Nancy Young wrote:

Dan Abel wrote:

I know that humans are different than other animals, but I was surprised
to read the above. Humans generally are not fertile while lactating. My
wife went for five years without having a normal monthly cycle, due to a
combination of lactation and pregnancy.

There is a name for babies born because people think a nursing mother
can't get pregnant. Sorry, I forget what the name is, but I sure
wouldn't rely on nursing as birth control.

nancy

The name is result of unwanted pregnancy. (

(Alex Rast) wrote in message ...
at Thu, 09 Oct 2003 20:53:12 GMT in de56271e.0310091253.a8aef61
@posting.google.com, (Akilesh Ayyar) wrote :

I bought some organic skim milk recently, supposed to expire November
7. I sampled a little bit and it tasted funny.

I can't describe it any better than to say it had a kind of
"high-pitched sweetness,"...

November 7 = Ultra-Pasteurized. This is one of the most insidious trends in
milk in recent years that seems to have been passed right under consumers'
noses. A very great majority of milk these days is ultra-pasteurized,
mostly because it means the milk won't spoil for *much* longer.

UP and UHT are two different things. When I get home, I'll pull up
the reference from pubmed.


I find it bordering on unethical that dairies adopted these practices
without informing the consumers.

Just to clarify, it's the bottlers/processors--not the dairies
themselves. Most farmers these days sell their milk to milk co-op (we
sell to Dean food, mid america dairyme, ampi, etc.), which sales it to
a processor. Milk is picked up at the farm and when the truck is
full, the thing is taken directly to the processor.

I also find it distressing that so few
consumers appear to notice, much less care. There seems to be an assumption
that sets in that "milk is milk" - a commodifying attitude that lets the
producers

Again, lets distinguish the dairyman from the processor. Most
cases,not the same man (or woman). I think of the dairymen as the
producers.

get away with a maximum of quality reduction in the name of
improving profitability through increased shelf life, more rugged transport
characteristics, ability to divert high-profit milkfat into more profitable
products, etc. In Kentucky, I was astonished to discover that what was
passing for "whole" milk back there had a milkfat content of 3.2% !

And your point is? The average milk fat percentage of holstein milk
is 3.3%. Since greater than 90% of the cattle in the United States
are holsteins, 3.2% sounds pretty whole to me. There simply aren't
enough jersey's and guernsey's around to pull up that number. For
example, in our area at home, out of all the dairies, we have one
guernsey herd (my parents) and one jersey herd. There are about 20-30
holstein herds though. When you get milk from the store, it's going to
be a mix of milk from different farms and different breeds.

This is from http://world.std.com/~kcl/Rcheesefat.html . I'm not a
big fan of stuff I don't find in the primary scientific lit, but I do
have a journal article that I can find when I get home that has this
info in it as well. Here are the milk fat percentages of 4 of the 5
major breeds of dairy cattle in the United States. I'm not sure why
they didn't have brown swiss listed, but IIRC, it's milk fat
percentage is right around that of the holstein.

Jersey cow 5.5
Guernsey 5.3
Aryshire 3.8
Holstein 3.3

That's
not even close to whole milk in my book.

It's practically whole milk "holstein style". If you've drank pure
jersey milk, then it's not.

Given that it was ultra-
pasteurized as well, why not just add white dye to water and sell it as
milk?

Worse, because of the trends, a generation is growing up with no concept of
what quality milk can and should taste like. I suspect many kids imagine
that milk is nothing more than a bland, insipid white liquid. A good,
unhomogenized, raw, whole (5% milkfat) milk is a sensuous thing - smooth,
rich, with an almost candy-like sweetness (no, not an artificial/chemical
flavour), and nuances of the fields the cows grazed in.

Raw unpasteurized milk is not what I want to drink. My grandparents
also farmed, and my dad and uncle had an incredibly number of sore
throats and other illnesses until my grandmother bought a pasteurizer
when my dad was about 9. Immediately, they stopped being so sick.
It's one of the reasons why my parents always have and still do buy
their milk from the grocery. My dad didn't want my sister and I
drinking unpasteurized milk, and my mom (who's an accountant and works
full time) didn't have time to pasteurize it at home.

My uncle and dad also still tell how they hated the unhomogenized
stuff. the way my uncle--now a 49 year old man--and my dad--now 51--
tell the story, it had to have been pretty nasty.

In fairness perhaps
to demand truly raw milk is putting unrealistic restrictions on milk
producers

the processors

I think there are regulations that raw milk cannot be sold. I'll have
to double check that, but I think I'm right.

, but could they not at least use LTLT (low-temperature, long-
time) pasteurization? In this technique, the milk is only subjected to
relatively mild heating (140-160F) for a rather longer time. The gentler
process minimizes the change in flavour.

I think a lot of bottlers still actually use this process.... I know
UHT milk as to be labled,and I think the UP milk as to be labled too
(but not sure on the UP milk).

As you can tell, you've stumbled upon one of my pet peeves...

In this day and age... It's just not feasible to do things like they
did a long time ago. My best advice if you want the milk like you
remember, go out and buy a cow (guernseys are better than jersey's,
imo.. much sweeter and gentle tempered.. Jersey's are just plain evil
to work with..) Then, go get some antibiotics for that sore throat

In article , wrote:

Dan Abel wrote:

I know that humans are different than other animals, but I was surprised
to read the above. Humans generally are not fertile while lactating. My
wife went for five years without having a normal monthly cycle, due to a
combination of lactation and pregnancy.

There is a name for babies born because people think a nursing mother
can't get pregnant. Sorry, I forget what the name is, but I sure
wouldn't rely on nursing as birth control.


Depends on how much you are counting on it to work.


:-)


Many people who've had a baby, want to have another one. If the next one
doesn't come for awhile, that's great. If it comes sooner, that may be OK
too. But you are certainly correct that it is not the least bit
reliable. Of course, I'm sure there are lots of people who *want* to get
pregnant, and don't realize that they need to wean the first baby if they
really want another one soon.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS

In article ,
(DRB) wrote:

(Dan Abel) wrote in message
...

I know that humans are different than other animals, but I was surprised
to read the above. Humans generally are not fertile while lactating. My
wife went for five years without having a normal monthly cycle, due to a
combination of lactation and pregnancy.

You really didn't know that?


Really!



OTOH, my Ph.D research is with goats. They have to be dried off
completely before they can be bred again.



Now my head is swimming! Like I said, I knew humans were somewhat
unique. So now you're saying that non-human mammals are not consistent.
I'm not cut out to be a farmer for sure.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS

Nancy Young wrote in
:

There is a name for babies born because people think a nursing mother
can't get pregnant. Sorry, I forget what the name is, but I sure
wouldn't rely on nursing as birth control.

nancy


Especially cute is the name that comes to my mind.

in article , Nancy Young at
wrote on 10/10/03 6:51 PM:

There is a name for babies born because people think a nursing mother
can't get pregnant. Sorry, I forget what the name is, but I sure
wouldn't rely on nursing as birth control.

nancy

accidents.

there was a saying, years ago:
"there's a name for people who practice the rhythm method of birth control.
parents."

Sheryl Rosen wrote:

in article , Nancy Young at
wrote on 10/10/03 6:51 PM:

There is a name for babies born because people think a nursing mother
can't get pregnant. Sorry, I forget what the name is, but I sure
wouldn't rely on nursing as birth control.

nancy

accidents.

there was a saying, years ago:
"there's a name for people who practice the rhythm method of birth control.
parents."

(laugh) Really, there is a name for the syndrome of "I'm so dumb I
think I can't get pregnant while I'm breastfeeding" but I can't think
what it is. But that is a really funny saying, Sheryl. Parents.

I really shouldn't laugh, the ban on birth control is killing people,
but that's for another day. Maybe the pope will be happy when every
single person in Africa is dead.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:

(laugh) Really, there is a name for the syndrome of "I'm so dumb I
think I can't get pregnant while I'm breastfeeding" but I can't think
what it is. But that is a really funny saying, Sheryl. Parents.


Most popular falsehoods have a germ of truth in them. That's the case
with the one about not getting pregnant while breastfeeding.

The body won't ovulate until it has a sufficient store of calories.
That explains why anorexic women stop menstruating. Same for women
starving due to famine. Also sometimes true for highly athletic women
who are in such fantastic shape that they're pure muscle with virtually
no stored fat.

In places where calories are just sufficient but still scarce, it is
hard to store up those calories while breast feeding. It takes a lot of
food to feed a growing baby. In the third world, breast feeding can act
as a sort of birth control. In countries where food is plentiful, it
doesn't work well at all.

--Lia

"Dan Abel" wrote in message
...
Now my head is swimming! Like I said, I knew humans were somewhat
unique. So now you're saying that non-human mammals are not consistent.
I'm not cut out to be a farmer for sure.


That's pretty much it. Non-human mammals are not consistent...

Julia Altshuler wrote in message news:XZJhb.724010$YN5.646592@sccrnsc01...
Nancy Young wrote:

(laugh) Really, there is a name for the syndrome of "I'm so dumb I
think I can't get pregnant while I'm breastfeeding" but I can't think
what it is. But that is a really funny saying, Sheryl. Parents.


Most popular falsehoods have a germ of truth in them. That's the case
with the one about not getting pregnant while breastfeeding.

The body won't ovulate until it has a sufficient store of calories.
That explains why anorexic women stop menstruating. Same for women
starving due to famine. Also sometimes true for highly athletic women
who are in such fantastic shape that they're pure muscle with virtually
no stored fat.

In places where calories are just sufficient but still scarce, it is
hard to store up those calories while breast feeding. It takes a lot of
food to feed a growing baby. In the third world, breast feeding can act
as a sort of birth control. In countries where food is plentiful, it
doesn't work well at all.

--Lia

Well, in non-3rd-world countries anyone who doesn't want to get
pregnant should be smart enough to use birth control, breastfeeding or
not. It's amazing how many stupid or ignorant people there really are
in this country.

-L.

(Akilesh Ayyar) wrote in message om...
I bought some organic skim milk recently, supposed to expire November
7. I sampled a little bit and it tasted funny.

I can't describe it any better than to say it had a kind of
"high-pitched sweetness," the kind of sickly sweetness medicine might
have to make it go down better. Not good at all. But then the milk
didn't seem lumpy or terribly sour or in any other way bad.

I've purchased this brand and type of milk for months and months, and
it's never had this taste before. I thought it might be just one
particular carton, but both the cartons I had bought at the same time
taste this way.

I remember this unpleasant flavor once or twice before in milk at
various places. Any idea what causes it?

Thanks.

Diet. I dunno what area of the country you are in, but with the
change of seasons, it is likely that the cows were supplemented with
some other food source that what they normally consume. It may just
be that you were lucky to experience the sudden change twice so far.

-L.

On 10 Oct 2003 16:13:19 -0700, (DRB) wrote:

In this day and age... It's just not feasible to do things like they
did a long time ago. My best advice if you want the milk like you
remember, go out and buy a cow (guernseys are better than jersey's,
imo.. much sweeter and gentle tempered.. Jersey's are just plain evil
to work with..) Then, go get some antibiotics for that sore throat

On a commercial scale you're right, it's generally not feasible to try
to turn back the clock.

On the home front it can be different if that's what you want. Seek
out some homesteading forums such as www.homesteadingtoday.com and
you'll find folks who are still doing just that.

When I was a teenager we drank raw milk every day for several years
and never had a problem that could be attributed to the milk. In
fact, I quite liked it and intend to go back to having it again when
we can get our personal circumstances arranged in such a way as to
allow it.

Of course, one does have to be ever so particular about sanitation and
have the animal tested for the necessary diseases.

BTW, thanks for participating in this thread. I've found it very
interesting.

......Alan.


Post no bills

snip

I know I shouldn't do this and I keep telling myself to stop but I just
can't resist. I know most of y'all are of the age where all the milk
comes from sanitized conditions (you think) and a hand never touches the
udder. Well back in 'the good ole days' I vividly recall sitting under
the back end of a cow trying to get the milk into the bucket. Had the
cow kickers on and all but all too often old bessie would put a foot in
the bucket or maybe decide to empty her bowels or bladder while I was
milking. Decision time came, whether to take the milk to the house as
if nothing happened or throw it away and take a licking. Guess what I
did most often. Now, I do not drink milk of any kind. Don't start a
thread about chicken eggs as that is even more gross.. Have a good day,
with your milk and eggs. :-)

at Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:13:19 GMT in
, (DRB)
wrote :

(Alex Rast) wrote in message
. ..
at Thu, 09 Oct 2003 20:53:12 GMT in de56271e.0310091253.a8aef61
@posting.google.com, (Akilesh Ayyar) wrote :

I bought some organic skim milk recently, supposed to expire November
7. I sampled a little bit and it tasted funny.

I can't describe it any better than to say it had a kind of
"high-pitched sweetness,"...

November 7 = Ultra-Pasteurized....

UP and UHT are two different things. When I get home, I'll pull up
the reference from pubmed.

I agree. UHT is even worse. But UP is already bad, and still subjected to
very high temperatures, over 200F. UHT is the stuff that's so sterile you
can store it at room temperature.


I find it bordering on unethical that dairies adopted these practices
without informing the consumers.

Just to clarify, it's the bottlers/processors--not the dairies
themselves.

Also agreed, I was using "dairy" as a generalized term for the bottlers,
because that's what the individual consumers actually see. If I wanted to
refer to the farms proper, I'd call them the "dairy farms", because they're
quite invisible to most consumers and not what a consumer would associate
with the "dairy" they're familiar with.


I also find it distressing that so few
consumers appear to notice, much less care. There seems to be an
assumption that sets in that "milk is milk" - a commodifying attitude
that lets the producers

Again, lets distinguish the dairyman from the processor. Most
cases,not the same man (or woman). I think of the dairymen as the
producers.

For the consumer, this is an arbitrary distinction, in the sense that from
their POV, the processor is the producer. Furthermore, from an economic
POV, the processor is also a producer because they're not the end user of
the product.


... In Kentucky, I was astonished to
discover that what was passing for "whole" milk back there had a
milkfat content of 3.2% !

And your point is? The average milk fat percentage of holstein milk
is 3.3%. Since greater than 90% of the cattle in the United States
are holsteins, 3.2% sounds pretty whole to me.

And therein lies an enormous part of the problem. Holsteins are a breed
specifically bred for maximum milk volume, with minimal attention paid to
taste or possibly even nutrition. That may be acceptable for industrial
milk users, i.e. companies who use milk as an ingredient in other products,
or who turn it into powdered milk, etc., but IMHO it's not a good standard
for milk that's actually going to hit store shelves. I don't deny that the
milk being supplied probably didn't have fat skimmed off, I'm saying that
when the focus, in milk production, brings us to breeding and feeding
programs that eventually produce milk of such low milkfat content, the
priorities of the system are very poor.

....

Given that it was ultra-
pasteurized as well, why not just add white dye to water and sell it
as milk?

... A good, unhomogenized, raw, whole (5% milkfat) milk is a
sensuous thing - smooth, rich, with an almost candy-like sweetness
(no, not an artificial/chemical flavour), and nuances of the fields
the cows grazed in.

Raw unpasteurized milk is not what I want to drink.

I'm not saying that everyone should be *forced* to drink raw milk, I'm just
saying that it should be made available as an allowable *option* for those
who wish it. Then they can choose the risks they take.

My grandparents
also farmed, and my dad and uncle had an incredibly number of sore
throats and other illnesses until my grandmother bought a pasteurizer
when my dad was about 9. Immediately, they stopped being so sick.

While it's inarguable that drinking raw milk increases the risk of illness
substantially, I must say that many of the risks associated with it are the
result of the poor sanitary practices often in place. If one were to make
raw milk available, it would have to be milked in carefully sanitized
conditions, within clean facilities, stored at appropriately low
temperatures, and delivered to the stores quickly. This would make such
milk carry a high price premium. Not everybody would want to spend that
kind of money, but I would be, for one, and I think it's dangerous for the
industry to assume such a cost-driven attitude that only the cheapest
possible products are available to the consumer.

My uncle and dad also still tell how they hated the unhomogenized
stuff. the way my uncle--now a 49 year old man--and my dad--now 51--
tell the story, it had to have been pretty nasty.

Different tastes. Also possibly different priorities. A lot of people find
the need to shake or stir unhomogenized milk an excessively irritating
inconvenience. Others probably find the very rich mouthfeel over-the-top -
too coating. But to make it unavailable, or virtually unavailable, to those
who might want it is too restrictive. My main point was, though, that the
worst of it is that in its very unavailability, most people don't even have
the opportunity to try it even to know whether they like it more or not.
The industry might say there were a lack of demand, but a large part of
this lack of demand, is, I think, the result of lack of exposure. People
who've never tried something have no way to know what they're missing.


, but could they not at least use LTLT (low-temperature, long-
time) pasteurization? In this technique, the milk is only subjected to
relatively mild heating (140-160F) for a rather longer time. The
gentler process minimizes the change in flavour.

I think a lot of bottlers still actually use this process.... I know
UHT milk as to be labled,and I think the UP milk as to be labled too
(but not sure on the UP milk).

Usually they must label. But the label is invariably inconspicuous and
usually the containers have no other exterior markings (such as a different
colour or shape) that would give the consumer the knowledge of what they're
buying. If you take all the cartons of pasteurized milk off the shelf and
replace them with ones that to all external appearances look exactly the
same, with the lone exception that, somewhere on the label, there is in
small type an additional "ultra-" appended onto the "pasteurized" label the
consumer has seen before, virtually no one is going to notice, even if they
know the difference between pasteurized and ultra-pasteurized, which is
already unlikely. They might notice that all of a sudden the milk tastes
different than it used to do, but very few of them will make the connection
between the altered flavour and the change in processing.


As you can tell, you've stumbled upon one of my pet peeves...

In this day and age... It's just not feasible to do things like they
did a long time ago.

I disagree. Modern times don't require abandoning older methods. It's a
case of rational use. You have to look at when a new method actually makes
sense and adds value, and when it's actually reducing the value, adding
extra effort, introducing irrational processes, etc. And I couldn't be
further from a Luddite. Not only do I find new technology exciting and
fascinating, as well as useful, I work in an industry and profession
specifically associated with advancing the technological state of the art.
But I'm as violently opposed to the blind embracing of the new and modern,
as if newer were automatically better, as to the anachronistic holding on
to the past, as if everything were going downhill.


--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

In rec.food.cooking, on Sat, 11 Oct 2003 15:01:45 -0700, Coas****cher
wrote about Milk Tastes Funny -- Why?:



snip

I know I shouldn't do this and I keep telling myself to stop but I just
can't resist. I know most of y'all are of the age where all the milk
comes from sanitized conditions (you think) and a hand never touches the
udder. Well back in 'the good ole days' I vividly recall sitting under
the back end of a cow trying to get the milk into the bucket. Had the
cow kickers on and all but all too often old bessie would put a foot in
the bucket

I've done my share of milking, but I never had the cow put her foot in
the bucket. I always held the bucket between my knees, maybe you had
it sitting on the ground.

or maybe decide to empty her bowels or bladder while I was
milking.

LOL. You learn to move real fast when the tail starts to go up.

Joan