Sorry for the mistake well referring to your name Ella. sorry for the Ammy word. Whoops.
Don't worry about it! Ella is my pen-name, Emily is my birth name, I am not offended if you refer to me as Emily or Ella, either one is fine. Now that that is cleared up, another reader named Kate left this comment:
For years I've been reading on Natural News that cows milk (in addition to being pasturised and homogenised) is for baby cows, is full of pus, causes mucus, contains dead white blood cells and natural growth hormones (for baby cows) as well as man made hormones to fatten up the cows etc etc etc
OK, so Raw Milk solves the issue of pasturisation and homogenisation - but it still has all the other stuff which was addressed on natural news (in the past) and notmilk.com (currently) for years.
I am so confused. I understand about raw milk being live food, with enzymes - but I just can't get it off my mind that 'cows milk is for baby cows' and contains all those nasty things as reported by Mike Adams (previously) and NotMilk.
If drinking raw milk - does it still contain growth hormones (natural, for growing baby cows), dead blood cells and pus...is it mucus forming?
Was all that info on NotMilk wrong?
Would love to not feel guilty about drinking raw milk again.
The other factors in milk that you have listed may be associated with more commercial dairy cows, not necessarily raw milk cows. See, I do not advocate just drinking raw milk, I advocate drinking raw milk from healthy, grass-fed cows who have not consumed the man-made hormones. Even if baby cows were only meant to consume raw milk, then pus and dead white cells in milk would probably not be that healthy for the calf.
In essence, I have no real way of knowing whether or not the situation of pus, dead-white blood cells, or any other nefarious cow products are related to the stressed conditions that commercial dairy cows suffer and if it is the same for raw milk cows. Raw milk cows are raised in a substantially better environment than commercial dairy cows, which are often mistreated, stressed and fraught with disease.
I visited the notmilk website, and it really seemed to be a bastian for not only the soy industry, but the vegetarian industry that seeks to make artificial alternatives to what is natural and what has worked.
I used to be on the no-milk agenda, because everyone says it is unhealthy, especially raw milk. I changed because my health deteriorated because I substituted with soy, and I was eating well. My reasoning is this, if raw milk was really as bad as people made it out to be, then how is it that they many civilizations that relied on such dairy products survived? That is the question I asked myself.
As far as baby calves are concerned, I am not sure how they factor into the equation as far as milk being solely for calves. I think though that cows produce a lot of milk so that people and calves can be healthy. I read some where that cows produce about 5 gallons a day! But I will call my local raw milk provider and get their take on it and ask exactly how that works.
In summary, you don't need to feel guilty about drinking raw milk. It is healthy, and has sustained families for centuries. And if your concerned about it causing weight gain, I actually lost five lbs once I started drinking it. Raw milk has been known to have that kind of weight-loss affect.
One more thing, I no this isn't really scientific or anything, but I noticed that raw milk causes less mucus than regular dairy. I used to sing in my church choir, and when ever we had a performance, the director would tell us not to drink milk before the performance. Although I don't sing in that choir any more, the heavy feeling of mucus on my vocal chords hasn't been there in a while. But I will have to look into that as well for you.