Lactobacillus

The practical consequence Aajonus described for lactobacillus bulgaris's faster action is a taste change that runs ahead of what many people would find pleasant. When lactobacillus bulgaris outpaces acidophilus in digesting the fat content of raw milk, the resulting milk becomes somewhat bitter and slightly off in odor. Aajonus was explicit that he did not find this problematic. His comparison to German-style aged cheeses with strong, unpleasant smells was meant to normalize the idea that fermented or partially fermented dairy products that smell or taste objectionable to the unaccustomed palate are not harmful; they are simply further along in the bacterial breakdown process. The fact that fat is being digested first, before the acidophilus can contribute its own enzymatic action, is a sequencing issue rather than a safety issue.

The implication within Aajonus's framework is that acidophilus and lactobacillus bulgaris operate in relationship with each other when milk is fermenting, and that this relationship affects both the flavor profile and the order in which macronutrients in the milk are broken down. When that relationship is absent or imbalanced, one organism runs ahead of the other, producing the bitter fat digestion he described. This does not mean the milk is ruined or should be discarded. Aajonus consumed it. He simply acknowledged that the taste is what it is, and that people raised on similarly fermented dairy, such as the Hunza, would not find bitterness objectionable because they grew up eating milk that had been allowed to ferment in this way from the beginning.

Aajonus positioned acidophilus as the relational partner of lactobacillus bulgaris in raw milk fermentation, and the absence of that relationship is what produces the imbalanced outcome he described. In a properly balanced fermentation, both organisms contribute, and the fat digestion that lactobacillus bulgaris performs is integrated with the broader bacterial breakdown acidophilus participates in. When Aajonus described a plain milkshake, he identified it as containing acidophilus operating without that complication, making it a simpler and less bitter product.

He also made a related distinction elsewhere regarding the kind of bacteria used to ferment milk more broadly. He distinguished between bacteria native to the milk itself, bacteria introduced from cow rennet or kefir grains washed from an external source, and bacteria introduced through human saliva. His view was that bacteria from external commercial starters, including the bacterial strains used in commercial yogurt and kefir production, had been washed and conditioned to the point where they were no longer truly indigenous to the milk. Such bacteria help the person digest milk, but they compete with the person's own bacterial colonies rather than promoting and expanding them. This is the broader context in which lactobacillus bulgaris appears: as one of the bacterial actors in commercially or traditionally fermented dairy, performing a specific function but not necessarily the ideal function for a given human's digestive system.

Aajonus's fullest position on the bacteria used to ferment milk was that the most appropriate bacteria for any individual are that individual's own bacteria, introduced into the milk through saliva. He explained that one to one and a half tablespoons of saliva swirled into a quart of raw milk will produce a kefir or yogurt that is perfectly calibrated to that person's digestive system, because the saliva bacteria are the same bacteria that digest animal matter in the human gut. This is not the bacteria that lactobacillus bulgaris or the bacteria in commercial kefir grains represent. Cow-derived bacteria, including the strains used in commercial yogurt and kefir, make milk digestible and provide predigested nutrients, but they are not the same bacteria the human intestinal tract uses. They are, in Aajonus's words, in competition with the person's own bacteria rather than promoting its growth.

He identified this as particularly important for healthy people who have adequate bacterial populations of their own. For sick people who have very little intestinal bacteria, predigested dairy made with any bacteria, including cow-derived strains, is preferable to unfermented milk because the digestion has already been done and the nutrients are available for immediate absorption without requiring the person's own depleted bacterial colonies to do the work. The kefir or yogurt from a cow's bacteria is a useful therapeutic intervention in that situation, even if it is not the ultimate biological solution.

While Aajonus did not return repeatedly to lactobacillus bulgaris by name beyond his one direct citation, his broader teaching about bacterial digestion provides the context in which any named bacterial strain operates. He taught that eighty to ninety percent of all digestion is bacterial, with hydrochloric acid and bile contributing only ten to twenty percent. The bacteria in the intestines eat food particles, and their excretions, their feces, urine, and perspiration, are what the human body actually absorbs and uses as nutrients. When the bacteria finish digesting any food, including blueberries or blackberries, what remains is a thick, milky, white substance that enters the lacteal system. The lacteal system then delivers this material to the lymphatic system, where lymphatic bacteria break it down further into a translucent fluid that feeds every cell in the body except red and white blood cells.

Lactobacillus bulgaris operates within this large system of bacterial activity. Its specific role, as Aajonus identified it, is in the digestion of fat in fermenting milk, and its competition or cooperation with acidophilus shapes the character of that fermentation. Within Aajonus's framework, any bacteria performing this breakdown work is providing a service, even if the byproduct is a taste or smell the person finds unpleasant. The unpleasantness is information about what stage the fermentation has reached and which organisms are currently dominant, not evidence that the product has become harmful.

Aajonus noted one environmental variable that affects the bacteria in fermenting milk: light. He said that he stores fermenting milk in a dark cupboard because light turns the fats bitter. This bitterness produced by light exposure differs from the bitterness produced by lactobacillus bulgaris outpacing acidophilus, though both result in a bitter-tasting milk. He said that if he had been raised eating bitter milk the way the Hunza were, the light-induced bitterness probably would not bother him. He stopped making kefir with foreign bacterial starters and instead allows his milk to ferment on its own in a dark place for several days until it begins to thicken, at which point it has predigested itself through its own native bacterial activity. He described this as the natural process that should happen, and he found that natural predigestion through the milk's own bacteria produced better results in his faecal matter tests than predigestion through externally introduced bacterial strains.

In those tests, he compared kefir or yogurt made with introduced bacillus strains against soured milk that was allowed to ferment using only its own naturally present bacteria. The faecal matter from consuming externally inoculated dairy showed fewer B vitamins, less overall bacterial presence, and different digestive properties. The faecal matter from consuming naturally soured milk showed normal and high levels of natural bacteria, indicating that the milk's own fermentation process better supported the continuity of the human gut's bacterial population. This is the experimental grounding behind his preference for allowing milk to ferment through its own bacteria rather than through introduced strains such as lactobacillus bulgaris from commercial sources.

---