 |
|
| General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Ghee
Is this the correct method? (obtained from "Food 911") Why the specification for unsalted butter? Will it harden upon refrigeration? 1 pound unsalted butter Put the butter in a heavy saucepan over moderate heat, swirl the pot around to ensure that it melts slowly and does not sizzle or brown. Increase the heat and bring the butter to a boil. When the surface is covered with foam, stir gently and reduce the heat to the lowest possible setting. Gently simmer, uncovered, and undisturbed for 45 minutes, until the milk solids in the bottom of the pan have turned golden brown and the butter on top is transparent. Strain the ghee through a sieve lined with several layers of cheesecloth. The ghee should be perfectly clear and smell nutty; pour into a glass jar and seal tightly Yield: 1.5 cups many thanks, Lisette |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
Hi,
> Is this the correct method? (obtained from "Food 911") Why the > specification for unsalted butter? Will it harden upon refrigeration? > There is an explanation of sorts here - http://www.rwood.com/Questions/Ghee.htm Cheers - Joe |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
Frogleg > wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:14:06 GMT, (Lisette) wrote: > >> >>Is this the correct method? (obtained from "Food 911") Why the >>specification for unsalted butter? Will it harden upon refrigeration? > >Have no clue why unsalted is specified, 'though that's the tradition. So there's no salt in the ghee? It's basically a cooking oil derived from milk. You don't want salt in everything. >Yes, ghee will harden when refrigerated, just like butter. But you >don't really need to refrigerate it (although I do). Once you have >evaporated all the water and strained out the milk solids, what you >have is pure fat. Tastes like budda. --Blair "I'll get the popcorn." |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
In article >,
Frogleg > wrote: > On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:14:06 GMT, (Lisette) wrote: > > > > >Is this the correct method? (obtained from "Food 911") Why the > >specification for unsalted butter? Will it harden upon refrigeration? > > Have no clue why unsalted is specified, 'though that's the tradition. > > Yes, ghee will harden when refrigerated, just like butter. But you > don't really need to refrigerate it (although I do). Once you have > evaporated all the water and strained out the milk solids, what you > have is pure fat. Yah. With no flavor. :-P Sorry, but I am NOT a fan of ghee or clarified butter. Blech! It's the solids that give it a "butter" flavor. With Ghee or clarified butter (I think they are pretty much the same thing), you may as well just use vegatable oil. Just my tastes. ;-) K. -- >,,<Cat's Haven Hobby >,,< http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...user id=katra |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:57:16 -0600, Katra >
wrote: > Frogleg > wrote: > >> Yes, ghee will harden when refrigerated, just like butter. But you >> don't really need to refrigerate it (although I do). Once you have >> evaporated all the water and strained out the milk solids, what you >> have is pure fat. > >Yah. With no flavor. :-P > >Sorry, but I am NOT a fan of ghee or clarified butter. Blech! > >It's the solids that give it a "butter" flavor. >With Ghee or clarified butter (I think they are pretty much the same >thing), you may as well just use vegatable oil. I haven't prepared ghee in ages, but the long, slow cooking is said to impart a slightly "nutty" flavor. The milk solids are what sometime brown and burn when sauteing with butter (and contribute to spoilage), hence ghee and clarified butter for fying. I think you'd find a lot of argument that clarified butter and ghee are the same as veg oil. But tastes differ. :-) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
While frolicking around in rec.food.cooking, Blair P. Houghton of -
said: >So there's no salt in the ghee? > >It's basically a cooking oil derived from milk. You don't want >salt in everything. > Funny. I've seen some Pure Vegetable Ghee, derived purely non-animal products. I can check what it's made from the next time I'm in that shop, but it came in a too bucket for me to buy it just to try it out. -- Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18 ICQ# 251532856 Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN "Er staat een eland op je hoofd!" Eggbert "Hy is onzichtbaar en zonder gewicht" Jan van den Broek (afdaniain) "Hij is ook stil en heeft geen geur." Pixel (defies definition) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
In article >,
MEow > wrote: > While frolicking around in rec.food.cooking, Blair P. Houghton of - > said: > >So there's no salt in the ghee? > > > >It's basically a cooking oil derived from milk. You don't want > >salt in everything. > > > Funny. I've seen some Pure Vegetable Ghee, derived purely non-animal > products. I can check what it's made from the next time I'm in that > shop, but it came in a too bucket for me to buy it just to try it out. If it's made from veggie sources, it ain't Ghee. ;-) Ghee is derived from butter! K. -- >,,<Cat's Haven Hobby >,,< http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...user id=katra |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Katra wrote: > In article >, > Frogleg > wrote: > > > On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:14:06 GMT, (Lisette) wrote: > > > > > > > >Is this the correct method? (obtained from "Food 911") Why the > > >specification for unsalted butter? Will it harden upon refrigeration? > > > > Have no clue why unsalted is specified, 'though that's the tradition. > > > > Yes, ghee will harden when refrigerated, just like butter. But you > > don't really need to refrigerate it (although I do). Once you have > > evaporated all the water and strained out the milk solids, what you > > have is pure fat. > > Yah. With no flavor. :-P > > Sorry, but I am NOT a fan of ghee or clarified butter. Blech! > > It's the solids that give it a "butter" flavor. > With Ghee or clarified butter (I think they are pretty much the same > thing), you may as well just use vegatable oil. but with ghee, you can have _ginger_ flavored butter! seriously... that was the worst idea my boyfriend ever had. Flavor ghee with anything else, but never, ever ginger. It smells vile (taste wasn't a problem... it went in stirfry and fried rice... but the jar still smelled awful) Lena |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
While frolicking around in rec.food.cooking, Katra of Terra's
Treasures said: >> Funny. I've seen some Pure Vegetable Ghee, derived purely non-animal >> products. I can check what it's made from the next time I'm in that >> shop, but it came in a too bucket for me to buy it just to try it out. > >If it's made from veggie sources, it ain't Ghee. ;-) >Ghee is derived from butter! > I just looked at it, as I went shopping today, and it's made from Hydrogenated vegetable oil, vegetable oil, colour and flavouring; but it does say "Pure Vegetable Ghee" on the bucket ;0) However, the bucket contained 2kg, and I'm not going to buy 2kg of something, just to find out if it's good or not. Especially not at that price! -- Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18 ICQ# 251532856 Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN "If you think of a pink dancing elephant, and it thinks you are deranged, is that blasphemy? Or does it just mean you're deranged?" Arcum Dagsson (afdaniain) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
MEow > wrote:
>While frolicking around in rec.food.cooking, Katra of Terra's >Treasures said: >>If it's made from veggie sources, it ain't Ghee. ;-) >>Ghee is derived from butter! >> >I just looked at it, as I went shopping today, and it's made from >Hydrogenated vegetable oil, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Trans fats It's the Margarine of Ghees! >vegetable oil, colour and flavouring; but >it does say "Pure Vegetable Ghee" on the bucket ;0) However, the >bucket contained 2kg, and I'm not going to buy 2kg of something, just >to find out if it's good or not. Especially not at that price! Maybe it's for true vegans who won't deal on milk products. --Blair "Awfully funny if they make margarine first and then turn it into ghee..." |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
In article >,
MEow > wrote: > While frolicking around in rec.food.cooking, Katra of Terra's > Treasures said: > > >> Funny. I've seen some Pure Vegetable Ghee, derived purely non-animal > >> products. I can check what it's made from the next time I'm in that > >> shop, but it came in a too bucket for me to buy it just to try it out. > > > >If it's made from veggie sources, it ain't Ghee. ;-) > >Ghee is derived from butter! > > > I just looked at it, as I went shopping today, and it's made from > Hydrogenated vegetable oil, vegetable oil, colour and flavouring; but > it does say "Pure Vegetable Ghee" on the bucket ;0) However, the > bucket contained 2kg, and I'm not going to buy 2kg of something, just > to find out if it's good or not. Especially not at that price! Sounds gross. :-P K. -- >,,<Cat's Haven Hobby >,,< http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...user id=katra |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
While frolicking around in rec.food.cooking, Blair P. Houghton of -
said: >>>If it's made from veggie sources, it ain't Ghee. ;-) >>>Ghee is derived from butter! >>> >>I just looked at it, as I went shopping today, and it's made from >>Hydrogenated vegetable oil, > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Trans fats > >It's the Margarine of Ghees! > Funny you should say that, because those were the first thoughts to appear in my head, when I read the label, and in that order too. >>vegetable oil, colour and flavouring; but >>it does say "Pure Vegetable Ghee" on the bucket ;0) However, the >>bucket contained 2kg, and I'm not going to buy 2kg of something, just >>to find out if it's good or not. Especially not at that price! > >Maybe it's for true vegans who won't deal on milk products. > Maybe that, and/or for lactose intolerant people, such as me and/or for those people whose religion forbids them to cook meat and dairy products in the same dish (isn't that a Kosher thing?). However, I'm not tempted to buy it, though I might've been, out of curiosity, if you could get it in small jars. > --Blair > "Awfully funny if they make margarine > first and then turn it into ghee..." Maybe they do. I don't know. -- Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18 ICQ# 251532856 Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN "No. *Real* men eat whatever they like." Chwith (AFV) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
Katra wrote:
> If it's made from veggie sources, it ain't Ghee. ;-) > Ghee is derived from butter! > Yes, ghee is from milk fat, but plenty of Indians use a product that everyone there knows as "vegetable ghee". I've never used it, but assumed it was either like crisco or has the addition of saturated fats, like palm oil. MY ex ILs used ghee rarely, for health reasons, and used a simple veggie oil instead. They also used much less, and just tended their dishes carefully while cooking. blacksalt |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
Katra wrote:
> Yah. With no flavor. :-P > > Sorry, but I am NOT a fan of ghee or clarified butter. Blech! > <snip> You may not be a fan of ghee, but it is not without flavour. Properly done it has a notable cooked taste. That's why they bother, rather than just clarifying it. blacksalt |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
"Blair P. Houghton" > wrote in message ... > Frogleg > wrote: > >On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:14:06 GMT, (Lisette) wrote: > > > >> > >>Is this the correct method? (obtained from "Food 911") Why the > >>specification for unsalted butter? Will it harden upon refrigeration? > > > >Have no clue why unsalted is specified, 'though that's the tradition. > > So there's no salt in the ghee? > > It's basically a cooking oil derived from milk. You don't want > salt in everything. > > >Yes, ghee will harden when refrigerated, just like butter. But you > >don't really need to refrigerate it (although I do). Once you have > >evaporated all the water and strained out the milk solids, what you > >have is pure fat. > > Tastes like budda. > > --Blair > "I'll get the popcorn." Ghee is clarified butter. Why use unsalted butter? For the same reason one should always use unsalted butter and that is because it allows the cook to control the salt level, not the ingredients. Salt is added to butter to make it last longer. If you use it in a reasonable amount of time, unsalted is always a better choice. Good cooking. Fred The Good Gourmet http://www.thegoodgourmet.com |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
"Fred" > wrote in message t... <snip> > Ghee is clarified butter. You are wrong again. Ghee is stubstantually different from clarified butter. > Why use unsalted butter? For the same reason one > should always use unsalted butter and that is because it allows the cook to > control the salt level, not the ingredients. Nonsense. Most recipes using salted butter also call for added salt. The added salt can be adjusted. > Salt is added to butter to > make it last longer. Not always the reason. Many people prefer the taste of salted butter. > If you use it in a reasonable amount of time, unsalted > is always a better choice. Even if your facts are sometimes not quite correct, your opinion is always valid. So I ask for another opinion: Which do you prefer - unsalted sweet butter or unsalted soured cream butter? Charlie > Good cooking. > > Fred > The Good Gourmet > http://www.thegoodgourmet.com > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:54:13 +0100, MEow >
wrote: >While frolicking around in rec.food.cooking, Blair P. Houghton of - >said: >>So there's no salt in the ghee? >> >>It's basically a cooking oil derived from milk. You don't want >>salt in everything. >> >Funny. I've seen some Pure Vegetable Ghee, derived purely non-animal >products. I can check what it's made from the next time I'm in that >shop, but it came in a too bucket for me to buy it just to try it out. Well you can find "garden burgers", tofu turkeys, and "textured" vegetable protein whatervers, too. Each is also a travesty trading on a real food. Ghee is clarified butter; -from milk, -from animals. What you saw was mucked with vegetable oil; -misleadingly labeled. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
Charles Gifford wrote:
> "Fred" > wrote in message > t... > <snip> snip >>Why use unsalted butter? For the same reason one >>should always use unsalted butter and that is because it allows the cook >>to control the salt level, not the ingredients. > Nonsense. Most recipes using salted butter also call for added salt. The > added salt can be adjusted. Most of my cookbooks recommend in the front matter that unsalted butter be used. You might want to check that section once in awhile. >>Salt is added to butter to >>make it last longer. > Not always the reason. Many people prefer the taste of salted butter. However, the original reason salt was added was as a preservative. You have no position there. That people became used to it and then salted became the standard is another matter. jim |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
JimLane wrote:
> Charles Gifford wrote: > >> "Fred" > wrote in message >> t... >> <snip> > > snip > >>> Why use unsalted butter? For the same reason one >>> should always use unsalted butter and that is because it allows the cook >>> to control the salt level, not the ingredients. > >> Nonsense. Most recipes using salted butter also call for added salt. The >> added salt can be adjusted. > > Most of my cookbooks recommend in the front matter that unsalted butter > be used. You might want to check that section once in awhile. This is one of the perennial discussions amongst foodies. The fact is that there's a bit over two teaspoons of salt in a whole pound of American commercial butter. I don't know a recipe where the salt content is so critical as to demand unsalted. >>> Salt is added to butter to make it last longer. No. It isn't. It was before refrigeration, but not any more. >> Not always the reason. Many people prefer the taste of salted butter. > > However, the original reason salt was added was as a preservative. You > have no position there. That was then, this is now. > That people became used to it and then salted > became the standard is another matter. To be sure. But the amount of salt in butter today will make not a whit of difference in just about any recipe I've ever seen. A whole stick of butter has a tad over a half-teaspoon of salt. Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, JimLane wrote: > >>make it last longer. > > > > Not always the reason. Many people prefer the taste of salted butter. > > However, the original reason salt was added was as a preservative. You > have no position there. That people became used to it and then salted > became the standard is another matter. .... butter was designed as a way to preserve milk. salt preserves butter better. Hence salted butter is a superior product, that exceeds the design specs for the original. Lena |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Bob Pastorio wrote: > JimLane wrote: > > > Charles Gifford wrote: > > > >> "Fred" > wrote in message > >> t... > >> <snip> > > > > snip > > > >>> Why use unsalted butter? For the same reason one > >>> should always use unsalted butter and that is because it allows the cook > >>> to control the salt level, not the ingredients. > > > >> Nonsense. Most recipes using salted butter also call for added salt. The > >> added salt can be adjusted. > > > > Most of my cookbooks recommend in the front matter that unsalted butter > > be used. You might want to check that section once in awhile. > > This is one of the perennial discussions amongst foodies. The fact is > that there's a bit over two teaspoons of salt in a whole pound of > American commercial butter. I don't know a recipe where the salt > content is so critical as to demand unsalted. > > >>> Salt is added to butter to make it last longer. > > No. It isn't. It was before refrigeration, but not any more. > > >> Not always the reason. Many people prefer the taste of salted butter. > > > > However, the original reason salt was added was as a preservative. You > > have no position there. > > That was then, this is now. > > > That people became used to it and then salted > > became the standard is another matter. > > To be sure. But the amount of salt in butter today will make not a > whit of difference in just about any recipe I've ever seen. A whole > stick of butter has a tad over a half-teaspoon of salt. Thank you for the info! It's useful in baking, and other places where salt flavoring is rather... inappropriate. Lena |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
Lena B Katz wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, JimLane wrote: > > >>>>make it last longer. >> >> >>>Not always the reason. Many people prefer the taste of salted butter. >> >>However, the original reason salt was added was as a preservative. You >>have no position there. That people became used to it and then salted >>became the standard is another matter. > > > ... butter was designed as a way to preserve milk. salt preserves butter > better. Hence salted butter is a superior product, that exceeds the > design specs for the original. > > Lena Tell that to the cake you just mentioned above. jim ;-) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
Lena B Katz wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Bob Pastorio wrote: > >>JimLane wrote: >> >>>Charles Gifford wrote: >>> >>>>"Fred" > wrote in message d.net... >>>><snip> >>> >>>snip >>> >>>>>Why use unsalted butter? For the same reason one >>>>>should always use unsalted butter and that is because it allows the cook >>>>>to control the salt level, not the ingredients. >>> >>>>Nonsense. Most recipes using salted butter also call for added salt. The >>>>added salt can be adjusted. >>> >>>Most of my cookbooks recommend in the front matter that unsalted butter >>>be used. You might want to check that section once in awhile. >> >>This is one of the perennial discussions amongst foodies. The fact is >>that there's a bit over two teaspoons of salt in a whole pound of >>American commercial butter. I don't know a recipe where the salt >>content is so critical as to demand unsalted. >> >>>>>Salt is added to butter to make it last longer. >> >>No. It isn't. It was before refrigeration, but not any more. >> >>>>Not always the reason. Many people prefer the taste of salted butter. >>> >>>However, the original reason salt was added was as a preservative. You >>>have no position there. >> >>That was then, this is now. >> >>>That people became used to it and then salted >>>became the standard is another matter. >> >>To be sure. But the amount of salt in butter today will make not a >>whit of difference in just about any recipe I've ever seen. A whole >>stick of butter has a tad over a half-teaspoon of salt. > > Thank you for the info! It's useful in baking, and other places where > salt flavoring is rather... inappropriate. Well, I was mistaken in the figures that I quoted. I inadvertently doubled the figure for the amount of salt in a pound of butter. Here's the real info from an older post of mine where I did all the calculations after weighing and measuring volumes of salt: "...the amount of salt in butter is rather trivial for most recipes. Roughly 90 mgs sodium in a tablespoon of butter. 32 tablespoons of butter in a whole pound or 2880 mgs of sodium (2.88 grams). That's about 7200 mgs or 7.2 grams of salt. A tablespoon of table salt weighs right at 0.6 ounces or 16.8 grams. A tablespoon is 3 teaspoons of salt which weigh 5.6 grams each. A whole pound of butter will have about a teaspoon and a quarter of salt in it." Most cake recipes include some salt. Look at German Chocolate cake or spice cakes or pound cakes or even simple white cakes. At least 1/4 teaspoon salt (most start at 1/2) and on up to a teaspoon. There's so little salt in butter that I've never been able to taste the difference in finished product, even tasting side by side. I made hot milk sponge cakes for the holidays and used salted butter. My daughter read the recipe and it called for unsalted. She asked what the difference was and I said, "None." She asked why they'd specify unsalted and I gave her a cynical answer. She said let's test it. We did a test and made 4 cakes. Two with salted and two with unsalted. Couldn't taste any difference. Nobody could who tried them - 12 people. The "testing" went on for two days until there were no cakes left. (Filled them with a creme patissiere with Grand Marnier and white creme de cacao, and topped with a dark chocolate ganache with peach schnapps and brown creme de cacao - sorta an uptown Boston Cream Pie.) The cakes each took 2 tablespoons butter, 5 eggs, 3/4 cup of flour, 1/4 cup milk, 3/4 cup sugar, teaspoon baking powder, 1/8 teaspoon salt, teaspoon lemon extract. The butter (if I had measured it exactly) contained 0.45 grams of salt (28 grams are an ounce), 1/62nd of an ounce or 0.08 teaspoons of butter. Eight hundredths of a teaspoon. Less than 1/10th of a teaspoon. That's a Scroogy pinch for a whole cake intended to serve 8. Combining 1/8 teaspoon salt the recipe calls for with the 1/12th teaspoon from the butter makes the amount of salt leap from 3/24 of a teaspoon to 5/24 of a teaspoon. All the way up to just under 1/5 of a teaspoon in a 9-inch cake. Meaningless. Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
Bob Pastorio wrote:
> Lena B Katz wrote: > >> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Bob Pastorio wrote: >> >>> JimLane wrote: >>> >>>> Charles Gifford wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Fred" > wrote in message >>>>> t... >>>>> <snip> >>>> >>>> >>>> snip >>>> >>>>>> Why use unsalted butter? For the same reason one >>>>>> should always use unsalted butter and that is because it allows >>>>>> the cook >>>>>> to control the salt level, not the ingredients. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Nonsense. Most recipes using salted butter also call for added >>>>> salt. The >>>>> added salt can be adjusted. >>>> >>>> >>>> Most of my cookbooks recommend in the front matter that unsalted butter >>>> be used. You might want to check that section once in awhile. >>> >>> >>> This is one of the perennial discussions amongst foodies. The fact is >>> that there's a bit over two teaspoons of salt in a whole pound of >>> American commercial butter. I don't know a recipe where the salt >>> content is so critical as to demand unsalted. >>> >>>>>> Salt is added to butter to make it last longer. >>> >>> >>> No. It isn't. It was before refrigeration, but not any more. >>> >>>>> Not always the reason. Many people prefer the taste of salted butter. >>>> >>>> >>>> However, the original reason salt was added was as a preservative. You >>>> have no position there. >>> >>> >>> That was then, this is now. >>> >>>> That people became used to it and then salted >>>> became the standard is another matter. >>> >>> >>> To be sure. But the amount of salt in butter today will make not a >>> whit of difference in just about any recipe I've ever seen. A whole >>> stick of butter has a tad over a half-teaspoon of salt. >> >> >> Thank you for the info! It's useful in baking, and other places where >> salt flavoring is rather... inappropriate. > > > Well, I was mistaken in the figures that I quoted. I inadvertently > doubled the figure for the amount of salt in a pound of butter. Here's > the real info from an older post of mine where I did all the > calculations after weighing and measuring volumes of salt: > > "...the amount of salt in butter is rather trivial for most recipes. > Roughly 90 mgs sodium in a tablespoon of butter. 32 tablespoons of > butter in a whole pound or 2880 mgs of sodium (2.88 grams). That's about > 7200 mgs or 7.2 grams of salt. A tablespoon of table salt weighs right > at 0.6 ounces or 16.8 grams. A tablespoon is 3 teaspoons of salt which > weigh 5.6 grams each. A whole pound of butter will have about a teaspoon > and a quarter of salt in it." > > Most cake recipes include some salt. Look at German Chocolate cake or > spice cakes or pound cakes or even simple white cakes. At least 1/4 > teaspoon salt (most start at 1/2) and on up to a teaspoon. > > There's so little salt in butter that I've never been able to taste the > difference in finished product, even tasting side by side. I made hot > milk sponge cakes for the holidays and used salted butter. My daughter > read the recipe and it called for unsalted. She asked what the > difference was and I said, "None." She asked why they'd specify unsalted > and I gave her a cynical answer. She said let's test it. We did a test > and made 4 cakes. Two with salted and two with unsalted. Couldn't taste > any difference. Nobody could who tried them - 12 people. The "testing" > went on for two days until there were no cakes left. (Filled them with a > creme patissiere with Grand Marnier and white creme de cacao, and topped > with a dark chocolate ganache with peach schnapps and brown creme de > cacao - sorta an uptown Boston Cream Pie.) > > The cakes each took 2 tablespoons butter, 5 eggs, 3/4 cup of flour, 1/4 > cup milk, 3/4 cup sugar, teaspoon baking powder, 1/8 teaspoon salt, > teaspoon lemon extract. The butter (if I had measured it exactly) > contained 0.45 grams of salt (28 grams are an ounce), 1/62nd of an ounce > or 0.08 teaspoons of butter. Eight hundredths of a teaspoon. Less than > 1/10th of a teaspoon. That's a Scroogy pinch for a whole cake intended > to serve 8. Combining 1/8 teaspoon salt the recipe calls for with the > 1/12th teaspoon from the butter makes the amount of salt leap from 3/24 > of a teaspoon to 5/24 of a teaspoon. All the way up to just under 1/5 of > a teaspoon in a 9-inch cake. > > Meaningless. > > Pastorio > You did a great job of covering any salt flavor with your filling. Why did you not test them plain, cake to cake no extras? jim |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
JimLane wrote:
> Bob Pastorio wrote: > >> Lena B Katz wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Bob Pastorio wrote: >>> >>>> JimLane wrote: >>>> >>>>> Charles Gifford wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Fred" > wrote in message >>>>>> t... >>>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> snip >>>>> >>>>>>> Why use unsalted butter? For the same reason one >>>>>>> should always use unsalted butter and that is because it allows >>>>>>> the cook >>>>>>> to control the salt level, not the ingredients. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Nonsense. Most recipes using salted butter also call for added >>>>>> salt. The >>>>>> added salt can be adjusted. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Most of my cookbooks recommend in the front matter that unsalted >>>>> butter >>>>> be used. You might want to check that section once in awhile. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This is one of the perennial discussions amongst foodies. The fact is >>>> that there's a bit over two teaspoons of salt in a whole pound of >>>> American commercial butter. I don't know a recipe where the salt >>>> content is so critical as to demand unsalted. >>>> >>>>>>> Salt is added to butter to make it last longer. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No. It isn't. It was before refrigeration, but not any more. >>>> >>>>>> Not always the reason. Many people prefer the taste of salted butter. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> However, the original reason salt was added was as a preservative. You >>>>> have no position there. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That was then, this is now. >>>> >>>>> That people became used to it and then salted >>>>> became the standard is another matter. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To be sure. But the amount of salt in butter today will make not a >>>> whit of difference in just about any recipe I've ever seen. A whole >>>> stick of butter has a tad over a half-teaspoon of salt. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you for the info! It's useful in baking, and other places where >>> salt flavoring is rather... inappropriate. >> >> >> >> Well, I was mistaken in the figures that I quoted. I inadvertently >> doubled the figure for the amount of salt in a pound of butter. Here's >> the real info from an older post of mine where I did all the >> calculations after weighing and measuring volumes of salt: >> >> "...the amount of salt in butter is rather trivial for most recipes. >> Roughly 90 mgs sodium in a tablespoon of butter. 32 tablespoons of >> butter in a whole pound or 2880 mgs of sodium (2.88 grams). That's >> about 7200 mgs or 7.2 grams of salt. A tablespoon of table salt weighs >> right at 0.6 ounces or 16.8 grams. A tablespoon is 3 teaspoons of salt >> which weigh 5.6 grams each. A whole pound of butter will have about a >> teaspoon and a quarter of salt in it." >> >> Most cake recipes include some salt. Look at German Chocolate cake or >> spice cakes or pound cakes or even simple white cakes. At least 1/4 >> teaspoon salt (most start at 1/2) and on up to a teaspoon. >> >> There's so little salt in butter that I've never been able to taste >> the difference in finished product, even tasting side by side. I made >> hot milk sponge cakes for the holidays and used salted butter. My >> daughter read the recipe and it called for unsalted. She asked what >> the difference was and I said, "None." She asked why they'd specify >> unsalted and I gave her a cynical answer. She said let's test it. We >> did a test and made 4 cakes. Two with salted and two with unsalted. >> Couldn't taste any difference. Nobody could who tried them - 12 >> people. The "testing" went on for two days until there were no cakes >> left. (Filled them with a creme patissiere with Grand Marnier and >> white creme de cacao, and topped with a dark chocolate ganache with >> peach schnapps and brown creme de cacao - sorta an uptown Boston Cream >> Pie.) >> >> The cakes each took 2 tablespoons butter, 5 eggs, 3/4 cup of flour, >> 1/4 cup milk, 3/4 cup sugar, teaspoon baking powder, 1/8 teaspoon >> salt, teaspoon lemon extract. The butter (if I had measured it >> exactly) contained 0.45 grams of salt (28 grams are an ounce), 1/62nd >> of an ounce or 0.08 teaspoons of butter. Eight hundredths of a >> teaspoon. Less than 1/10th of a teaspoon. That's a Scroogy pinch for a >> whole cake intended to serve 8. Combining 1/8 teaspoon salt the recipe >> calls for with the 1/12th teaspoon from the butter makes the amount of >> salt leap from 3/24 of a teaspoon to 5/24 of a teaspoon. All the way >> up to just under 1/5 of a teaspoon in a 9-inch cake. >> >> Meaningless. >> >> Pastorio > > You did a great job of covering any salt flavor with your filling. Why > did you not test them plain, cake to cake no extras? It's the finished products that we were comparing. But years of critical measuring and tasting the results says that it's a fruitless search at these quantities. I knew it wouldn't make any difference from experience. But can anyone seriously believe that an additional 1/12 of a teaspoon of salt will show up as even a remote flavor determinant in the 9-inch cake described above? I daresay that folks measuring with spoons will make an error within that range while trying hard to be accurate. And given that kitchen measures are in the "close enough" category, it's hard to imagine that a variation this small wouldn't fall invisibly in the cracks. The pile of salt that makes up 0.45 grams is a small pinch. It simply disappears into the other flavors, even without the filling and glaze. That ratio of additional salt to the volume of the whole cake is way more subtle than anybody I know can pick up. Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
Bob Pastorio wrote:
> JimLane wrote: > >> >> >> You did a great job of covering any salt flavor with your filling. Why >> did you not test them plain, cake to cake no extras? > > > It's the finished products that we were comparing. But years of critical > measuring and tasting the results says that it's a fruitless search at > these quantities. I knew it wouldn't make any difference from experience. > > But can anyone seriously believe that an additional 1/12 of a teaspoon > of salt will show up as even a remote flavor determinant in the 9-inch > cake described above? I daresay that folks measuring with spoons will > make an error within that range while trying hard to be accurate. And > given that kitchen measures are in the "close enough" category, it's > hard to imagine that a variation this small wouldn't fall invisibly in > the cracks. > > The pile of salt that makes up 0.45 grams is a small pinch. It simply > disappears into the other flavors, even without the filling and glaze. > That ratio of additional salt to the volume of the whole cake is way > more subtle than anybody I know can pick up. Hmmm, I see only your opinion. Not a fact anywhere in sight. You are assuming that because you MIGHT not be able to taste it in the bare cake, then no one else would either. That is arrogance. And stupidity. jim |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
JimLane wrote:
> Bob Pastorio wrote: > >> JimLane wrote: >>> >>> You did a great job of covering any salt flavor with your filling. >>> Why did you not test them plain, cake to cake no extras? >> >> It's the finished products that we were comparing. But years of >> critical measuring and tasting the results says that it's a fruitless >> search at these quantities. I knew it wouldn't make any difference >> from experience. >> >> But can anyone seriously believe that an additional 1/12 of a teaspoon >> of salt will show up as even a remote flavor determinant in the 9-inch >> cake described above? I daresay that folks measuring with spoons will >> make an error within that range while trying hard to be accurate. And >> given that kitchen measures are in the "close enough" category, it's >> hard to imagine that a variation this small wouldn't fall invisibly in >> the cracks. >> >> The pile of salt that makes up 0.45 grams is a small pinch. It simply >> disappears into the other flavors, even without the filling and glaze. >> That ratio of additional salt to the volume of the whole cake is way >> more subtle than anybody I know can pick up. > > Hmmm, I see only your opinion. I'm desperately sorry I didn't convene a focus group to satisfy your urgent need for FACTS to demonstrate that 0.45 grams of salt is a tiny bit. And that a tiny bit of salt in more than a pound of other ingredients wouldn't make a difference. I'm desolated that you haven't had your yearnings for absolute 10-decimal-place accuracy satisfied. Here's a blast for you: kitchen measurements are *never* exact, particularly volumetric ones. The equipment we work with in normal kitchens isn't designed to be lab-accurate. Teaspoons and tablespoons of powders, leveled or not, will be off the exact measure by up to 10% depending on compaction. A tablespoon of salt of one size crystal won't hold the same weight of salt of a different crystal size. Recipes are written and tested by professionals with that understanding in mind. Every effort is made to write them to relatively exact measure, but cooking is a resilient science and forgives minor departures. A bit more or less of most ingredients won't materially affect the dish. Like everybody's Aunt Minnie cooks by the handful and it still works. In this case, the "bit more" is of such a small absolute quantity that it's irrelevant and below any threshold of taste. > Not a fact anywhere in sight. Well, the measurements are factual because I did them and recorded them for anyone who would wish to check. I mentioned that a dozen people couldn't see any difference. Silly me, I assumed that you could read some words on a screen and actually understand them. since I've tested saline solutions, by taste, in researching brine strengths, I've sampled concentrations down to 1 gram in a gallon of water (couldn't taste salt) and up to 300 grams per gallon and had others test them for subjective analyses for articles I wrote on brining and for my radio program. And that's why I wrote above: "But years of critical measuring and tasting the results says that it's a fruitless search at these quantities. I knew it wouldn't make any difference from experience." How would you have liked the "facts" to have been determined and expressed? How many witnesses would it take for you to accept the results? Just any witnesses or should they be somehow qualified? > You are > assuming that because you MIGHT not be able to taste it in the bare > cake, then no one else would either. That is arrogance. And stupidity. What's arrogant and stupid is your insistence that I do *my* experiment *your* way. Perhaps you failed to note in my earlier post that a dozen people tasted the cakes and were asked about any differences perceived. Most of them tasted snippets of plain cake after hearing the question from my daughter. Nobody tasted anything different between the cakes. Period. My 12-year-old showed better comprehension of what was happening than you do. We weren't trying for a Nobel prize, just an informal discussion around a diner table. I'm assuming that since I've actually tested saline concentrations from virtually nothing to very salty, I know where it begins to taste different. And this ain't it. See, Jim, I've been a foodservice professional since the 70's. Studied in Europe and traveled the world rather widely. I've operated all sorts of restaurants. I'm a professional recipe developer and a consultant for designing commercial products, some of which are in stores around the country. All formulated to extremely exact measurements with very exact processing and handling to meet FDA standards and commercial requirements. I realize you didn't know this, but it doesn't much minimize the silliness of your shitheaded note. The facts you crave include numbers I provided that you seem unable to grasp or are too unskilled to extrapolate from. I gave you a specific recipe to consider and assumed that you could understand the significance of the facts of it. Could grasp the orders of magnitude involved. Apparently not. Your note disqualifies you from discussions where the actual product isn't in front of you. Either you utterly lack the imagination to extrapolate a finished result from a recipe or you lack the kitchen competence to appreciate the very small, real-world amounts we've been dealing with in this question. Either way, you're over your head. I also notice that you didn't go test it to see if I was wrong. Just be a spectator and fling the contents of your head out onto the field. Go taste salt in a pint of water with 1/2 cup sugar in it. Start with 0.45 grams, 1/12 of a teaspoon, and see if you can taste it. Work your way up to maybe 15 grams and see. Don't have a scale that accurate? Ok, borrow mine. And you can save your lame judgments for others who aren't light years ahead of you. I'd guess that it would be a small crowd. Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Bob Pastorio wrote: > JimLane wrote: > > > Bob Pastorio wrote: > > > >> Lena B Katz wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Bob Pastorio wrote: > >>> > >>>> JimLane wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Charles Gifford wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> "Fred" > wrote in message > >>>>>> t... > >>>>>> <snip> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> snip > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Why use unsalted butter? For the same reason one > >>>>>>> should always use unsalted butter and that is because it allows > >>>>>>> the cook > >>>>>>> to control the salt level, not the ingredients. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Nonsense. Most recipes using salted butter also call for added > >>>>>> salt. The > >>>>>> added salt can be adjusted. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Most of my cookbooks recommend in the front matter that unsalted > >>>>> butter > >>>>> be used. You might want to check that section once in awhile. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> This is one of the perennial discussions amongst foodies. The fact is > >>>> that there's a bit over two teaspoons of salt in a whole pound of > >>>> American commercial butter. I don't know a recipe where the salt > >>>> content is so critical as to demand unsalted. > >>>> > >>>>>>> Salt is added to butter to make it last longer. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> No. It isn't. It was before refrigeration, but not any more. > >>>> > >>>>>> Not always the reason. Many people prefer the taste of salted butter. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> However, the original reason salt was added was as a preservative. You > >>>>> have no position there. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> That was then, this is now. > >>>> > >>>>> That people became used to it and then salted > >>>>> became the standard is another matter. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> To be sure. But the amount of salt in butter today will make not a > >>>> whit of difference in just about any recipe I've ever seen. A whole > >>>> stick of butter has a tad over a half-teaspoon of salt. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thank you for the info! It's useful in baking, and other places where > >>> salt flavoring is rather... inappropriate. > >> > >> > >> > >> Well, I was mistaken in the figures that I quoted. I inadvertently > >> doubled the figure for the amount of salt in a pound of butter. Here's > >> the real info from an older post of mine where I did all the > >> calculations after weighing and measuring volumes of salt: > >> > >> "...the amount of salt in butter is rather trivial for most recipes. > >> Roughly 90 mgs sodium in a tablespoon of butter. 32 tablespoons of > >> butter in a whole pound or 2880 mgs of sodium (2.88 grams). That's > >> about 7200 mgs or 7.2 grams of salt. A tablespoon of table salt weighs > >> right at 0.6 ounces or 16.8 grams. A tablespoon is 3 teaspoons of salt > >> which weigh 5.6 grams each. A whole pound of butter will have about a > >> teaspoon and a quarter of salt in it." > >> > >> Most cake recipes include some salt. Look at German Chocolate cake or > >> spice cakes or pound cakes or even simple white cakes. At least 1/4 > >> teaspoon salt (most start at 1/2) and on up to a teaspoon. > >> > >> There's so little salt in butter that I've never been able to taste > >> the difference in finished product, even tasting side by side. I made > >> hot milk sponge cakes for the holidays and used salted butter. My > >> daughter read the recipe and it called for unsalted. She asked what > >> the difference was and I said, "None." She asked why they'd specify > >> unsalted and I gave her a cynical answer. She said let's test it. We > >> did a test and made 4 cakes. Two with salted and two with unsalted. > >> Couldn't taste any difference. Nobody could who tried them - 12 > >> people. The "testing" went on for two days until there were no cakes > >> left. (Filled them with a creme patissiere with Grand Marnier and > >> white creme de cacao, and topped with a dark chocolate ganache with > >> peach schnapps and brown creme de cacao - sorta an uptown Boston Cream > >> Pie.) > >> > >> The cakes each took 2 tablespoons butter, 5 eggs, 3/4 cup of flour, > >> 1/4 cup milk, 3/4 cup sugar, teaspoon baking powder, 1/8 teaspoon > >> salt, teaspoon lemon extract. The butter (if I had measured it > >> exactly) contained 0.45 grams of salt (28 grams are an ounce), 1/62nd > >> of an ounce or 0.08 teaspoons of butter. Eight hundredths of a > >> teaspoon. Less than 1/10th of a teaspoon. That's a Scroogy pinch for a > >> whole cake intended to serve 8. Combining 1/8 teaspoon salt the recipe > >> calls for with the 1/12th teaspoon from the butter makes the amount of > >> salt leap from 3/24 of a teaspoon to 5/24 of a teaspoon. All the way > >> up to just under 1/5 of a teaspoon in a 9-inch cake. > >> > >> Meaningless. > >> > >> Pastorio > > > > You did a great job of covering any salt flavor with your filling. Why > > did you not test them plain, cake to cake no extras? > > It's the finished products that we were comparing. But years of > critical measuring and tasting the results says that it's a fruitless > search at these quantities. I knew it wouldn't make any difference > from experience. > > But can anyone seriously believe that an additional 1/12 of a teaspoon > of salt will show up as even a remote flavor determinant in the 9-inch > cake described above? I daresay that folks measuring with spoons will > make an error within that range while trying hard to be accurate. And > given that kitchen measures are in the "close enough" category, it's > hard to imagine that a variation this small wouldn't fall invisibly in > the cracks. > > The pile of salt that makes up 0.45 grams is a small pinch. It simply > disappears into the other flavors, even without the filling and glaze. > That ratio of additional salt to the volume of the whole cake is way > more subtle than anybody I know can pick up. i had forgotten how little butter cakes actually take. now, oatmeal cookies (cornell style) take significantly more... Lena |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Bob Pastorio wrote: > JimLane wrote: > > > Bob Pastorio wrote: > > > >> JimLane wrote: > >>> > >>> You did a great job of covering any salt flavor with your filling. > >>> Why did you not test them plain, cake to cake no extras? > >> > >> It's the finished products that we were comparing. But years of > >> critical measuring and tasting the results says that it's a fruitless > >> search at these quantities. I knew it wouldn't make any difference > >> from experience. > >> > >> But can anyone seriously believe that an additional 1/12 of a teaspoon > >> of salt will show up as even a remote flavor determinant in the 9-inch > >> cake described above? I daresay that folks measuring with spoons will > >> make an error within that range while trying hard to be accurate. And > >> given that kitchen measures are in the "close enough" category, it's > >> hard to imagine that a variation this small wouldn't fall invisibly in > >> the cracks. > >> > >> The pile of salt that makes up 0.45 grams is a small pinch. It simply > >> disappears into the other flavors, even without the filling and glaze. > >> That ratio of additional salt to the volume of the whole cake is way > >> more subtle than anybody I know can pick up. > > > > Hmmm, I see only your opinion. > > I'm desperately sorry I didn't convene a focus group to satisfy your > urgent need for FACTS to demonstrate that 0.45 grams of salt is a tiny > bit. And that a tiny bit of salt in more than a pound of other > ingredients wouldn't make a difference. I'm desolated that you haven't > had your yearnings for absolute 10-decimal-place accuracy satisfied. > > Here's a blast for you: kitchen measurements are *never* exact, > particularly volumetric ones. The equipment we work with in normal > kitchens isn't designed to be lab-accurate. Teaspoons and tablespoons > of powders, leveled or not, will be off the exact measure by up to 10% > depending on compaction. A tablespoon of salt of one size crystal > won't hold the same weight of salt of a different crystal size. > Recipes are written and tested by professionals with that > understanding in mind. Every effort is made to write them to > relatively exact measure, but cooking is a resilient science and > forgives minor departures. A bit more or less of most ingredients > won't materially affect the dish. Like everybody's Aunt Minnie cooks > by the handful and it still works. hence why most recipes call for "kosher salt" when they want a different grind... > > Not a fact anywhere in sight. > > Well, the measurements are factual because I did them and recorded > them for anyone who would wish to check. I mentioned that a dozen > people couldn't see any difference. Silly me, I assumed that you could > read some words on a screen and actually understand them. since I've > tested saline solutions, by taste, in researching brine strengths, > I've sampled concentrations down to 1 gram in a gallon of water > (couldn't taste salt) and up to 300 grams per gallon and had others > test them for subjective analyses for articles I wrote on brining and > for my radio program. And that's why I wrote above: "But years of > critical measuring and tasting the results says that it's a fruitless > search at these quantities. I knew it wouldn't make any difference > from experience." How would you have liked the "facts" to have been > determined and expressed? How many witnesses would it take for you to > accept the results? Just any witnesses or should they be somehow > qualified? .... unfortunately, you failed to mention that salt has other uses, other than "tasting salty" just like red peppers have other uses (and effects on the body) other than "being hot." From the way you wrote, I would assume that you asked people if the cake "tasted salty" and not "did this cake taste more flavorful than your last piece." OTOH, having tastetested colored gelatin (with surprising results), i realize that people don't know what their taste buds tell them, anywhoo. Lena |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
Lena B Katz wrote:
> > i had forgotten how little butter cakes actually take. > > now, oatmeal cookies (cornell style) take significantly more... > > Lena Jesus.. ya think you could trim up the quotes a bit before you add your one sentence reply? What a nuisance it is to scroll through (not to mention download) all the recaps. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
Bob Pastorio wrote:
> JimLane wrote: > >> Bob Pastorio wrote: >> >>> JimLane wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> You did a great job of covering any salt flavor with your filling. >>>> Why did you not test them plain, cake to cake no extras? >>> >>> >>> It's the finished products that we were comparing. But years of >>> critical measuring and tasting the results says that it's a fruitless >>> search at these quantities. I knew it wouldn't make any difference >>> from experience. >>> >>> But can anyone seriously believe that an additional 1/12 of a >>> teaspoon of salt will show up as even a remote flavor determinant in >>> the 9-inch cake described above? I daresay that folks measuring with >>> spoons will make an error within that range while trying hard to be >>> accurate. And given that kitchen measures are in the "close enough" >>> category, it's hard to imagine that a variation this small wouldn't >>> fall invisibly in the cracks. >>> >>> The pile of salt that makes up 0.45 grams is a small pinch. It simply >>> disappears into the other flavors, even without the filling and >>> glaze. That ratio of additional salt to the volume of the whole cake >>> is way more subtle than anybody I know can pick up. >> >> >> Hmmm, I see only your opinion. > > > I'm desperately sorry I didn't convene a focus group to satisfy your > urgent need for FACTS to demonstrate that 0.45 grams of salt is a tiny > bit. And that a tiny bit of salt in more than a pound of other > ingredients wouldn't make a difference. I'm desolated that you haven't > had your yearnings for absolute 10-decimal-place accuracy satisfied. > > Here's a blast for you: kitchen measurements are *never* exact, > particularly volumetric ones. The equipment we work with in normal > kitchens isn't designed to be lab-accurate. Teaspoons and tablespoons of > powders, leveled or not, will be off the exact measure by up to 10% > depending on compaction. A tablespoon of salt of one size crystal won't > hold the same weight of salt of a different crystal size. Recipes are > written and tested by professionals with that understanding in mind. > Every effort is made to write them to relatively exact measure, but > cooking is a resilient science and forgives minor departures. A bit more > or less of most ingredients won't materially affect the dish. Like > everybody's Aunt Minnie cooks by the handful and it still works. > > In this case, the "bit more" is of such a small absolute quantity that > it's irrelevant and below any threshold of taste. > >> Not a fact anywhere in sight. > > > Well, the measurements are factual because I did them and recorded them > for anyone who would wish to check. I mentioned that a dozen people > couldn't see any difference. Silly me, I assumed that you could read > some words on a screen and actually understand them. since I've tested > saline solutions, by taste, in researching brine strengths, I've sampled > concentrations down to 1 gram in a gallon of water (couldn't taste salt) > and up to 300 grams per gallon and had others test them for subjective > analyses for articles I wrote on brining and for my radio program. And > that's why I wrote above: "But years of critical measuring and tasting > the results says that it's a fruitless search at these quantities. I > knew it wouldn't make any difference from experience." How would you > have liked the "facts" to have been determined and expressed? How many > witnesses would it take for you to accept the results? Just any > witnesses or should they be somehow qualified? > > > You are > >> assuming that because you MIGHT not be able to taste it in the bare >> cake, then no one else would either. That is arrogance. And stupidity. > > > What's arrogant and stupid is your insistence that I do *my* experiment > *your* way. Perhaps you failed to note in my earlier post that a dozen > people tasted the cakes and were asked about any differences perceived. > Most of them tasted snippets of plain cake after hearing the question > from my daughter. Nobody tasted anything different between the cakes. > Period. My 12-year-old showed better comprehension of what was happening > than you do. We weren't trying for a Nobel prize, just an informal > discussion around a diner table. > > I'm assuming that since I've actually tested saline concentrations from > virtually nothing to very salty, I know where it begins to taste > different. And this ain't it. > > See, Jim, I've been a foodservice professional since the 70's. Studied > in Europe and traveled the world rather widely. I've operated all sorts > of restaurants. I'm a professional recipe developer and a consultant for > designing commercial products, some of which are in stores around the > country. All formulated to extremely exact measurements with very exact > processing and handling to meet FDA standards and commercial requirements. > > I realize you didn't know this, but it doesn't much minimize the > silliness of your shitheaded note. The facts you crave include numbers I > provided that you seem unable to grasp or are too unskilled to > extrapolate from. I gave you a specific recipe to consider and assumed > that you could understand the significance of the facts of it. Could > grasp the orders of magnitude involved. Apparently not. > > Your note disqualifies you from discussions where the actual product > isn't in front of you. Either you utterly lack the imagination to > extrapolate a finished result from a recipe or you lack the kitchen > competence to appreciate the very small, real-world amounts we've been > dealing with in this question. Either way, you're over your head. > > I also notice that you didn't go test it to see if I was wrong. Just be > a spectator and fling the contents of your head out onto the field. Go > taste salt in a pint of water with 1/2 cup sugar in it. Start with 0.45 > grams, 1/12 of a teaspoon, and see if you can taste it. Work your way up > to maybe 15 grams and see. Don't have a scale that accurate? Ok, borrow > mine. > > And you can save your lame judgments for others who aren't light years > ahead of you. I'd guess that it would be a small crowd. > > Pastorio > Here's a fact for you, being as you want to be a clown about this, even the salt called for in many recipes is too much for my taste and I regularly halve it. I know others who do the same for the same reason. Now did you have something to put up factually, or not? By the way, you are stuck in reverse (the "R" does not mean race on your Model T. jim |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 03:59:48 +0000, Bob Pastorio wrote: > This is one of the perennial discussions amongst foodies. My, aren't we the dismissive reverse snob. (Not that you're not entitled ;-) > The fact is that > there's a bit over two teaspoons of salt in a whole pound of American > commercial butter. I don't know a recipe where the salt content is so > critical as to demand unsalted. Hollandaise. I don't think that I've ever gotten enough butter into a beurre blanc to offend any but my most sodiumphobic friends. Martin -- Martin Golding | If there were a God, DoD #236 | cocoa butter would be monounsaturated. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
JimLane wrote:
> Bob Pastorio wrote: > >> JimLane wrote: >> >>> Bob Pastorio wrote: >>> >>>> JimLane wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You did a great job of covering any salt flavor with your filling. >>>>> Why did you not test them plain, cake to cake no extras? >>>> >>>> It's the finished products that we were comparing. And this should have been the end of JimLane's "brilliance." But did he say, "Oh, I understand"? No, he didn't. >>>> But years of >>>> critical measuring and tasting the results says that it's a >>>> fruitless search at these quantities. I knew it wouldn't make any >>>> difference from experience. >>>> >>>> But can anyone seriously believe that an additional 1/12 of a >>>> teaspoon of salt will show up as even a remote flavor determinant in >>>> the 9-inch cake described above? I daresay that folks measuring with >>>> spoons will make an error within that range while trying hard to be >>>> accurate. And given that kitchen measures are in the "close enough" >>>> category, it's hard to imagine that a variation this small wouldn't >>>> fall invisibly in the cracks. >>>> >>>> The pile of salt that makes up 0.45 grams is a small pinch. It >>>> simply disappears into the other flavors, even without the filling >>>> and glaze. That ratio of additional salt to the volume of the whole >>>> cake is way more subtle than anybody I know can pick up. >>> >>> Hmmm, I see only your opinion. And then Poor JimLane posts that he only sees my opinion. Whose opinion was I supposed to post? Or was I supposed to post a lengthy dissertation detailing a study restricting all the variables to suit poor JimLane and proceeding like an earnest grad student trying to get published? Who knows, since JimLane didn't really add anything to the discussion except some shallow bitching. >> I'm desperately sorry I didn't convene a focus group to satisfy your >> urgent need for FACTS to demonstrate that 0.45 grams of salt is a tiny >> bit. And that a tiny bit of salt in more than a pound of other >> ingredients wouldn't make a difference. I'm desolated that you haven't >> had your yearnings for absolute 10-decimal-place accuracy satisfied. >> >> Here's a blast for you: kitchen measurements are *never* exact, >> particularly volumetric ones. The equipment we work with in normal >> kitchens isn't designed to be lab-accurate. Teaspoons and tablespoons >> of powders, leveled or not, will be off the exact measure by up to 10% >> depending on compaction. A tablespoon of salt of one size crystal >> won't hold the same weight of salt of a different crystal size. >> Recipes are written and tested by professionals with that >> understanding in mind. Every effort is made to write them to >> relatively exact measure, but cooking is a resilient science and >> forgives minor departures. A bit more or less of most ingredients >> won't materially affect the dish. Like everybody's Aunt Minnie cooks >> by the handful and it still works. >> >> In this case, the "bit more" is of such a small absolute quantity that >> it's irrelevant and below any threshold of taste. >> >>> Not a fact anywhere in sight. And poor JimLane now demonstrates that he doesn't really know what a fact is. So I explain. Does he get it? No, he doesn't. >> Well, the measurements are factual because I did them and recorded >> them for anyone who would wish to check. I mentioned that a dozen >> people couldn't see any difference. Silly me, I assumed that you could >> read some words on a screen and actually understand them. since I've >> tested saline solutions, by taste, in researching brine strengths, >> I've sampled concentrations down to 1 gram in a gallon of water >> (couldn't taste salt) and up to 300 grams per gallon and had others >> test them for subjective analyses for articles I wrote on brining and >> for my radio program. And that's why I wrote above: "But years of >> critical measuring and tasting the results says that it's a fruitless >> search at these quantities. I knew it wouldn't make any difference >> from experience." How would you have liked the "facts" to have been >> determined and expressed? How many witnesses would it take for you to >> accept the results? Just any witnesses or should they be somehow >> qualified? >> >>> You are >>> assuming that because you MIGHT not be able to taste it in the bare >>> cake, then no one else would either. That is arrogance. And stupidity. And now he tells me what I think. Do JimLane's wonderful analyses ever end? We don't know, but they haven't stopped yet, apparently. >> What's arrogant and stupid is your insistence that I do *my* >> experiment *your* way. Perhaps you failed to note in my earlier post >> that a dozen people tasted the cakes and were asked about any >> differences perceived. Most of them tasted snippets of plain cake >> after hearing the question from my daughter. Nobody tasted anything >> different between the cakes. Period. My 12-year-old showed better >> comprehension of what was happening than you do. We weren't trying for >> a Nobel prize, just an informal discussion around a diner table. >> >> I'm assuming that since I've actually tested saline concentrations >> from virtually nothing to very salty, I know where it begins to taste >> different. And this ain't it. >> >> See, Jim, I've been a foodservice professional since the 70's. Studied >> in Europe and traveled the world rather widely. I've operated all >> sorts of restaurants. I'm a professional recipe developer and a >> consultant for designing commercial products, some of which are in >> stores around the country. All formulated to extremely exact >> measurements with very exact processing and handling to meet FDA >> standards and commercial requirements. >> >> I realize you didn't know this, but it doesn't much minimize the >> silliness of your shitheaded note. The facts you crave include numbers >> I provided that you seem unable to grasp or are too unskilled to >> extrapolate from. I gave you a specific recipe to consider and assumed >> that you could understand the significance of the facts of it. Could >> grasp the orders of magnitude involved. Apparently not. >> >> Your note disqualifies you from discussions where the actual product >> isn't in front of you. Either you utterly lack the imagination to >> extrapolate a finished result from a recipe or you lack the kitchen >> competence to appreciate the very small, real-world amounts we've been >> dealing with in this question. Either way, you're over your head. >> >> I also notice that you didn't go test it to see if I was wrong. Just >> be a spectator and fling the contents of your head out onto the field. >> Go taste salt in a pint of water with 1/2 cup sugar in it. Start with >> 0.45 grams, 1/12 of a teaspoon, and see if you can taste it. Work your >> way up to maybe 15 grams and see. Don't have a scale that accurate? >> Ok, borrow mine. >> >> And you can save your lame judgments for others who aren't light years >> ahead of you. I'd guess that it would be a small crowd. >> >> Pastorio >> > Here's a fact for you, being as you want to be a clown about this, Poor, Poor JimLane. Posts nonsense and wonders why he gets smacked. Ignores what's on the screen to make his own tiny points. > even > the salt called for in many recipes is too much for my taste and I > regularly halve it. I know others who do the same for the same reason. Yes, and... You know, if you had said that up front... Nah. You'd still be a shithead. The salient fact is that you've offered combat and not a single test or idea of your own. Have you bothered to do the test I described above to find your true threshold of salt perception? No? What a surprise. You just want to bitch about something and this seems to be it. Have anything to contribute or will you merely continue to whine about the flaws in my methodology for a casual culinary experiment with a curious 12-year-old? Will you continue to prattle on about yourself and merely prattle? > Now did you have something to put up factually, or not? Like it says up top: "The facts you crave include numbers I provided that you seem unable to grasp or are too unskilled to extrapolate from. I gave you a specific recipe to consider and assumed that you could understand the significance of the facts of it." Perhaps in your dimwitted state, you missed the questions I asked in the post quoted. What "facts" are you looking for that weren't included above? What "facts" will make any difference to you and your personal conditions. What sorts of "facts" do you want? Here are some "facts" for you. You don't read/understand very well. You don't know much about the kitchen. You are whining about salt as perceived by normal people when you're atypical (if you're to be believed and I wonder) and the situation doesn't apply to your tastes. Since it wasn't about you and since you haven't raised any significant issues, why are you bothering to post *anything* about it? > By the way, you are stuck in reverse (the "R" does not mean race on your > Model T. This is your idea of wit? Have you absolutely nothing to contribute? Why did you even bother to chime in on this topic since you've demonstrated utter ignorance about it? By the way, indeed... Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
Martin Golding wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 03:59:48 +0000, Bob Pastorio wrote: > >>This is one of the perennial discussions amongst foodies. > > My, aren't we the dismissive reverse snob. (Not that you're not entitled ;-) I see how you came to that conclusion and I apologize for the tone. It was inadvertent. I meant that it's an ongoing topic when aficionados get together and talk about food. The whole mythology surrounding salt in butter, why it's there, how much was there before and how much now and is unsalted really any better and on and on. It's a topic I've sat in on many times and in many places. Once tasted several different brands of butter side by side just to see. Not much difference. I think of myself as a foodie and the only requirements to be one are to appreciate food and be interested in more than just recipes. >>The fact is that >>there's a bit over two teaspoons of salt in a whole pound of American >>commercial butter. I don't know a recipe where the salt content is so >>critical as to demand unsalted. > > Hollandaise. I don't think that I've ever gotten enough butter into a > beurre blanc to offend any but my most sodiumphobic friends. Well, I was wrong in that amount, it's actually about half what I said it is. About a teaspoon and a quarter in a whole pound. And you can't get enough butter, salted or unsalted, into a Hollandaise, IMO. I use salted. Might want to look at Jacques Pepin's thing with beurre blanc where he says you don't need anything besides just plain butter to make one. Some funny kitchen science overtaking ancient preparations. Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
Lena B Katz wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Bob Pastorio wrote: > > A bit more or less of most ingredients >>won't materially affect the dish. Like everybody's Aunt Minnie cooks >>by the handful and it still works. > > hence why most recipes call for "kosher salt" when they want a different > grind... As far as I'm concerned, kosher salt is an affectation unnecessary for virtually all recipes. It's bigger chunks of salt than table salt. NaCl. That's all. Different brands are different-sized. Some have anti-caking agents, some don't. All sound and fury... > ... unfortunately, you failed to mention that salt has other uses, other > than "tasting salty" just like red peppers have other uses (and effects on > the body) other than "being hot." From the way you wrote, I would assume > that you asked people if the cake "tasted salty" and not "did this cake > taste more flavorful than your last piece." Godfrey Daniel on a crutch. I didn't mention that salt has other functions because it wasn't a freakin treatise on salt and all it's applications and properties. It was about salted butter and unsalted butter and how they worked in the specific cakes. We weren't doing research for publication, it was a family gathering. My daughter and I asked if the cakes tasted any different from each other, and if they did, what was the difference. When *everybody* said "No difference" we then told them why we asked. Since it was a family group, it was informal and ran over two days as people came and went. > OTOH, having tastetested colored gelatin (with surprising results), i > realize that people don't know what their taste buds tell them, anywhoo. How, um, interesting. Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
Bob Pastorio wrote:
> JimLane wrote: > >> Bob Pastorio wrote: >> >>> JimLane wrote: >>> >>>> Bob Pastorio wrote: >>>> >>>>> JimLane wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You did a great job of covering any salt flavor with your filling. >>>>>> Why did you not test them plain, cake to cake no extras? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's the finished products that we were comparing. > > > And this should have been the end of JimLane's "brilliance." But did he > say, "Oh, I understand"? No, he didn't. > >>>>> But years of critical measuring and tasting the results says that >>>>> it's a fruitless search at these quantities. I knew it wouldn't >>>>> make any difference from experience. >>>>> >>>>> But can anyone seriously believe that an additional 1/12 of a >>>>> teaspoon of salt will show up as even a remote flavor determinant >>>>> in the 9-inch cake described above? I daresay that folks measuring >>>>> with spoons will make an error within that range while trying hard >>>>> to be accurate. And given that kitchen measures are in the "close >>>>> enough" category, it's hard to imagine that a variation this small >>>>> wouldn't fall invisibly in the cracks. >>>>> >>>>> The pile of salt that makes up 0.45 grams is a small pinch. It >>>>> simply disappears into the other flavors, even without the filling >>>>> and glaze. That ratio of additional salt to the volume of the whole >>>>> cake is way more subtle than anybody I know can pick up. >>>> >>>> >>>> Hmmm, I see only your opinion. > > > And then Poor JimLane posts that he only sees my opinion. Whose opinion > was I supposed to post? Or was I supposed to post a lengthy dissertation > detailing a study restricting all the variables to suit poor JimLane and > proceeding like an earnest grad student trying to get published? Who > knows, since JimLane didn't really add anything to the discussion except > some shallow bitching. > >>> I'm desperately sorry I didn't convene a focus group to satisfy your >>> urgent need for FACTS to demonstrate that 0.45 grams of salt is a >>> tiny bit. And that a tiny bit of salt in more than a pound of other >>> ingredients wouldn't make a difference. I'm desolated that you >>> haven't had your yearnings for absolute 10-decimal-place accuracy >>> satisfied. >>> >>> Here's a blast for you: kitchen measurements are *never* exact, >>> particularly volumetric ones. The equipment we work with in normal >>> kitchens isn't designed to be lab-accurate. Teaspoons and tablespoons >>> of powders, leveled or not, will be off the exact measure by up to >>> 10% depending on compaction. A tablespoon of salt of one size crystal >>> won't hold the same weight of salt of a different crystal size. >>> Recipes are written and tested by professionals with that >>> understanding in mind. Every effort is made to write them to >>> relatively exact measure, but cooking is a resilient science and >>> forgives minor departures. A bit more or less of most ingredients >>> won't materially affect the dish. Like everybody's Aunt Minnie cooks >>> by the handful and it still works. >>> >>> In this case, the "bit more" is of such a small absolute quantity >>> that it's irrelevant and below any threshold of taste. >>> >>>> Not a fact anywhere in sight. > > > And poor JimLane now demonstrates that he doesn't really know what a > fact is. So I explain. Does he get it? No, he doesn't. > >>> Well, the measurements are factual because I did them and recorded >>> them for anyone who would wish to check. I mentioned that a dozen >>> people couldn't see any difference. Silly me, I assumed that you >>> could read some words on a screen and actually understand them. since >>> I've tested saline solutions, by taste, in researching brine >>> strengths, I've sampled concentrations down to 1 gram in a gallon of >>> water (couldn't taste salt) and up to 300 grams per gallon and had >>> others test them for subjective analyses for articles I wrote on >>> brining and for my radio program. And that's why I wrote above: "But >>> years of critical measuring and tasting the results says that it's a >>> fruitless search at these quantities. I knew it wouldn't make any >>> difference from experience." How would you have liked the "facts" to >>> have been determined and expressed? How many witnesses would it take >>> for you to accept the results? Just any witnesses or should they be >>> somehow qualified? >>> >>>> You are >>>> assuming that because you MIGHT not be able to taste it in the bare >>>> cake, then no one else would either. That is arrogance. And stupidity. > > > And now he tells me what I think. Do JimLane's wonderful analyses ever > end? We don't know, but they haven't stopped yet, apparently. > >>> What's arrogant and stupid is your insistence that I do *my* >>> experiment *your* way. Perhaps you failed to note in my earlier post >>> that a dozen people tasted the cakes and were asked about any >>> differences perceived. Most of them tasted snippets of plain cake >>> after hearing the question from my daughter. Nobody tasted anything >>> different between the cakes. Period. My 12-year-old showed better >>> comprehension of what was happening than you do. We weren't trying >>> for a Nobel prize, just an informal discussion around a diner table. >>> >>> I'm assuming that since I've actually tested saline concentrations >>> from virtually nothing to very salty, I know where it begins to taste >>> different. And this ain't it. >>> >>> See, Jim, I've been a foodservice professional since the 70's. >>> Studied in Europe and traveled the world rather widely. I've operated >>> all sorts of restaurants. I'm a professional recipe developer and a >>> consultant for designing commercial products, some of which are in >>> stores around the country. All formulated to extremely exact >>> measurements with very exact processing and handling to meet FDA >>> standards and commercial requirements. >>> >>> I realize you didn't know this, but it doesn't much minimize the >>> silliness of your shitheaded note. The facts you crave include >>> numbers I provided that you seem unable to grasp or are too unskilled >>> to extrapolate from. I gave you a specific recipe to consider and >>> assumed that you could understand the significance of the facts of >>> it. Could grasp the orders of magnitude involved. Apparently not. >>> >>> Your note disqualifies you from discussions where the actual product >>> isn't in front of you. Either you utterly lack the imagination to >>> extrapolate a finished result from a recipe or you lack the kitchen >>> competence to appreciate the very small, real-world amounts we've >>> been dealing with in this question. Either way, you're over your head. >>> >>> I also notice that you didn't go test it to see if I was wrong. Just >>> be a spectator and fling the contents of your head out onto the >>> field. Go taste salt in a pint of water with 1/2 cup sugar in it. >>> Start with 0.45 grams, 1/12 of a teaspoon, and see if you can taste >>> it. Work your way up to maybe 15 grams and see. Don't have a scale >>> that accurate? Ok, borrow mine. >>> >>> And you can save your lame judgments for others who aren't light >>> years ahead of you. I'd guess that it would be a small crowd. >>> >>> Pastorio >>> >> Here's a fact for you, being as you want to be a clown about this, > > > Poor, Poor JimLane. Posts nonsense and wonders why he gets smacked. > Ignores what's on the screen to make his own tiny points. > >> even the salt called for in many recipes is too much for my taste and >> I regularly halve it. I know others who do the same for the same reason. > > > Yes, and... > > You know, if you had said that up front... Nah. You'd still be a shithead. > > The salient fact is that you've offered combat and not a single test or > idea of your own. Have you bothered to do the test I described above to > find your true threshold of salt perception? No? What a surprise. You > just want to bitch about something and this seems to be it. > > Have anything to contribute or will you merely continue to whine about > the flaws in my methodology for a casual culinary experiment with a > curious 12-year-old? Will you continue to prattle on about yourself and > merely prattle? > >> Now did you have something to put up factually, or not? > > > Like it says up top: > "The facts you crave include numbers I provided that you seem unable to > grasp or are too unskilled to extrapolate from. I gave you a specific > recipe to consider and assumed that you could understand the > significance of the facts of it." > > Perhaps in your dimwitted state, you missed the questions I asked in the > post quoted. What "facts" are you looking for that weren't included > above? What "facts" will make any difference to you and your personal > conditions. What sorts of "facts" do you want? > > Here are some "facts" for you. You don't read/understand very well. You > don't know much about the kitchen. You are whining about salt as > perceived by normal people when you're atypical (if you're to be > believed and I wonder) and the situation doesn't apply to your tastes. > Since it wasn't about you and since you haven't raised any significant > issues, why are you bothering to post *anything* about it? > >> By the way, you are stuck in reverse (the "R" does not mean race on >> your Model T. > > > This is your idea of wit? Have you absolutely nothing to contribute? Why > did you even bother to chime in on this topic since you've demonstrated > utter ignorance about it? > > By the way, indeed... > > Pastorio > I may be a shit head but that is way up the feeding chain from you. You're normally associated with the word "unmitigated." You also need to remember liars figure and figures lie and your numbers are not the absolute truth when it comes to taste despite your protestations. Your numbers are irrelevant because this thread is about taste changes that occur when adding salt in terms of salted butter, or did that simple fact go right over your head? jim |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
Okay, let's clean this up a bit so the silly clown can see what is what:
Bob Pastorio wrote: To be sure. But the amount of salt in butter today will make not a whit of difference in just about any recipe I've ever seen. A whole stick of butter has a tad over a half-teaspoon of salt. There's so little salt in butter that I've never been able to taste the difference in finished product, even tasting side by side. It's the finished products that we were comparing. But years of critical measuring and tasting the results says that it's a fruitless search at these quantities. I knew it wouldn't make any difference from experience. But can anyone seriously believe that an additional 1/12 of a teaspoon of salt will show up as even a remote flavor determinant in the 9-inch cake described above? I daresay that folks measuring with spoons will make an error within that range while trying hard to be accurate. And given that kitchen measures are in the "close enough" category, it's hard to imagine that a variation this small wouldn't fall invisibly in the cracks. The pile of salt that makes up 0.45 grams is a small pinch. It simply disappears into the other flavors, even without the filling and glaze. That ratio of additional salt to the volume of the whole cake is way more subtle than anybody I know can pick up. I'm assuming that since I've actually tested saline concentrations from virtually nothing to very salty, I know where it begins to taste different. And this ain't it. And then Poor JimLane posts that he only sees my opinion. Now, other than personal insults, you DO NOT HAVE one single fact to support any of these statements. I DID NOT argue with the mg of this vs. that, I asked for numbers to support your contention (empirical will do nicely and any peer-reviewed studies you care to cite) that no one can tell the difference in small quantities. That is your statement, not a fact anywhere in evidence. And that makes it opinion and like assholes (you, specifically) everyone has one. Now silly boy, put up the proof. Or, make like a child, best seen and not heard from. jim |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghee
Lisette wrote:
> Is this the correct method? (obtained from "Food 911") Why the > specification for unsalted butter? Will it harden upon refrigeration? > Unsalted butter is used because ghee is used for making a lot of Indian sweets liek halwa, jalebi's, etc., etc. As for the posters who are wondering what "Vegetable Ghee" is, yes it is a mixture of hydrogenated vegetable oils that has a ghee-like texture. It is popular because it is a much cheaper (at least in India) alternative to "pure ghee". Hope this helps. MAYA AA #2152 *** Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare. I think some people in togas are plotting against me. *** |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Ghee now available at Trader Joe's | General Cooking | |||
| Clarified butter (ghee): | General Cooking | |||
| ghee in baking | Baking | |||
| Indian - Ghee - excess thereof. | General Cooking | |||
| Ghee | Asian Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
