Anybody Buying this New Cheesemaking Book?

[StuartDunstan]

See a lot of faults in this type of thinking----I'm sure their are some valid points-----but mostly I see someone trying to make money based on unfounded fears and the hopes of people thinking "There has to be a better and easier way"
Qdog

I don't. He's got a long history of teaching cheesemaking, and I have no problem reading about a different take on the subject. This publisher does a lot of books that are about going back to a more holistic way of food preparation and farming, i.e. Sandor Katz's excellent "Art of Fermentation" which is pretty much the bible for fermenters.

And to say he's just out to make money from people's fears is grossly unfair.

[qdog1955]

Nostalgia----how convenient to think the old ways were always better and safer----but I remember kids with polio, I remember getting small pox vacs. What about life spans that used to average 45 years old. I am a Luddite at heart----but not foolish enough to think that going backwards will solve all the modern problems----especially feeding an over-populated world.
Qdog

[StuartDunstan]

Nostalgia----how convenient to think the old ways were always better and safer----but I remember kids with polio, I remember getting small pox vacs. What about life spans that used to average 45 years old. I am a Luddite at heart----but not foolish enough to think that going backwards will solve all the modern problems----especially feeding an over-populated world.
Qdog

Right. While I'm impressed that you managed to bring polio, small pox, average human lifespan, and overpopulation of the Earth into the discussion of a cheesemaking book (in one post, no less!), I just don't have the time to indulge someone with this level of crazy. My time is better spent making cheese.

Good luck to you, sir!

[Kern]

And to say he's just out to make money from people's fears is grossly unfair.

Yet, hundreds of books are published each year where the author is stoking up fears to in order to sell books.  Many of these are based upon food.  Wheat Belly is a recent one, for example.  There are dozens of books based upon the hazards of GMO food products.  Fear sells.  Authors and editors know this.  So, I don't find the above quote baseless at all and if it's not baseless it can hardly be unfair.

[StuartDunstan]

And to say he's just out to make money from people's fears is grossly unfair.

Yet, hundreds of books are published each year where the author is stoking up fears to in order to sell books.  Many of these are based upon food.  Wheat Belly is a recent one, for example.  There are dozens of books based upon the hazards of GMO food products.  Fear sells.  Authors and editors know this.  So, I don't find the above quote baseless at all and if it's not baseless it can hardly be unfair.

Sorry, chief. You're wrong. It's completely unfair and baseless to make that kind of accusation without having even read the book and knowing next to nothing about the author. The end.

[Kern]

Actually, you can link to this book on Amazon and read enough of it to get a strong flavor of what Ashford's shtick is to make an informed opinion of the book.  Such an opinion would hardly be baseless.  He loses me in the very first sentence he writes in the introduction to his book:  "Cheese making as practiced in North America is decidedly unnatural..."  Later in the book he states regarding microbes that "....all have their origin in the microbiodiversity of raw milk".  Prior to his stating this he claims that the greatest "insult" one can perform in cheesemaking is to pasteurize milk.  In another part of the book he claims that his "natural" methods can be used for either raw or pasteurized milk.  So, which one is it?  All this after eschewing the use of pure cultures, plastics, and sanitizing, etc.  For good effect he rails against the use of nitric and phosphoric acid, which to the best of my knowledge are never used anywhere in a cheese making operation.  (Sailor may be able to comment on this.)  Finally, for good effect he throws all these statements against BOTH large scale AND artisan cheesemakers.

After reading just this much of his book I can't help but wonder who he thinks his target market is.   

[qdog1955]

Voltaire said “Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too”.  So , Stuart, if I've offended you, it was not intentional------but this is the discussion section of the Forum and that involves opinions and we are all entitled to our opinions. Pointing fingers and getting angry at other peoples views will only weaken your own.
Qdog

[IllinoisCheeseHead]

Today I turn 51 (yes I am a 4th of July baby) and I am not interested in reading books that shame or critique our hobbies.  The way I make cheese is the way it has been made for thousands of years (without the electronics I guess) and I don't want to feel guilty about using rennet. 

Personally I grew up in a farm and I don't remember a single time where we mistreated any of our animals.  We loved them and respected them dearly for the sacrifices they make to feed us.  I don't wish to begin a debate but I instill respect to animals even with my kids.  Yesterday we went to get raw milk and spent time visiting and petting the baby cows.  Yes we understand that eventually they are going to be sacrificed but it is too feed us and I think if we do it with respect we are not doing anything bad. 

I choose who I buy from and if I suspect that they don't care for the animals I simply don't shop there.  I was only expressing my feelings about this book and feel that we don't need to be vegetarians because of how some treat and raise animals.  We have the power of the purse and if I don't buy cheap ground beef because I know how it was raised, they do not enjoy my dollars.  I buy only from places that I know have the same respect for animals as my grandparents told me.  If we, when kids, mistreated a chicken, we would get a beating because the chickens gave us gifts every day and in the end sacrifice their lives. 

Ultimately I don't want to feel guilty about a hobby which is something so dear to my heart.  Making cheese reminds me of when I was a little child and then we use to coagulate the milk with bits of calf stomach that was preserved for this purpose.  We basically did not discard any part of an animal really, not even intestine linings.  Making cheese for me and my family is something I want to continue to teach my kids and grand kids.

John

[amiriliano]

I guess we really shouldn't judge a "book by it's cover." It's possible the recipes and methods are excellent.

But I do agree that there is a somewhat insufferable and arrogant push by people who have no scientific background to make recommendations about food safety which are potentially harmful. There is a balance between artisanal beauty and not losing your foothold on reality.

Nature is beautiful but make no mistake: it's also out to kill you! You can definitely make someone ill or worse with cheese. I *do* happen to have a background in this area and can I am often shocked by the non-scientific recommendations of "back to nature" food writers. Here's an article I wrote for the Philadelphia Inquirer regarding raw milk:

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/healthy_kids/Raw-milk-the-benefits-dont-outweigh-the-risks.html

[qdog1955]

  Emi----very interesting article---with some actual facts, but help me out here. If everyone in the U.S. drank raw milk, and only 67 people died out of 300 million. Isn't that statistically speaking almost insignificant? Not saying that all life isn't precious. But doesn't that number back the position of the Raw milk advocates? I personally believe State and Fed laws are to severe and people should have the right to buy and consume properly prepared raw milk, if they choose to----but they should be aware of any dangers involved---especially concerning children.

[amiriliano]

No problem Scott. So a couple of things:

1) We ask "what is the risk/benefit ratio" - is the risk worth the benefit?

Putting that aside:

2) We are not just worried about death but also hospitalizations and illnesses.

3) If you read the article you will see I stress that you have to compare the mobility/ mortality numbers PER CAPITA consumption. Since only about 3% of the milk bought in the US is raw, 67 deaths is relatively a lot. As I said in the article:

"Some simple math reveals that if 100 percent of Americans consumed raw milk products, raw milk products would cause and average 61,000 illnesses, 6,500 hospitalizations and 67 deaths per year (based on 2009 data)."

Does that make sense?

-Emi

[IllinoisCheeseHead]

I have red a lot of data that does not support the numbers being discussed here.  Sorry amiriliano.  I don't mean to cause a debate but could quote the research as well but question the accuracy of the numbers shown.  In fact, many believe that the main reason for pasteurization is to prolong the shelf life of the milk.  Pasteurization does not make the milk sterile.

According to numbers obtained from the CDC in 2011 there were
SUMMARY
       31 total outbreaks
               9 fluid milk
               21 cheese: 17 non-Mexican style; 4 Mexican style queso fresco
               1 powdered milk
      2,840 total illnesses, 10 deaths
               2,200 fluid milk-related illnesses (3 deaths)
              604 cheese-related illnesses: 573 non-Mexican style (5 deaths), 31 Mexican style queso fresco (1 death)
              36 powdered milk-related illnesses

The point here is that it really depends how you process and handle raw milk.  Personally if I am going to use raw milk other than to make cheese which will age for 60 days or longer, I pauperize at 145 for 30 minutes.

There is a lot of bad rap about raw milk and the fact is that a some people get sick.  In my opinion, if the facility sends all their milk to be pasteurized, then I would be careful.  But if most of their milk is to make their own cheeses which they sell and to sell raw milk, I am sure that it would be in their best interest to preserve things as clean as possible.  They have been in business for 30 years and I think the first time someone get's sick, it will go the same way as everyone else and go out of business while people in the same town get sick from pasteurized milk and cheeses and those outbreaks don't cause the creameries to close down.

I think it is unfair to take unilateral positions when it comes to raw milk.  It is not, by default, bad at all.

[amiriliano]

If you would like, I would be happy to read your data. Can you provide a peer reviewed reference? Usual when people say they've "done their research" or "investigated" a medical topic, they've just read things online or in books. The actual body of scientific data does not support your claim (this is part of what I do for a living). But I am open to reading any references that you are able to present.

No offense. No need for angry arguments. We can have an intellectual discussion without passion.

[IllinoisCheeseHead]

Hi
 
I don't intend to argue or challenge anyone's research or opinion.  There are always two sides of all stories and not a single research is more than just one instance of data collections. 

The numbers collected by realmilk.com are public knowledge reported by the CDC.  There are no arguments there when the CDC actually offers the numbers.  I am not saying that pasteurized milk is bad, I am just saying that it is not all cut and dry.

http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/PDFs/pasteurized-dairy-outbreak-table.pdf

Thanks

[amiriliano]

There are two *opinions* in this issue, but the science is clear in one direction (overwhelmingly). But yes, if you read websites such as those you will only be exposed to about 15% of the actual body of knowledge. If I may, I would refer you back to my article and especially the links in it, which discuss how the issue is downplayed by proponents of raw milk.

-E