Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
Cooking Equipment (rec.food.equipment) Discussion of food-related equipment. Includes items used in food preparation and storage, including major and minor appliances, gadgets and utensils, infrastructure, and food- and recipe-related software. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,alt.cookies.yum.yum.yum,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi:
Here is how my 1st-class butter is made. Raw, uncooked, organic, un-homogenized, un-pasteurized cow's milk is used. Purely-anaerobic, non-pathogenic bacteria are what indirectly turn the milk into butter. Throughout the process, the butter is mysteriously protected completely against any degradation or abnormality [e.g. rancidity] other than bacterial decay. No microbes other than purely-anaerobic, non-pathogenic bacteria enter the milk/butter or travel anywhere near the milk/butter or their containers. First, any and all minerals, metals, ions, and electrolytes are removed from the milk. Then the bacteria enter the milk. These bacteria initially feed on all substances in the milk *excluding* the following entities naturally present in the milk: Lipids [including non-greasy lipids] Greasy substances [including greasy substances not classified as lipids] Elastic substances Natural emulsifiers Creamy substances Slimy substances The bacteria produce odorous compounds - including but not limited to -- skatole, indole, acetoin, methyl ketones [such as diacetyl], amines, butyric acid, isobutryic acid, caproic acid, propionic acid, isovaleric acid, and valeric acid. After all the bacterial processes are finished, the water content in the concoction is decreased to 15% [about the same water as most high- quality butter]. This butter smells bad like stinky cheese [including stale Swiss cheese that has been left in an anaerobic, warm, humid environment for at least 30 years], smelly feet, sweaty shirts, dirty socks, neck- sweat, back-sweat, filthy scalp and unwashed hair. You now have 1st-class butter!!!! Anyone want to try some of this delicious butter?? Important note on bacteria: All bacteria used in the above process are not pathogenic. IOW - much like intestinal bacteria -- they do not cause any disease or infection. In addition, none of these bacteria use oxygen for any of their biochemical processes. Some of them can survive in oxygen, while others can't. However, none of them use oxygen. Acetic-acid bacteria are an example of bacteria that are not used in the butter-making processes because - while they maybe anaerobic - they still require oxygen to produce acetic acid. Regards, Radium |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,alt.cookies.yum.yum.yum,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science,rec.arts.movies.production.sound,sci.chem,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Radium wrote:
Did we ask you to spam all these NGs? |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,alt.cookies.yum.yum.yum,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 29, 4:24 pm, Dave > wrote:
> Did we ask you to spam all these NGs? I'm not spamming. I am posting to all relevant NGs. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Radium wrote:
> On Apr 29, 4:24 pm, Dave > wrote: > >> Did we ask you to spam all these NGs? > > I'm not spamming. I am posting to all relevant NGs. You are cross-posting, which is really frowned upon in Usenet. Plus, you are even trying to post to a nonexistent newsgroup. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, limey wrote:
> Radium wrote: > >> On Apr 29, 4:24 pm, Dave > wrote: >> >>> Did we ask you to spam all these NGs? >> >> I'm not spamming. I am posting to all relevant NGs. > > You are cross-posting, which is really frowned upon in Usenet. No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to multi-posting). Cross-posting excessively is frowned on; four groups is not excessive. > Plus, you are even trying to post to a nonexistent newsgroup. Silly but harmless, at least on properly-configured news servers. What *is* to be frowned on is that the post is nonsense. Although if we were to ban nonsense from usenet, we might as well close it down. tom -- Operate all mechanisms! |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, limey wrote: > >> Radium wrote: >> >>> On Apr 29, 4:24 pm, Dave > wrote: >>> >>>> Did we ask you to spam all these NGs? >>> >>> I'm not spamming. I am posting to all relevant NGs. >> >> You are cross-posting, which is really frowned upon in Usenet. > > No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to > multi-posting). Cross-posting excessively is frowned on; four groups > is not excessive. So, add the nonexistent newsgroup and he started out with five. > > Silly but harmless, at least on properly-configured news servers. > > What *is* to be frowned on is that the post is nonsense. Although if > we were to ban nonsense from usenet, we might as well close it down. Yes, the post *is* nonsense, yet the PITA is that responses to that nonsense from posters on all the groups will show up here. Note: I am deliberately crossposting, to get my message across that crossposting can result in indignant responses from many. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,alt.cookies.yum.yum.yum,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science,rec.arts.movies.production.sound,sci.chem,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 29 Apr 2007 14:56:42 -0700, Radium > wrote:
>Hi: > >Here is how my 1st-class butter is made. > >Raw, uncooked, organic, un-homogenized, un-pasteurized cow's milk is >used. Purely-anaerobic, non-pathogenic bacteria are what indirectly >turn the milk into butter. Throughout the process, the butter is >mysteriously protected completely against any degradation or >abnormality [e.g. rancidity] other than bacterial decay. > >No microbes other than purely-anaerobic, non-pathogenic bacteria enter >the milk/butter or travel anywhere near the milk/butter or their >containers. > >First, any and all minerals, metals, ions, and electrolytes are >removed from the milk. Then the bacteria enter the milk. These >bacteria initially feed on all substances in the milk *excluding* the >following entities naturally present in the milk: > >Lipids [including non-greasy lipids] >Greasy substances [including greasy substances not classified as >lipids] >Elastic substances >Natural emulsifiers >Creamy substances >Slimy substances > >The bacteria produce odorous compounds - including but not limited to >-- skatole, indole, acetoin, methyl ketones [such as diacetyl], >amines, butyric acid, isobutryic acid, caproic acid, propionic acid, >isovaleric acid, and valeric acid. > >After all the bacterial processes are finished, the water content in >the concoction is decreased to 15% [about the same water as most high- >quality butter]. > >This butter smells bad like stinky cheese [including stale Swiss >cheese that has been left in an anaerobic, warm, humid environment for >at least 30 years], smelly feet, sweaty shirts, dirty socks, neck- >sweat, back-sweat, filthy scalp and unwashed hair. > >You now have 1st-class butter!!!! > >Anyone want to try some of this delicious butter?? > >Important note on bacteria: All bacteria used in the above process are >not pathogenic. IOW - much like intestinal bacteria -- they do not >cause any disease or infection. In addition, none of these bacteria >use oxygen for any of their biochemical processes. Some of them can >survive in oxygen, while others can't. However, none of them use >oxygen. Acetic-acid bacteria are an example of bacteria that are not >used in the butter-making processes because - while they maybe >anaerobic - they still require oxygen to produce acetic acid. > > >Regards, > >Radium Sounds like something you'd get at The Fat Duck. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,alt.cookies.yum.yum.yum,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 30, 10:32 am, Sherry Medina > wrote:
> Sounds like something you'd get at The Fat Duck. Whats the "Fat Duck"? |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article >,
Tom Anderson > wrote: >No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to >multi-posting). Cross-posting excessively is frowned on; four groups is >not excessive. True. But look at the Followup-To: line: Followup-To: rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,alt.cookies.yu m.yum.yum,rec. + food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science,rec.arts.movies.production. + sound, sci.chem, sci.electronics.basics, rec.audio.tech, rec. + photo.equipment.35mm The article was clearly a troll. -- Richard -- "Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 1 May 2007, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article >, > Tom Anderson > wrote: > >> No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to >> multi-posting). Cross-posting excessively is frowned on; four groups is >> not excessive. > > True. And in response to limey, i wouldn't say five is either. > But look at the Followup-To: line: > > Followup-To: rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,alt.cookies.yu m.yum.yum,rec. > + food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science,rec.arts.movies.production. > + sound, sci.chem, sci.electronics.basics, rec.audio.tech, rec. > + photo.equipment.35mm > > The article was clearly a troll. Excellent point. I mean, the content marks it out as being either trolling or kookery, but this is damning evidence. tom -- The major advances in civilization are processes that all but wreck the societies in which they occur. -- Alfred North Whitehead |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:46:03 +0100, Tom Anderson > wrote:
>No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to >multi-posting).... Only if the groups are related in subject. Otherwise you end up with (for example) a never-ending thread on gerontology annoying the readers of a billiards group, just because one old person cross-posted to both. -- Larry |
Posted to rec.food.cooking,uk.food+drink.misc,rec.food.equipment,sci.bio.food-science
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
pltrgyst wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:46:03 +0100, Tom Anderson > wrote: > >> No it isn't. Cross-posting is fine (and strongly preferred to >> multi-posting).... > > Only if the groups are related in subject. Otherwise you end up with (for > example) a never-ending thread on gerontology annoying the readers of a > billiards group, just because one old person cross-posted to both. > > -- Larry That takes balls. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Tea culture class | Tea | |||
When It Comes To Sushi, I Have No Class | Sushi | |||
First-class Bad Butter | General Cooking | |||
First-class Bad Butter | Barbecue | |||
Survey for a class | General Cooking |