Jul. 7th, 2011

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/06/BUDD1K5DTF.DTL

I don't know how I feel about this. I understand that raw milk can make you very sick though I'm fine with people drinking the milk their own animals produce (My rule of thumb is that most people are super careful about stuff they feed themselves and their own kids). However, the overall scheme sounds a bit eyebrow-popping and dodgy. A non-farmer buys a share of an animal, pays a monthly fee and claims that through ownership, the transaction isn't held to the same standard as a regular seller-consumer would be. (otherwise, the farmer would have to invest in a lot of expensive equipment to meet certain standards)

Someone at work suggested that said share owner could work a few hours a month to substantiate "ownership."

I have to say my first thought was "Damn, that raw milk is expensive."

Profile

mobiusklein

September 2011

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11 121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags