Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

helomech, you beat me to it. Well said.

Good for you Dave, enjoy it while you can. I assume they do not know about you and the farmer! Do not advertise it. Do you drink it raw?

And I have never drinked it without boiling it first. I have done that for too many years.
I do not recommend raw milk. But the yogurt and cheese that I make from it, is out of this world. No chimicals, no hormons, no sugar, or any other carppy additives.

And trust me, if you truly believe the Government is there to keep you safe, I got a bridge for sale too. Interested?
Who is the Government? Who controls it? Is there a central bank in your country?

Ooops, (the same dairy we got raw milk from in the past):

http://www.therecordherald.com/news/x45 ... s-outbreak

Interesting point.

If you knew the child was allergic to peanuts and you still gave the peanuts, I think that
would be first degree murder.

But I know that's not what you meant.

I think it would be a very interesting court case none the less.
Hopefully in the peanut case you would not have known the child was allergic hence it would
be accidental.

However, with raw milk to be contaminated with E.Coli points to negligent milking practices
that has allowed the milk to become contaminated.
This could be not washing/disinfecting the udders or teats correctly or allowing the machinery
to become contaminated.
And negligence is always a winner in a court of law.

However, there are other bacteria in the milk itself, so selling known contaminated milk
to a third party I think would make an interesting court case.
(with peanuts you have no reason to believe them to be contaminated)
A better example would be a surgeon that didn't correctly sterilise his/her instruments.
It would be fun being the prosecutor.

My understanding of the law is that if you milk your own animal it is not illegal for you to drink
it. It only becomes illegal when a third party becomes involved.
So the regulations are there to protect the wider community.




I found this statement interesting especially for some-one that wants to set up a commercial aquaponic system.

After-all, what we have in our backyards are bacterial incubators. We set them up to grow
the best bacteria possible.
I wonder, once the Insurance companies work that out, Are they going to be happy to
extend the appropriate cover?

And if someone knew the milk was bad then they should be prosecuted




Yes that was my meaning.



But if all rules where complied with, I don't believe the one selling the milk should be prosecuted or sued. To me it is up to the buyer to know the risks, just like eating raw shellfish. That is legal, a notice just has to be put up by the seller notifying the buyer of the risks associated with it.



But in both cases there is a risk to the person eating it. A person can develop an allergy over time. As long as the seller followed all rules and did everything they could to make sure the product was good they should be safe from prosecution.



So charge people to milk your cattle and let them do what they want with the FREE milk. Just like I don't sell eggs, I sell egg cartons, the eggs inside are free.

"If all the rules were complied with"

I think this is where the government health department regulators will have the greatest difficulty.

What rules would guarantee that raw milk will be as safe as pasteurized milk.

I don't think you can do it. (without causing great distress to the animal)

So, does the government have the right to regulate to keep the community safe and
not over burden the health resources of the nation?


Your idea of:
"That is legal, a notice just has to be put up by the seller notifying the buyer of the risks associated with it."

those notices are not worth the paper they are written on as negligence cannot be transferred.

So I think, if you supply raw milk and someone gets sick you will loose your farm.

That is not the way it works with shelfish. The notice in resturants are posted as per law, and the buyer assumes the responsibilty. Every seafood resturant where I used to live has them, and serves raw shellfish. It isn't negligence if the buyer is aware of the dangers. No different than getting any other product. All products have a danger, the seller is supposed to know what those dangers are. I could see if it was a secret, but once the knowledge is passed on, the buyer can choose not to buy the product. But once they do it should be there responsibilty at that point.

Also, not sure how your government works, but here in the U.S. the government is not responsible for the safety of its citizens. No where in our constitution does it say the government is responsible for our safety.

raw meat can also be dangerous.
It is not advisable to eat raw pork, and raw pork would be more dangerous than milk too

But i can order a raw steak from a resturant.

interesting, but I suspect those signs were warning against seafood allergies and not bacterial
poisoning.

I suspect if the restaurant owner left the shellfish at room temperature for a couple of days
and then went on to poison his patrons, that sign wouldn't be worth anything.



So, the U.S. government is not responsible for the safety of its citizens.

Can you explain to me why after hurricane Katrina, why did everyone in the U.S. expect
the Government to SAVE the victims and when they did such an abysmal job why did people
loose their jobs?

Surely, if the government wasn't responsible why all inquires and recriminations that made front
pages around the world?

Correct, but in Australia that restaurant has to buy that meat from a registered abattoir
that is regulated by the Government.

This is done so as to guarantee as much as possible the quality of the meat and the safety
to the community.

I suspect it would be the same in the U.S.

No it is from bacteria in the water. It is very common



No not the case at all. It doesn't matter how it is taken care of the bacteria is there. People with weak immune systems will get sick.





As a whole yes, not individual. That is why the police can not be sued for not helping an individual

[quoteCan you explain to me why after hurricane Katrina, why did everyone in the U.S. expect
the Government to SAVE the victims and when they did such an abysmal job why did people
loose their jobs?[/quote]

Not sure what you mean. I think you are asking why people expected the government to help them. If so then that is how it is with those types of people. Usually those that live in the cities. We lived south of the city and we took care of each other. Very little help from outside. Who lost their jobs?



Same reason all the other BS makes front pages all over. You do know a lot of it is not true right? I lived through Rita and katrina. If the government was responsible for the safety, then how come no one got in trouble for the screw ups? And yes no one got in trouble, maybe someone in fema got fused, but they just got moved to another agency.

All meat in the U.S. has to be USDA approved, but that does not mean much. And the raw steak is from the same batch as the rest of the steaks.

As much as possible, I like that statement. Why not apply the exact same thing to raw milk? I am pretty sure we can buy raw milk where I live. Going to have to find out.

Like I said before, just charge people for the privelage of milking your cows and let them do what they want with the milk they get. Here in the U.S. that is how we get past lots of regulations. Tips is another great way, don't charge a fee, but make them give you a tip before they get the product.

Hmm, does anyone remember what disease was a leading reason to pasteurize milk? Does anyone remember that this disease killed 7 million people per year before antibiotics. Are you aware that this disease has never been entirely erradicated from US cattle (even though the low rates are still considered a major victory)..

Some items like certain cheeses made with raw milk, can be made safe by aging but others can't. Raw milk should be available for those that want to make these products.

The disease was Tuberculosis - Most people in the US are not vaccinated against TB because getting infected is unlikely so drinking raw milk might not be such a great idea. Raw milk cheeses that aren't aged at least 60 days would probably not be a good idea either (queso fresco and others). Most other countries are vaccinated with the BCG vaccine but this doesn't necessarily mean these people are entirely safe either since it's success rate varies.

Part of the problem with milk is it's usually pooled from many animals and it only takes one.

Arguing about this is about like arguing for or against seat belts, it's one of those shades of gray topics, where there isn't any right answer. You give up something either way.

Tuberculosis may not have been totally eradicted from dairy herds.... but it's routinely monitored and controlled...

I grew up on a dairy farm in New Zealand as a kid... and all herds were tested... (as were all farmers)...

And any infected cattle were promptly culled, on the spot... and all herds were tested annually for years after... and AFAIK... still are...

Here's a couple of papers relating to the NZ experience...

http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/publi ... ums_tb.pdf

http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/Documents/2347_tait_s6599.pdf

NB: in the UK... badgers are a similar carrier to possums... and it seems that TB may still be a problem.... eradication programs exist... http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... lling-2012