Make no mistake about it, raw milk fertilizer is more than just a fascinating idea.  Following a June 24 and 25 raw milk field day held at our farm near Linn, Mo., there is substantial new evidence that raw milk increases grass production, while at the same time greatly reducing soil compaction and possibly reducing weeds.

Just as important as what raw milk has done for our pastures and soils is what it has done for the stewards of that soil.  It has forced many of us to look at our soil practices.

Jim Hole, a resident of Norwich, N.Y., that will turn 80 this fall, thought raw milk sounded like a winner and – using his own tractor and 30-foot boom sprayer – applied milk to 84 acres between May 16 and 27.  He’s delighted with the results.  His grass has “significantly more thickness,” he says, but he will not know until he puts up his haylage how much the increase has been.

  What I find most pleasing is Hole’s enthusiasm and his talk of microbes and possibly adding sea salt, fish, calcium or who knows what to his next tank of milk.  Hole is one of about five people in his age group that I’ve talked to since the original raw milk story came out in May.

A lot of young folks have also been bitten by the raw milk bug.  There were a lot of father-son teams at the field day as well as five families with a total of 15 children.  One young man at the field day had no financial interest in farming.  He is a reporter for the Columbia Daily Tribune and he came because he smelled a good story.  TJ Greaney must have a good nose for news because his story the following Sunday went out on the Associated Press wire and was picked up by newspapers, television and radio stations and bloggers all over the country and was even carried in South America, India and China.

The explosion of interest generated by using raw milk as a soil fertilizer   presents the producers of this nation’s food an unparalleled opportunity to tell the whole story about their product.  It’s one thing to talk grass-fed and organic, but when you talk meat or produce raised on soil fertilized with raw milk, sea salt and liquid fish, you have consumers’ attention like never before.  To take full advantage of this opportunity, we need to understand the work of Dr. Maynard Murray, who in my opinion fully established the health benefits of sea minerals. 

This publication has more or less assumed for years that many people understand the health benefits of grass-fed and has gone on to focus on marketing.  I would suggest there has never been a better time to tell the story of the great qualities raw milk, sea minerals and liquid fish can bring to our food supply.  I can think of no better marketing tool.  And the beautiful thing is there doesn’t have to be any hype whatsoever.  Murray, Dr. William Albrecht, Dr. Weston Price and others have made our case for us.     

Ten years ago Nebraska dairyman David Wetzel knew he was on to something when his fields responded so dramatically to his dumping of raw, organic, skim milk on them.  And four years later Wetzel’s friend and neighbor Terry Gompert, an Extension agent with the University of Nebraska at Lincoln,

also realized Wetzel was on to something and convinced two UNL scientists to conduct a study of the use of raw milk on pasture and the results showed that the milk produced an additional 1,200 pounds of grass per acre on a dry matter basis in 45 days.  That same study showed the porosity of the soil – its ability to absorb water and air – doubled.

Even before the Greaney story came out, the raw milk issue was creating, sufficient interest among farmers that we decided to invite Gompert and Wetzel to do a field day in Linn and they agreed.  My job was to spray raw milk on several pastures on our farm.  On May 28 I sprayed half of two fields with raw milk.  Eight days later I sprayed sea minerals on the other half of those fields.  That was a mistake.  I should have sprayed half of a field with milk and sprayed nothing on the other half and on the second field sprayed half with sea minerals and sprayed nothing on the remainder. 

During the time running up to the field day, I could see nothing different about the grass we had sprayed with either milk or sea minerals.  To those people who expressed an interest in attending the field day, I sent a note saying I did not want them to believe they would see at our farm large quantities of grass that grew as a result of our spraying raw milk.  On Friday, June 25, I was probably more surprised than anyone when Gompert discovered what the milk had done at our farm here in Linn. 

By cutting grass in each of the two areas of the field, Gompert was able to determine the part of the field sprayed with raw milk produced nearly 700 pounds more grass per acre than the side treated with sea minerals.  Note this growth came in only 28 days, beginning May 28, which is well past our prime growing season. 

Probably more noteworthy than the 700 pounds of growth was the huge reduction in compaction.  A penetrometer – a device used to measure soil compaction – showed that it took 100 pounds of pressure per square inch to penetrate the soil sprayed with milk, while 300 pounds was needed to penetrate the non-treated soil.  Everyone that touched a penetrometer could easily tell the difference.  It took very little effort to push the penetrometer 28 inches into the ground that had been treated with milk.  It was quite difficult to force the penetrometer through the top 10 or so inches of soil that had not been treated.       

Gompert and Wetzel both said they could see a difference in the grass.  Many attendees – possibly a slim majority -- agreed.  Many said they couldn’t see any difference.  The treated grass does not have the dark green color that we have come to expect with NPK fertilization.  Grass treated with milk tends to turn a light, yellowish-green and is somewhat shiny, or as Hole said, “John Deere green.”

At the end of 28 days, the naked-eye evidence alone was not strong enough to make me want to go out and spray raw milk again.  Had it not been for the extra grass that was measured and the penetrometer, I might not have sprayed any more.  At the end of 40 days, however, the difference was pronounced.  On July 7, I went back to the field and by then the grass that had been sprayed with milk was definitely taller.  It’s obvious the milk was still working after 40 days.  The question is: How long will the milk keep working? 

Keep in mind all of this was accomplished with conventional raw milk.  I picked it up at a local dairy around 6 p.m. and sprayed it in the late evening, but that’s only because I didn’t start spraying earlier in the spring.    In hot weather I want my tractor tires to be wet with dew as I spray.  Wetzel does not think this is necessary, but I didn’t want to take any chances.  When you read this it will be September or later and by then I’ll be spraying during the day.

In preparation for the field day I had sprayed two other fields.  On these fields I could see no significant difference in height of the grass.  A possible explanation for the lack of difference is that I had fed a lot of hay on these latter two fields and this undoubtedly increased their fertility level and microbial activity.  One huge difference observed in one of these two fields was the weed level. Where I had sprayed milk the weeds were noticeably reduced.  Don’t conclude that milk controls weeds, because we don’t know that.  It’s quite possible the hay I fed on these fields is responsible for the weed level.  If you choose to spray milk, do, however, keep an eye on this. 

Note that the original study showed milk had its greatest impact on depleted soils.  Someone who is already spraying with compost tea, liquid fish and other soil amendments may see little bump from the use of milk.  One vital question is this: Do the use of compost tea and liquid fish loosen the soil as much as milk?

Jeff Lowenfels, the co-author of Teaming with Microbes, says compost tea definitely loosens soil, but neither he nor anyone else knows if tea loosens soil as much or as fast as milk. 

There is so much we don’t know about this entire area it’s scary.  Gompert has spent his entire career learning how to improve soil and the grasses and row crops that grow in the soil.  Even with his background he has more questions than answers, but I love to push him.  If he doesn’t know, I make him guess.  A Gompert guess is worth a lot.

What is it in the milk that makes grass grow and that loosens the soil so dramatically?  Gompert’s guess is that it’s the microbes, but he quickly adds, “We really don’t know.”  Lowenfels agrees with Gompert.  Lowenfels would like to see a side-by-side comparison between raw and pasteurized milk.

Many people asked how many times per year they needed to spray milk.  “We really don’t know,” Gompert said, adding that people will have to learn this for themselves.  He suggested spring or fall or both, until people feel comfortable with their results.

Should grass be sprayed after it is fully rested and ready to be grazed, right after it has been grazed or after it has experienced re-growth following grazing?  Gompert doesn’t know, but he would prefer the latter. 

Butch Tindell, who manages the beef cattle operation for an Anabaptist community near Elm Mott, Texas, finishes 200 to 225 head of steers and heifers each year on pasture fertilized with compost tea and liquid fish.  He wanted to know if raw milk would help

Up to this point I’ve not talked about brix levels.  The brix levels in the treated and untreated portions of the field were almost the same, with the untreated portion being slightly higher – an average of 6 versus 5.5.  But don’t forget, I did not have a truly untreated portion of the field, because I used sea minerals on the half not treated with milk.  That may have impacted the brix level.

John Shaw, a grass-fed beef producer from Palestine, Ill., came to last year’s dung beetle field day and we have stayed in touch.  Earlier this year I urged John to read Maynard Murray’s book on sea minerals and he liked the book and returned the favor by suggesting I look into a wheat grass juicer.  Unless you have a fertile imagination, it’s easier to look it up on Google, but it’s really nothing more than a glorified, hand-cranked meat grinder that our mothers decades ago clamped to the kitchen table and used to grind beef or pork.   The juicer is designed to make enough wheat grass juice to drink.  Good luck getting a glass of fescue juice from Missouri fescue in a typical hot, dry July.  But on July 7, I found my cows eating aggressively in one area and I looked at what they were eating and it was perennial ryegrass.  I grabbed a handful and went back to the barn to do a brix test.

I first tested the ryegrass with a Vise Grip that had been modified to squeeze grasses.  The juice obtained with the Vise Grip tested 10.  I had my trusty garlic press handy and squeezed some juice with it and got a 5.  That a huge difference.  I then got out my juicer and got some juice out of the ryegrass.  Would you believe a 14?

What does this mean?  I really don’t know, but I hope it means our grass has not been as bad as I originally thought.  In the past I had always used a garlic press