Raw Milk Benefits

That's right! People need about a quart of milk a day to get rid of toxins through the mucus.

I also learned that because the Jersey cows are selfless, and give basically all the nutrients to they milk, it is fun to experiment with their diet. For example, I like to feed my cow apples, then her milk is sweeter and smells like apples .. I planted in a pasture different mints and her milk has a slight flavor of mints ...

Oops, my local dairy just suspended raw milk sales after an outbreak of campylobacter that sickened many people.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120206/LIVING/302070015

Kristen Lee-Charlson wrote:

marina phillips wrote:
I think the mucus production blamed on milk is often a figment of people's imagination, or is caused by other factors and milk is a common and convenient scapegoat.  But that's me and my obnoxious opinion. 

For me, dairy in any form - fresh, raw or otherwise does have mucus causing properties. I only consume fresh, grass-fed milk products and can tell immediately the extra mucus after consumption. I have even cut them out for months (it takes 10 days to remove dairy from your system) only to reintroduce fermented raw dairy with the same results. At this point I am passed caring about the slight increase in mucus because I LOVE raw cheeses and fresh cream in my weekend coffee - real fermented sour cream, kefir, 24-hour cultured, raw yogurt and on and on. I consume no grains or starches in general......hmmmm.....

You didn't say if you tried drinking fresh raw milk. You know, by the glass.

tel jetson wrote:maybe we should consider the extra mucus a resource instead of a problem...

Yes, I've heard that mucus is an important part of our immune system and that it contains beneficial bacteria and viruses. I wish they would explain where they are getting this mucus. I have a hard time imagining what they are talking about. Are we even talking about the same thing?

hoosierboy Hatfield wrote:I read a book a while back that said commercially raised cows are bred for certain traits, which can make their milk out of balance and unsuitable for human consumption. It also said cows are injected with growth hormones and genetically modified grains.

All in all it was telling me that milk that is not raw isn't good for human consumption and can cause side affects such as acne and much more.

I'm not sure how true this is but ever since I read it I started buying organic milk, since I cant buy raw milk from my state. Its illegal in some states to sell raw milk, so I never got the chance to try raw milk yet.

You should ask around. You may find a source of raw milk.

serious question:
is there a more nutritious natural liquid available to perspiring mammals than raw milk?

this is a question i keep asking people and havent had anyone give me a better option.

Coconut is probably the closest, if you include milk and water. But, no, I don't think so.

maple sap is another great one ive heard.

Jami McBride wrote:Here's some info -

The Animal Breed Matters

Raw, whole milk is the overall best choice, because it offers abundant healthy fat, probiotics, vitamins, minerals
and enzymes. It is not processed at all on its way from farm to table, other than milking it out or chilling it. Yet,
not all raw, whole milk is created equal. Some of it comes from less desirable breeds. When choosing your raw,
whole milk, you actually have two choices:

1. raw, whole milk from an old-fashioned breed of pastured animal, such as Jersey, Guernsey, Red Devon,
or Brown Swiss cows, or goats, or sheep

2. raw, whole milk from a modern breed of pastured animal, such as the commercial Holstein

What’s wrong with the modern breed of cow? The milk protein suffers a genetic mutation, making it unstable in
our digestive tracts. This mutation is linked to serious health issues, such as auto-immune disease, heart
disease, type-1 diabetes, autism, and schizophrenia. Source: Keith Woodford’s Devil in the Milk.

Also, the modern Holstein’s milk contains more water and less nutrition ounce for ounce. According to Joann S.
Grohman of “Keeping a Family Cow,” you “have to drink one and two-thirds glasses of Holstein milk to receive
the nutrients you get from a glass of Jersey milk.” What are those nutrients? Milkfat, protein, calcium,
phosphorous, magnesium, vitamins A, D, E and K, and all the other vitamins and minerals typically found in milk.

  http://gnowfglins.com/

According to the Iowa Extension Service, every teaspoon of breastmilk has 3,000,000 germ killing cells in it; so if a baby gets even one tsp. a day, it is very valuable!

.. it has been shown in man and in several animal models that immunisation via the gut, and also the lungs, stimulates a special population of antibody-producing B lymphocytes.

Jeff Mathias wrote:Hi Emerson,

I happen to be one of those that don't really think we need or should use milk as milk much after we are done breast feeding as children so I don't really have much invested in the raw milk debate, although I do love cheese. So I find it exceptionally strange that we hyper-focus on such things without providing some balance. I assume much of it comes from giving up our rights as individuals to make choices for ourselves and asking maybe even forcing our government to make those decisions for us instead.

Some additional food for thought.

Emerson White wrote:
Of that 3% 70% is from raw dairy products, but raw milk (the most dangerous form of dairy) makes up 1% of all the milk consumed. This makes raw about 230 times more risky than pasteurized.

I believe I know the report you are speaking about. It also states the majority (something around 70%) of all cases of food poisoning occur in chain type restaurants. So it is also around 230 times more risky to eat in chain restaurants than to consume any dairy products at all.

Do you know are the Amish factored in here? They don't pasteurize at all do they?

Emerson White wrote:
Additionally you have to consider Brucellosis, which can kill people but easily maintains itself in a herd in free range conditions, which is why do many of our bison herds have it, in spite of being wild animals living in wildlands.

Me I don't really consider death by Brucellosis much of a problem actually. What are we talking 100 - 200 cases a year here in America and of those less than 2% fatality and many of those 100 - 200 are hunters not raw milk drinkers at all. Compare that to roughly 93 people killed per day in the US in 2009 from vehicle accidents alone and it seems like such an insignificant number to be wasting any time or resources on and certainly not worth making laws about. Especially because people in my mind should be able to make their own decisions. Nobody as far as I can tell is forcing anyone to sell or consume raw milk or abandon pasteurized milk, nobody is asking and certainly not forcing the dairy industry to switch to raw so it seems like much ado about nothing to me. Further I am not aware of any lawsuits related to anyone having gotten sick from their raw milk consumption. It seems to me instead like some farmers have reacted to a demand created by the market, basic capitalism at its finest if you ask me.

What really bothers me though is I buy my meat, fish and poultry raw. What is next forced pasteurization of those as well? I don't like where this appears to be headed.

Jeff

Our government keeps telling us fresh milk is unsafe but according to these 2 US government studies raw milk actually has a negative risk factor.

1. Raw Milk Consumption among Patients with Non–Outbreak-related Enteric Infections, Minnesota, USA, 2001–2010 by Trisha J. Robinson, Joni M. Scheftel, and Kirk E. Smith

An estimated 17.3% of raw milk consumers in Minnesota may have acquired an illness caused by 1 of these enteric pathogens during the 10-year study period. (That's 1.7% per year.) or (1 in 59)
wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/20/1/pdfs/12-0920.pdf

2. About 48 million people (That's 15% per year or 1 in 6 Americans) get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die each year from foodborne diseases, according to new estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r101215.html

When you look at these 2 studies you can see that the US Center for Disease Control has inadvertently demonstrated that people who don't drink raw milk are 9 times more likely to contract a so called foodborne illness. In other words raw milk prevents 1.3 million cases of foodborne disease and 90 deaths every year in the US.

People that switch to raw milk and who drink a couple of glasses a day, know it has health benefits in a matter weeks and know it is safe in a matter of months.

i think one thing missing from the raw milk talk is the cow the milk comes from, what its fed/eats and how that cow lives.

imo, not all raw milk is created equal and one should not assume that just because the milk is raw that everything is great.

i suggest the consumer talk with the farmer and see what the animal is being fed. there is a big difference in cows that are grain fed cows and grass fed cows.
there are also big differences in confined animals vs pastured animals.
even better if you can go to the farm and see how the operation is being done. your nose will usually tell you if something is wrong.

to me, the raw milk advocates should start including "from grass fed/pastured cows" to qualify the source of the healthy milk.

Kelly Smith wrote:i think one thing missing from the raw milk talk is the cow the milk comes from, what its fed/eats and how that cow lives.

imo, not all raw milk is created equal and one should not assume that just because the milk is raw that everything is great.

i suggest the consumer talk with the farmer and see what the animal is being fed. there is a big difference in cows that are grain fed cows and grass fed cows.
there are also big differences in confined animals vs pastured animals.
even better if you can go to the farm and see how the operation is being done. your nose will usually tell you if something is wrong.

to me, the raw milk advocates should start including "from grass fed/pastured cows" to qualify the source of the healthy milk.

Isn't that exactly what we are doing? But of course it would help to live in an area with more than 1 or 2 farms to choose from.

Being raw is by fare, the most important thing. Next it should be A2 milk from cows that are not pregnant. For most raw milk consumers, the cows diet is probably number 5 or 6.

mike grim wrote:
Isn't that exactly what we are doing? But of course it would help to live in an area with more than 1 or 2 farms to choose from.

Being raw is by fare, the most important thing. Next it should be A2 milk from cows that are not pregnant. For most raw milk consumers, the cows diet is probably number 5 or 6.

i was making a general statement about how i see raw milk talked about. rarely do i ever hear any emphasis on the cow diet or living conditions. i mainly see the emphasis on raw. of course the milk needs to be raw, anything else, imo, cant be called milk

do you have any info/links on the A2 being better milk? i was under the understanding that A2 milk was mainly for people who had trouble digesting A1 or A1/A2 milk.

Kelly Smith wrote:

mike grim wrote:
Isn't that exactly what we are doing? But of course it would help to live in an area with more than 1 or 2 farms to choose from.

Being raw is by fare, the most important thing. Next it should be A2 milk from cows that are not pregnant. For most raw milk consumers, the cows diet is probably number 5 or 6.

i was making a general statement about how i see raw milk talked about. rarely do i ever hear any emphasis on the cow diet or living conditions. i mainly see the emphasis on raw. of course the milk needs to be raw, anything else, imo, cant be called milk

do you have any info/links on the A2 being better milk? i was under the understanding that A2 milk was mainly for people who had trouble digesting A1 or A1/A2 milk.

This is the first one that comes up on a search for "A1/A2 milk". It looks pretty good. I'll see what else I can find.

http://www.handpickednation.com/what-is-a1-versus-a2-milk/