Guest guest Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 > This excellent article 'An Invconvenient Cow " is now posted on the > WAPF website. > http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/inconvenientcow.html Thanks Carolyn, that is an excellent article! But I have to admit I'm always puzzled by the WAPF emphasis on butter, as opposed to cream, or whole milk. Despite having ready access to 100% grass-fed raw butter for many years, I've rarely eaten it because cream is so much more delicious and useful, and there's nothing I love more than simple fermented whole milk like kefir or clabber. It's really awkward to talk about the extra processing required to make this form of milk. Here's a paragraph from that article that really illustrates this! " Grass farmers produce the most ecologically sensible food on earth, food derived nearly in its entirety from solar energy. Grass-fed butter is perhaps the finest example of solar energy converted into nutrient-dense food for people. Grass-fed meat and other grass-based dairy products are equally wonderful, earth-friendly foods. However, I use butter here to illustrate how we can derive pure, nutrient-dense animal energy from solar energy with very few steps in between. Here’s how it works: Grass plants convert solar energy (and atmospheric carbon dioxide) into plant biomass, and the cow synthesizes that plant material into her own energy via the cellulose-digesting microbes in her rumen. From this energy she then produces milk, of which the energy-rich portion (the cream) is separated. The cream is then made even more energy-dense through churning into butter. No chemicals or petroleum required (except electricity for churning the butter); just the sun, the grass and the cow (and her rumen flora) in an elegantly simple process. " In this context, it would make a lot more sense to just talk about whole milk, whether fresh or fermented, and when it comes to kefir or clabber, the fermentation process is about as simple and ecologically invisible as you can get. After all, the butter is already in the milk, so even though the fat component of milk has somewhat more nutritional value than the other parts, the milk as a whole is yet much more nutritious, with its protein, calcium, etc. And if ecological sustainability is the focus, it's pretty odd to go through all that extra effort, using machinery that had to be built using ecologically expensive materials and processes, and using electricity for separating and churning the cream. -Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 Hi Mike, Not everyone does well on the lactose or casein in whole milk, even raw. Cream is more concentrated fat, less of the other components, but there is the problem of keeping it fresh. Of course it can also be cultured, but I've found creme fraiche doesn't keep that long and I forget to use it and inevitably end up wasting some. Butter has no or close to no lactose or casein, and it keeps much longer than milk or cream. Of course ghee keeps even longer, even without refrigeration. WAPF does in fact also recommend eating cream. I remember an article in Wise Nutrition about learning to use more cream in your cooking. Nothing beats fresh, raw cream with berries, in my opinion. No sweetener necessary! Jeanmarie On Aug 28, 2009, at 10:59 AM, Mike wrote: > > This excellent article 'An Invconvenient Cow " is now posted on the > > WAPF website. > > http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/inconvenientcow.html > > Thanks Carolyn, that is an excellent article! > > But I have to admit I'm always puzzled by the WAPF emphasis on butter, > as opposed to cream, or whole milk. Despite having ready access to > 100% grass-fed raw butter for many years, I've rarely eaten it because > cream is so much more delicious and useful, and there's nothing I love > more than simple fermented whole milk like kefir or clabber. It's > really awkward to talk about the extra processing required to make > this form of milk. Here's a paragraph from that article that really > illustrates this! > > " Grass farmers produce the most ecologically sensible food on earth, > food derived nearly in its entirety from solar energy. Grass-fed > butter is perhaps the finest example of solar energy converted into > nutrient-dense food for people. Grass-fed meat and other grass-based > dairy products are equally wonderful, earth-friendly foods. However, I > use butter here to illustrate how we can derive pure, nutrient-dense > animal energy from solar energy with very few steps in between. Here’s > how it works: Grass plants convert solar energy (and atmospheric > carbon dioxide) into plant biomass, and the cow synthesizes that plant > material into her own energy via the cellulose-digesting microbes in > her rumen. From this energy she then produces milk, of which the > energy-rich portion (the cream) is separated. The cream is then made > even more energy-dense through churning into butter. No chemicals or > petroleum required (except electricity for churning the butter); just > the sun, the grass and the cow (and her rumen flora) in an elegantly > simple process. " > > In this context, it would make a lot more sense to just talk about > whole milk, whether fresh or fermented, and when it comes to kefir or > clabber, the fermentation process is about as simple and ecologically > invisible as you can get. After all, the butter is already in the > milk, so even though the fat component of milk has somewhat more > nutritional value than the other parts, the milk as a whole is yet > much more nutritious, with its protein, calcium, etc. And if > ecological sustainability is the focus, it's pretty odd to go through > all that extra effort, using machinery that had to be built using > ecologically expensive materials and processes, and using electricity > for separating and churning the cream. > > -Mike > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2009 Report Share Posted August 30, 2009 are you making your own creme fraiche from raw cream? I buy raw creme fraiche from a local farmer and it keeps for at least 4 months in the fridge (the longest I've had it before it was gone and it was still fine). > > Hi Mike, > Not everyone does well on the lactose or casein in whole milk, even > raw. Cream is more concentrated fat, less of the other components, but > there is the problem of keeping it fresh. Of course it can also be > cultured, but I've found creme fraiche doesn't keep that long and I > forget to use it and inevitably end up wasting some. Butter has no or > close to no lactose or casein, and it keeps much longer than milk or > cream. Of course ghee keeps even longer, even without refrigeration. > > WAPF does in fact also recommend eating cream. I remember an article > in Wise Nutrition about learning to use more cream in your cooking. > Nothing beats fresh, raw cream with berries, in my opinion. No > sweetener necessary! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2009 Report Share Posted August 30, 2009 I've done it both ways. I don't remember which I did most recently. The problem is, I forget it's in the fridge and forget to use it! Then it gets really strong-tasting and then I don't like it as much. Then it starts to mold eventually. Jeanmarie On Aug 29, 2009, at 6:36 PM, carolyn_graff wrote: > are you making your own creme fraiche from raw cream? > > I buy raw creme fraiche from a local farmer and it keeps for at > least 4 months in the fridge (the longest I've had it before it was > gone and it was still fine). > > > > > > Hi Mike, > > Not everyone does well on the lactose or casein in whole milk, even > > raw. Cream is more concentrated fat, less of the other components, > but > > there is the problem of keeping it fresh. Of course it can also be > > cultured, but I've found creme fraiche doesn't keep that long and I > > forget to use it and inevitably end up wasting some. Butter has no > or > > close to no lactose or casein, and it keeps much longer than milk or > > cream. Of course ghee keeps even longer, even without refrigeration. > > > > WAPF does in fact also recommend eating cream. I remember an article > > in Wise Nutrition about learning to use more cream in your cooking. > > Nothing beats fresh, raw cream with berries, in my opinion. No > > sweetener necessary! > > > > RECENT ACTIVITY > 17 > New Members > Visit Your Group > Ads on > Learn more now. > Reach customers > searching for you. > > Mental Health Zone > Learn about issues > Find support > Group Charity > Give a laptop > Get a laptop: One > laptop per child > . > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Mike, > Thanks Carolyn, that is an excellent article! > > But I have to admit I'm always puzzled by the WAPF emphasis on butter, > as opposed to cream, or whole milk. I think its because Weston Price, based on the groups he observed, put an emphasis on butter. …many people around the globe…have valued butter for its life-sustaining properties for millennia. When Dr. Weston Price studied native diets in the 1930’s he found that butter was a staple in the diets of many supremely healthy peoples. Isolated Swiss villagers placed a bowl of butter on their church altars, set a wick in it, and let it burn throughout the year as a sign of divinity in the butter. Arab groups also put a high value on butter, especially deep yellow-orange butter from livestock feeding on green grass in the spring and fall. American folk wisdom recognized that children raised on butter were robust and sturdy; but that children given skim milk during their growing years were pale and thin, with “pinched†faces. Sally Fallon and G. Enig, Ph.D. Why Butter is Better – Health Freedom News, 1999 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 > I think its because Weston Price, based on the groups he observed, put > an emphasis on butter. Hi , Yeah, butter is great and figures in traditional diets and all that good stuff, but my point was that the butter is already in the whole milk, so you don't get anything extra from butter compared to cream or whole milk. I think the prominence in traditional diets has more to do with the fact that butter is a way of preserving milk, so it's about convenience, not any special qualities of butter compared to other forms of milk. Jeanmarie points out that some people can't handle casein, but that's kind of irrelevant because there's no assumption anywhere in Sally's writing that milk or butter or any other food is a universal food. Of course there will be people who can't handle milk, and there's enough casein in butter to cause problems for casein-sensitive people, so it's not like butter represents a solution to casein-sensitivity. Butter oil might count as a solution but it's not a common food and it's a pretty bad way to treat a delicate food like milk with all the heating usually used to make butter oil (I'm aware of the new high-tech low heat methods). My point remains that the emphasis on butter is very strange, and rather ridiculous in the passage I quoted. -Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 I wonder what percentage of people that have a certain level of problems with raw cow's milk have the same level of problems with goats milk. Do you know? From: <slethnobotanist@...> Subject: Re: cows and methane Date: Monday, August 31, 2009, 10:50 PM  Mike, > Thanks Carolyn, that is an excellent article! > > But I have to admit I'm always puzzled by the WAPF emphasis on butter, > as opposed to cream, or whole milk. I think its because Weston Price, based on the groups he observed, put an emphasis on butter. …many people around the globe…have valued butter for its life-sustaining properties for millennia. When Dr. Weston Price studied native diets in the 1930’s he found that butter was a staple in the diets of many supremely healthy peoples. Isolated Swiss villagers placed a bowl of butter on their church altars, set a wick in it, and let it burn throughout the year as a sign of divinity in the butter. Arab groups also put a high value on butter, especially deep yellow-orange butter from livestock feeding on green grass in the spring and fall. American folk wisdom recognized that children raised on butter were robust and sturdy; but that children given skim milk during their growing years were pale and thin, with “pinched†faces. Sally Fallon and G. Enig, Ph.D. Why Butter is Better – Health Freedom News, 1999 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 Mike, > Hi , > Yeah, butter is great and figures in traditional diets and all that > good stuff, but my point was that the butter is already in the whole > milk, so you don't get anything extra from butter compared to cream or > whole milk. Yes I got that point. But cream and whole milk are not nutritionally optimal year around, and for many of the natives I would imagine not even available year around. I also should have phrased what I said differently because I don't think WAPF puts an emphasis on butter as over and against cream or milk. In fact from my perception I think the biggest emphasis in WAPF in terms of raw dairy is on milk, not butter. > I think the prominence in traditional diets has more to > do with the fact that butter is a way of preserving milk, so it's > about convenience, not any special qualities of butter compared to > other forms of milk. I think because of the concentration of certain factors in the milk and cream is one reason why butter and ghee have been used medicinally in various cultures. But even more why limit yourself? I like all the products of milk, each having its different tastes and varied uses. I can use ghee and butter as a cooking oil. Eat them on bread, tubers, meat, etc. It is another very useful option. You say " Despite having ready access to 100% grass-fed raw butter for many years, I've rarely eaten it because cream is so much more delicious and useful, and there's nothing I love more than simple fermented whole milk like kefir or clabber. " But that is just a matter of your own personal taste. I don't want my steak floating in cream or kefir or roasting my potatoes in cream. Butter is much more useful for those purposes and more. :-) > Jeanmarie points out that some people can't > handle casein, but that's kind of irrelevant because there's no > assumption anywhere in Sally's writing that milk or butter or any > other food is a universal food. Of course there will be people who > can't handle milk, and there's enough casein in butter to cause > problems for casein-sensitive people, so it's not like butter > represents a solution to casein-sensitivity. Butter oil might count > as a solution but it's not a common food and it's a pretty bad way to > treat a delicate food like milk with all the heating usually used to > make butter oil (I'm aware of the new high-tech low heat methods). I'm not aware of any high tech low heat methods. Care to share? Unless you use a centrifuge, in order to make ghee you have to boil the butter. If by butter oil you are referring to what is produced by Green Pastures then yes that is not very common. But ghee, which also removes all the milk protein, is quite common. > My > point remains that the emphasis on butter is very strange, and rather > ridiculous in the passage I quoted. From a food standpoint its only strange given your personal taste. As to whether it is ridiculous in the passage you quoted from an ecologically sustainable standpoint, I will refrain from comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.