The short answer is “No”. You also cannot “ferment” Cod Livers. And you cannot extract Cod Liver Oil by “fermentation”. But the long answer is more complicated, and fairly muddled by conversations to which we sort of have to refer, which may lose people who are not following the controversies.
Sigh… yeah. Another one of those!
When did we let go of common sense? When did we stop trusting what we KNOW, in favor of what experts tell us?
In the fermentation world, there is a phrase that goes around, that I have learned to depend on, to know when something fermented is spoiled or not.
If it smells like food, it is good. If it does NOT smell like food, it is NOT good.
In the natural food world, we also know that the BEST nutrients come from FOOD, in its natural state, and NOT from processed “supplements”. But there is so much money in supplements, and they have that promise of easy cures, so those who advise about nutrition can’t quite give up the profit potential, and those who take the advice can’t quite resist the lure of something easier than preparing food from scratch! We want some kind of insurance policy on our health.
That maxim though, holds for everything we do with food. And it goes further.
If it tastes like food, it is better for you than if it does not taste like food!
If it makes your body feel healthy, it is better for you than things that do not make your body feel healthy!
We know this, but we are still more willing to trust a smooth-talking “expert” than we are to trust our own gut instinct, which may tell us that a thing we WANT to believe is good, really is not.
Which brings us to the latest tempest in a teapot in the fermentation world.
Fermented Cod Liver Oil
I got drawn in by Dr. Kaayla Daniels’ report. The link to it is in this article. I detest Opt-In lists, in fact, waited 8 days after seeing the first ripples in the water on this before I had learned enough that I knew I HAD to write on this topic, and that I needed to read the report and not rely on second hand quotes. So I gave in, surrendered my email address, and downloaded it.
Now, I have never used FCLO. I have never smelled it. I have never tasted it, held it in my hand, or even looked at the ads for it. I am also not a doctor, not a nutritionist, and have no scientific credentials whatsoever.
What I am, is an intelligent being, who studies the meaning of words and phrases, and who has a great deal of background in scam busting (from nearly 20 years as a small business consultant and online business and web development professional), and who has more than a passing familiarity with scientific research and medical research due to various health issues of my own, and some serious issues with some of my children (eight children… varied issues). I also happen to sell a fermentation product (http://fermentacap.com – in case this article is copied), so I kind of have to be up on topics of lacto-fermentation.
The primary reason I have never used FCLO, is because it never sounded right to me. Oils and meats cannot be “fermented”. It is scientifically inconsistent – and that means it sends up a monstrous red flag in my mind which tells me to avoid it. So I did. I knew, listened, and stayed away!
The secondary reason is that Cod Liver Oil in any form really isn’t an appropriate daily supplement for the masses. Yeah, I know, supposedly the English used it daily during WWII, but actually, most did not take it, and the daily fight to get kids to take it just isn’t worth the hassle, so most just pulled out the bottle as a threat when kids were shirking school or work, and actually used the spoon when they insisted on being ill anyway. And sailors? They were chronically deficient in many nutrients, no matter WHAT they were forced to take, so they are not exactly specimens of health to recommend any supplement (nor is the statement that they used the darker brown oil – there is not a country in the world that gives top quality, costly supplements, to the Navy!).
CLO IS an appropriate treatment for SOME kinds of illness, and in some instances of malnutrition. And according to my mother, it is sometimes efficacious in inducing labor (you cannot persuade her that my brother would have been born before Christmas otherwise). But it is not useful for daily maintenance.
In all the scoffoffle, the thing missing most in the arguments, is common sense. Many people simply have NO idea that what they are reading regarding FCLO is NOT what they think they are reading!
The first clue that there is something wrong with FCLO is that there is no description in any of the manufacturer’s literature of anything like a probable oil extraction or fermentation process that would result in anything useful, let alone superior. It is all vague, evasive, and often, contradictory. The contradictory part is the giveaway that someone is making things up as they go, or trying to hide something. Businesses with integrity DON’T DO THAT!
There are several issues here, so many that laying it out in a logical manner is kind of difficult, so I hope you excuse my rambling.
The issues are, the nutrients, the definition of “fermentation”, the historic use of putrification, rancidity, and methods of oil extraction, and of course the issues of type of oil, and adulteration. We need to be clear… “fermentation” and “extraction” are two different issues, as putrifaction helps to extract SOME oil, but fermentation is not an extraction process. There are some other peripheral issues also, but I have insufficient information to delve into them yet.
Many sources defending the manufacturer, which are used by the manufacturer to validate their legitimacy, are classic pieces of misinformation. They use quotes from researchers which use a lot of big words, but which don’t in fact say anything other than, roughly, “nutrients are really complicated and so are these”, but they are used in an effort to persuade the reading public that something conclusive WAS said, but we are just too simple minded to understand the complexities.
An example regarding the accuracy of testing for rancidity may be found here: http://www.westonaprice.org/uncategorized/questions-and-answers-about-fermented-cod-liver-oil-fclo/#comment-252123
This is Dr. Grootveld’s opinion on the TBARS test, which he described as “analytical garbage.”
”It should be noted that the TBARS test commonly employed for determinations of lipid oxidation product (LOP) aldehydes in foods, and culinary or health-promoting oil products (and accordingly not just MDA), are completely unreliable and serve little or no value for the estimation of these species. Indeed, we are, of course, already aware of the induction of the lipid peroxidation process at standard frying temperatures, and since this test requires the heating of biofluids or tissue sample extracts with TBA for periods of ca. 15 min., this is more than sufficient to induce the peroxidation of PUFAs therein, and hence all results derivable from this heat-dependent test system represent nothing more than artifactual data. Indeed, our H1 NMR experiments have clearly proven the thermally-induced oxidation of PUFAs in commercial oil formulations to CHPDs and aldehydic LOPs at Pasteurisation temperature (72oC), in addition to 95oC, the latter for only a 15 minute period. If, however, this method involves a prolonged equilibration at ambient temperature (or 25oC), and the TBA-MDA (and other) chromophores are then allowed to develop slowly (perhaps for 72 hr. or more), then this test system does have the potential to monitor aldehydic LOPs, but not exclusively MDA since a wide range of aldehydes (including á,â-unsaturated ones) react with TBA to generate the same chromophores, or similar interfering adducts. Moreover, further caution should always be employed since it is known that a series of further biomolecules, especially reducing sugars (if present in food matrices for analysis), also react with TBA to form chromophores which also absorb at 532 nm.”.
This statement is made with no prior context, no information which would make the statements relevant to anything pertaining to the previous paragraphs in the article, and the first sentence is in no way proven in the rest of the rather rambling technical sentences which have no value even to smart people. Of course, the previous paragraphs ARE talking about testing, but not in any way that is useful, and not in any way that is relevant to that entire rambling pseudo-explanation.
Much of the information on that page is based on wishful thinking, and not on actual valid data, but you have to read it carefully to sift out what is REALLY STATED, as opposed to what the author WANTS YOU TO THINK she is saying. Perhaps the most valuable information on the page are the comments at the bottom by Steve Tallent.
It seems fairly clear to me, based on information provided by Dr. Daniels, and on the numerous consumer comments across the net, that the oil IS rancid, well beyond its primary useful life. Since the company’s butter oil also tested as very rancid, it is probable that the issue is one of improper handling, or one of in-shop processes which is inherent to the extraction methods used.
The FCLO manufacturer website gives some background information on their initial testing of their product, and how the results were disappointing at first, until they came up with a new way of interpreting the test results. The results, according to their lab, probably meant that there were no complete recognizable intact vitamin A or D elements, but that there were lots of “isomers”, or incomplete vitamin variations. The strategy used to inflate values, was to add up the values of all the fragments, and present them as entire and whole vitamins. The vitamin D level on subsequent test results which they publish on their site, is virtually all D2, rarely a little D3. Interestingly, Dr. Daniels’ lab reports show virtually no D2, and a little D3. The FCLO manufacturer says that there are “hundreds” of forms of vitamin D, but according to information in Dr. Daniels’ report, credible lab techs say that detecting vitamin D at all using the method that the manufacturer’s preferred lab uses (an uncommon method, often considered problematic for measuring D vitamins), is nearly impossible because there are so many other elements which confuse the results using that method, because they show up as being very similar. It appears that the manufacturer’s claim that they “added up the peaks” on the lab results may mean that they added the values of all of the elements found that resembled vitamin D, whether they were D or not, and labeled them as D2 (the manufacturer makes this claim on their website where they describe the initial vitamin testing). The lab the manufacturer uses has been the source of unbelievable reports before also.
Another article written in defense of FCLO (quoted on the manufacturer website) by a woman with a lot of initials after her name, is so full of “maybe”, “might”, “could”, “assume”, “extrapolate”, and “infer” that the article manages to imply that something is actually said in the article, but what is really said is, “We are hoping that what we imply is true because we have no evidence that it is.”. This article waxes long on the benefits of fermentation, but in fact cannot list one actual study on benefits of “fermentation” of anything other than vegetables, and the author expects you to join her in a land where everything is just as she says, simply because she wants it to be that way. Results with vegetables do NOT translate to meats.
As to the issue of Pollock versus Cod, this is indeed a serious issue for a number of reasons. For the unaware, Dr. Daniels lab results showed that the oil contains Pollock Oil, and the manufacturer insists that Pollock is the same as Cod so it does not matter. (Some people have also expressed shock over the revelation that the fish are Pacific fish and not Atlantic fish, but I have not yet heard where they were mislead about the origin of the fish.)
“Cod is the common name for the genus Gadus of demersal fishes, belonging to the family Gadidae. Cod is also used as part of the common name for a number of other fish species, and there are species suggested to belong to genus Gadus that are not called cod (the Alaska pollock).”
So, briefly stated, Pollock is in the same FAMILY as cod, but is NOT cod. Like the nieces and nephews of my sisters – they come from the same root family I do, but they are not Wheelers.
The FDA does not allow labeling of Pollock as Cod.
The report issued by Dr. Kaayla Daniels (http://drkaayladaniel.com/hook-line-and-stinker-opt-in/) explores some options for fermentation, but the manufacturer denies that any of these have any relevancy. Now, that is important, because she lists all the potential processes which might remotely qualify as “fermentation”, and he says (in effect), “Nope! Guess again!”. The process the manufacturer describes (always with critical details missing) sounds very much like either a CURING process, or a PUTRIFACTION process, but cannot be properly identified as a FERMENTATION process because there is nothing to ferment… Fermentation requires simple or complex carbohydrates, which are converted to either alcohol, or lactic acids. Livers have only trace carbohydrates, insufficient to sustain a fermentation process.
Molasses is listed on the GP cattle lick (which appears to be made from dried livers from which much of the oil has been extracted), and Dr. Daniels suggested this might aid in true fermentation. If fermentation process involves sugar carbohydrates, then it is being extracted by alcohol. But the manufacturer denies the use of any molasses in the process, in their answer to her questions and evidence, leaving the issue of both “fermentation” and extraction, at odds again.
The manufacturing facility is described as a greenhouse like structure, with a glass paneled roof. This would become very hot, even on cool days. Experimentation with water heat sinks in greenhouses indicates that the daytime temperatures would be such that it would increase the temperatures of the vats significantly. If this were not desired, the manufacturer would not have retained the glass roof, but would have replaced it with something more energy efficient, since daytime temps inside a greenhouse can reach heights sufficient to cook eggs (no exaggeration), and to slow cook meat. This is a potentially significant observation, because the manufacturer denies use of high heat in their processes. High heat is also a contraindication in virtually ALL fermentation processes, as it encourages microbes that hasten decay, and not the microbes that encourage preservation.
Incidentally, Dr. Daniels does mention in her report that the issue of the hot greenhouse has been commented upon. But I was struck by that before reading her report – because greenhouses just GET HOT. I’ve used them, and I’ve had plants get cooked because we forgot to open the vent in the fall, in Wyoming. Not exactly hot temperatures at the time either! No one had to tell me this – common sense told me that if they are using a greenhouse type structure, it is because they WANT heat. A lot of it.
What we can know, is that the manufacturer is NOT using a “historic” or “traditional” process, and even says so many times in his literature, where he says he could not find a process to ferment livers, and had to devise one of his own! It cannot be a unique process, and a historic process at the same time! It just cannot! They claim that CLO is historically “fermented”, and then describe putrifaction processes as examples. Putrifaction involves rotting of the food. Fermentation involves conversion (and preservation) of the food through a microbial process.
All historic examples of fish liver oil extraction given by the manufacturer are of putrifaction, not fermentation. Some are not even for products for human consumption, yet they are cited on the GP website as examples substantiating their claim to a “historic” process. Fermentation and putrifaction are distinctly different – polar opposites, in fact.
Botulism is in fact a risk. Basic knowledge of canning and preserving foods tells us this. Trust your knowledge folks! You KNOW this stuff. You KNOW that botulism thrives in an airless environment (such as at the bottom of a vat), and that improperly preserved low acid foods are susceptible to botulism. You also know that fermentation involves digestion of carbohydrates in order to CREATE a low acid environment, and that meats, by their very nature, are not fermentable, because they have no carbohydrates to ferment!
Meats are CURABLE, in a brine, which preserves them somewhat, but this is not a process which would aid in the extraction of oil from the meat, in fact it preserves the oils inside the meat. Cured meats, including various forms of partially decomposed herring, are COOKED prior to consumption (or canned after the curing process is completed), and they have a fairly limited shelf life in comparison to fermented foods. Consequently, using cured meats as an example of “historic fermentation” that is comparable to the FCLO process, is not applicable! It simply does not relate in any way.
Historic processes involving degraded or cured fish or meats invariably involve addition of salt, lye, sulphur, or other preservative compounds which allow the meat to degrade, but which inhibits the type of microbial action. This also, is not an example of fermentation, but of curing, and it does nothing to extract significant oils. This is another example used by the manufacturer to persuade customers that fermenting cod livers is a historic process, but in fact, the two processes are not comparable.
Fish sauce is listed as an example of “fermented fish”, when in fact, it is simply a salt extraction process for extracting liquids from the fish, by the use of salt, and any fermentation that occurs is due to the vegetables in the original mix, and not the fish itself. It is not the fermentation of fish. It is also not an OIL extraction method, only a WATER extraction method (quite different).
Another quoted example on the website of the manufacturer is of Shark Livers hanging in Shark stomachs in the South Sea Islands. This process appears valid, but it is an example not of fermentation, but of putrifaction. This example, as shown on the FCLO manufacturer website, leaves out one vital detail… The Shark Liver Oil was NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION. It was indeed highly prized and was a valuable cash crop. Not as food. As ENGINE OIL, Machine oil, and oil for Lamps (this can be verified through a quick web search). The consumption of Shark Liver Oil as a health supplement is of recent invention, occurring only when modern extraction methods were developed. In the same way that much whale oil was extracted by putrifaction for the purpose of being used as Lamp oil and lubrication, and just as the poorer quality Cod Liver Oil was used for the same.
The manufacturer and their defenders speak long about the enhanced nutritional value of FCLO, but in fact, their only evidence consists of studies done on vegetables, and none on FCLO itself to validate their suppositions – there are no credible test results to show increased nutrients, only supposition, and “we believe that” statements, with no science to back them up. Vegetables have carbohydrates to break down by lactic acid. Oils and meats (Cod Livers or Oil) can only be temporarily preserved by immersion in previously created brines, or in fresh salt brine, in a way that probably DOES affect the nutritional value, but not in the same way as carbohydrates would be affected. The glycogen in the livers is insufficient to sustain any kind of fermentation process, so the process would be one of brining, if lactic acid were added, and not one of fermentation. Fermentation is a LIVING process (designed to preserve in an evolving process), brining is a DEAD, short term preservation process (designed to kill microbes in the food).
We would like to believe in the good intentions of the manufacturer, but it is clear that they have engaged in wholesale speculation regarding the nutritional content of their product, and many other issues. It is clear that the manufacturer has no credible evidence to support many of their claims, and has been required to resort to declared assumptions (they say so themselves), oblique disclaimers (well, it is complicated, and no two batches are ever the same and no two people are ever the same and gosh it is just so hard to quantify that you will just have to take our word that it is really good stuff – *paraphrased*), and carefully worded statements which give the impression of having declared something, but no real firm statement that they can be made to stand behind, or which can be used to pin them to the wall in a lawsuit. As Maryanne says, in Sense and Sensibility, “It was every day implied, but never declared absolutely!”, and this is the illusion of substance that you will find in the vast majority of the claims regarding Fermented Cod Liver Oil.
Our take on the whole thing, from a nutritional standpoint.
In recent work with my own health issues, I have discovered some fairly amazing things. I have several metabolic deficiencies, which mean that I do not metabolize some common forms of amino acids, which are primarily found in meats, but one is also found in vegetables (not in high amounts), and one in grains. The thing is, there is NO treatment for these deficiencies. I only process specific amino acids in certain forms, and if I eat them in forms that my body cannot metabolize, the incomplete metabolites build up in my cells and have a toxic effect on my cells. This is a common result from metabolic deficiencies.
The cool thing is, that I have discovered that there are certain foods, and food combinations, that provide me with higher amounts of the forms of amino acids that I CAN metabolize. I cannot handle chicken eggs, but can handle quail eggs. They are just different enough. I can thrive on low lanolin lamb, but not mutton. Some kinds of fish agree with me better than others. And canned meats are indigestible for me – I cannot break down the proteins sufficient for my cells to use them, because they are changed due to the high heat. Conversely, I am able to digest canned beans, but if I cook them from scratch, they cause problems for me, for the same reason.
Why is this so?
I have come to believe that this is a genetic effect (metabolic deficiencies are inherited), which is brought about through cultural differences.
Hear me out… this is logical!
My ancestors hail from all over the world. There are few cultures that did not at one time or another, take up residence in my ancestral master bedroom. Some of the cultures that go with those ancestors are very diverse, and the food culture that goes with it is equally diverse.
We have oceanside cultures, with diets of principally ocean fish, chicken, and sheep, and cool climate fruits and vegetables. We have tropical island cultures with ocean seafood, chicken, small fatty pigs, and tropical fruits and vegetables. We have mid-European bread, temperate fruits, and vegetables, with course fish and lake fish, chicken, pigeon, rabbit, deer, and ham (at least the upper class… which we have traced back to). We also have the Deep South, and the pedestrian Midwest in there in recent years, and a hefty amount of Eastern Nomadic, and American Native hunter gatherer cultures.
Each of these cultures evolved to metabolize various nutritional components in fairly specific forms, according to what was locally available. This is logical – the human body adapts to available foods, and those who CAN digest them, thrive and are productive, those who CANNOT, dwindle off and do not perpetuate. Each of these cultures, over time, genetically LOST the ability to metabolize various nutritional components in forms that were available through other foods – they lost the ability to digest and utilize foods and nutritional components in forms that they did not regularly consume – they did not NEED that ability, so the genetics for local food prevailed.
There is recent scientific evidence to support this, the Inuit, who live on a diet very high in fish oils, have specific genetic adaptations which allow them to do this. People from other cultures are not able to tolerate those foods in amounts as high as the Inuit are able to do.
A bit of each of the cultures of my ancestors was passed to me – so I don’t get any one of them intact, I get a jumble of bits of this and bits of that to figure out.
There is a difference between the meat in various pork breeds. There is a difference in the meat between a modern industrialized “improved” (fast growing) beef cow, or chicken, and a heritage “slow growing” animal – the protein chains form differently, and in a different balance. The nutrients in one form may be good for one person, the nutrients in another form may be good for another, based on the specific genetic makeup of each individual, even within the same family. Roll the dice, and cope with what you ended up with!
This is why one kid hates peas, and can never be persuaded to eat them, but cannot get enough peanut butter. This is why one person loves cottage cheese with fruit (the fruit helps digest the cottage cheese), and another loves cottage cheese with nuts. This is why a person may hate fresh tomatoes, but love tomato sauce (cooking changes it). This is why my husband loves his green beans cooked just until a fork goes through and lightly salted at the table, but I love mine cooked on the back of the stove Southern style, with a bit of bacon in the pot, salted with onion salt, and left to simmer all day. And this is why people with Polynesian genetics (or other similar genetics) love pineapple with their meat – so those enzymes in the pineapple can help break down the meat into recognizable nutrients.
The real secret that I’ve learned, is to TRUST MY BODY.
Turns out a little chocolate after my meals helps me digest certain foods, and break them down in a way they do not when I do not eat chocolate afterwards (One Dove dark is usually enough). I’ve always craved chocolate after meals. Who knew?
The other side of this is that what I intensely dislike is generally NOT GOOD FOR ME! If my body revolts at the idea, then I know it is not good food for ME.
So… My concluding opinion is this… (Yeah, I know, I took a bit to get to it!)
If A SUPPLEMENT (or food) TASTES GOOD TO YOU, and FEELS GOOD TO YOU, then it is good for you.
If A SUPPLEMENT (or food) TASTES NASTY, and FEELS BAD, or MAKES YOU WANT TO HURL, then it is NOT GOOD FOR YOU!
If your baby spits it out, DO NOT try to force feed it to them! They are telling you something! LISTEN! Because if you do not, you may do them irreparable harm, by requiring them to eat something that, at best, their body does not know what to do with and just expels it as fast as possible (laxative, anyone?), or, at worst, BUILDS UP HARMFUL incomplete metabolites, or incomplete (unnatural to them) forms of vitamins, minerals or other nutritional constituents. Over time, that build-up can damage the digestive system, nervous system, muscles (including the heart), pulmonary system, lymph system, renal and endocrine systems, and skeletal system.
A quote by Dr. Weston A. Price, found in the report by Dr. Kaayla Daniels, seems to agree with this philosophy of not force feeding Cod Liver Oil to children:
“I have frequently had mothers bring this question to me as a serious nutritional problem with their children. They had desired to do all they possibly could for their children and, in their efforts, had tried to follow the directions on the bottle or as otherwise provided, which often meant large doses of cod liver oil. They have reported to me the difficulty they had in combating the rebellion of their children against the use of cod liver oil, which may have been in part a reaction of self-preservation. Many of the children were reported to regurgitate the oil when it was forced down. Since it has been demonstrated that only the oil that is utilized contributes to the well-being of the human being or animal, it can readily be anticipated that compulsion to take such a toxic product could be very injurious.”
Dr. Daniels continues with some additional information in her report, regarding dosages, and overuse, and the words of Dr. Price on these issues.
Trust your body! Trust your family to know what they love and what they don’t, and find good versions of the things they love to feed them! There will be enough variety in the things they love, and if they don’t like the veggies you love, keep trying until you find the veggies they DO love.
Would I give my family “Fermented” Cod Liver Oil?
No. I would not – UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES! There are too many scientific facts that I know that are in direct contradiction to statements made by the manufacturer. It does not make sense to me, so I won’t use it. Nor will I recommend it.
If I thought a family member had a specific ailment that might benefit, I might seek out a cleaner and more natural form of Cod Liver Oil. But I would be just as likely to try other options first, or instead of Cod Liver Oil.
Would I use a “Fermented” Cod Liver Oil Lick Tub for my cattle? Unequivocally no!
Cattle are not meant to eat fish! Ergo, it cannot be termed a “natural” supplement for Cattle or other herbivores! A Lick Tub might be appropriate for chickens, ducks, or turkeys, or even pigs or quail. But not for cows! I CAN, however, recommend Redmond Minerals Natural Mineral Salt Rocks (I do not know exactly what they call them, but they sell for about $1.50 per lb, and are hewn from the mountain and used as found – lovely pink salty rocks!).
So go eat some fish. And try some different kinds of foods! Your body will thank you!
More information here:
- Where is Weston A. Price’s Traditional Fermented Cod Liver Oil?
- A LOT on the CLO scandal, and more from Dr. Kaayla Daniels
- A series of articles from Cheeseslave – (search for FCLO on her site if they’ve rolled off the home page)
- About Extra Virgin Cod Liver Oil (she uses it daily, and we do not generally recommend that)
- Adverse experience with FCLO
Many other WAPF bloggers initially questioned the FCLO controversy (the blog posts all have a sort of “Oh, golly, I don’t know WHAT to think!!” hand-wringing attitude to them), and then caved to pressure, and followed up with quotes from WAPFs misleading and vague response to the issues, or quoted the completely useless replies of the company that makes FCLO (written like a true politician, to make you THINK the question has been answered when it really has not, or just repeating information that has already been proven to be a lie, in the hopes you’ll believe it this time). In the interest of NOT confusing you, and because I never promote someone who has blatantly incorrect info if I can help it, I have not listed them in the list above. You can find them easily enough on your own.
Disclaimer: I am not a medical professional. This article is provided for informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or treat any disease, nor to recommend treatment for any disease. The interpretation of the information as presented is my opinion only, and should not be interpreted to be accusatory, or as a conclusive research document. We have no connection with the Weston A. Price Foundation, nor any affiliation with the manufacturer of Fermented Cod Liver Oil, nor with any competitors. We do not sell nutritional supplements, nor any products which might be considered to be competitive with any kind of Cod Liver Oil product, and have no financial motive for presenting this other than that it is a topic relevant to our own business, and contains questions being asked by our customers.
The ORIGINAL one-way valve fermenting airlock! Imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery, and we have noticed that our product has been copied by other sellers of fermenting products. Remember, if you see someone else selling a one-way valve airlock for fermenting, THEY copied US, not the other way around! Fermenta Lock is still the only original invention, handmade in the US. If it isn't orange, it isn't the original!
We invented Fermenta Lock, Fermenta Free, and the valve used for Fermenta Fido and other Fermenta Airlock products. We invented Fermenta Dunk Extender. Patents are prohibitively expensive, and designed by the government not to protect the rights of individuals, but to provide another source of revenue and control for the government and lawyers. We are good at what we do. We have endless ideas and endless creativity, and competition does not scare us. Impatient thieves do not scare us - they are too busy taking shortcuts to make a success of it anyway, and they won't want to take the effort to actually MAKE a product and fill orders.
So if you want to copy our idea, go right ahead. If you want to market and sell a competing product, you are welcome to do so, as long as you do not patent our idea - we had it first, and our posts on FaceBook announcing the invention and launch of it will prove that. This idea is officially in the public domain, placed there by us. We will NOT release supply sources, or part names unless you want to buy them - we'll be happy to sell you an instruction kit. If you buy our product, or look at the images and figure it out for yourself, good on you. Compete with us if you like, just don't screw us, and we'll get along just fine. Big companies who might want to screw us may have more money, and more lawyers than we do, but we have more to gain by suing the pants off a big company, and believe me, we will be well motivated to do so if anyone patents our idea and claims it as their own - this is a free idea. Everybody now owns it.
Published June 23, 2012
Wholesale, Export, and Manufacture of this product by other companies is an option. International distributorships are available for those wishing to export. Please email us to inquire about access to our wholesale website, or in regards to manufacturing any of our products.
Business Building Services Are Available - If you are wanting to build a business like this, where you make things in the home and sell them direct to the customer, or if you want to build a business that you can sell to other people as a complete business package, Firelight Heritage Farm is now offering Cottage Industry Services to aid small business owners in building a successful product or service business from the home. Don't know what you want to do? We can help you figure that out too (something original, and just yours, not a canned business). You get the wisdom and uniquely successful perspective and experience of people who have been business, marketing, and website professionals for more than a dozen years. For more information, visit CottageIndustrialRevolution.com. Why copy someone else's business when you can do something uniquely you and enjoy it so much more?