Re: Sheep: Like Goats or Like Cows?

[Guest guest]

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Idol

>

>

>I bought a tiny container of grass-fed sheep yoghurt yesterday without

>really considering the ramifications of its paper-white color. Do sheep

>convert all carotenes to vitamin A like goats do, or is this a sign that

>the sheep are being raised on bad pasture?

I don't know for certain, but I believe they are converters. I've never seen

yellow sheep's milk. But then one of my sources has extremely low pasture

brix. Regardless, most cows are probably on low brix pasture, so I doubt

it's a function of the pasture quality.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>Regardless, most cows are probably on low brix pasture, so I doubt

>it's a function of the pasture quality.

You think color isn't an indicator of pasture quality? That kind of flies

in the face of WAPF teachings and Price's positions...

-

[Guest guest]

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Idol

>Suze-

>

>>Regardless, most cows are probably on low brix pasture, so I doubt

>>it's a function of the pasture quality.

>

>You think color isn't an indicator of pasture quality? That kind of flies

>in the face of WAPF teachings and Price's positions...

Let me try to make myself clearer...I think even low brix pasture will

produce a yellowish tint in the milk of a non-converter. Certainly less so

if there aren't many carotenes in the grass, but *some* of the carotenes

will show up in the milk. It is rare to find high brix pasture at all, yet

many of us drink yellow-tinted cow's milk, which presumably comes from low

brix pastures. Having only seen very white sheep's milk, yogurt or kefir

from a few different sources, I assume this means they are converters like

goats.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>I think even low brix pasture will

>produce a yellowish tint in the milk of a non-converter.

Up to a point, sure. Ronnybrook milk, which is from grass-fed Holsteins,

has just the faintest cream-colored tint in its cream. Their milk, though,

is paper-white. So obviously their pasture sucks. Butterworks cream is

much darker in color, and I've gotten raw grass-fed cows milk and cream

that's all over the map, color-wise.

>Having only seen very white sheep's milk, yogurt or kefir

>from a few different sources, I assume this means they are converters like

>goats.

This could be, but can sheep milk be separated into cream like cows milk,

or is it effectively homogenized like goats milk? If it's effectively

homogenized, then we're just seeing milk products which could in fact be

white due to poor pasture, just like Ronnybrook grass-fed Holstein milk.

-

[Guest guest]

,

Not sure what you mean by using " effectively " a number of times in reference

to goat and sheep milk. I thought both goat and sheep milk were

" naturally " homogenized, the fat globules being smaller than cow's,

rendering it, so to speak, incapable of being separated?

http://www.grandview.au.com/index_files/Page678.htm

http://www.chinavoc.com/magicn/tail.asp

-Sharon, NH

Deut 11:14 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will

have plenty to eat.

> This could be, but can sheep milk be separated into cream like cows milk,

> or is it effectively homogenized like goats milk? If it's effectively

> homogenized, then we're just seeing milk products which could in fact be

> white due to poor pasture, just like Ronnybrook grass-fed Holstein milk.

> -

[Guest guest]

[MikeP] Sorry I haven't been checking my NN folder but whimsically and

rarely these days, but I just took a peek at the most recent page of

subject lines and of course anything to do with sheep grabs my

attention! I promise to " catch up " sometime, whatever that means!

Little time to think about NN stuff lately, that's all...

[] I bought a tiny container of grass-fed sheep yoghurt yesterday without

really considering the ramifications of its paper-white color. Do sheep

convert all carotenes to vitamin A like goats do, or is this a sign that

the sheep are being raised on bad pasture?

[MikeP] Sheep are converters just like goats. All sheep milk is pure

white. By the way, is the cow case rare? Anyone know of another

example of a non-converter mammal whose milk is ideally yellow?

[] This could be, but can sheep milk be separated into cream like

cows milk,

or is it effectively homogenized like goats milk? If it's effectively

homogenized, then we're just seeing milk products which could in fact be

white due to poor pasture, just like Ronnybrook grass-fed Holstein milk.

[sharon] Not sure what you mean by using " effectively " a number of

times in reference to goat and sheep milk. I thought both goat and

sheep milk were

" naturally " homogenized, the fat globules being smaller than cow's,

rendering it, so to speak, incapable of being separated?

[MikeP] 's terminology makes sense to me, Sharon. Since

" homogenized " is ambiguous between, on one hand, a meaning that refers

to the process of becoming homogenous, prototypically due to some

directed behavior like humans operating a machine, etc and, on the

other hand, a meaning that only refers to the end result or state of

being homogenous regardless of how it got that way. By using the

qualifier " effectively " , the ambiguity is eliminated and only the

latter meaning is understood, since " effect " refers to resulting

states.

The phrase " naturally homogenized " works just as well, being very

clear to anyone, but achieves the clarification quite differently by

appealing to the extrinsic known circumstances of milk in terms of

whether it's subject to a non-natural homogenization process.

Technically, it leaves open the possibility that there is a natural

analogue of the human mechanical homogenization process occurring

inside the animal, which in fact I believe is not the case at all. A

transformation from separated to homogenous isn't necessary because

***any animal's milk is always homogenous in its natural context of

synthesis and consumption***. When cow milk comes out of the cow and

into a milking machine, it's totally homogenous. The separation only

occurs later depending on the size of the fat molecules. As such,

it's accurate to refer to even cow milk as naturally homogenized in a

context restricted to its existence before being able to separate.

The default context, of course, is not thusly restricted and includes

and emphasizes its existence throughout the cycle of production and

usage as a human food, in which case it's inaccurate or at least

foolish to refer to it as naturally homogenized, given that this

property of milk is only ever mentioned in the first place with

respect to the common distinctions between the two forms of cow milk

and the different species' milks.

Given the inherent potential of a verbally derived term like

" homogenized " to refer to a processual meaning instead of a

resulting-state meaning, the term " homogenous " is vastly superior to

either " effectively homogenized " or " naturally homogenized " in

referring to sheep, goat, etc milk. " Homogenous " strictly refers to

the state of the milk regardless of how it got that way. The credit

for this insight and terminological recommendation goes to Tom Jeanne

(of this group) who made the point (without all this unnecessary

linguistic elaboration) about two years on the Raw Dairy group when

the topic came up.

So it's probably best to simply say goat, sheep, etc milk is

homogenous. Easy enough.

It's worth noting, though without dealing with the immense

complications it implies for the semantic considerations above, that

even goat and sheep milk do have fat molecules large enough to

separate if left to sit for a while just like cow milk. I've seen a

very thin layer of (pure white) cream at the top of a jar of goat or

sheep milk many times. Further, a certain percentage of the fat

molecules in cow milk are too small to separate from just sitting out.

That's why skimmed (note parallel issue of " skim " vs " skimmed " ) milk

is never fat-free. In any milk there is a full spectrum of sizes for

fat molecules, and the distinction is really which sizes dominate. In

cow milk, the sizes are mostly large, and in the others the sizes are

mostly small. It's not a categorical distinction.

Sharon, as far as goat and sheep milk being " incapable of being

separated " , that's definitely not the case. There are people separate

the cream from goat and sheep milk, and I've heard plenty of reports

of goat milk butter being offered for sale, but it's necessary to use

special effort, like marathon jar-shaking or high-speed centrifuges,

unlike cow milk, which of course separates in due time without any

human intervention. So they are definitely capable of being

separated.

Glancing at the subject line before I click " send " (always a good

idea!), it's worth noting as well that sheep are very much like cows

and unlike goats in terms of their natural diet, the former being

" grazers " for which 100% grass is ideal and the latter being

" browsers " for which a more varied diet including shrubbery, etc is

ideal. One of the reasons why SHEEP MILK IS THE BEST HANDS DOWN is

that is has any advantage of goat milk you can cite (except of course

a real gourmet will pronounce a stalemate in terms of the glorious and

distinctive flavors of each), with the significant advantage of cows

in being easy to feed optimally on a simple grass pasture. In

practice, hardly anyone feeds goats optimally because it requires a

true long-term commitment to biodynamic farming. As far as I know,

even the best goat milk farmers rely on suboptimal practices like

buying feed of some sort of another, typically grains of course. Don't

ask me how suboptimal grains are for goats, though, because I don't

know the answer! Obviously they are basically okay for goats in much

larger quantities than for cows, but that's a totally different issue

than what's optimal. In fact, this is a question me and others have

posed to these groups many times in the past, and there's never been a

hint of an answer. In other words, it's pretty easy for someone to

produce top-notch sheep milk, but very difficult for someone to

produce top-notch goat milk.

For me, I have a bunch of sources of goat milk of wide-ranging

quality, but even the best, even with the great attraction of having

creamy Nubian milk, doesn't use a goat-specific pasture at all, but

rather a typical grass pasture and (organic, presumably " good " , but

how can I tell?) grain-based feeds. For a while I was getting goat

milk from various places because of the fun/novelty factor and I got

hooked on that great special flavor, but I've phased out any regular

goat milk buying because I have several sources of 100% grass-fed

good-pasture super-creamy delicious Jersey cow milk that are much

cheaper ($2-3/gallon) than the best goat milk ($8/gallon), and I feel

very comfortable with Jersey cow milk assuming it's a fairly

traditional breed with a better casein profile than Holsteins. I have

no reason to compromise and use Holstein milk at this point, so I

rarely do so. Further, when it comes to gourmet variations in my milk

consumption, I have a fantastic local source of sheep milk that I can

get in small quantities (sorry for anyone else, don't get your hopes

up, they use the milk for cheese, and just make an exception for me

personally for a gallon here and there), and the price ($8/gallon, a

bargain) is the same as the best goat milk, so it's a no-brainer to

choose the sheep milk when I'm feeling like a gourmet spendthrift

(which is not too often because the Jersey cow milk I get these days

is just so fabulous and economical and **convenient**).

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

Die ganzen Zahlen hat der liebe Gott gemacht, alles andere ist

Menschenwerk. (Leopold Kronecker)

[Guest guest]

Mike-

>Sheep are converters just like goats. All sheep milk is pure

>white. By the way, is the cow case rare? Anyone know of another

>example of a non-converter mammal whose milk is ideally yellow?

Thanks for the clarification, and welcome back to the list! As to cows...

you know, I haven't the faintest idea. It's an interesting question, though.

-

[Guest guest]

Interesting, I didn't know much about the differences between goat and

sheep diets and milks. Thanks, Mikey P, good to see you here again! I

recently " came back " to NN myself; we'll see how long I last before I

drown in the post volume.

I have no recollection of bringing such an insight to the table, so I'll

take your word for it! Maybe it's all the statins I've been popping.

Tom

Anton wrote:

>Given the inherent potential of a verbally derived term like

> " homogenized " to refer to a processual meaning instead of a

>resulting-state meaning, the term " homogenous " is vastly superior to

>either " effectively homogenized " or " naturally homogenized " in

>referring to sheep, goat, etc milk. " Homogenous " strictly refers to

>the state of the milk regardless of how it got that way. The credit

>for this insight and terminological recommendation goes to Tom Jeanne

>(of this group) who made the point (without all this unnecessary

>linguistic elaboration) about two years on the Raw Dairy group when

>the topic came up.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

[Tom] Interesting, I didn't know much about the differences between goat and

sheep diets and milks. Thanks, Mikey P, good to see you here again! I

recently " came back " to NN myself; we'll see how long I last before I

drown in the post volume.

[MikeP] I don't even think about making an attempt at even considering

the possible adoption of regular habits with my email at this point. I

just accept total randomness and check MN to be a faithful moderator.

I figure that as long as I use clean inline quoting like this, I can

respond to things many months later and the content is the same... :-)

I don't think people like that approach...

But Tom, if you're back, your prize-winning, brilliant sig quotes aren't!

[Tom] I have no recollection of bringing such an insight to the table, so I'll

take your word for it! Maybe it's all the statins I've been popping.

[MikeP] I just found this within seconds, but maybe it was a different Tom?

http://onibasu.com/archives/rd/863.html

Actually, kind of funny to read that now after I what I wrote.

Slightly opposite ways of making the same point!

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

Die ganzen Zahlen hat der liebe Gott gemacht, alles andere ist

Menschenwerk. (Leopold Kronecker)

[Guest guest]

Yes, that was indeed me, and yeah, I did have a good point! I stated

that matter of diction pretty succinctly. I'm impressed with Tom version

2003, lol.

I'll have to get back to including sig quotes. The main reason I haven't

is that the build of Thunderbird that I'm using will only append

taglines at the end (actually it's Tagzilla's fault) and if I've quoted

someone else, my sig quote appears in their quote, thus putting words in

their mouth!

Tom

Anton wrote:

>[Tom] Interesting, I didn't know much about the differences between goat and

>sheep diets and milks. Thanks, Mikey P, good to see you here again! I

>recently " came back " to NN myself; we'll see how long I last before I

>drown in the post volume.

>

>[MikeP] I don't even think about making an attempt at even considering

>the possible adoption of regular habits with my email at this point. I

>just accept total randomness and check MN to be a faithful moderator.

>I figure that as long as I use clean inline quoting like this, I can

>respond to things many months later and the content is the same... :-)

> I don't think people like that approach...

>

>But Tom, if you're back, your prize-winning, brilliant sig quotes aren't!

>

>[Tom] I have no recollection of bringing such an insight to the table, so I'll

>take your word for it! Maybe it's all the statins I've been popping.

>

>[MikeP] I just found this within seconds, but maybe it was a different Tom?

>http://onibasu.com/archives/rd/863.html

>Actually, kind of funny to read that now after I what I wrote.

>Slightly opposite ways of making the same point!

>

>Mike

>SE Pennsylvania

>

>