We pasteurized milk for a reason, raw milk was a cause of a lot of issues.
There’s not much of a reason to drink milk nowadays anyway. Oat milk has become so good in emulating the taste of cow milk that there’s just no point in going for the original product with all its massive downsides.
Please give me recommendations of oat milk that tastes good. I’ve been desperately looking and/or hoping for bacterial production to kick off to make it more environmentally sustainable, but I haven’t found anything that tastes remotely as good (on its own or in a latte). I drink ultrafiltered milk for what it’s worth, usually 2% so I don’t need the creamy aspect, I just like the flavor.
For me, Planet Oat’s milk is pretty good, but their “Barista Lovers” version is the most like regular milk to me. It’s really white and acts the most like regular milk. This should just be the default milk they make, to be honest. It’s somewhat hard to find, unfortunately, but they have a map at their site that can help.
I think I’ve tried this before but will give it another shot, maybe I just got the regular one.
I wonder too if there are genetic differences at play. Like folks that taste cilantro differently.
Anyways if it’s 90% as good as milk then that’ll be good enough for me to switch haha, thanks!
You’re welcome!
I hope you like it. I end up buying a couple of cartons every time I’m in the store, ha.
US based here. Saaaame, I didn’t like Planet. I get Plant Folk oatmilk from Sam’s club, and I now detest anything more thick or savory than that. If anything, Plant Folk’s a little watery compared to most oat milks I tried locally.
I don’t know what is available where you’re living. I buy the Vemondo No Milk from my local Lidl. The name comes from the fact that we cannot legally call those milk alternatives “milk”, so a lot of brands now go with “no milk” or “not milk” instead of “oat drink”. lol
They have a Barista oat milk too but I found that one to be not that great, so I can at least encourage you to try different companies & product lines even within the same company.
I’ve personally found pea milk to be the substitute that most closely resembled cows milk in taste and texture.
The main reason to drink milk is not taste. It’s the perfect mix of macros for growing kids. Plant based drinks cannot come close to real milk for nutrition.
We aren’t kids
Only if your tastebuds have failed completely. You probably smoke or have killed your sense of taste by other means if you believe that.
No and no. But your ad hominem really opened my eyes to how wrong i was.
I actually agree with Treczoks about them not tasting remotely the same.
My wife gets the extra creamy oat milk. I can easily tell it’s not regular milk, and it’s just not for me. I honestly tried to like it.
It’s a matter of finding the right one, as I’ve already explained in my other comment. Either way, not a reason to get personal.
I didn’t get personal. Sorry if you took it personally.
I’m talking about the guy that I reported which I would’ve guessed is how you got to this comment.
Yo these people both disagree and downvoted you… They are crazy if they think plant juices taste anything close to milk without having defective taste buds.
Oat milk tastes better than cow milk and I’ll die on this hill. The only reason I don’t drink it regularly is because it’s so much more expensive than the subsidized option
The price for oat milk is a scam. The ingredients to make 1 liter of oat milk costs about 10 cents. The rest is profit milked off the gullible.
Smoking crack kills taste buds.
Crackheads would know.
I have yet to find a milk substitute that pours the same way, specifically over cereal, but even into a glass. Dairy milk holds itself together fairly well, but non-dairy milk tends to splatter all over the place.
It’s a minor inconvenience that in no way counters said downsides of dairy milk, but it’s a frequent reminder that it’s not the same.
deleted by creator
Most oat milks now include emulsified lipids for this reason. Oatly foams up to a head better than whole milk. You can’t make butter out of it, but I doubt you’re making butter from your milk at home anyway.
deleted by creator
It was also drank for thousands and thousands of years, not the most dangerous thing around.
But we don’t have to take those minor risks in this day and age.
For thousands of years we shit and drank from the same rivers. That wasn’t the most dangerous thing around either, but I’m kinda glad we stopped that too.
Of course, we’re better off today no doubt.
But let’s not act like this is ridiculously dangerous for humans to engage in.
It is though. It’s the mixing thing.
You can order a steak rare at a restaurant, no worries. They won’t serve you a hamburger that hasn’t reached temperature. There’s only one real difference; your steak has a miniscule chance the cow it came from was sick, while that hamburger has the bacteria of every cow that went into the meat grinder.
As per the other comments, we have thousands of cows per bottle of milk. 1000x the risk that someone drinking raw milk from their family farm has.
(Pedantic, but informative incoming)
That’s not the reason.
Cow muscle tissue is dense and difficult for bacteria to penetrate, with a single surface area (the outside) assuming safe handling and “edible freshness”. So cooking the outside to “rare” offers protection by cooking off surface or lightly penetrated bacteria.
Ground beef is soft and porous, with a massive surface area, much easier for bacteria to penetrate completely.
However, that aside, your analogy has a sound basis: more input sources = higher opportunity for corruption.
Well hey I appreciate it, I genuinely thought what i wrote was the whole thing, I’m glad to know that there’s more, and the details behind it.
So you’re saying the steak tartare is off the menu?
Steak only has bacteria on the surface and only needs the surface to be seared, while hamburger, even from a single cow, has been mixed so that any bacteria is present throughout.
Except it literally is. It’s literally why you’re here right now commenting. Scroll up and read the headline again.
“Minor risks” being whole families dying or key family members getting poisoned as we transitioned to a society where most folks don’t own their own cow/source of milk.
It’s dangerous to assume all those years of use were a utopia. We used leaded gas for how long and are only just now getting to understand the ramifications?
By your mindset poisoning a future generation with lead is a “minor risk” we dealt with back then…
Uhhhh what? Milk was rearly drank and was processed into other things. That processing made it safer to eat. Also, massive industrial farming ensures one sick cow leads to hundreds of other sick cows. So now one gallon of milk is a mix from hundreds of cows and could come from hundreds of miles away.
26000L is transported at time so thousands.
The average life expectancy for a human was also less than 30 for thousands and thousands of years.
Not it wasn’t.
The average life expectancy wasn’t all to different from today, infant mortality was crazy high though. But if you survived childhood you were pretty set.
Yes it was. We can argue about why it was which is what you’re doing, but it was less than 30. There was a spike in deaths before 30 and after 55. Even still 55 is a much lower number than 80.
The exact cause of the statistic isn’t really the point though, the point is that just because humanity did something for thousands of years does not mean it was ok. Being a human was pretty damn awful for a very long time for a number of reasons including disease which is the point of this thread, that raw milk carries disease.
I’m not saying it’s okay, only an idiot would willingly do it today when we have access to better methods.
I’m saying it’s not the most dangerous thing to do, humans have survived just fine alongside the practice.
Nobody would claim it’s the most dangerous thing to do I hope, that would be a difficult claim to defend.
My point was that I disagree with your assessment that we survived “just fine”. There are many things far less than fine about human existence particularly going back thousands of years.
Although I have to wonder what the point is if you agree it’s not a good thing to do, why assert that humanity was just fine alongside the practice? It gives the impression that you’re at the very least dismissing the concerns even if you’re not advocating for it directly.
Medieval logic applied to modern life
It isn’t even realistic medieval logic. They drank beer back then because the low alcohol content would kill some of the nasty shit making it safer than water or milk. I imagine if an adult asked for some milk back then, they’d be asked to see the baby.
Next you’re going to tell me to stop drinking raw rat milk?
If they had fed the mice ivermectin and turmeric first, and rubbed some urine in their eyes, they would have been immune, probably.
But only if it was a woman’s urine collected during menstruation, then aged for no less than four weeks, having been exposed to no light other than moonlight.
You can determine potency by the taste.
/s
Does the “I only drink raw milk” crowd skew more in one direction politically?
I think you get a split of hard right conspiracy theorists and hard left granola crunchers.
pretty sure its like a 90:10 split there
And neither side would really be a loss.
This is correct.
deleted by creator
I’m not a huge fan of milk, but if the FDA says that there’s a potential to get H5N1 from drinking it straight from the cow, they don’t have to tell me twice. Incidentally, I caught H1N1 on the Tokyo subway a few years back. It gave me a really bad fever for a couple of days. Would not recommend.
Poor mice :(
Jesus…
“Not to be outdone by China some sections of the USA populace tried to start their own pandemic in 2024 by drinking raw milk from H5N1 infected cows”
Everytime I see “riddled” and “virus” together I cannot help but think of that Ricky Gervais/Liam Neeson sketch… “riddled with AIDS”
“Riddled” makes me think of Futurama Nixon, myself
