to be pasteurized to kill pathogenic bacteria, and as such, it is often produced with little care towards preventing contamination with pathogens. Furthermore, this type of milk is generally commingled with milk from multiple dairies, which increases the risk of pathogenic exposure. Studies have shown that up to 33% of this type of milk tests positive for pathogens. This type of raw milk is clearly unsafe to consume. I would never feed this type of raw milk to my family.
When my family visits the dairy that produces the raw milk that we drink, we see a very different setting from the CAFO dairy. The cows at the raw milk dairy are happily grazing on lush pastures. The cows look clean and healthy. The milk is bottled on-farm, and we can see that the milk bottling room is clean and neat. There is a stark contrast between the CAFO dairy and this raw milk dairy.
Raw milk that is carefully and intentionally produced for direct human consumption is wholly different from raw milk being produced for pasteurization. Raw milk farmers carefully manage the cleanliness and hygiene of the farm from grass-to-glass, with much care to ensure that the animals are healthy and the milk is clean.
From the health of the herd, to cleanliness of the milking parlor, to the specific cleaning processes for the milk line, to ensuring rapid milk chilling, to regularly testing their milk, and everything in between, raw milk farmers are dedicated to taking their farm management to the next level in order to ensure that their raw milk is safe to consume.
Although there are no federal standards for raw milk, the Raw Milk Institute has established Common Standards for raw milk that is intended for direct human consumption. This type of raw milk is tested often and held to rigorous standards to ensure that it is being produced in a way that discourages pathogen growth.
The four main pathogens in milk that can cause human illness are E coli 0157:H7, listeria mono, salmonella, and campylobacter. The two most common sources of pathogens in milk are manure and mastitis. It is estimated that one-third of CAFO dairy cows have mastitis, and the cows in CAFOs stand and lie in manure all day. Clearly, this type of dairy environment is primed for pathogen growth.
On the other hand, the raw milk dairy environment is carefully managed to prevent pathogens in the milk. These farmers manage the health of their herd to prevent mastitis. They ensure that the milk from any animals that are showing signs of mastitis is not used for direct human consumption. Raw milk farmers meticulously clean the udders before milking to ensure that no manure or other contaminants are present. They also rigorously and frequently clean their milking machines, milk lines, and milk tanks.
Take a look at the milk filters shown below. Even with just a quick look, it is apparent that the milk being produced with the intent to be pasteurized is clearly not clean, whereas the milk filter from the intentionally-produced raw milk looks impeccable. (To be fair, there are some dairy farmers who produce milk for pasteurization that is much more hygienic than most others. However, that milk is still commingled with milk from other dairies, many of which are likely to not use hygienic practices.)
Okay, I’m gonna get technical here. If reading about standards and looking at charts is not your thing, you can skip ahead to the last section. :)
Two important types of bacterial testing for milk are Standard Plate Count (SPC) and coliform count. The SPC is a measure of the total number of aerobic bacteria in the milk. High SPC numbers can indicate dirty milking equipment, poor milk chilling, and/or poor udder preparation.
Coliform count measures the amount of coliform bacteria present in the milk. Coliform counts measure the overall hygiene and cleanliness of the milk. High coliform counts generally indicate the presence of manure or other environmental contaminants on the udders or milking equipment. High coliform counts are likely to correspond to the presence of pathogens in the milk.
According to the PMO, pre-pasteurized milk is allowed to have up to 100,000 colony-forming units (cfu) of bacteria per mL in SPC testing. The PMO does not have a standard for how many coliforms are allowed in pre-pasteurized milk, but the state of California allows coliforms up to 750 cfu/mL of milk.
In comparison, the Raw Milk Institute Common Standards call for <5,000 cfu/mL for SPC testing, and <10 cfu/mL in coliform testing. As you can see in the chart below, intentionally-produced raw milk is measurably quite different from pre-pasteurized raw milk, and even meets stricter standards than pasteurized milk.
The Raw Milk Institute has been collecting monthly Standard Plate Count and Coliform Count data from its LISTED raw milk dairies since 2012. This dataset of thousands of test results shows that raw milk farmers who have been properly trained can routinely meet the stringent standards set forth in the Common Standards.
Researchers from Canada and Europe have studied the safety of raw milk intended for direct human consumption. They have found that carefully produced raw milk is a low-risk food which is fundamentally different from pre-pasteurized milk.
The table below contrasts pathogen test data from pre-pasteurized milk vs. raw milk intended for direct human consumption. As illustrated in the table, pathogen testing of pre-pasteurized milk samples has detected pathogens in up to 33% of samples. In contrast, there were zero pathogens detected in thousands of milk samples from raw milk intended for direct human consumption. It is clear from this test data that pre-pasteurized milk is categorically different from raw milk intended for direct human consumption.
Data courtesy of the British Columbia Herdshare Association
It is clear that raw milk produced with the intention to be pasteurized is likely to contain dangerous pathogens. This type of raw milk is unsafe, and I would never feed it to my family. Unfortunately, this type of raw milk’s negative reputation has led many to believe that all raw milk is unsafe to consume.
It is important to note that there is no such thing as a perfectly safe food. An analysis of foodborne illnesses from 2009-2015 showed that the top food categories commonly linked to illnesses were chicken, pork, and seeded vegetables. Pasteurized milk is not perfectly safe, either, and is implicated in foodborne illnesses and outbreaks every year. The CDC outbreak and illness data which is used to assert that raw milk is unsafe does not distinguish raw milk intended for pasteurization from raw milk that is carefully produced and intended for direct human consumption.
It is clear from the above-presented test data that intentionally-produced raw milk is a low-risk food. In my family, we purposely choose raw milk for its superior nutrition and significant health benefits over pasteurized milk. Raw milk contains greater bioavailable nutrients than pasteurized milk, as well as a wide array of beneficial enzymes and probiotics which are known to have benefits on the immune system and gastrointestinal tract.
The Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) has trained hundreds of farmers through in-person workshops around the USA and Canada. For those who cannot attend our training in-person, we have a free web version for you!
RAWMI’s Risk Management Training Workshop is now available to watch on Vimeo here. This 4.5 hour course is broken into 17 segments for easier viewing. There are direct links to each of the 17 segments towards the bottom of this post.
This RAWMI training focuses on:
benefits of raw milk,
grass-to-glass identification of risks,
development of a risk management plan, and
lessons learned from other raw milk dairies.
It includes lots of practical tips for the production of safe raw milk. This training has been shown to reduce outbreaks and illnesses, increase safety, and lower insurance costs.
The overall training course is 4&1/2 hours long, but we have broken that down into 17 smaller segments so that you can easily find the sections you want to watch.
WORKSHOP OVERVIEW:
PART 1 – Introductions and About Raw Milk Institute
PART 2 – Raw Milk History and Opposition
PART 3 – Raw Milk Benefits
PART 4 – Raw Milk Risks and RAWMI Method
PART 5 – Introduction to Grass-to-Glass Risk Management
PART 6 – Small-Scale and Large-Scale Raw Milk Production
PART 7 – Risk Minimization: Grass, Pasture, and Water
PART 8 – Risk Minimization: Animal Health and Biosecurity
PART 9 – Risk Minimization: Milking and Udder Prep
PART 10 – Risk Minimization: Management
PART 11 – Q&A for Parts 1-10
PART 12 – Risk Minimization: Management (cont.)
PART 13 – Risk Minimization: Management (cont.)
PART 14 – Risk Minimization: Glass, Bottling, and Inspections
PART 15 – Raw Milk Testing
PART16 – Why to Become RAWMI LISTED
PART 17 – Conclusion and Final Q&A
Here is some of the feedback we received from attendees at this training:
“Excellent presentation that every single person who dairies for themselves and their family should take and learn from. Thank you very much.”
“This has been excellent! ONLINE was so helpful as it’s hard to travel and be away.”
“For me, the combination of technical information and anecdotes is very effective for explaining why the RAWMI methods are important and how they solve a raw milk producer challenges. I came away with practical solutions to increase the quality/value of our milk and farm. Thank you."
“I left the Zoom meeting with a very clear understanding of what we are doing right and where we need to make changes. Beyond that, though, I left inspired to pursue excellence and cast a clear vision to everyone who is joining me in this endeavor.”
“The information was also rich and informative. I learned a ton and the systematic way you presented it was easy to follow and comprehensive.”
“I cannot wait to move forward with you in becoming RAWMI Listed. We will be making some changes as we form our RAMP plan. We have already adjusted our milk chilling and have seen an improvement in flavor and longevity.”
“Thank you for all you do. I have no doubt history will look back at the RAWMI as having played a crucial role in reforming raw milk production, health, and nutrition.”
Ongoing bacterial testing is one of the pillars of low-risk raw milk production. With testing, farmers can easily detect small issues before they turn into big problems. However, testing costs can be an ongoing financial burden which makes small-scale farmers hesitant to test their milk often. The solution is on-farm labs, where farmers can perform their own bacterial tests for just $1-$3 per test.
On-farm labs don’t take up much space or need a lot of sophisticated equipment. With a simple incubator, set-up costs for on-farm labs are in the range of $800-$1,000. Because even those costs can be too much for small-scale farmers, at the Raw Milk Institute we devote $5000 of our budget yearly to providing grants for on-farm labs. We give 10 farmers $500 each to help cover the costs of setting up their on-farm labs.
As a 501c3 non-profit, we rely on donations and run on a low operating budget, but nonetheless we want to help as many farmers as possible have the capability to test their milk. However, with so much increased interest in raw milk, we have already given out all 10 of the lab grants we budgeted for in 2024! There are still many more farmers who want on-farm labs to help in producing low-risk raw milk, but we do not have the budget to continue giving out more lab grants this year.
This is where you come in. Your donations, no matter how small, can help more farmers build their on-farm labs so they can test their raw milk regularly. For every $500 we raise, we will be able to gift another farmer with a grant to make on-farm testing a reality.
100% of your donation will go to helping farmers purchase testing equipment.
You can donate here: https://www.givesendgo.com/farmerlabs
USA-based donations are tax-deductible. With your support, we can continue to provide lab grants to raw milk farmers.
Sanitization can be an important part of an overall cleaning process for raw milk equipment, bulk tanks, and bottles. This is because bacteria growth can occur in milking equipment during the time between milkings. These bacteria can contribute off flavors to the milk, shorten shelf-life, and in rare cases they can contribute to pathogenic illness when the raw milk is consumed. The use of a sanitizer can help by reducing the bacteria load in milking equipment.
Simple bucket milker systems and pipeline systems being used more than once per day may not need be sanitized prior to milking, and this can be confirmed with the use of bacterial tests. However, pipeline systems, and especially pipeline systems being used only once per day, may necessitate the use of a sanitizer rinse just prior to milking in order to lower the level of bacteria in these systems. Additionally, some states (such as Vermont) require that a sanitizer be used on milking equipment just before milking.
Bleach and chlorine-based sanitizers are readily available and widely used for milking equipment. However, when bleach or other chlorine-based sanitizers are used, special attention needs to be given to ensure that the amounts of sanitizer being used are carefully controlled.
Although chlorine is quickly inactivated by contact with organic matter, chlorine is also known to create disinfection byproducts that can be toxic including trihalomethanes such as trichloromethane (i.e. chloroform). These toxic byproducts are formed when the acetoin, diacetyl, and other methyl ketones in milk react with chlorine [1].
Trihalomethanes and chloroform have been shown to increase the risk of cancer, liver damage, fertility problems, and miscarriages [2]. Chloroform is categorized by the USA Environmental Protection Agency as a Probable Human Carcinogen.
Studies, including those shown below, have shown that when chlorine-based sanitizers are used in greater-than recommended amounts, there can be unhealthy levels of sanitizer residues and toxic byproducts in the milk.
Volatile Organic Compounds in Foods: A Five Year Study [3] – In this study, the highest levels of chloroform in foods in the USA were found in dairy products.
Chloroform in milk and dairy products B: Transfer of chloroform from cleaning and disinfection agents to dairy products via CIP [4] – This study found that the use of chlorine-based sanitizers in a Clean-In-Place (CIP) milking system can result in chloroform formation and contamination in the raw milk. Chloroform was also found to concentrate in the milkfat, and therefore the levels of chloroform in cream, butter, and cheese were greater than the amounts in fluid milk.
Evaluation of Trichloromethane formation in Cow’s milk from chlorine-based cleaning and disinfection agents [5] – This study found that “Increased chlorine concentration in the detergent and reduced rinse water volume resulted in increased TCM [trichloromethane] concentrations in milk, while the addition of chlorine to the rinse water also increased milk TCM.”
Strategy for the reduction of Trichloromethane residue levels in farm bulk milk [6] – This study found that the ‘first milk’ that was collected in a milk pipeline system was likely to have higher concentrations of chloroform than milk which was collected subsequently. Increasing the volume of rinse water in the pipeline resulted in a decrease in the amount of chloroform in the milk. When chlorine-based sanitizers were used in recommended amounts, the total level of chloroform was found to be below the acceptable limit.
The USA Environmental Protection Agency sets an acceptable limit for chloroform and other trihalomethanes in drinking water at 0.06-0.08 mg/L [7]. The European Union (EU) sets the acceptable limit for chloroform and other trihalomethanes in drinking water at 0.1 mg ⁄kg [5]. Both of these standards are well below the concentration that would be considered carcinogenic.
The USA and EU have not published regulations on the acceptable limits for chloroform and other trihalomethanes in food. However, in Germany 0.1 mg/kg has been set as the acceptable limit for chloroform and trihalomethanes in food, and target levels of <0.03mg/kg for butter and <0.002 mg ⁄kg for milk have been recommended [5].
We know that the use of no-rinse chlorine sanitizers in greater-than-recommended amounts can result in harmful levels of toxic byproducts (including chloroform) in the fluid milk.
These issues would be lessened somewhat with the use of simple bucket milker systems as opposed to milk pipeline systems (wherein the milk flows over greater lengths of sanitized surfaces and cleaners can concentrate in low points in the pipeline system).
More complex milking systems, such as pipeline systems,
Milking only once a day instead of twice a day, and/or
Hot or humid climates which can contribute to bacterial growth and prevent dairy equipment from drying properly between uses.
By federal regulations, bleach needs to be used at a concentration of no greater than 200 ppm, which could generally be achieved by using no more than 1 Tablespoon of bleach per gallon of water (assuming the bleach has a content of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite).
Alternatively, chlorine test strips can be used to verify that the chlorine concentration is correct.
Be aware that some bleaches (such as Clorox Disinfecting Bleach) have a higher concentration of sodium hypochlorite and therefore need to be used in smaller amounts.
When using chlorinated dairy sanitizer, make sure to carefully measure the amounts of sanitizer and water to ensure that the concentration of sanitizer is no greater than recommended.
A pure water rinse can be performed after the use of chlorine-based sanitizers, just prior to milking or bottling.
Hydrogen peroxide-based sanitizers can be used instead of chlorine-based sanitizers. Hydrogen peroxide-based sanitizers do not create toxic byproducts.
Acid-based sanitizers can be used instead of chlorine-based sanitizers. Beware that some acid sanitizers may not have a long enough time of action to be sufficient for milking systems that are only used once per day.
Sanitizers may not be needed, depending on the complexity of the system, frequency of milking, and climate. For instance, some farms using bucket milkers have had success in achieving low bacteria counts with the implementation of alkaline and acid cleaners without using a sanitizer. Testing for coliforms and Standard Plate Count can be used as a confirmation step to verify that the use of a sanitizer is not needed. Ideally, this testing should be performed throughout the year to ensure that a sanitizer is not needed regardless of weather factors (such as humidity and heat).
NOTE: Care must be taken with both chlorine-based and hydrogen peroxide-based sanitizers to ensure that they are never mixed with acid cleaners or vinegar.
1. Coura, Fernanda & FERREIRA, F. & Barbieri, Jonata & PACIULLI, S.. (2020). QUEIJO MINAS ARTESANAL PRODUZIDO NA REGIÃO DE CANASTRA: CARACTERÍSTICAS DOS PARÂMETROS DE PRODUÇÃO, QUALIDADE DA ÁGUA E DOS QUEIJOS. Ars Veterinaria. 36. 78. 10.15361/2175-0106.2020v36n2p78-87. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342483080_QUEIJO_MINAS_ARTESANAL_PRODUZIDO_NA_REGIAO_DE_CANASTRA_CARACTERISTICAS_DOS_PARAMETROS_DE_PRODUCAO_QUALIDADE_DA_AGUA_E_DOS_QUEIJOS/citation/download
2. Environmental Protection Agency (2000). Chloroform. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-09/documents/chloroform.pdf
3. Fleming-Jones, Mary & Smith, Robert. (2004). Volatile Organic Compounds in Foods: A Five Year Study. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry. 51. 8120-7. 10.1021/jf0303159. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8947382_Volatile_Organic_Compounds_in_Foods_A_Five_Year_Study/citation/download
4. Resch, P. & Guthy, K.. (2000). Chloroform in milk and dairy products B: Transfer of chloroform from cleaning and disinfection agents to dairy products via CIP. Deutsche Lebensmittel-Rundschau. 96. 9-16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287869065_Chloroform_in_milk_and_dairy_products_B_Transfer_of_chloroform_from_cleaning_and_disinfection_agents_to_dairy_products_via_CIP
5. Ryan, Siobhan & Gleeson, David & Jordan, Kieran & Furey, Ambrose & Brien, A. (2012). Evaluation of Trichloromethane formation in Cow’s milk from chlorine-based cleaning and disinfection agents. International Journal of Dairy Technology. 65. 498-502. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0307.2012.00858.x
6. Ryan, Siobhan & Gleeson, David & Jordan, Kieran & Furey, Ambrose & O'Sullivan, Kathleen & O'Brien, Rebecca. (2013). Strategy for the reduction of Trichloromethane residue levels in farm bulk milk. The Journal of dairy research. 80. 1-6. 10.1017/S0022029913000113. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235894115_Strategy_for_the_reduction_of_Trichloromethane_residue_levels_in_farm_bulk_milk/citation/download
7. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations
