Steeping tea in milk
Hello all,
Does anyone know if steeping your tea directly in heated milk (i.e. no water involved in the process) will affect it's infusion? Will using milk only decrease the amount of "goodstuffs" (for lack of a better word... and knowledge) that's extracted from the tea leaves? Thanks. |
Steeping tea in milk
|
Steeping tea in milk
> wrote:
> >Does anyone know if steeping your tea directly in heated milk (i.e. no >water involved in the process) will affect it's infusion? Will using >milk only decrease the amount of "goodstuffs" (for lack of a better >word... and knowledge) that's extracted from the tea leaves? Yes, it changes the way the tea tastes considerably, because you are now doing an oil extraction as well. I think the result is rather unpleasant but some folks like it for spiced masala teas. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Steeping tea in milk
The chemical reaction of the polyphenols in tea with proteins and fats
contained in milk has been scientifically researched. The latest consensus I heard of (forgot the source) says that adding milk doesnīt significantly "block" the polyphenols. You might want to try a mix of 50% water/50% milk as it is widely practised in India and Nepal. Bring to a boil, add tea (& chai spices), steep, "enjoy". Karsten |
Steeping tea in milk
Agree. This is very very common in India and used this way for CTC tea.
The uppity sahibs who use the "teapot" and the "tea cozy" and brew Darjeelings don't add milk till the tea is poured into the cup. The others get the 50-50 mixture to boil, throw in the CTC, boil for 30 seconds and simmer some more. In some households, more water+milk+CTC is added to this during the day as more tea is needed. -- Aloke ---- to reply by e-mail remove 123 and change invalid to com > wrote in message oups.com... The chemical reaction of the polyphenols in tea with proteins and fats contained in milk has been scientifically researched. The latest consensus I heard of (forgot the source) says that adding milk doesnīt significantly "block" the polyphenols. You might want to try a mix of 50% water/50% milk as it is widely practised in India and Nepal. Bring to a boil, add tea (& chai spices), steep, "enjoy". Karsten |
Steeping tea in milk
|
Steeping tea in milk
|
Steeping tea in milk
>> You might want to try a mix of 50% water/50% milk as it is widely >> practised in India and Nepal. Bring to a boil, add tea (& chai spices), >> steep, "enjoy". > > Did you not just forget something here? The sickly sweet taste! Rather negative description of proper chai, eh? Add processed white sugar to anything, and you'll drive the life right out of it. For chai, put in jagery, or however you spell it. That's a rough raw sugar that adds flavor and sweetness to the brew. And for the love of God, don't under any circumstances buy any product called "chai"; instead, make it up yourself. I have spoken. OP is of course correct on all counts. Michael |
Steeping tea in milk
Lars schrieb:
> Did you not just forget something here? The sickly sweet taste! Not exactly forgotten, I still get the shivers when I just think of it, yuk ... My first words in Hindi some x years ago: "bi na chini" - no sugar (please). Karsten [12 yr old green Menghai in der Tasse] |
Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai
|
Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai
Michael wrote:
> Speaking of which, talk to us about your 12 year old green Menghai. Brewed in my beloved, leaky 5$ Yixing pot itīs mellow and complex, a pretty dense, "round" and savory spectrum with sweet notes of algae and warm spices, delicate flashes of clove, very dynamic through the steeps, sweet and silky almost creamy lingering aftertaste. What I almost like most about this tea is the lovely color it develops after around the 3rd steep, a vibrating salmon pink that tends toward indian red. My personal #1 in my humble collection, complexitywise it will serve as a kind of touchstone during my next trip to Yunnan. Karsten [next candidate: 2006 bio-organic FF Darjeeling Pouchong] |
Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai
writes:
> Michael wrote: > > Speaking of which, talk to us about your 12 year old green Menghai. > > Brewed in my beloved, leaky 5$ Yixing pot itīs mellow and complex, a > pretty dense, "round" and savory spectrum with sweet notes of algae > and warm spices, delicate flashes of clove, very dynamic through the > steeps, sweet and silky almost creamy lingering aftertaste. I think I know (and love) what you mean by algae: the taste and smell of a freshwater pond in summer. For years I've thought that, if by some miracle - which might be good or bad - our vocabulary for describing tea gets standardized, the word for this will be "pondy". /Lew --- Lew Perin / http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html |
Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai
Lewis 4/13/06
> writes: > >> Michael wrote: >>> Speaking of which, talk to us about your 12 year old green Menghai. >> >> Brewed in my beloved, leaky 5$ Yixing pot itīs mellow and complex, a >> pretty dense, "round" and savory spectrum with sweet notes of algae >> and warm spices, delicate flashes of clove, very dynamic through the >> steeps, sweet and silky almost creamy lingering aftertaste. > > I think I know (and love) what you mean by algae: the taste and smell > of a freshwater pond in summer. For years I've thought that, if by > some miracle - which might be good or bad - our vocabulary for > describing tea gets standardized, the word for this will be "pondy". Pondy it is, and I wonder if it could be what I affectionately call "musty" on occasion. Michael |
Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai
Michael Plant > writes:
> Lewis 4/13/06 > > > writes: > > > >> Michael wrote: > >>> Speaking of which, talk to us about your 12 year old green Menghai. > >> > >> Brewed in my beloved, leaky 5$ Yixing pot itīs mellow and complex, a > >> pretty dense, "round" and savory spectrum with sweet notes of algae > >> and warm spices, delicate flashes of clove, very dynamic through the > >> steeps, sweet and silky almost creamy lingering aftertaste. > > > > I think I know (and love) what you mean by algae: the taste and smell > > of a freshwater pond in summer. For years I've thought that, if by > > some miracle - which might be good or bad - our vocabulary for > > describing tea gets standardized, the word for this will be "pondy". > > Pondy it is, and I wonder if it could be what I affectionately call "musty" > on occasion. Michael Well, it isn't what *I* call "musty": a kind of mammalian scent, I'd say. When I think of the mustiness of a nice young Pu'er, I think of my cat Buster's fur. We aren't getting this thing standardized, are we? /Lew --- Lew Perin / http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html |
Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai
Lew wrote:
> I think I know (and love) what you mean by algae: the taste and smell of a freshwater pond in summer. Lew, thanks a lot for sharing that picture. It helped me a lot to reflect on the "spontaneous", "automatic" generation of my own aroma/taste visuals, all those numberless potential factors that flow into those hallucinations. Coming back to the Menghai, the visual that spontaneously showed up on my internal screen was that of a camp spot on a late spring meadow close to the beach on one of the Lofoten islands. Looking back it reflects more of the salty/savory aspects of that specific tea but now your summer pond not only matches the overall algaeish and herbal facets better, but also reflects some of that teas aspects ("mustiness"/decomposition of organic matter) I didnīt mention. Wonderful. While I happily add "pondy" to my tea tasting vocabulary, I however donīt see any advantage in a standardization of tea terminology but still believe in using free and spontaneuos asscocations. Especially after having tasted a large number of Darjeelings together with professional tea tasters who indulge in endless repetitions of their pretty limited professional terminology (woody, brisky, green, ...) without deviating a single time from that muddy beaten track. IMO not exactly helpful in communicating the impressions of a sensual experience as complex as tea. Karsten |
Standardizing vocabulary (was: Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai)
writes:
> [..."pondy"...] > While I happily add "pondy" to my tea tasting vocabulary, I however > donīt see any advantage in a standardization of tea terminology but > still believe in using free and spontaneuos asscocations. Especially > after having tasted a large number of Darjeelings together with > professional tea tasters who indulge in endless repetitions of their > pretty limited professional terminology (woody, brisky, green, ...) > without deviating a single time from that muddy beaten track. IMO > not exactly helpful in communicating the impressions of a sensual > experience as complex as tea. I'm pretty ambivalent about trying to standardize tea vocabulary, too. I wouldn't want to be limited to a finite list of adjectives, certainly, but I do find it frustrating that we have so little idea what the other is experiencing. (Yes, I'm aware that there are philosophical issues here, and I don't think it would help to ventilate them.) I wonder if the professional tea taster jargon might be a place to *start* (with black teas only, I'd imagine.) Does anyone know if the tea tasters reliably agree with each other about whether a given tea is woody, etc.? Has this been studied at Tocklai or someplace? The tea taster jargon is just a *possible* starting place; there are others out there, certainly in China. Here's a possible comparison. I happen to care about music at least as much as I do about tea. Music is pretty complex, too, not to mention sensual. I find that I can glean a lot of useful information - that is, bearing on whether I would actually *like* the music - from reading music critics, often even those I dislike. I don't have the same level of confidence reading what people write about tea, and it bothers me. /Lew --- Lew Perin / http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html |
Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai
Lewis 4/13/06
> Michael Plant > writes: > >> Lewis 4/13/06 >> >>> writes: >>> >>>> Michael wrote: >>>>> Speaking of which, talk to us about your 12 year old green Menghai. >>>> >>>> Brewed in my beloved, leaky 5$ Yixing pot itīs mellow and complex, a >>>> pretty dense, "round" and savory spectrum with sweet notes of algae >>>> and warm spices, delicate flashes of clove, very dynamic through the >>>> steeps, sweet and silky almost creamy lingering aftertaste. >>> >>> I think I know (and love) what you mean by algae: the taste and smell >>> of a freshwater pond in summer. For years I've thought that, if by >>> some miracle - which might be good or bad - our vocabulary for >>> describing tea gets standardized, the word for this will be "pondy". >> >> Pondy it is, and I wonder if it could be what I affectionately call "musty" >> on occasion. Michael > > Well, it isn't what *I* call "musty": a kind of mammalian scent, I'd > say. When I think of the mustiness of a nice young Pu'er, I think of > my cat Buster's fur. We aren't getting this thing standardized, are we? > > /Lew No, we're not. But it's in the discussion of the words rather than the words per se that get us there. Once we're standardized, we're boring. (Hey, some of us perhaps accomplish that feat already.) I'll see if Jenny's fur works as well as Buster's. I think perhaps that smell is "soupy." Michael |
Standardizing vocabulary (was: Steeping tea in milk segueinto Menghai)
>> [..."pondy"...]
>> While I happily add "pondy" to my tea tasting vocabulary, I however >> donīt see any advantage in a standardization of tea terminology but >> still believe in using free and spontaneuos asscocations. Especially >> after having tasted a large number of Darjeelings together with >> professional tea tasters who indulge in endless repetitions of their >> pretty limited professional terminology (woody, brisky, green, ...) >> without deviating a single time from that muddy beaten track. IMO >> not exactly helpful in communicating the impressions of a sensual >> experience as complex as tea. > > I'm pretty ambivalent about trying to standardize tea vocabulary, > too. Me too, needless to say. >I wouldn't want to be limited to a finite list of adjectives, > certainly, but I do find it frustrating that we have so little idea > what the other is experiencing. We get there by expanding our analogies and discussions of them. > > (Yes, I'm aware that there are philosophical issues here, and I don't > think it would help to ventilate them.) Oh, it's warm out here in NYC. I'll just open that window. There. Ventilated. > > I wonder if the professional tea taster jargon might be a place to > *start* (with black teas only, I'd imagine.) Does anyone know if the > tea tasters reliably agree with each other about whether a given tea > is woody, etc.? Has this been studied at Tocklai or someplace? If you are refering to the "Tippy Orange Pekoe" crowd, I'd say it's a total crock of shit and worthy of the dustbin of tea history. If you mean Oleg's taste without aroma system -- his Russian group's system, that is -- then we might be on to something, at least for starters. (That was Tea Disc, I think. Oleg of Russia suggests a system based on taste and mouth sensations rather than aroma. > The tea taster jargon is just a *possible* starting place; there are > others out there, certainly in China. Yup. (That's my contribution.) > > Here's a possible comparison. I happen to care about music at least > as much as I do about tea. Music is pretty complex, too, not to > mention sensual. I find that I can glean a lot of useful information > - that is, bearing on whether I would actually *like* the music - from > reading music critics, often even those I dislike. I don't have the > same level of confidence reading what people write about tea, and it > bothers me. Seriously, could you give an example of the kind of comment a music critic might make that suggests to you how well you might like the music critiqued? I think I see your point, but I'm not sure. I get a tremendous amount of information form tea comments, but it is admittedly based on my (perceived) knowledge of the speaker and his relationship to tea. Finally, given the sole choice between a rigid standardization on the one hand and "free and spontaeous association" on the other, I'd go with the latter every time. Michael |
Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai
Michael Plant > writes:
> Lewis 4/13/06 > [...pondy=musty?...] > > > > Well, it isn't what *I* call "musty": a kind of mammalian scent, I'd > > say. When I think of the mustiness of a nice young Pu'er, I think of > > my cat Buster's fur. We aren't getting this thing standardized, are we? > > No, we're not. But it's in the discussion of the words rather than the words > per se that get us there. Once we're standardized, we're boring. (Hey, some > of us perhaps accomplish that feat already.) I'll see if Jenny's fur works > as well as Buster's. I think perhaps that smell is "soupy." I'm sure Buster would be interested in Jenny's fur. Shall we ask the two of them if a tasting session would be agreeable? /Lew --- Lew Perin / http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html |
Standardizing vocabulary (was: Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai)
Michael Plant > writes:
> > [...Lew wondering...] > > I wonder if the professional tea taster jargon might be a place to > > *start* (with black teas only, I'd imagine.) Does anyone know if the > > tea tasters reliably agree with each other about whether a given tea > > is woody, etc.? Has this been studied at Tocklai or someplace? > > If you are refering to the "Tippy Orange Pekoe" crowd, I'd say it's > a total crock of shit and worthy of the dustbin of tea history. You mean you're sure that tea tasters, say, from two different Calcutta brokers independently slurping the same DJ would describe it in ways that don't overlap much? Or do you mean that, even if they reliably agree, their vocabulary covers nothing that would be interesting to refined palates like, uh, ours? Or what? > If you mean Oleg's taste without aroma system -- his Russian group's > system, that is -- then we might be on to something, at least for > starters. (That was Tea Disc, I think. Oleg of Russia suggests a > system based on taste and mouth sensations rather than aroma. Do you have a pointer to this? > [...] > > Here's a possible comparison. I happen to care about music at least > > as much as I do about tea. Music is pretty complex, too, not to > > mention sensual. I find that I can glean a lot of useful information > > - that is, bearing on whether I would actually *like* the music - from > > reading music critics, often even those I dislike. I don't have the > > same level of confidence reading what people write about tea, and it > > bothers me. > > Seriously, could you give an example of the kind of comment a music > critic might make that suggests to you how well you might like the > music critiqued? I think I see your point, but I'm not sure. I'd rather not. Why get into details of music and music criticism? There are multiple approaches there, too, as you no doubt know. > I get a tremendous amount of information form tea comments, but it > is admittedly based on my (perceived) knowledge of the speaker and > his relationship to tea. I didn't mean to say that I talk a lot here but find nothing worth listening to; far from it. But the closer the conversation comes to the actual experience of having tea in your mouth, the more opaque all the words seem. (This is a first approximation, of course. Some of us write evocatively about tastes and aromas, at least sometimes.) > Finally, given the sole choice between a rigid standardization on > the one hand and "free and spontaeous association" on the other, I'd > go with the latter every time. Well, of course, but who's denying you the use of both? (Leaving aside the question of whether standardization must be rigid.) /Lew 4th steep of 10-year-old Hejiang/Ha Giang so-called Pu'er --- Lew Perin / http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html |
Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai
Lewis 4/13/06
> Michael Plant > writes: > >> Lewis 4/13/06 >> [...pondy=musty?...] >>> >>> Well, it isn't what *I* call "musty": a kind of mammalian scent, I'd >>> say. When I think of the mustiness of a nice young Pu'er, I think of >>> my cat Buster's fur. We aren't getting this thing standardized, are we? >> >> No, we're not. But it's in the discussion of the words rather than the words >> per se that get us there. Once we're standardized, we're boring. (Hey, some >> of us perhaps accomplish that feat already.) I'll see if Jenny's fur works >> as well as Buster's. I think perhaps that smell is "soupy." > > I'm sure Buster would be interested in Jenny's fur. Shall we ask the > two of them if a tasting session would be agreeable? I'll ask, but I guess we both know the answer. Unless Jenny's magnanimity and trusting nature reach beyond reason, in which case I'll answer for her. Michael |
Standardizing vocabulary (was: Steeping tea in milk segueinto Menghai)
Lewis 4/13/06
> Michael Plant > writes: > >>> [...Lew wondering...] >>> I wonder if the professional tea taster jargon might be a place to >>> *start* (with black teas only, I'd imagine.) Does anyone know if the >>> tea tasters reliably agree with each other about whether a given tea >>> is woody, etc.? Has this been studied at Tocklai or someplace? >> >> If you are refering to the "Tippy Orange Pekoe" crowd, I'd say it's >> a total crock of shit and worthy of the dustbin of tea history. > > You mean you're sure that tea tasters, say, from two different > Calcutta brokers independently slurping the same DJ would describe it > in ways that don't overlap much? Or do you mean that, even if they > reliably agree, their vocabulary covers nothing that would be > interesting to refined palates like, uh, ours? Or what? Well, actually that system could conceivably tell us much about the physical nature of the leaf that goes into the tea, but nothing about the aroma or taste of that tea, right? We learn whether the leaf is small or large, broken or unbroken, includes buds or doesn't, and the like. My gentle comment above spoke more to the fact that one man's FTGFOP is another man's something else. It's not standardized, but the words suggest that it is. Or perhaps I'm all wet. I sense a touch of sarcasm in your question. (I should say that from what I understand, and I could be wrong, please correct me if that's the case, this nomenclature does not involve tasting, it involves looking.) Michael > >> If you mean Oleg's taste without aroma system -- his Russian group's >> system, that is -- then we might be on to something, at least for >> starters. (That was Tea Disc, I think. Oleg of Russia suggests a >> system based on taste and mouth sensations rather than aroma. > > Do you have a pointer to this? > >> [...] >>> Here's a possible comparison. I happen to care about music at least >>> as much as I do about tea. Music is pretty complex, too, not to >>> mention sensual. I find that I can glean a lot of useful information >>> - that is, bearing on whether I would actually *like* the music - from >>> reading music critics, often even those I dislike. I don't have the >>> same level of confidence reading what people write about tea, and it >>> bothers me. >> >> Seriously, could you give an example of the kind of comment a music >> critic might make that suggests to you how well you might like the >> music critiqued? I think I see your point, but I'm not sure. > > I'd rather not. Why get into details of music and music criticism? > There are multiple approaches there, too, as you no doubt know. > >> I get a tremendous amount of information form tea comments, but it >> is admittedly based on my (perceived) knowledge of the speaker and >> his relationship to tea. > > I didn't mean to say that I talk a lot here but find nothing worth > listening to; far from it. But the closer the conversation comes to > the actual experience of having tea in your mouth, the more opaque all > the words seem. (This is a first approximation, of course. Some of > us write evocatively about tastes and aromas, at least sometimes.) > >> Finally, given the sole choice between a rigid standardization on >> the one hand and "free and spontaeous association" on the other, I'd >> go with the latter every time. > > Well, of course, but who's denying you the use of both? (Leaving > aside the question of whether standardization must be rigid.) > > /Lew > 4th steep of 10-year-old Hejiang/Ha Giang so-called Pu'er > --- > Lew Perin / > http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html |
Standardizing vocabulary (was: Steeping tea in milk segue into Menghai)
Michael Plant > writes:
> Lewis 4/13/06 > > > Michael Plant > writes: > > > >>> [...Lew wondering...] > >>> I wonder if the professional tea taster jargon might be a place to > >>> *start* (with black teas only, I'd imagine.) Does anyone know if the > >>> tea tasters reliably agree with each other about whether a given tea > >>> is woody, etc.? Has this been studied at Tocklai or someplace? > >> > >> If you are refering to the "Tippy Orange Pekoe" crowd, I'd say it's > >> a total crock of shit and worthy of the dustbin of tea history. > > > > You mean you're sure that tea tasters, say, from two different > > Calcutta brokers independently slurping the same DJ would describe it > > in ways that don't overlap much? Or do you mean that, even if they > > reliably agree, their vocabulary covers nothing that would be > > interesting to refined palates like, uh, ours? Or what? > > Well, actually that system could conceivably tell us much about the physical > nature of the leaf that goes into the tea, but nothing about the aroma or > taste of that tea, right? We learn whether the leaf is small or large, > broken or unbroken, includes buds or doesn't, and the like. My gentle > comment above spoke more to the fact that one man's FTGFOP is another man's > something else. It's not standardized, but the words suggest that it is. Or > perhaps I'm all wet. I sense a touch of sarcasm in your question. (I should > say that from what I understand, and I could be wrong, please correct me if > that's the case, this nomenclature does not involve tasting, it involves > looking.) Oh, I see what you mean. I wasn't referring to those abbreviations regarding *dry leaf* appearance, but to the tea tasters' adjectives for *liquor*. So was Karsten, unless I miss my guess. /Lew --- Lew Perin / http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html |
Standardizing vocabulary (was: Steeping tea in milk segueinto Menghai)
Lewis 4/14/06
> Michael Plant > writes: > >> Lewis 4/13/06 >> >>> Michael Plant > writes: >>> >>>>> [...Lew wondering...] >>>>> I wonder if the professional tea taster jargon might be a place to >>>>> *start* (with black teas only, I'd imagine.) Does anyone know if the >>>>> tea tasters reliably agree with each other about whether a given tea >>>>> is woody, etc.? Has this been studied at Tocklai or someplace? >>>> >>>> If you are refering to the "Tippy Orange Pekoe" crowd, I'd say it's >>>> a total crock of shit and worthy of the dustbin of tea history. >>> >>> You mean you're sure that tea tasters, say, from two different >>> Calcutta brokers independently slurping the same DJ would describe it >>> in ways that don't overlap much? Or do you mean that, even if they >>> reliably agree, their vocabulary covers nothing that would be >>> interesting to refined palates like, uh, ours? Or what? >> >> Well, actually that system could conceivably tell us much about the physical >> nature of the leaf that goes into the tea, but nothing about the aroma or >> taste of that tea, right? We learn whether the leaf is small or large, >> broken or unbroken, includes buds or doesn't, and the like. My gentle >> comment above spoke more to the fact that one man's FTGFOP is another man's >> something else. It's not standardized, but the words suggest that it is. Or >> perhaps I'm all wet. I sense a touch of sarcasm in your question. (I should >> say that from what I understand, and I could be wrong, please correct me if >> that's the case, this nomenclature does not involve tasting, it involves >> looking.) > > Oh, I see what you mean. I wasn't referring to those abbreviations > regarding *dry leaf* appearance, but to the tea tasters' adjectives > for *liquor*. So was Karsten, unless I miss my guess. Oh, did I shift meaning? Sorry. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter