I just love weekly pickups for grassfed raw milk. The inspiration and information exchange between folks who are making it happen each and every day with nutrient dense food preparation in their home kitchens is something you just can’t get anywhere else.
At our local pickup earlier this week, my dairy farmer relayed an interesting story to me about one of his 12 grandchildren and her very first experience with cow milk.
This little gal was presented for the very first time with a sippy cup of grassfed low temp pasteurized, nonhomogenized milk to drink as her Mom was in the process of weaning her off breastmilk. The child was already adept at drinking out of a sippy cup herself and so handling a sippy cup was not a new experience.
Without hesitation, she refused to drink from the sippy cup after an initial taste and turned her head away in rejection.
Undaunted, her mother next presented her with a sippy cup filled with raw, grassfed milk. It is important to note that the milk was from the very same dairy farm. The only difference is that one sippy cup had low temp pasteurized, nonhomogenized (cream top) milk in it and the other sippy cup had raw grassfed milk.
Same cows, same pasture, same everything except one sippy cup had milk that was low temp pasteurized and nonhomogenized.
Again, without hesitation, the little toddler grasped the sippy cup full of raw milk and happily began to drink!
My dairy farmer continued to explain that pets will make the same choice if you give them the option of lapping up low temp pasteurized/nonhomogenized milk versus raw milk.
Livestock exhibit similar instincts when it comes to feed as I’ve had many a farmer explain that animals always prefer the natural grain to any mix with GMOs in it. Of course, if GMO feed is all that you offer, they will eat that, but given the choice, the healthier option is chosen with no hesitation.
We can learn a lot by observing how healthy children and animals make their food choices. Their instincts for what is best for them nutritionally and developmentally haven’t been lost and those virgin taste buds and sense of smell are highly sensitive to the food choices presented.
Microphotography of Low Temp Pasteurized Milk and Raw Milk
Scientific examination of the molecular structure of low temp pasteurized/nonhomogenized milk and raw milk provides evidence as to why children and animals will instinctively prefer raw milk. In an article written by Beverly Rubik Phd entitled Microphotography of Raw and Processed Milk she shows in visual form the striking differences between raw milk and milk that is processed at low temperatures and not homogenized. Note that frozen raw milk that has been thawed has the same beneficial properties with little loss in nutrition.
Clearly, even low temp pasteurization with no homogenization is a very damaging process!
I found this research by Dr. Rubik to be very helpful as I have always recommended to people who have the choice between low temp pasteurized, nonhomogenized milk that is 100% grassfed and raw milk where the primarily grassfed cows get a small ration of grain each day to always choose the raw milk. The overall health of children on raw milk will beat the health of children drinking 100% grassfed low temp pasteurized/nonhomogenized milk in every instance I have observed.
Let’s take a lesson from the children. They are so much wiser than we think. Raw milk beats low temp pasteurized/nonhomogenized milk every single time.
Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist
I wish I could afford raw milk more often. In our area, one gallon is $20. I try and get it in as much as possible, but we can’t afford it every time.
Ugh. Raw is best. Lots of fear… Don’t listen to misinformation, especially from the government. More people get sick from produce at the grocery store.
Organic Valley “raw” cheeses are low temp/sub pasteurized. After too many people commented about it saying they were misleading consumers, they removed the ability to comment on their products FYI.
Very interesting….
Hello Sarah,
Thanks for your blog from which I’ve learnt so much.
In France, there is this new type of milk they call “microfiltré” (microflitered), some of which are certified organic. It is said to remove some of the bacteria while retaining the yummy taste of raw milk. I’m skeptical of new inventions in food (no thanks to being a guinea pig) and haven’t bought any so far, but it can be tempting when the organic stores and markets run out of raw milk and I’m not keen on the pasteurized and UHT ones. Would you be aware of what this process is about?
Happy new year to you and yours.
I gave my kids raw milk for a few months last year from a trusted local farm. Their doctor raked me over the coals for it and insisted they be tested for TB, advising me to NEVER give it to them again. 🙁 Needless to say, I have been fearful of giving them raw milk again. I do know that it’s better, but their doctor was so upset that it really made me second guess myself.
For now, we just stick with the low-temp, non-homogenized milk.
Anna,
That doctor could be one of those doctors who have plugged themselves into the government’s matrix about how they want humans in their matrix to eat. This doctor of your children, may not even know they have been brainwashed or maybe s/he is actually knowingly pushing the government’s agenda.
Contrary to what The Health Home Economist believes, the WAP link she provided to Dr. Beverly Rubik’s article, “Microphotography of Raw and Processed Milk”, supports the fact that LTNH milk is a good alternative to raw milk. The simple fact that their doctor basically condemned you and over something that is not bad for you, let’s you know you s/he is the wrong doctor. Heed the signs. Is there any holistic/naturopathic/homeopathic doctors near you? From my understanding, they are the best of both medical worlds because they learn everything conventional doctors learn (education, etc.) PLUS alternative medicine. If there are none near you, then seek a conventional doctor who knows and agrees with your lifestyle.
Some years ago, I asked a dentist assistant what she thought about teeth regeneration, she was so quick to say, “No, it doesn’t work” it wasn’t even funny. I started to ask her how she knew or what proof she had, but something said she wouldn’t have an answer (she was one feeding government matrix garbage to their patients).
The same thing happened years prior to that with an eye doctor. I asked his spectacle-wearing behind, what he thought of the eyes healing itself–much like how the rest of our bodies can heal itself when proper nutrients are given to it and through eye exercises and pinhole glasses. Just like the dentist assistant, I was cut off to hear the same garbage I’ve heard for years. Not only did he say eye exercises, pinhole glasses and such do not improve eyesight, he pushed lasik surgery. Now, why on earth would I want a laser beam going into my eye by a doctor (credible or not) who just might be have an unexpected nerve issue and make me go blind? I know lasik works, I’ve known two people who have had it done successfully, so I don’t doubt its effectiveness. And, when I told him my concern, he said the probability of that happening is very slim (he gave a percentage) and rare. My question was, then why didn’t he have it done instead of wearing spectacles. No, I didn’t get a chance to ask that question.
Anyway, I know for myself and from two other people that I know how effective pinhole glasses (I actually find the smaller holes to be more effective for me versus the size you see on the market; so I make my own) do improve eyesight where you don’t need this eye drug that has to be prescribed to you if you are a negative prescription. And, I told him this and he went on talking about some “highly respected optometrist” who has been studying this and found nothing. I highly doubt that. I knew seeing through a tiny hole made by my fist would allow you to see quite clear and I knew this as a child (I didn’t understand it then, didn’t ask anyone about it, but I definitely know a whole lot more about it now)! And, just recently read that many others noticed this same thing when they were a child, too! He was obviously trying everything in his power to make sure I stayed plugged into the matrix of brainwashing. Shoot, he hadn’t even done it himself! Smdh.
Anyway, I don’t mind anyone opposing my beliefs and personal testimonies, but to act like those with proof need to be put in an asylum is utterly ridiculous and wrong! Of course, I didn’t go back to either medical businesses who shunned natural alternatives to healing. If they thought my personal evidence was all in my head or in other people’s head, then so is the drugs and procedures they claim work all in the heads of those who also claim it works – it goes both ways, and, therefore, not needed.
So, whether you do it directly or indirectly, talk about your natural lifestyle to or with those you are considering to help you maintain you and your family’s great health and stay away from zombie health officials.
All the best,
Ashah
@ Ashah: I’ve had a couple of the same type of experiences as you with dentists and eye doctors, so I know what you are talking about. I’m wondering if your regimine for eyes includes some sort of “vision” supplement? I have tried lots of things over the years but my ARMD in my right eye doesn’t respond to individualized treatment, but there are so many vision supplements on the market I’d like a recommendation. One thing I know for certain, though, is one with the least amount of bilberry is best for me. I didn’t have a nice time when I tried that stuff on its own 😉 and I don’t do well with fish oils either. Any recommendations that you have personal experience with?
I actually am a doctor and I take offense at your suggestion of brainwashing. For sure, there are all kinds of doctors out there. I will say that there are some things I disagree with mainstream medicine – particularly when it comes to food and some (but not all) vaccines. That said, I got into medicine and worked my butt off because I care about health and I care about people. I believe most doctors are driven by similar desires.
I agree that you can’t trust food these days. What you buy in a typical supermarket is disgusting and unregulated. I highly recommend people eat organic, locally grown, humanely treated and hormone free food – to the best that they can afford. However, raw milk is a real risk. It’s very similar to eating completely uncooked meat and fish. Yes, you will likely survive, however one sloppy farmer later and you can die. Not worth it. And nutritionally, just cooking the milk doesn’t do that much damage. Technically, most of us shouldn’t even be drinking milk in the first place. Most Americans are lactose intolerant!
I’m not too sure about the science of this. First of all, maybe the child had gotten used to the first taste of milk, so that when the other milk was given to her, she was able to adjust to the taste. It would have been more convincing if she had enjoyed the raw milk first.
Also, I looked at the WAP link, and got this, “the milk that was pasteurized at the lower temperature but unhomogenized looked similar to raw milk at high magnifications as the heterogeneous size of the fat globules, ranging from about 2 to 7 micrometers, were similar”
I still agree that raw beats pasteurized, but you could also say the same for meat. Raw beats cooked. But most people won’t eat meat that way. So low temp still seems like a praise-worthy product, though not equal.
“The science of this” meaning the anecdotal evidence stated in this post.
I was wondering if anyone else caught, “the milk that was pasteurized at the lower temperature but unhomogenized looked similar to raw milk at high magnifications…” statement, too! At first, I thought The Health Home Economist was on to something, but she must’ve skimmed the article instead of reading it thoroughly. As a matter of fact, she had to because how on earth can you miss that?! It pays to read for yourself, and I appreciate the link she shared for me to conveniently do so.
This article is bit strange. Even with her baby having “instincts” like “animals do”. I thought that same thing, you did, Amy about that. That’s just human behavior to shun new tastes you are not familiar with. There was another person, Ellen, who commented on how her kids blindly (they didn’t know it was raw milk) drank raw milk and thought it tasted dirty and didn’t like it. So, is it really about instincts or just preference?
I have to agree with another commenter, StephH, who caught The Health Home Economist’s holier-than-thou attitude, which I, too, picked up on through reading this article. I’m like this, if you say something is not good, then give an alternative; especially when you know what you recommend is a rare find. Otherwise, shut up about it because how is that really helping those who find you as a credible resource (not source)? Just ridiculous. The whole nature of this article is just not right. What is really going on here? Were you having a bad day when you wrote this article or what?
Thank you for your comment. Our farmers just moved out of state and the next farmer that I know is super safe, lives 2 hours away. I decided to pick up some very low temp non homogenized milk from a food co-op. Stressing about my choice, I poured a glass and tasted it. I was surprised at the sweetness and the taste of grass in the milk. It certainly is different than raw milk, but shockingly tasted better and fresher. I am sure it’s their process which is amazing and super clean. But then, I kept thinking, it tastes so different. And I have been second guessing myself and feeling so guilty. Knowing it won’t harm my kids is reassuring. We had a super close call with the farm in Oregon mentioned above. We picked up milk the day other families that got sick picked up. We use a lot more milk, so I happened to pick up twice a week and the possibly tainted milk was consumed in 3 days. The ecoli didn’t have time to over take the good bacteria, so we never got sick. It does make me wary of picking milk from any farmer. This low temp milk comes from grass Fed cows and it is raw milk quality, but because it crosses state lines, it has to be pasteurized. Thanks again for relieving my stress and guilt!
Quote from Audrey: “Knowing it won’t harm my kids is reassuring.” Pastuerizing the milk does not make it “safe”. Have you looked into this at all? The records from the CDC list about 8-12 people who have died from pasteurized milk. Wanna guess how many have died from raw milk? You only feel better because you’re buying into the propaganda from bigdairy. I don’t really understand why people like you even bother with raw milk to begin with. If you’re afraid of it you have bought into the falsehoods and you are a sheeple.
Thanks for catching this. The link which acts as the author’s source actually only mentions lower temperatures of pasteurization once, and it is in the sentence that you quoted.
Things that remain intact in low temperature vat pasteurization are Vitamins A, D, E, K, K2 (“X-factor”), and that all important lactase enzyme.
I’m mostly interested in the differences between raw and low temp dairy when turned into butter, as it is much more economical in my community to buy a 2 lb. roll of Hartzler’s 100% grass-fed low temp pasteurized butter, than even 1 lb. of butter from the gentleman that operates the herd share I am a part of. For milk, I’m fortunate to be able to find raw milk in my community at an affordable (and even cheaper than low temp/vat) price, but I understand that not all communities are so fortunate. There really needs to be more said about the ACTUAL differences of raw & low temp/vat, something far more than “my daughter won’t drink it”.
I really appreciate your blog, all the information your provide us with, I have learned tremendously from you.
What I don’t appreciate is the holier-than-thou attitude you seem to have to anything but what you believe or recommend. I agree 100% that pastured raw milk is best, but some of us can only get our hands on low-temp pastured milk and it doesn’t help that you makes us feel like crap for our milk choice when raw milk is completely out of possibilities.
You shouldn’t feel guilty your child isn’t having raw milk. That a toddler will consume raw milk tells you nothing. Small children will also drink antifreeze and eat dog food if unattended.
Also, raw milk is dangerous. There is a reason it is banned in so many places.
The linked article on visual differences is comparing milk that is unpasteurized, 170 pasteurized, and ultra-pasteurized. Does that mean your initial example was of milk that pas pasteurized at 170 for 17 seconds? On my intial read, I assumed you were comparing milk that was pasteurized at 145 for 30 minutes (low-temperature pasteurization),
Can you clarify?
Also, since the taste difference between pasteurized and non-pasteurized is mostly the taste of the sugars (heating the sugars doesn’t change their caloric value but removes much of their ‘sweetness’), wouldn’t the sweeter tasting milk always get preferred? One could probably test that by adding sugar to the pasteurized milk and seeing if the child still showed a preference for the raw milk if the sweetness was identical. I’m not advocating adding sugar to milk, only wondering if the sweetness was the attraction, not some underlying nutritional difference.
What about home-made yogurt made from cultures that have been handed down over many generations (I think)? I heat milk on my electric stove at the least setting. Once cream thickens at the surface, I let it cool to a comfortably warm temperature and set it with a little old culture.