Table of Contents[Hide][Show]
In two of the radio interviews I’ve done over the years, this point was specifically addressed as a counterpoint to my discussion of the health benefits of drinking grassfed raw milk.
No doubt this notion is bolstered by the ever increasing rates of allergies to processed dairy, and so naturally, more folks are wondering if dairy should be consumed by humans at all. The vegan community also espouses this line of thinking on the principle that consumption of animal foods is fundamentally wrong.
Certainly, this is a valid point to ask and the answer I have typically given is that healthy cultures consumed raw dairy for centuries and that it was, in fact, a foundational food that supported their vibrant health, excellent bone structure, fertility, and resistance to chronic and degenerative disease.
Swiss of the Loetschental Valley
To the Traditional Swiss living in the isolated Loetschental valley, raw dairy and, in particular, butter was a sacred food. Not a pale supermarket type butter, but a golden alpine butter made from the rich, beige cream of cows grazing on thick grass.
The children raised on this nutrient dense, raw butter had strong physiques, wide faces with plenty of room for their teeth, and a high resistance to disease. There wasn’t a single case of TB in Loetschental despite this illness raging elsewhere in Switzerland during the early part of the 1900′s.
The young men raised on this nutrient dense traditional diet based primarily on dairy with plenty of raw, deep yellow to orange butter were so perfect and pleasing in physique, strength, and character that the Vatican favored them over all others in Europe to serve as the Papal Guard.
The Maasai of Africa
During the travels of Dr. Weston A. Price in the early part of the last century, five cattle keeping groups in Africa were examined who were still subsisting upon a completely ancestral diet: The Maasai of Tanganyika, the Muhima of Uganda, the Chewya of Kenya, the Watusi of Ruanda, and the Neurs tribes on the western side of the Nile near the country of Sudan.
These groups were largely following a carnivore diet consisting primarily of meat and milk.
These largely carnivorous tribes were very tall with even the women averaging over 6 feet in height in some tribes. All these tribes had marvelous physiques and perfectly straight, uncrowded teeth. Six tribes had no dental decay whatsoever.
Clearly, the basis of milk in the diet was a critical component of the vibrant health enjoyed by these tribes.
Dairy Sustained Humans Even Before Agriculture!
Now, new evidence is emerging that humans consumed dairy even before the advent of agriculture and civilization itself.
That’s right. Before humans ever cultivated fruits, vegetables, and grains in prehistoric Africa, they were actively utilizing dairy producing cattle to sustain themselves.
While these early dairy farmers did not appear to drink the raw milk, they did use it to make butter, cheese, and yogurt.
Julie Dunne of the University of Bristol, lead author of the archaeological study published in Nature which found the first direct evidence that prehistoric people of the African Sahara used cattle for their milk many thousands of years ago long before the cultivation of plants in this region said:
“Milk is one the very few foods that give us carbohydrates, fats and proteins in one go. So being able to use milk like these people did would’ve made an enormous difference to their health. It would’ve provided food for life.”
The initial evidence was found in rock art images illustrating domesticated cattle from the Wadi Imha, in the Tadrart Acacus Mountains, Libyan Sahara. Scientists have dated these images at between 5,000 and 8,000 years old.
Additional evidence came via analysis of organic residues from pottery fragments excavated from the Takarkori rock shelter in Saharan Libya which indicated that half the vessels inspected were used to process dairy products.
While it seems implausible that dairy cattle could have once roamed the Sahara given its harsh and arid conditions today, Dunne notes that this region was completely different 10,000 years ago and was in fact, much wetter and greener than most people realize.
So the next time someone slaps the “cow milk is for baby cows” line on you, you can casually mention that in Africa, the location of humanity’s earliest roots according to some scientists, humans have consumed dairy far longer than they’ve been cultivating plants!
Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist
Source: First Evidence for Early Dairy Farming in North Africa
Cool, dairy farming is now the oldest profession!!
Now all we have to do is remove the prostitution aspect out of the dairy industry!
Great Post Sara!
Tim
Love this reply 🙂
Amusing and astute all wrapped into one superb comment!!! Thanks for chiming in Tim 🙂
I get this one all the time: “We are the only species on Earth that consumes another animal’s milk.” Which is clearly inaccurate, as anyone who’s ever seen any National Geographic show depicting the take-down of a lactating mammal by a predator knows. One of the first parts devoured are the milk sacs.
Not to mention that even if that WERE true, we’re also the only species to cultivate plants, wear clothes, and drive cars. Should we also stop doing those things because other species don’t do that? Such a stupid argument.
Exactly. It never ceases to amaze me how an illogical argument can take hold and be spread around and accepted as truth despite clear and obvious flaws.
I completely agree. It is a totally ridiculous argument that just doesn’t hold water. And just because, cow milk is made for baby cows, like human milk is made for baby humans, does NOT mean that it’s not a healthful food for multiple species. Next time you pour yourself a glass of fresh, raw milk from grass-fed cows, pour a little for your dog too and see how fast they lap it up! Put a saucer outside (ok, maybe not really) and see how many animals flock to it. It’s real, nutrient-dense food, and when it’s appropriately sourced AND raw, and can be tolerated by YOUR body (some people just can’t do dairy no matter if it’s pristine or not) then it’s a healthful food. Like Kate said, we were clothing and make baskets and have a written language- so just because humans are the only ones doing this means we should stop?
Ok, typing with one hand while distracted makes for grammatical errors- LOL. We actually WEAR clothing, and don’t need to use so many commas 🙂
I agree! My dog and both of my cats love raw milk (They are raw food eaters overall) and they are super healthy and vibrant.
Actually, Ants herd, milk and protect aphids because they convert tree sap into a life giving nectar.
@Annie, good point and what about lactating mammals that take in orphaned baby animals of another species and nurse them?
Yeah! I thought we were the only species to keep livestock for milk until I researched ants and aphids. Had an ant problem in the garden and was watching ants take aphids into their colony with joy thinking they were eating them. Nope they keep them as livestock! Ants are said to secrete a hormone that keeps aphids around their colonies. Ants actually move them from plant to plant to feed. The aphids secrete a sweet substance that ants feed to baby ants. So if you have an aphid problem you have to get rid of the ants too. So we can’t use the excuse we are the only ones either.
That’s fascinating, Lisa! I knew aphids and ants had some sort of symbiotic relationship, but I didn’t realize it was quite that complex!
Fascinating, Lisa.
I thought it was amazing as well, just sad for my garden lol.
I was once at a goat farm and noticed that when the kids weren’t nursing, the guard dogs enjoyed stealing a few squirts. My conclusion – it does happen in nature.
LOL, my kitties sit patiently during goat milking time waiting desperately for a squirt here and there!
I think that this is actually the first article that I have read on this blog that I disagree with. And here’s why. According to the Bible, Adam and Eve, the first humans created, were put in the garden to keep it and they were also given charge of the animals. They were told to subdue the earth. Gardening was then the first profession, Since the animals were likely created in their adult state as Adam and Eve were, then there couldn’t have been any milking of any animal until after the first baby animals had been born several months later and very likely humans did not consume milk until after sin was introduced into the world and Adam and Eve were banished from the garden. It was at that time that God then allowed them to consume animal and animal products including dairy.
Not that I think this has any bearing on Sarah’s argument, but I think you should read Genesis again;
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” 29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground–everything that has the breath of life in it–I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
He instructs us to rule over the animals first, THEN gives us every seed bearing plant to eat.
Make of it what you will.
They would have been concurrent jobs. But, you are missing the point. The point is that there wouldn’t have been an animal to milk until after it had given birth and in the meantime the fruits and vegetables were growing.
Most theological scholars agree that the “days” in Genesis may not have been actual days. Since animals were created before humans, there may or may not have been long enough before humans were created for animals to be having babies.
And now we are debating semantics, which REALLY misses the point of Sarah’s post.
She is not making any claim or even reference to the first foods that humans ate. She is talking about agriculture, which happened after we have been around for quite some time, hence, nothing to do with Adam and Eve.
Jennifer,
I had to do a double take when I read your post, as I wrote almost the exact same thing yesterday before it disappeared! I agree 100% with your point. The Bible is our authority, as Christians. It is historically correct. It is TRUTH, whether one believes it or not, and it does not change like man’s “discoveries”. Agriculture was first. Glad to know I am not the only one that knows this! Thanks for your post! God bless!
Yeah, so when the sun stopped for three days in the sky, you literally think the entire solar system stopped turning. The earth would have been destroyed. Not everything in the bible is literal. And it was not written to be a science book. It was written to instruct us in our faith. Period. There are many places where the bible is historically off, but that doesn’t matter because its not a history book. It was written to instruct a community following God.
I can’t believe there are more of people like you. The very fact that there is an old and a new testament is proof that the bible does change. Do we stone people for certain sins anymore?
And I still don’t see what the bible has to do with this post, or why anyone would bring it up.
“People like you,” Wow Rachel, how nice. The Bible changes? I guess you don’t study it much do you? “Changed by so many people,” another worn out cliche, and “whacked out,” Rhianna, really? Have you studied manuscripts???? If you don’t know what you are talking about maybe you shouldn’t bring the subject up. I like Sarah’s statement above, “illogical argument can take hold and be spread around and accepted as truth despite clear and obvious flaws.”
I don’t normally bring up my faith on a non faith topic but I am getting so sick of those who have no problem slamming a person for a positive comment that implies their faith. Is it appropriate to slam someone who relates a topic to a family member or is it only ok if they are Christian? No one was preaching or lecturing here, just commenting on how it relates to them. If you truly want to understand why your statements above are incorrect we can have a private conversation. This is not the place to do it. If you only want to argue and spread hate I’m not interested.
SoCalGT, I grew up studying the Bible from a very young age. My Father learned Latin and Greek just to be able to read the Bible in it’s original languages. I have studied alongside many biblical scholars who were able to explain some excellent historical context to me – the original meaning of the texts. These Christian scholars would absolutely say that yes, the bible has changed. At the very least our understanding of it has.
I personally am not bashing anyone’s faith here. If you read the full thread, you will see that my comments to Jennifer was a quick and friendly debate showing that the Bible could be used to “prove” many different viewpoints on this topic. I took issue with Judi’s comment because she took Jennifer’s comment – an honest, personal, “this is my viewpoint” and warped it into something exclusive and hateful. That is never ok, no matter what disguise you try and hide it under.
Sarah, I am sorry that this conversation took the turn that it did, that was not my intention at all. I will not be replying to anymore comments on this particular conversation to avoid it going further downhill.
Yes! Great post. Thank you for sharing this.