What kind of milk do you use?

I can't stand the taste of skimmed milk (1%). I can deal with the taste of 2%, but when making condensed soups, whole milk seems to impart a much better flavor and texture to the soup. I've wondered what effect using the different fat content formulas has on cooking and baking?

Also, has anyone tried the no-growth-hormone milk available from Oberweis, and other outlets? What do you think of it? Notice any difference in taste?

Cogito wrote:has anyone tried the no-growth-hormone milk available from Oberweis, and other outlets? What do you think of it? Notice any difference in taste?

There's no such thing. All milk has growth hormone in it (BST, or bovine somatotropin, sometimes called more generically BGH, for bovine growth hormone). What Oberweis advertises is milk from cows that haven't been treated with rBST (r for recombinant), which when given to cows increases milk output somewhat. It's a controversial practice, mostly due to concerns about the cows' health (extra prevention measures against mastitis are needed). But chemically rBST is virtually the same as naturally-occuring BST. Note that the Oberweis ads don't make any claims that their milks are superior taste-wise or healthier, only that they prefer not to get their milk from farmers that use them.

More info: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00943.html

Taste and functionality in cooking - it won't make any difference (at least in a blind tasting).

As far as using skim (<.5% fat) vs. 1% vs. 2% vs. whole in cooking, when using 1% or less, you can add back some of the richness you'd usually get from the fat by using nonfat evaporated milk for some of the total milk called for. The higher levels of milk solids can do an okay, if not perfect, job of replacing the richness from the fat.

I get Costco's "hormone-free" (interesting info, nr706!)- it's only $1.83/gallon for skim. Hormone-free or not, it's cheap.

I could probably deal with skim for breakfast cereal, Oreo dunking, or even a cold slug of it after a hot day outside... but MrsF insists on 2%'s superior flavor.

Now, I thought some dairy was making a Skim-Plus or some such trademark, with additional milk solids (proteins and sugars but not fats, I'm assuming) added to it. It's obviously going to carry a premium price, but I'd like to know what it tastes like versus Skim and 2%.

JoelF wrote:I could probably deal with skim for breakfast cereal, Oreo dunking, or even a cold slug of it after a hot day outside... but MrsF insists on 2%'s superior flavor.

Now, I thought some dairy was making a Skim-Plus or some such trademark, with additional milk solids (proteins and sugars but not fats, I'm assuming) added to it. It's obviously going to carry a premium price, but I'd like to know what it tastes like versus Skim and 2%.

Lots of dairies have played with that - I'm not sure of its availability around here. But again, you can make your own by adding evaporated skim/nonfat milk (which usually comes in cans near the grocery's baking section) to your skim and see how MrsF likes it. (It'll have a very slightly more caramelized flavor - not necessarily a bad thing.)

Considering the very small difference in milkfat content, I really can't understand why people even bother.

I've found that the organic milks I've tried have much better flavor than the non-organic alternatives. They look better, too. Grocery-store brand skimmed milk is kind of bluish, but organic skimmed milk is actually white and looks like milk, rather than looking like milk and water. Even if there were no health or environmental issues, I'd pick organic milk for the taste.

Cogito wrote:Considering the very small difference in milkfat content, I really can't understand why people even bother.

Well, it's a small percentage difference, but it is a noticeable one when you're talking about a 1 cup serving. Dropping from 2% to skim cuts out 4 grams of fat, nearly 3 of which are saturated, taking you from 2% of your RDA for saturated fats to 15%. If you put milk on your cereal and drink a glass of milk with breakfast, that's pretty significant.

And, besides, some people prefer the taste of one over another. I grew up with 1%, so when I drink milk, I prefer 1%.

I like to drink a glass of skim, but prefer whole or 2% in the coffee.

HI,

I don't like skim milk. I much prefer whole milk, though I can live with 2%. Lately the dietary screws have been tightened in my household to skim milk. I don't drink it. I don't cook with it. I now drink a lot less milk than I used to, which I don't think is an improvement.

You may find this of interest, which is from a buttermilk topic from April 18th, 2005:

Cathy2 wrote:About 5 years ago or so, the President of Oberweis Dairy was the guest lecturer at Culinary Historians. Pre-WW2 milk production was done in batches. The advent of continuous flow production was a technological advance brought on by the demands of the war effort. Initially it was for airplane fuel but the concept and ideas trickled down to all areas of production, including milk.

Pre-WW2 separating cream from milk was done in a centrifuge using cold milk. Post WW2, they found by heating milk to 120 degrees the cream separated from the milk more efficiently and completely. Oberweis Dairy, at least several years ago, continues to use the cold method of separation allowing their skim milk to seem richer and not the blueish color of standard skim milk.

Now I am thinking out loud, is skim milk really a more genuine buttermilk product than cultured buttermilk? It's what's left after the cream/fat has been removed and it certainly is a thinnish liquid.

BTW, isn't "skimmed milk" the correct terminology?

Cathy2 wrote:HI,

I don't like skim milk. I much prefer whole milk, though I can live with 2%. Lately the dietary screws have been tightened in my household to skim milk. I don't drink it. I don't cook with it. I now drink a lot less milk than I used to, which I don't think is an improvement.

Cathy2, like you I used to drink/prefer whole milk - as it tasted more like what I grew up with. I didn't understand how people could drink the 2%, 1% or skim. Yet as I typically drink at least a cup and half a day, (not counting other dairy input like cheese and yogurt, the latter home-made from the milk), the cumulative fat intake (as in gleam's calculation above) did concern me. So I switched to 2% - after a week or so (as I mentioned earlier about taste memory) it tasted alright. More recently, having moved to Pittsburgh and near a TJ's we have switched to 1% and organic (the difference switching from 2% to 1% was minimal - and the organic does taste* better).


*My focus is on taste - these days for various reasons, I'm rather leery of the 'organic' on labels.

I've found that the organic milks I've tried have much better flavor than the non-organic alternatives. They look better, too. Grocery-store brand skimmed milk is kind of bluish, but organic skimmed milk is actually white and looks like milk, rather than looking like milk and water. Even if there were no health or environmental issues, I'd pick organic milk for the taste.

the organic does taste better...

I've found this true also. I half thought I might be imagining it at first, but enough "trials" convinced me that whether or not I was imagining it, it sure tasted better to me. At any given fat level, it seems to taste more like the "next fat level up." (It's like a fat-level upgrade!)

I actually hate the taste of milk, always have. Even as a child I often refused to drink it. Since my parents hated the stuff, too, it was never forced on me. Once, as a special treat, my big sister took me to Lincoln Park to see the cows milked at the Farm in the Zoo. When my 7 year old self saw where it came from, my distaste for milk became permanent.

That said, we keep 3 to 4 kinds of milk in our household (2 adults): skim milk (for my morning muesli and fruit), whole milk, and half & half (which my partner alternates in his coffee). If I'm cooking with milk, I usually use heavy cream.

Didn't Julia Child say something along the lines of "If you're afraid of butter, use cream." ?

Cogito wrote:BTW, isn't "skimmed milk" the correct terminology?

That's okay, as are the terms nonfat, fat-free, and others for milks that have less than 0.5% butterfat. Take a look:

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/198_milk.html

Oberweis does advertise that their milk tastes better, sort of, but it sounds like it has more to do with their pasteurization temperature and the somatic cell counts in the raw milk. (We stock Oberweis 2% and whole for our little kids, but I like skim and I'm not picky about the brand.)

Betsy,

I think you intend to say separation temperature rather the Pasteurization temperature.

Pasteurization is a uniform standard procedure, I believe is 180 degrees for a set period of time.

Regards,

Actually, according to Oberweis, there's a little wiggle room:

Federal law requires a minimum pasteurization temperature of 163°F. We pasteurize at 173°F, but most dairies pasteurize at 185°F and above. They do this to get the required "code date" length on their products. This higher temperature results in a "cooked" flavor of milk.

Betsy wrote:Actually, according to Oberweis, there's a little wiggle room:

Federal law requires a minimum pasteurization temperature of 163°F. We pasteurize at 173°F, but most dairies pasteurize at 185°F and above. They do this to get the required "code date" length on their products. This higher temperature results in a "cooked" flavor of milk.

Thanks! Tweaking separation and Pasteuriziation temperatures will change the taste. I tried their skimmed milk product once. It tastes better with a more pleasant mouth feel than conventional skim.

Regards,

Good ol' whole milk for cooking, and the rare bowl of cereal.

I find Skim, & 2% pretty flaovorless, and watery. Also I find these low fat version bad in recipies

I grew up on 2% but have switched to Oberweis skim. My kids will only drink Oberweis or Trader Joe's organic milk these days. The Oberweis skim does not taste like skim, I think it tastes closer to 2% than any other skim milk I have tried. I have no idea why, but I'm going to keep drinking it!

Suzy

Thought I'd weigh in on the milk survey -- I grew up on 2% -- so that's what I use. 1% and skim just are water to me -- i don't get it at all. Putting it in coffee is laughable because it makes no color impact at all -- much less a flavor impact (and I'm a girl who likes her coffee strong to start with and then I dilute it with fat and fake sugar).

I will say that I've switched over to organic milk almost completely now, although when I buy half n half or cream I don't go for the organics. I don't tend to use a lot of milk -- I don't drink it and use it only for cooking or cereal. Organic, not only tastes better, but it seems to last longer too and for someone who doesn't use a gallon a week -- that helps me.

I agree with Sdritz: the Oberweis skim i s very tasty for skim, but I prefer the 2% in my coffee.

We get it delivered, it's so convenient. They have good eggs, butter, ice cream and bread, too. Also, nice breakfast meats. Between that and Costco, I no longer have to do a "Big" grocery shop every week.

If anyone is interested in delivery - PM me - they do a generous referral bonus for both the referer and referee.

My 2 cents. I have milk with cereal every morning. I've had Oberweis skim delivered, then we switched to some other delivery brand of skim, then the kids left and we switched to store bought skim. I've had bottled skim, plastic skim and cardboard containered skim. My current conclusion is that skim is skim is skim, with no discrenable taste difference. I buy organic (but not Horizon, which I've read bad things about) for environmental reasons. I should keep buying bottled milk for environmental reasons, but it's a pain to keep bringing the bottles back.

Jonah

Oberweis cottage cheese is much better than the typical Deans's, etc. Kraml used to have good cottage cheese, but they don't seem to be around anymore.

I'm with Sazerac - grew up on 2%, switched to skim, but when I hooked up with the 'spouse he couldn't stand it, so we went back to 2%. Eventually, I tried 1%, and after a small adjustment period, that has been satisfactory.

Unfortunately, Sparky was born so extremely lactose-intolerant that any dairy I ate or drank caused him extreme distress. Removing dairy from my diet made me realize how many of my bad food habits are dairy-related (pans of brownies or cookies with milk, bricks of cheese with crackers) Although Sparky's diet is now his alone, I reduced my dairy intake out of habit.

I like 2% or whole milk in my coffee, but the 1% is OK. I use an old Starbucks approximation if I need other types of milk: equal parts of whole milk + skim = 2%, skim + 2% = 1%

Why bother?

Fresh whole milk 1 cup calories 150 calcium 275.7mg
Fresh milk low-fat 2% 1 cup calories 120 calcium 285.5 mg
Fresh milk low-fat 1% 1 cup calories 105 calcium 313.6 mg
Fresh milk skim 1 cup calories 91 calcium 316mg

There is a significant difference between whole, 2% and 1%, but not really between skim and 1%, at least not enough to get me to go back.

However, if you don't like lower-fat milks, you can always get good nutrition from plain yogurt - even the fat-free is good if you drain it.

FWIW, my brother in Minnesota buys Kemp's milk -- supposedly they do not use cows that have been injected with the RgbH hormone, but I don't remember where I saw or heard this information.

Suzy

As far as I know, there's no scientific test that can determine whether or not milk has come from a cow treated with rBST. So dairies that promise their milks come from untreated cows are relying on the good faith of the farmers raising the cows. I'm reasonably certain (although I'd love to be proven wrong) that Oberweis, Kemps, Horizon and others don't test the raw milk that comes in the back door for whether or not the cow was treated with rBST.