Gyroscopic Investing

Benko wrote:Milk is a super common allergen.

Not true. Yes, pasteurized milk is a super common allergen, as most people are unable to digest lactose on their own. But, raw milk has the lactase needed to break it down into glucose and galactose. This is why raw milk is tolerated so well by lactose intolerant individuals. There are some people who are unable to digest cow's milk proteins, but it's a very small minority of people.

Additionally, "milk intolerance" and "milk allergy" were barely in the English lexicon before pasteurization:

[align=center][/align]

...Which suggests that most people developed milk allergies from that absence of lactase once milk was pasteurized during the 1930s.

Benko wrote:Are you really suggesting that milk is safer for more people than e.g. grains, legumes, nuts?

Not exactly. What I am suggesting that grass-fed raw milk is waaay better than grains, legumes and nuts. It is very close to a perfect food (if there was one). Do you have any evidence to support otherwise? Raw grass-fed milk is nutrient-dense, well balanced in fat/protein/carbs and typically has an excellent Omega 3/6 ratio. I can't find anything wrong with any of the "micro"-nutrients. If it's well-tolerated — as it often is — then I can't find anything wrong with it. Can you? (I'm being serious. I'm not challenging you).

See also, Kresser's 4-part series: http://chriskresser.com/raw-milk-reality

If you are talking about pure safety. Grass-fed raw milk has about the same risk as eating a melon (yes, people get very sick from eating melons, but most people don't worry about it). E coli is almost non-existant in grass-fed animals (something Polan has actually written about) and the farmer's have to wipe down the udders each time they collect and not let the cow roll around in poop all day — which is easy to do on a grass-fed farm and not what you see in pasteurized milk.

Yes, unfortunately pasteurized milk has pasteurized cow feces in it. My guess is some people are allergic to that sterilized fecal matter.

The key is "if it is well tolerated" (in adults).  And I'm not talking about the issue of lactose/intolerance.  I'm talking allergy.

I have no way of knowing if what you say is true, or not, I'm just suspicious it is being way oversold.

Benko wrote: The key is "if it is well tolerated" (in adults).  And I'm not talking about the issue of lactose/intolerance.  I'm talking allergy.

I have no way of knowing if what you say is true, or not, I'm just suspicious it is being way oversold.

It is true. Raw milk is very well tolerated in most adults. Always has been (since the dawn of agriculture, at least). It's all well documented and there is very little evidence to suggest otherwise in the historical literature from the 19th century and earlier.

Start with Kresser's 4-part series if you're curious about it.

Gumby,

You should sound off on your opinions on the moral aspects of eating meat.  More specifically, how should animals be treated in the process of being made available to us as food.

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/in ... ic=4488.30

I tend to be encouraged that many of the things we'd like to see for the sake of eating healthy meat (grass fed or pastured, no hormones, etc) also has a tendency to lend itself to better animal treatment.

At least that's the way it seems.

moda0306 wrote: Gumby,

You should sound off on your opinions on the moral aspects of eating meat.  More specifically, how should animals be treated in the process of being made available to us as food.

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/in ... ic=4488.30

I tend to be encouraged that many of the things we'd like to see for the sake of eating healthy meat (grass fed or pastured, no hormones, etc) also has a tendency to lend itself to better animal treatment.

At least that's the way it seems.

Very well. Hope you're not disappointed. 

Gumby wrote:

rocketdog wrote:Humans are the only mammals that drink the breast milk of a different species, not to mention that we drink it past infanthood.  It's kind of perverse when you think about it.

And yet, breast milk is called the "perfect food" despite the fact that it is high in saturated fat and cholesterol.

I can't argue with that; breast milk is indeed the perfect food... for a baby!

(Now I suppose you're going to tell me the cavemen drank milk )

rocketdog wrote:I can't argue with that; breast milk is indeed the perfect food... for a baby!

(Now I suppose you're going to tell me the cavemen drank milk )

No, the point — which you seem to miss — is that the primary macronutrient composition is a clue as to what a growing human needs to thrive. The ratios are a little different for adults. Adults require a bit less carbs and more protein than what's typically found in breast milk, for instance. Interestingly, cow's milk is much closer to the ideal primary macronutrient composition as it has less carbs and more protein than what's typically found in breast milk.

So, a moderate consumption of raw grass-fed cow's milk wouldn't be too far from the optimal adult ratios. (Talking "Macro" here, moda).

Gumby,

I see a flaw in your logic.

If milk having a certain macronutrient profile is an indicator of what we should ingest as adults, wouldn't cows have to ingest far more protein and fat, directly?

I'm not saying we have cow stomachs or even overtly disagreeing with your diet advice, but I certainly don't trust the make-up of milk to give me any clues as to the ratios I need.  How many other species is that a reliable measure in?

moda0306 wrote:If milk having a certain macronutrient profile is an indicator of what we should ingest as adults, wouldn't cows have to ingest far more protein and fat, directly?

I don't believe I ever said that. I said it's an indicator for a "growing" human. I said adults are a bit different (generally, as you age, you need a bit less carbs, for instance) and that cow's milk coincidentally happens to be closer to that adult profile than human breast milk (it's just a coincidence). Jaminet wrote about all this "Chapter 4: What Breast Milk Teaches Us About the Perfect Health Diet," in case you are interested.

moda0306 wrote:I'm not saying we have cow stomachs or even overtly disagreeing with your diet advice, but I certainly don't trust the make-up of milk to give me any clues as to the ratios I need.  How many other species is that a reliable measure in?

Every mammal's milk profile varies, but is roughly the same ballpark makeup (majority fat, minority protein/carbs). It's a clue. That's all.

Also, grass fed raw milk is rich in Vitamins A, D, E and K (the "fat soluble vitamins") and those vitamins can only be transported and absorbed in the presence of fat. Think of dairy as an ideal quick liquid transfer of vitamins, cholesterol and nutrients. But, that should also be a clue since without the presence of fat in your food, you can't readily absorb those nutrients from your diet.

In terms of the importance of fat...

All of the fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E & K) are only found in fat — and you can't absorb from your diet them without the presence of fat in your diet.

For instance, Butter and cheese are the highest sources of vitamin K2. Lard is one of the highest sources of vitamin D, etc. etc.

In a sense, the vitamins are useless to you without the presence of fat. Fat is required for your brain and all of your cells.

I already mentioned all this before, but here is some interesting data from Chris Masterjohn:

Chris Masterjohn wrote:Fat also increases the absorption of fat-soluble nutrients.  For example, a 2006 study found that a bagel with low-fat cream cheese containing 2.4 grams of fat (6% of calories) increased the absorption of vitamin E from fortified apples, while a bagel with regular-fat cream cheese containing 11 grams of fat (21% of calories) increased it even more.

[align=center][/align]

A 2004 study found similar results for carotene absorption from a salad using fat-free, low-fat, or regular-fat salad dressing.  The regular-fat dressing added 28 grams of fat to the salad, so the calories in the meal must have been mostly from fat.

[align=center]
Black triangles represent the fat-free salad, while white circles represent the low-fat salad and black circles represent the regular-fat salad.[/align]

These studies provide no evidence of a "ceiling" to the fat effect.  The highest fat meal in both studies provided the best absorption of fat-soluble nutrients.

An 2000 animal study found that carotene absorption was nearly two times higher with olive oil than with corn oil, suggesting perhaps that the polyunsaturated fatty acids in corn oil promote oxidative stress in the intestine and thereby decrease carotene absorption.

Source: Masterjohn: The 2010 USDA/HHS Guidelines — A Rather Bizarre Definition of "Nutrient Dense"

If you don't eat fat, your body will have a difficult time absorbing nutrients. I'm not saying you need to eat tons of fat. I'm just saying that our bodies evolved to utilize fat for nutrient absorption. If you think about it, dairy is mostly a liquid fat that mammals use to transport nutrients to infants. If breast milk is considered the "perfect food," for infants, it should noted that it is high in fat.

Gumby wrote: Also, grass fed raw milk is rich in Vitamins A, D, E and K (the "fat soluble vitamins")

Not to get off on a tangent here, but I wouldn't say grass fed milk is "rich" in vitamin D, since it depends on where the cow is pasturing.  Because it's not the grass that gives them the vitamin D, it's the sun.  So the mere fact that they're outside rather than in a barn is what's giving their milk some vitamin D, not their diet. 

Most milk (even grass fed) has to be fortified with vitamin D in order to have a beneficial amount for humans.  At which point you're just as well off taking a standardized supplement where you can better control the level of vitamin D you're ingesting without adding some of the other things milk contains that you might not want to add to your diet (i.e. fat, cholesterol, naturally-occuring bovine hormones, etc.) 

Of course, the best place to get vitamin D is through sun exposure, but that introduces potential problems of its own (i.e. increased risk of skin cancer).  It seems that even when you win, you still lose. 

rocketdog wrote:Not to get off on a tangent here, but I wouldn't say grass fed milk is "rich" in vitamin D, since it depends on where the cow is pasturing.  Because it's not the grass that gives them the vitamin D, it's the sun.  So the mere fact that they're outside rather than in a barn is what's giving their milk some vitamin D, not their diet.

Wrong, rocketdog. Once again, it's far more complex than you realize. It's the pasteurization that denatures the milk and severely reduces the vitamin content and reduces its absorption:

Weston A. Price Foundation wrote:Not only does pasteurization kill the friendly bacteria, it also greatly diminishes the nutrient content of the milk. Pasteurized milk has up to a 66 percent loss of vitamins A, D and E. Vitamin C loss usually exceeds 50 percent. Heat affects water soluble vitamins and can make them 38 percent to 80 percent less effective. Vitamins B6 and B12 are completely destroyed during pasteurization. Pasteurization also destroys beneficial enzymes, antibodies and hormones. Pasteurization destroys lipase (an enzyme that breaks down fat), which impairs fat metabolism and the ability to properly absorb fat soluble vitamins A and D. (The dairy industry is aware of the diminished vitamin D content in commercial milk, so they fortify it with a form of this vitamin.)

We have all been led to believe that milk is a wonderful source of calcium, when in fact, pasteurization makes calcium and other minerals less available. Complete destruction of phosphatase is one method of testing to see if milk has been adequately pasteurized. Phosphatase is essential for the absorption of calcium.

Source: http://www.westonaprice.org/making-it-p ... -body-good

And grain just makes it worse...

Weston A. Price Foundation wrote:Another serious consequence of grain feeding is that cows on grain absorb lower amounts of fat-soluble vitamins A, D and E, even when these vitamins are added to feed; and, consequently, less of these vital nutrients show up in the milk. [7]

[7]  T H Herdt et al, Vetinary Clinics North American Food Animal Practices 1991 7(2):391-415

Source: http://www.westonaprice.org/farm-a-ranc ... -the-grass

rocketdog wrote: Most milk (even grass fed) has to be fortified with vitamin D in order to have a beneficial amount for humans.

Wrong again. Whole milk does not legally need to be fortified (since the vitamins are in the fat). Raw grass-fed milk is most certainly not fortified — nor does it need to be, for the reasons explained above.

Gumby,

What percentage of those vitamins will be properly absorbed along if within the fat we consume vs being inserted into a cereal or vitamin supplement?

Further, what if you consume cereal with whole milk?  Would the fat in the milk aid the delivery of the vitamins in the cereal?

Just curious... not that I think I should be going back to eating cereal again... as much as I crave it every. single. f*cking. morning.

moda0306 wrote:What percentage of those vitamins will be properly absorbed along if within the fat we consume vs being inserted into a cereal or vitamin supplement?

Well, it depends on the vitamins. We know that "fat-soluble vitamins" (A, D, E and K) rely on dietary fat for their absorption...

Wikipedia.org wrote:Vitamins A, D, E, and K are fat-soluble, meaning they can only be digested, absorbed, and transported in conjunction with fats.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat

And then we have this study, which suggests that fats improve the bioavailablity of carotenoids in simple salads.

AJCN: Carotenoid bioavailability is higher from salads ingested with full-fat than with fat-reduced salad dressings as measured with electrochemical detection

I don't have an exact answer for you. But the studies Masterjohn referenced above suggest that the difference can be substantial ("greatly-influenced" according to the Vitamin E study, referenced above).

Interestingly, the Vitamin E study concluded that "low fat" foods need to be fortified even more due to the lack of absorption that they cause.

moda0306 wrote:Further, what if you consume cereal with whole milk?  Would the fat in the milk aid the delivery of the vitamins in the cereal?

Yes. That's what the studies (above) suggest.

moda0306 wrote:Just curious... not that I think I should be going back to eating cereal again... as much as I crave it every. single. f*cking. morning.

Man, I love cereal. It made the mornings so much easier. The Healthy Home Economist has a video for making a high quality homemade cereal from scratch (freshly soaked, and low temp heating) but it takes two freakin' days to make. So, I've never even considered attempting it. Way easier to make some eggs and bacon.

EDIT: Looks like she has a new trick for making "healthy" corn flakes really fast. Apparently you can take sprouted/organic tortillas and fry them in coconut oil at low-temp and then break them up into milk. That's actually pretty neat.

Oh, and it turns out that bacon grease makes a fantastic salad dressing:

Chris Kresser Podcast wrote:Chris Kresser: ...One other thing I’d say, though, about the green smoothies is that I hope there is some fat being put into those because you’re not gonna absorb very many of the nutrients from them without adding some fat.  I posted an article from Science Daily that was published this week, a study that showed that low-fat and nonfat dressings on salads are a really bad idea, as I’ve always argued, not only because they taste horrible and they’re schwag, but because you won’t absorb very many of the nutrients from the vegetables in the salad if you eat low-fat or nonfat dressings.  Because a lot of the nutrients in those vegetables are fat-soluble, and so eating fat is required to absorb them.

Steve Wright:  I bet you’ll never guess what Jordan’s favorite salad dressing is.

Chris Kresser:  I can’t guess.  What?  Butter?

Steve Wright:  No.  Bacon fat and sea salt mixed together.

Chris Kresser:  That sounds pretty good!  I don’t eat kale or chard and stuff unless it’s cooked in bacon fat.

Steve Wright:  Oh, yeah.  Love it.

Gumby wrote: Wrong again. Whole milk does not legally need to be fortified (since the vitamins are in the fat). Raw grass-fed milk is most certainly not fortified — nor does it need to be, for the reasons explained above.

You and your dubious Weston Price studies. 

I didn't say milk legally needed to be fortified, only that it almost always is fortified.  And grass-fed milk is sometimes fortified as well.  I remember reading a story where people who had been buying grass-fed milk were surprised to find their vitamin D levels were too low, and then discovered that unbeknownst to them the grass-fed milk they had been buying wasn't fortified with vitamin D.  They probably just assumed that all milk was automatically fortified, which backfired on them since the grass-fed milk didn't naturally have enough vitamin D in it to meet their daily requirements. 

rocketdog wrote: I didn't say milk legally needed to be fortified, only that it almost always is fortified.  And grass-fed milk is sometimes fortified as well.  I remember reading a story where people who had been buying grass-fed milk were surprised to find their vitamin D levels were too low, and then discovered that unbeknownst to them the grass-fed milk they had been buying wasn't fortified with vitamin D.  They probably just assumed that all milk was automatically fortified, which backfired on them since the grass-fed milk didn't naturally have enough vitamin D in it to meet their daily requirements.

Again, pasteurizing reduces fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E and K) by up to 66% in milk — even if it is grass-fed. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.

Gumby wrote:Again, pasteurizing reduces fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E and K) by up to 66% in milk — even if it is grass-fed. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.

And since 99.999% of all people are drinking pasteurized milk (unless they live on a farm and/or like to live dangerously), then the point remains that even grass-fed milk must be fortified with vitamin D. 

Not to get off on a vitamin D tangent, but that is an interesting topic in and of itself.  For instance, did you know that it's not really a vitamin at all?  It's actually a form of steroid called a "secosteroid".  But I'm sure you already knew that. 

rocketdog wrote:

Gumby wrote:Again, pasteurizing reduces fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E and K) by up to 66% in milk — even if it is grass-fed. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.

And since 99.999% of all people are drinking pasteurized milk (unless they live on a farm and/or like to live dangerously), then the point remains that even grass-fed milk must be fortified with vitamin D.

Huh? What do you mean by "must be fortified"? Anyone can sell or buy whole pasteurized milk that isn't fortified — and many people do. (It's the "low fat" milk that "must" be fortified, by law, as it literally has the fat-soluble vitamins removed.)

It sounds like you are just making up facts to have an argument.

Anyway, people who drink raw milk typically get the majority of their vitamin D from other sources (cod liver oil, supplements, the sun, etc.)

Sorry, I mispoke (mistyped?)  I mean to say (type?) that milk is legally required to be fortified in Canada, but in the U.S. it's up to the states (some require it, others don't).  Infant formula in the U.S., however, is legally required to be fortified with Vitamin D.  That said, I think nearly everyone in the U.S. assumes the milk they buy is fortified. 

Gumby,

Do you see pasteurization as a large problem?

I mean, if you could only drink pasteurized milk, but from non-hormone grass-fed beef, would you?

And what do you think about vitamin supplements?  Can I assume eating them with a properly-fattened meal is a good way to get some more micronutrients?

moda0306 wrote: Gumby,

Do you see pasteurization as a large problem?

I've consumed thousands of gallons of pasteurized milk over my lifetime — and I'm still standing. So, I'm not going to say that pasteurized dairy is terrible or anything. It has a place in society (mainly as a quality assurance for factory-farmed milk).

I do believe that pasteurized dairy is inferior to grass-fed raw dairy. You have to understand that everyone was perfectly happy with their milk until "swill dairies" came to be.

The pasteurization laws were passed because "swill milk" was killing people:

New York Times wrote:In a city growing fast, but lacking refrigeration, it was hard to provide sufficient milk. Fresh milk was brought in from Westchester and Orange Counties, but not enough to meet demand. In 1853, it was found that 90,000 or so quarts of cow’s milk entered the city each day, but that number mysteriously increased to 120,000 quarts at the point of delivery.

Some of the increase was due to New York dairymen padding their milk with water, and then restoring its richness with flour... But the greater part was swill milk, a filthy, bluish substance milked from cows tied up in crowded stables adjoining city distilleries and fed the hot alcoholic mash left from making whiskey. This too was doctored — with plaster of Paris to take away the blueness, starch and eggs to thicken it and molasses to give it the buttercup hue of honest Orange County milk. This newspaper attributed the deaths of up to 8,000 children a year to this vile fluid.

As early as 1842, a temperance crusader named Robert Hartley warned that city milk could be catastrophically tainted. Throughout the 1850s, newspapers published exposés of the distillery dairies and called for the city to close them. Some of the cows were so diseased from their alcoholic diet that their teeth rotted and their tails fell off. Their udders were frequently ulcerated, but they would be milked regardless.

Finally, in 1858, Tammany Hall sent Alderman Michael Tuomey to “investigate”? a notorious swill milk dairy on West 16th Street. Tuomey sat down with the dairy owners and drank a glass or two of whiskey. He concluded that swill milk was just as good for children as ordinary milk, and anyone who refused to drink it simply had a “prejudice.”?

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/opini ... .html?_r=0

"Tammany Hall" — if you aren't familiar with New York City history — was the notoriously corrupt government that ran New York City during the 1800s. And what happened in New York City was happening in cities all across the country.

Here's another article about swill dairies (with pictures).

People were upset by the quality of the milk and "pasteurization" was one of the solutions to clean up the dairy industry. So, city by city, state by state, pasteurization laws were passed and "swill dairies" were either shut down or cleaned up their act.

But, make no mistake — most dairies are trying to make a quick profit. And they do that by putting their cows into tight barns and feeding them lots of grain (it's actually still "brewer's grain" if you think about it — they just ship it dry now to save on shipping costs). Grain fed cows tend to have e. coli in their guts and in their poop (rarely seen in grass-fed cows, according to Michael Polan). And as you might know, cows lack the inability to clean their own udders.

So, in a factory-farm environment, the cows are literally sitting where they poop. The poop gets on the udder and the poop goes into the milk supply where the poop and the e. coli is "pasteurized" so that it won't kill people.

With grass-fed raw dairy, the cows are in a pasture, and are laying in the clean grass. The cows are called in one or two at a time for milking and the udders are cleaned and sanitized before the milking equipment is hooked up. And since the cow has been eating grass — it's biologically appropriate diet — their rumens aren't inflamed from grain and aren't full of e. coli.

And even if a small amount of bad bacteria was found in the milk, raw milk has its own defense system where the good bacteria neutralize the bad bacteria. You can literally infect raw milk with some e. coli and staph and the milk will clean itself in a day or two. However, this natural defense system can be overwhelmed in factory farm conditions — which is why pasteurization is necessary in a factory farm setting.

moda0306 wrote:I mean, if you could only drink pasteurized milk, but from non-hormone grass-fed beef, would you?

I probably would avoid pasteurized dairy knowing what I now know about it. It's not that I think it's terrible for you, but rather, I think it's just not that great of a product. And homogenization is another kind of processing technique that also f*cks up the milk. The truth is that grass fed raw dairy is way better to consume as it contains all sorts of beneficial components that are destroyed and denatured by the pasteurization process. So, I guess you could say that I'm just not that impressed with pasteurized milk anymore (I used to love it).

moda0306 wrote:And what do you think about vitamin supplements?

Most vitamin supplements are fine — though it turns out you probably don't need to consume tons of OTC vitamins if you are eating low grain and PHD-style food (for instance, Jaminet tells you which vitamins you can't get from food and must be supplemented).

moda0306 wrote:Can I assume eating them with a properly-fattened meal is a good way to get some more micronutrients?

Yes, the A, D, E and K "fat-soluble" vitamins and carotenoids are better absorbed with a fatty meal. The other micronutrients don't really rely on fat, afaik.

Gumby wrote: So, in a factory-farm environment, the cows are literally sitting where they poop. The poop gets on the udder and the poop goes into the milk supply where the poop and the e. coli is "pasteurized" so that it won't kill people.

With grass-fed raw dairy, the cows are in a pasture, and are laying in the clean grass. The cows are called in one or two at a time for milking and the udders are cleaned and sanitized before the milking equipment is hooked up. And since the cow has been eating grass — it's biologically appropriate diet — their rumens aren't inflamed from grain and aren't full of e. coli.

News flash: cow pastures are FULL of poop, so pasture grass is anything but "clean".  And yes, the cows lay in it.  I grew up near a cow pasture, I currently live down the road from a cow pasture, and I've walked through cow pastures and gone right up to cows laying in the grass.  They are absolutely filthy (and much bigger than you might expect).  After all, farmers ain't wearing muck boots to make a fashion statement. 

Some farmers are conscientious and clean the cow's udders before milking them, and some don't.  Has nothing to do with what the cow eats. 

Gumby wrote: And homogenization is another kind of processing technique that also f*cks up the milk.

How so?  I thought homogenization just blended the milk to evenly distribute the fat solids?  You're not referring to the (discredited) work of Dr. Kurt A. Oster, are you?  (I haven't drank milk in over 20 years and I'm not about to start, so I don't really care either way, just curious where you're getting your information from.)

Rocketdog,

Pastures, in the sun, are cleaner than indoors. Cows that eat grain tend to have E. coli (rare in grass fed cows, according to Polan). And a farmer worth his salt knows to rotate pastures and let chickens in to pick at and spread out the poop. Any farmer that sells raw milk is cleaning the udders. They have to — if they want to keep their business running.

Homogenization makes the fat molecules a lot smaller than they should be. It probably screws up the way the fat is digested.

Gumby wrote: Pastures, in the sun, are cleaner than indoors.

Possibly, although I'm not sure how anyone could verify that?  I mean, cow poop is cow poop, regardless of where it lays.  And a pasture can't be mucked out and hosed down like a barn or stable can. 

Gumby wrote: Cows that eat grain tend to have E. coli (rare in grass fed cows, according to Polan).

Again, it's possible, and perhaps even probable.  I'll take Polan's word for it. 

Gumby wrote: And a farmer worth his salt knows to rotate pastures and let chickens in to pick at and spread out the poop. Any farmer that sells raw milk is cleaning the udders. They have to — if they want to keep their business running.

Having lived most of my life within a mile or two of a dairy farm, I've never once seen chickens out in the cow pasture.  Maybe they sneek out there at night and go cow-tipping?

Gumby wrote: Homogenization makes the fat molecules a lot smaller than they should be. It probably screws up the way the fat is digested.

Maybe, maybe not.  I know there are hypotheses out there regarding this possibility, but so far I've been unable to find any studies demonstrating a health detriment related to homogenization.

Gumby,

What do you think of venison?  I think getting a bunch would be a great way for me to get access to a naturally fed animal who wasn't tortured its whole life to feed me.