I sometimes buy powdered Chili Arbol from a local store;
in my experience it is identical in color, hotness and
flavor to cayenne. Wikipedia says the are the same biological
species.

Is there any difference?

Steve

Bubbabob > wrote:

(Steve Pope) wrote:

>> Is there any difference?

>Flavor. Definitely flavor.

>Same species, very different cultivar. Arbols are also usually much smaller
>than cayennes and less fleshy.

>If you're buying powdered chiles they're probably too old and oxidized for
>the differences to be obvious.

Well, possibly, but I used dried chilis alot and there are definite
culinary difference over fresh chilis that can be used to advantage.
Furthermore fresh chilis, of a given variety, are not alwasy
in season.

The main thing I'm wondering about is whether there's enough
of a difference between these two products that I should keep
both on hand. I'm leaning towards "probably not", but so
far I instinctively put cayenne into an Italian dish, and arbol
into a Mexican dish.

Steve

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 19:27:50 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
Pope) wrote:

>I sometimes buy powdered Chili Arbol from a local store;
>in my experience it is identical in color, hotness and
>flavor to cayenne. Wikipedia says the are the same biological
>species.
>
>Is there any difference?
>
>Steve

They look different as whole pods. Most, if not all chiles are
members of the same species.


modom

modom <somebody> wrote:

>They look different as whole pods.

Thanks

>Most, if not all chiles are
>members of the same species.

According to Wikipedia, five common species. Cayenne and arbol
are from C. frutescens, most other chilis and sweet peppers
from C. annuum, and habaneros are C. chinense.

Steve

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 20:35:23 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
Pope) wrote:

>modom <somebody> wrote:
>
>>They look different as whole pods.
>
>Thanks
>
>>Most, if not all chiles are
>>members of the same species.
>
>According to Wikipedia, five common species. Cayenne and arbol
>are from C. frutescens, most other chilis and sweet peppers
>from C. annuum, and habaneros are C. chinense.
>
>Steve

You're right, I think. I misspoke. It was C. annuum I was thinking
about. And I knew that habs are C chinense. Somebody here told me
years ago that cross pollination between the two can produce fertile
offspring. Does this mean the species are not really that different?
(College biology class was a long time ago.)


modom

Steve Pope wrote:
> modom <somebody> wrote:
>
>
>>They look different as whole pods.
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>>Most, if not all chiles are
>>members of the same species.
>
>
> According to Wikipedia, five common species. Cayenne and arbol
> are from C. frutescens, most other chilis and sweet peppers
> from C. annuum, and habaneros are C. chinense.
>
> Steve


Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. Cayenne and (I think)
arbol are C. annuum. Tabascos are C. frutescens.

I've caught other errors on Wikipedia too. Usually the article is right
for the most part and screws up a few details.

Best regards,
Bob

Steve Pope wrote:
> Bubbabob > wrote:
>
> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
> >> Is there any difference?
>
> >Flavor. Definitely flavor.
>
> >Same species, very different cultivar. Arbols are also usually much smaller
> >than cayennes and less fleshy.
>
> >If you're buying powdered chiles they're probably too old and oxidized for
> >the differences to be obvious.
>
> Well, possibly, but I used dried chilis alot and there are definite
> culinary difference over fresh chilis that can be used to advantage.
> Furthermore fresh chilis, of a given variety, are not alwasy
> in season.
>
> The main thing I'm wondering about is whether there's enough
> of a difference between these two products that I should keep
> both on hand. I'm leaning towards "probably not", but so
> far I instinctively put cayenne into an Italian dish, and arbol
> into a Mexican dish.

Growing conditions (soil, weather, etc.) will make a major difference
(flavor, appearance, etc.) even using seeds of the same plant.

For a long time I thought the same thing because of the their appearance.

If you taste the two peppers next to each other, the cayenne will clock in with a substantially high scoville unit. When I convert a recipe from arbol to cayenne, I have to reduce the quantity by half or the dish will be too hot.

I love the taste of arbol. Cayenne is mostly heat to me.

zxcvbob > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> According to Wikipedia, five common species. Cayenne and arbol
>> are from C. frutescens, most other chilis and sweet peppers
>> from C. annuum, and habaneros are C. chinense.

>Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. Cayenne and (I think)
>arbol are C. annuum. Tabascos are C. frutescens.

>I've caught other errors on Wikipedia too. Usually the article is right
>for the most part and screws up a few details.

Yes, thanks for the reminder of how unreliable the entries
can be. Of course you supposed to correct them when you find
a wrong one but I never do that either.

teve

>I've caught other errors on Wikipedia too. Usually the article is right
>for the most part and screws up a few details.

Wikipedia has huge problems with factual truth. Since literally anyone
can change a fact, they can change true facts to false ones.

And getting it changed back can invoke all of the social ills of the
Wikipedia's design.

It entrenches a lot of bad information by making the right people
walk away and leave it to rot.

--Blair

at Sun, 08 Jan 2006 19:27:50 GMT in >, spope33
@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote :

>I sometimes buy powdered Chili Arbol from a local store;
>in my experience it is identical in color, hotness and
>flavor to cayenne. Wikipedia says the are the same biological
>species.

From a flavour standpoint, Arbol tend to have a flatter, "woodier" flavour
than Cayenne which is "fruitier". From a heat standpoint, the crucial thing
isn't the power but the intensity profile. Arbol, a little like Thai
chiles, comes on right away with a recognisable, intense "spike", so that
right away you're jolted to life. Then it subsides gradually before
building up to moderate heat at the end. Meanwhile, Cayenne is more
consistent and insistent with its heat, much more like a defensive lineman
in football, pushing you back, back with irresistible force. It just stays
at the same, medium-high level. That level isn't as momentarily intense as
that quick Arbol spike, but it lasts much longer, so the impression of hear
may be more. Added to food, then, Arbol is better if the idea is to create
interest without overwhelming the taste of other things. Cayenne is better
when the idea is heat without mercy or when you want the flavour of the
chile itself to be the keynote.

How this will play out in powdered chili is a little different, I think.
The flavour characteristics won't be as prominent, so it will be the
differences in how the heat manifests that will dominate.


--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

Steve Pope wrote:
> Bubbabob > wrote:
>
> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
> >> Is there any difference?
>
> >Flavor. Definitely flavor.
>
> >Same species, very different cultivar. Arbols are also usually much smaller
> >than cayennes and less fleshy.
>
> >If you're buying powdered chiles they're probably too old and oxidized for
> >the differences to be obvious.
>
> Well, possibly, but I used dried chilis alot and there are definite
> culinary difference over fresh chilis that can be used to advantage.
> Furthermore fresh chilis, of a given variety, are not alwasy
> in season.

I grow Numex Big Jims and poblanos, but will probably grow a few others
this year.
>
> The main thing I'm wondering about is whether there's enough
> of a difference between these two products that I should keep
> both on hand. I'm leaning towards "probably not", but so
> far I instinctively put cayenne into an Italian dish, and arbol
> into a Mexican dish.

I like this site: http://tomatogrowers.com/hot.htm and this one:
http://www.chilepepperinstitute.org/NMSUCultivars_1.htm Heck, I just
like to look at chiles.
>
> Steve

--Bryan