i came across these paragraphs in a recent *straight dope* discussion on
whether beet sugar contains hydrogen cyanide:

Now: what's the difference between cane sugar and beet sugar? A perfectly
accurate answer is "not much" ¡X table sugar is 99.95 percent or more pure
sucrose, which is chemically the same whether it comes from cane or beets.
However, since commercial advantage is at stake, you do get people arguing
about the significance of the .05 percent. The C & H Sugar Company claims
the trace minerals in cane sugar are different from those in beet sugar and
that cane sugar is superior. The Sugar Industry Biotech Council claims
there's no difference. C & H, no surprise, sells only cane sugar, while the
council represents producers of both.

The real question, and I realize this doesn't rate with metabolic
asphyxiation on the fright scale, is whether cooks see any difference
between beet and cane. Food staffers at the San Francisco Chronicle did
some head-to-head testing in 1999 and reported that cane made significantly
better cookies and subtly better pound cake. They also had real trouble
getting creme brulee to caramelize properly with beet sugar, ending up with
burnt topping instead. Always game for an experiment, particularly when it
involves food, my assistants Una and Fierra spent a night preparing creme
brulee: three batches with beet sugar, three with cane. Result: The beet
and cane versions were indistinguishable in appearance, but the cane
batches tasted sweeter, their caramelized topping especially. It was a
Pepsi vs. Coke difference, though: while Una preferred the ones made with
cane sugar, Fierra fancied the faintly bitter bite of the beet.

¡X Cecil Adams

....so in the interest of food arcana, i thought it would post it here. the
box of store-brand sugar i have is labeled cane sugar, but i suppose in
some areas of the country it would be beet sugar. or is that mostly used
by food processors?

anyhow, the cyanide discussion can be found he

<http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2861/does-beet-sugar-contain-a-wwii-poison>

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
> i came across these paragraphs in a recent *straight dope* discussion on
> whether beet sugar contains hydrogen cyanide:
>
> Now: what's the difference between cane sugar and beet sugar? A perfectly
> accurate answer is "not much" €” table sugar is 99.95 percent or more pure
> sucrose, which is chemically the same whether it comes from cane or beets.


Beet sugar smells funny. But I haven't found any difference when
cooking with it vs. cane sugar.

(Why did you use Traditional Chinese for the character encoding)?

Bob

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
>i came across these paragraphs in a recent *straight dope* discussion on
> whether beet sugar contains hydrogen cyanide:
>
> Now: what's the difference between cane sugar and beet sugar? A perfectly
> accurate answer is "not much" ¡X table sugar is 99.95 percent or more pure
> sucrose, which is chemically the same whether it comes from cane or beets.
> However, since commercial advantage is at stake, you do get people arguing
> about the significance of the .05 percent. The C & H Sugar Company claims
> the trace minerals in cane sugar are different from those in beet sugar
> and
> that cane sugar is superior. The Sugar Industry Biotech Council claims
> there's no difference. C & H, no surprise, sells only cane sugar, while
> the
> council represents producers of both.
>
> The real question, and I realize this doesn't rate with metabolic
> asphyxiation on the fright scale, is whether cooks see any difference
> between beet and cane. Food staffers at the San Francisco Chronicle did
> some head-to-head testing in 1999 and reported that cane made
> significantly
> better cookies and subtly better pound cake. They also had real trouble
> getting creme brulee to caramelize properly with beet sugar, ending up
> with
> burnt topping instead. Always game for an experiment, particularly when it
> involves food, my assistants Una and Fierra spent a night preparing creme
> brulee: three batches with beet sugar, three with cane. Result: The beet
> and cane versions were indistinguishable in appearance, but the cane
> batches tasted sweeter, their caramelized topping especially. It was a
> Pepsi vs. Coke difference, though: while Una preferred the ones made with
> cane sugar, Fierra fancied the faintly bitter bite of the beet.
>
> ¡X Cecil Adams
>
> ...so in the interest of food arcana, i thought it would post it here.
> the
> box of store-brand sugar i have is labeled cane sugar, but i suppose in
> some areas of the country it would be beet sugar. or is that mostly used
> by food processors?
>
> anyhow, the cyanide discussion can be found he
>
> <http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2861/does-beet-sugar-contain-a-wwii-poison>
>
> your pal,
> blake

Well didn't you just get up on the cute side of the bed! Cecil Adams,
indeed.

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> i came across these paragraphs in a recent *straight dope* discussion on
> whether beet sugar contains hydrogen cyanide:
>
> Now: what's the difference between cane sugar and beet sugar? A perfectly
> accurate answer is "not much" ¡X table sugar is 99.95 percent or more pure
> sucrose, which is chemically the same whether it comes from cane or beets.
> However, since commercial advantage is at stake, you do get people arguing
> about the significance of the .05 percent. The C & H Sugar Company claims
> the trace minerals in cane sugar are different from those in beet sugar and
> that cane sugar is superior. The Sugar Industry Biotech Council claims
> there's no difference. C & H, no surprise, sells only cane sugar, while the
> council represents producers of both.
>
> The real question, and I realize this doesn't rate with metabolic
> asphyxiation on the fright scale, is whether cooks see any difference
> between beet and cane.

> your pal,
> blake

I've never noticed a difference and use whatever is cheapest
when I need to purchase (almost always beet sugar). Some
candymakers won't use anything but cane sugar.

(What the heck happened to your system?) You're showing up different
and your lines are not wrapping.)

--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller - good news 4-6-2009
"What you say about someone else says more
about you than it does about the other person."

Melba's wrote on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:51:21 -0500:

> I've never noticed a difference and use whatever is cheapest
> when I need to purchase (almost always beet sugar). Some
> candymakers won't use anything but cane sugar.

It's quite possible that preparation and purification methods might give
different tastes (impurities) in the two sorts but basically, they are
identical.


--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Apr 24, 12:41*pm, blake murphy > wrote:

> ...so in the interest of food arcana, i thought it would post it here. *the
> box of store-brand sugar i have is labeled cane sugar, but i suppose in
> some areas of the country it would be beet sugar. *or is that mostly used
> by food processors?

Plenty of sugar beets are grown here in Michigan, and I usually
support our
local farmers by buying beet sugar. Big Chief is the usual brand.

It does stink, as zxcvbob mentioned, but that doesn't seem to affect
the
outcome. Our hummingbirds seem to like it. (NB: time to juice up the
hummingbird feeder.) I don't use much white sugar. Usually saccharin
in coffee and brown sugar most everywhere else.

Cindy Hamilton

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
>i came across these paragraphs in a recent *straight dope* discussion on
> whether beet sugar contains hydrogen cyanide:
>
> Now: what's the difference between cane sugar and beet sugar? A perfectly
> accurate answer is "not much" ¡X table sugar is 99.95 percent or more pure
> sucrose, which is chemically the same whether it comes from cane or beets.
> However, since commercial advantage is at stake, you do get people arguing
> about the significance of the .05 percent.

No personal experience. I've only ever used cane, but, I knew a woman in
Arizona that despised the beet sugar. She said it did not taste the same or
bake the same. I always wondered if there was a difference or if it was in
her head.

On Fri 24 Apr 2009 12:02:00p, Edwin Pawlowski told us...

>
> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
>>i came across these paragraphs in a recent *straight dope* discussion on
>> whether beet sugar contains hydrogen cyanide:
>>
>> Now: what's the difference between cane sugar and beet sugar? A
>> perfectly accurate answer is "not much" ¡X table sugar is 99.95 percent
>> or more pure sucrose, which is chemically the same whether it comes
>> from cane or beets. However, since commercial advantage is at stake,
>> you do get people arguing about the significance of the .05 percent.
>
> No personal experience. I've only ever used cane, but, I knew a woman in
> Arizona that despised the beet sugar. She said it did not taste the
> same or bake the same. I always wondered if there was a difference or
> if it was in her head.

I've used beet sugar when cane sugar was oddly "missing" on the shelves.
Didn't really notice any difference, but I still try to buy cane sugar.

--
Wayne Boatwright
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The woman just ahead of you at the supermarket checkout has all the
delectable groceries you didn't even know they carried. ~Mignon
McLaughlin, The Second Neurotic's Notebook, 1966

Cindy wrote:

> I don't use much white sugar. Usually saccharin in coffee and brown sugar
> most everywhere else.

I always used to think that brown sugar had not been processed as much as
white sugar, so it was somehow more healthy or "natural." In fact, the
opposite is true: Brown sugar is made by starting out with refined white
sugar and processing it *more*: Specifically, brown sugar is made by adding
molasses to white sugar.

Nowadays I just use whatever seems to best give me the taste I'm after.

Bob

On Apr 24, 12:41*pm, blake murphy > wrote:
> i came across these paragraphs in a recent *straight dope* discussion on
> whether beet sugar contains hydrogen cyanide:
>
> Now: what's the difference between cane sugar and beet sugar? A perfectly
> accurate answer is "not much" — table sugar is 99.95 percent or more pure
> sucrose, which is chemically the same whether it comes from cane or beets..
> However, since commercial advantage is at stake, you do get people arguing
> about the significance of the .05 percent. The C & H Sugar Company claims
> the trace minerals in cane sugar are different from those in beet sugar and
> that cane sugar is superior. The Sugar Industry Biotech Council claims
> there's no difference. C & H, no surprise, sells only cane sugar, while the
> council represents producers of both.
>
> The real question, and I realize this doesn't rate with metabolic
> asphyxiation on the fright scale, is whether cooks see any difference
> between beet and cane. Food staffers at the San Francisco Chronicle did
> some head-to-head testing in 1999 and reported that cane made significantly
> better cookies and subtly better pound cake. They also had real trouble
> getting creme brulee to caramelize properly with beet sugar, ending up with
> burnt topping instead. Always game for an experiment, particularly when it
> involves food, my assistants Una and Fierra spent a night preparing creme
> brulee: three batches with beet sugar, three with cane. Result: The beet
> and cane versions were indistinguishable in appearance, but the cane
> batches tasted sweeter, their caramelized topping especially. It was a
> Pepsi vs. Coke difference, though: while Una preferred the ones made with
> cane sugar, Fierra fancied the faintly bitter bite of the beet.
>
> — Cecil Adams
>
> ...so in the interest of food arcana, i thought it would post it here. *the
> box of store-brand sugar i have is labeled cane sugar, but i suppose in
> some areas of the country it would be beet sugar. *or is that mostly used
> by food processors?
>
> anyhow, the cyanide discussion can be found he
>
> <http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2861/does-beet-sugar-contain...>
>
> your pal,
> blake

I read somewhere that when both beet sugar and cane sugar are refined
there are a few leftover fructose molecules in the sugar (table sugar
or sucrose consists of a molecule of glucose and a molecule of
fructose). The cane sugar contains more of these extra fructose
molecules than the beet sugar does.
Some people say they can't tell a difference in the taste but I
definitely can. To me beet sugar just tastes sweet. Cane sugar
tastes sweeter and tastes like sugar should; it tastes like sugar. I
really noticed the difference when I made homemade ice cream one
time. I used the same recipe I'd always had and I knew I had measured
everything perfectly, but for some reason it just didn't taste as
sweet as it should have and the flavor wasn't right either. It was
then that I noticed that the bag of sugar I bought said, "Made with
sugar beets." The next batch was made with cane sugar and it made all
the difference in the world.

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:00:55 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

>Cindy wrote:
>
>> I don't use much white sugar. Usually saccharin in coffee and brown sugar
>> most everywhere else.
>
>I always used to think that brown sugar had not been processed as much as
>white sugar, so it was somehow more healthy or "natural." In fact, the
>opposite is true: Brown sugar is made by starting out with refined white
>sugar and processing it *more*: Specifically, brown sugar is made by adding
>molasses to white sugar.
>
>Nowadays I just use whatever seems to best give me the taste I'm after.
>
>Bob
>
>
A few decades ago, brown sugar was the sugar that came out of the
mill, before being sent to California to be made into white sugar.
That's what you remember. It was soft and irregular bits, but tasted
of molasses. It was sent to the refinery for the making into white
sugar.

aloha,
Cea who came from a 3rd generation sugar cane family and we hated beet
sugar:^)

In article >, "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
>Cindy wrote:
>
>> I don't use much white sugar. Usually saccharin in coffee and brown sugar
>> most everywhere else.
>
>I always used to think that brown sugar had not been processed as much as
>white sugar, so it was somehow more healthy or "natural." In fact, the
>opposite is true: Brown sugar is made by starting out with refined white
>sugar and processing it *more*: Specifically, brown sugar is made by adding
>molasses to white sugar.

I always thought they did it that way to have more control over the
quality of the retail product -- and that may well be the main reason.

However, on reading your comment, it has just occurred to me that
another reason may have to do with food hygiene regulations. Most
sugar mills (at least here in Oz) do not operate with "food quality"
equipment whereas the refineries do. So raw sugar really had to be
reprocessed to some degree before it could be sold to the public.

I'm not sure if this is still the case, as I know of at least one mill
that manufactures a retail product these days (and that in spite of
the increasing paranoia of the food regulations here) but I don't know
how much they had to upgrade their old gear to allow that to happen.
[In fact, thinking more about this, I'm nearly sure you can now buy a
product labelled "raw sugar" in the major supermarkets, which suggests
retail-quality production lines may be becoming more common.]

Back in primary school days we kids of mill staff spent a lot of time
wandering around in the mill (imagine doing that now with WPH&S and
all and helping ourselves to a slurp or two of liquor [juice from
the evaporators prior to crystallisation] from a sampling tap, as well
as grabbing handfulls of raw sugar from the endless chain of elevator
buckets that took the raw sugar up to the bagging machine hopper from
where it had been dropped under the fugals after centrifuging. The
warm freshly made raw sugar was delicious and had a great aroma! :-)

Also, back in those days it was legal for the mills to sell some sugar
each year to the farmers who supplied cane to the mill -- may have
been restricted to one bag (160 lb) per farm or per farm family. The
mill I knew made a special batch once a year for this purpose. It was
"washed" a little more than usual in the fugals to remove more of the
residual molasses and was referred to as "mill white" sugar. Not
Persil white, but a lot paler than the normal raw sugar!

>Nowadays I just use whatever seems to best give me the taste I'm after.

Very shrewd of you. ;-)

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

(Phred) wrote in
:


> [In fact, thinking more about this, I'm nearly sure you can now buy a
> product labelled "raw sugar" in the major supermarkets, which suggests
> retail-quality production lines may be becoming more common.]

Yes, you can buy raw sugar at the supermarket. I buy it occasionally as Rob
likes it for his coffee.


--
Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia

Core of my heart, my country! Land of the rainbow gold,
For flood and fire and famine she pays us back threefold.
My Country, Dorothea MacKellar, 1904

Rhonda wrote on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:05:31 GMT:

>> [In fact, thinking more about this, I'm nearly sure you can
>> now buy a product labelled "raw sugar" in the major
>> supermarkets, which suggests retail-quality production lines
>> may be becoming more common.]

> Yes, you can buy raw sugar at the supermarket. I buy it
> occasionally as Rob likes it for his coffee.

This sugar called "brown", "turbinado" or "raw" has been available for
several years and seems to have less molasses (and possibly flavor) than
traditional brown sugar since it pours and does not tend to cake. I
sometimes like to use it in coffee or sprinkle it on the sliced banana I
have with cereal. It's also available in packets at places like
Starbucks.

Incidentally, perhaps I should mention again that traditional "brown
sugar" that has become caked or hard can be easily softened for cooking
purposes by nuking for a few seconds. This is a lot less messy than
hitting it with a mallet :-)

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:25:32 -0500, zxcvbob wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>> i came across these paragraphs in a recent *straight dope* discussion on
>> whether beet sugar contains hydrogen cyanide:
>>
>> Now: what's the difference between cane sugar and beet sugar? A perfectly
>> accurate answer is "not much" ¡X table sugar is 99.95 percent or more pure
>> sucrose, which is chemically the same whether it comes from cane or beets.
>
> Beet sugar smells funny. But I haven't found any difference when
> cooking with it vs. cane sugar.
>
> (Why did you use Traditional Chinese for the character encoding)?
>
> Bob

huh? as far as i recall i was a stright cut 'n' paste from the site.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:51:21 -0500, Melba's Jammin' wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>>
>> The real question, and I realize this doesn't rate with metabolic
>> asphyxiation on the fright scale, is whether cooks see any difference
>> between beet and cane.
>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> I've never noticed a difference and use whatever is cheapest
> when I need to purchase (almost always beet sugar). Some
> candymakers won't use anything but cane sugar.
>
> (What the heck happened to your system?) You're showing up different
> and your lines are not wrapping.)

jeez, another county heard from. it displayed perfectly when i read the
post with 40tude dialog. maybe mac mucked it up? are all my posts looking
goofy?

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:29:41 -0400, cybercat wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
>>i came across these paragraphs in a recent *straight dope* discussion on
>> whether beet sugar contains hydrogen cyanide:
>>
>> ¡X Cecil Adams
>>
>> ...so in the interest of food arcana, i thought it would post it here.
>> the
>> box of store-brand sugar i have is labeled cane sugar, but i suppose in
>> some areas of the country it would be beet sugar. or is that mostly used
>> by food processors?
>>
>> anyhow, the cyanide discussion can be found he
>>
>> <http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2861/does-beet-sugar-contain-a-wwii-poison>
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> Well didn't you just get up on the cute side of the bed! Cecil Adams,
> indeed.

cecil is billed as 'the world's smartest human,' and i see no reason to
doubt the claim.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:

>> (Why did you use Traditional Chinese for the character encoding)?
>>
>> Bob
>
> huh? as far as i recall i was a stright cut 'n' paste from the site.

Yup, on my end (and probably displaying to others in this reply) it
shows your encoding in the original post as 'Chinese Traditional (Big
5)' ....

--Lin (going back to Western (ISO-01859-1) after this)

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:18:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> On Apr 24, 12:41Â*pm, blake murphy > wrote:
>> i came across these paragraphs in a recent *straight dope* discussion on
>> whether beet sugar contains hydrogen cyanide:
>>
>> Now: what's the difference between cane sugar and beet sugar? A perfectly
>> accurate answer is "not much" €” table sugar is 99.95 percent or more pure
>> sucrose, which is chemically the same whether it comes from cane or beets.
>> However, since commercial advantage is at stake, you do get people arguing
>> about the significance of the .05 percent. The C & H Sugar Company claims
>> the trace minerals in cane sugar are different from those in beet sugar and
>> that cane sugar is superior. The Sugar Industry Biotech Council claims
>> there's no difference. C & H, no surprise, sells only cane sugar, while the
>> council represents producers of both.
>>
>> The real question, and I realize this doesn't rate with metabolic
>> asphyxiation on the fright scale, is whether cooks see any difference
>> between beet and cane. Food staffers at the San Francisco Chronicle did
>> some head-to-head testing in 1999 and reported that cane made significantly
>> better cookies and subtly better pound cake. They also had real trouble
>> getting creme brulee to caramelize properly with beet sugar, ending up with
>> burnt topping instead. Always game for an experiment, particularly when it
>> involves food, my assistants Una and Fierra spent a night preparing creme
>> brulee: three batches with beet sugar, three with cane. Result: The beet
>> and cane versions were indistinguishable in appearance, but the cane
>> batches tasted sweeter, their caramelized topping especially. It was a
>> Pepsi vs. Coke difference, though: while Una preferred the ones made with
>> cane sugar, Fierra fancied the faintly bitter bite of the beet.
>>
>> €” Cecil Adams
>>
>> ...so in the interest of food arcana, i thought it would post it here. Â*the
>> box of store-brand sugar i have is labeled cane sugar, but i suppose in
>> some areas of the country it would be beet sugar. Â*or is that mostly used
>> by food processors?
>>
>> anyhow, the cyanide discussion can be found he
>>
>> <http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2861/does-beet-sugar-contain...>
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> I read somewhere that when both beet sugar and cane sugar are refined
> there are a few leftover fructose molecules in the sugar (table sugar
> or sucrose consists of a molecule of glucose and a molecule of
> fructose). The cane sugar contains more of these extra fructose
> molecules than the beet sugar does.
> Some people say they can't tell a difference in the taste but I
> definitely can. To me beet sugar just tastes sweet. Cane sugar
> tastes sweeter and tastes like sugar should; it tastes like sugar. I
> really noticed the difference when I made homemade ice cream one
> time. I used the same recipe I'd always had and I knew I had measured
> everything perfectly, but for some reason it just didn't taste as
> sweet as it should have and the flavor wasn't right either. It was
> then that I noticed that the bag of sugar I bought said, "Made with
> sugar beets." The next batch was made with cane sugar and it made all
> the difference in the world.

interesting. you must be really sensitive to the difference to taste it in
ice cream.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:51:21 -0500, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > blake murphy > wrote:
> >>
> >> The real question, and I realize this doesn't rate with metabolic
> >> asphyxiation on the fright scale, is whether cooks see any difference
> >> between beet and cane.
> >
> >> your pal,
> >> blake
> >
> > I've never noticed a difference and use whatever is cheapest
> > when I need to purchase (almost always beet sugar). Some
> > candymakers won't use anything but cane sugar.
> >
> > (What the heck happened to your system?) You're showing up different
> > and your lines are not wrapping.)
>
> jeez, another county heard from. it displayed perfectly when i read the
> post with 40tude dialog. maybe mac mucked it up? are all my posts
looking
> goofy?


Well, your *political* posts certainly are...

;-)



--
Best
Greg

"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money."~~~~Margaret Thatcher

James Silverton wrote:
>
> Incidentally, perhaps I should mention again that traditional "brown
> sugar" that has become caked or hard can be easily softened for
> cooking purposes by nuking for a few seconds. This is a lot less
> messy than hitting it with a mallet :-)

Brown sugar doesn't cake if you prevent it from the time you open a
new box. I find it easy to put a rubber band around the plastic bag
of sugar then put the bag inside a Ziploc each time I use it. It
never cakes.

Dora

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 10:40:57 GMT, (Phred)
wrote:

>In article >, "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
>>Cindy wrote:
>
>Back in primary school days we kids of mill staff spent a lot of time
>wandering around in the mill (imagine doing that now with WPH&S and
>all and helping ourselves to a slurp or two of liquor [juice from
>the evaporators prior to crystallisation] from a sampling tap, as well
>as grabbing handfulls of raw sugar from the endless chain of elevator
>buckets that took the raw sugar up to the bagging machine hopper from
>where it had been dropped under the fugals after centrifuging. The
>warm freshly made raw sugar was delicious and had a great aroma! :-)
>
>Also, back in those days it was legal for the mills to sell some sugar
>each year to the farmers who supplied cane to the mill -- may have
>been restricted to one bag (160 lb) per farm or per farm family. The
>mill I knew made a special batch once a year for this purpose. It was
>"washed" a little more than usual in the fugals to remove more of the
>residual molasses and was referred to as "mill white" sugar. Not
>Persil white, but a lot paler than the normal raw sugar!
>
>>Nowadays I just use whatever seems to best give me the taste I'm after.
>
>Very shrewd of you. ;-)
>
>Cheers, Phred.

Aloha Phred, fellow sugar plantation person--- and we must be
becoming a rarer breed. Not many sugar plantations left in Hawaii- 2,
I think.

The memories, you evoked, of walking through the very noisy sugar
mill, smelling the crushers extracting the juices (I still remember
that luscious smell of cane juice, water,mud and warmth-somehow) -
watching the centrifugal machine separate most of the molasses from
the sugar, and yes--the endless conveyor belt taking the warm yummy
sugar up to be bagged---and then sent off, in our case to California.
(Hence the name C(California) & H(Hawaii) Agreed, grabbing that sugar
off the conveyor belt would give you odd bits of unknown things. But
boy!! was it so tasty and such all around fun.

aloha,
Cea

Dora wrote on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:12:37 -0400:

> James Silverton wrote:
>>
>> Incidentally, perhaps I should mention again that traditional
>> "brown sugar" that has become caked or hard can be easily
>> softened for cooking purposes by nuking for a few seconds.
>> This is a lot less messy than hitting it with a mallet :-)

> Brown sugar doesn't cake if you prevent it from the time you
> open a new box. I find it easy to put a rubber band around
> the plastic bag of sugar then put the bag inside a Ziploc
> each time I use it. It never cakes.

Depends on the humidity of where you live and what's hard about nuking?

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

In article >, "Dora" > wrote:
>James Silverton wrote:
>>
>> Incidentally, perhaps I should mention again that traditional "brown
>> sugar" that has become caked or hard can be easily softened for
>> cooking purposes by nuking for a few seconds. This is a lot less
>> messy than hitting it with a mallet :-)
>
>Brown sugar doesn't cake if you prevent it from the time you open a
>new box. I find it easy to put a rubber band around the plastic bag
>of sugar then put the bag inside a Ziploc each time I use it. It
>never cakes.

G'day Dora,

When did you come back? I haven't seen you here in RFC for ages (I
don't follow all threads though, so may well have missed you).
In fact, last I heard you were just out of hospital and seriously
deprived of independence back in the middle of last year!
Nice to see you here again.

Concerning brown sugar, here in Oz we seem to have a product referred
to as "soft brown sugar" which has a fine grain and a hint of
moistness. I haven't had it go solid on me; but I usually only buy
500g at a time and store it in a decent lidded plastic container.

Back in the days of bagged raw sugar from our mills, it was often
produced faster than it could be shipped, which meant enormous stacks
of bagged sugar held at the mills for quite a long time (and during
the wet season too!). This led to many bags being as hard as rocks by
the time the stacks had to be broken down for shipment. At 160 lb
each, the damn things were not only hard to handle but potentially
dangerous if allowed to "ski" down the slope of the breaking stack!

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

In article >, pure kona > wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 10:40:57 GMT, (Phred)
>wrote:
[snip]
>Aloha Phred, fellow sugar plantation person--- and we must be
>becoming a rarer breed. Not many sugar plantations left in Hawaii- 2,
>I think.
[snip]

G'day Cea,

I must admit I had the impression from somewhere that they were all
gone -- or at least as far as serious *sugar* production is concerned
(ISTR one on Oahu had stayed open as some sort of tourist trap).

So I'm happy to be corrected on this point.

When I was over there briefly about 30 years ago, we spent a day over
on the Big Isle looking at the industry there -- very different to the
way we were doing things here at that time! Unfortunately, in my
ignorance I had succumbed to the _National Geographic_ colour
tradition and was using Ektachrome slide film during my trip to the US
and other places over that way, and my slides from that time are
pretty much stuffed now. (Unlike my Kodachromes which are still
pretty good from even 45 years ago -- and, fortunately, I switched
back to KR135-36P once back home from that trip. :-)

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 11:10:19 -0500, Gregory Morrow wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:51:21 -0500, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The real question, and I realize this doesn't rate with metabolic
>>>> asphyxiation on the fright scale, is whether cooks see any difference
>>>> between beet and cane.
>>>
>>>> your pal,
>>>> blake
>>>
>>> I've never noticed a difference and use whatever is cheapest
>>> when I need to purchase (almost always beet sugar). Some
>>> candymakers won't use anything but cane sugar.
>>>
>>> (What the heck happened to your system?) You're showing up different
>>> and your lines are not wrapping.)
>>
>> jeez, another county heard from. it displayed perfectly when i read the
>> post with 40tude dialog. maybe mac mucked it up? are all my posts
> looking
>> goofy?
>
> Well, your *political* posts certainly are...
>
> ;-)

that means a whole lot coming from you.

blake

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 10:39:10 GMT, (Phred)
wrote:

>In article >, pure kona > wrote:
>>On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 10:40:57 GMT, (Phred)
>>wrote:

>G'day Cea,
>
>I must admit I had the impression from somewhere that they were all
>gone -- or at least as far as serious *sugar* production is concerned
>(ISTR one on Oahu had stayed open as some sort of tourist trap).
>
>So I'm happy to be corrected on this point.
>
>When I was over there briefly about 30 years ago, we spent a day over
>on the Big Isle looking at the industry there -- very different to the
>way we were doing things here at that time! Unfortunately, in my
>ignorance I had succumbed to the _National Geographic_ colour
>tradition and was using Ektachrome slide film during my trip to the US
>and other places over that way, and my slides from that time are
>pretty much stuffed now. (Unlike my Kodachromes which are still
>pretty good from even 45 years ago -- and, fortunately, I switched
>back to KR135-36P once back home from that trip. :-)
>
>Cheers, Phred.

There is a large one on Maui - Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar, owned by
Alexander and Baldwin who also own Matson Shipping lines.And there is
a small struggling one on Kauai *** & Robinson Sugar) which just
announced it is going out of the sugar business and will be instead,
making ethanol.

In the 60s, my Dad had an opportunity to go to Perth and run a sugar
operation there, but with 4 young kids, he declined. Darn.

aloha,
Cea

Phred wrote on Sun, 26 Apr 2009 10:39:10 GMT:


> Unfortunately, in my ignorance I had succumbed to the
> _National Geographic_ colour tradition and was using
> Ektachrome slide film during my trip to the US and other
> places over that way, and my slides from that time are pretty
> much stuffed now. (Unlike my Kodachromes which are still
> pretty good from even 45 years ago -- and, fortunately, I
> switched back to KR135-36P once back home from that trip. :-)

It's perhaps OT Phred but let me encourage you to try restoring some of
the colors with Photoshop, either one of the full versions or Elements.
So long as the red (most often), blue or green is not completely
bleached out, I've had a good deal of luck with pictures from the late
50s.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

In article >, pure kona > wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 10:39:10 GMT, (Phred) wrote:
>>
>>I must admit I had the impression from somewhere that they were all
>>gone -- or at least as far as serious *sugar* production is concerned
>>(ISTR one on Oahu had stayed open as some sort of tourist trap).
>>
>>So I'm happy to be corrected on this point.
>>
>>When I was over there briefly about 30 years ago, we spent a day over
>>on the Big Isle looking at the industry there -- very different to the
>>way we were doing things here at that time! Unfortunately, in my
>>ignorance I had succumbed to the _National Geographic_ colour
>>tradition and was using Ektachrome slide film during my trip to the US
>>and other places over that way, and my slides from that time are
>>pretty much stuffed now. (Unlike my Kodachromes which are still
>>pretty good from even 45 years ago -- and, fortunately, I switched
>>back to KR135-36P once back home from that trip. :-)
>
>There is a large one on Maui - Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar, owned by

I dropped in at Maui for a couple of days on the way home from the US
to visit the ag research station there. I believe that was just
before the tourism boom. No international airport -- you had to fly
over from Oahu -- but there were bloody great resort buildings going
up all along the coast near where I stayed.

>Alexander and Baldwin who also own Matson Shipping lines.And there is
>a small struggling one on Kauai *** & Robinson Sugar) which just
>announced it is going out of the sugar business and will be instead,
>making ethanol.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

>In the 60s, my Dad had an opportunity to go to Perth and run a sugar
>operation there, but with 4 young kids, he declined. Darn.

I was in Perth a couple of times in the 60s, it seemed to be a nice
place; but of course I didn't really get to experience much of it as
we were kept pretty busy doing what we were supposed to be doing
there! It always seems to attract good comment from visitors.
(Though in recent years I believe the cost of living -- especially
housing -- has gone through the roof due to the mining boom in Western
Australia. So maybe living there isn't quite as nice as visiting! :-)

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

In article >, "James Silverton" <not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not> wrote:
> Phred wrote on Sun, 26 Apr 2009 10:39:10 GMT:
>
>> Unfortunately, in my ignorance I had succumbed to the
>> _National Geographic_ colour tradition and was using
>> Ektachrome slide film during my trip to the US and other
>> places over that way, and my slides from that time are pretty
>> much stuffed now. (Unlike my Kodachromes which are still
>> pretty good from even 45 years ago -- and, fortunately, I
>> switched back to KR135-36P once back home from that trip. :-)
>
>It's perhaps OT Phred but let me encourage you to try restoring some of
>the colors with Photoshop, either one of the full versions or Elements.
>So long as the red (most often), blue or green is not completely
>bleached out, I've had a good deal of luck with pictures from the late
>50s.

Thanks for that tip, James. I'll have to give it a go once I get a
new PC that can run a decent version of Elements. However, to
continue the OT -- what sort of gear did you use to scan the slides
so you could play with them? I suspect you need something like a
3000x2000 scan to get a good reproduction from a slide?


Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

Phred wrote on Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:55:54 GMT:

> In article >, "James
> Silverton" <not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not> wrote:
>> It's perhaps OT Phred but let me encourage you to try
>> restoring some of the colors with Photoshop, either one of
>> the full versions or Elements. So long as the red (most
>> often), blue or green is not completely bleached out, I've
>> had a good deal of luck with pictures from the late 50s.

> Thanks for that tip, James. I'll have to give it a go once I
> get a new PC that can run a decent version of Elements.
> However, to continue the OT -- what sort of gear did you use
> to scan the slides so you could play with them? I suspect you
> need something like a 3000x2000 scan to get a good
> reproduction from a slide?

I haven't scanned too many slides or negatives but I use an attachment
that came with my Canon flat-bed scanner. It's a bit slow but there are
dedicated scanners that can be bought for about $100; Brookestone has
one. I don't have any experience with trying to make new slides and my
final result is usually a 3x5 or 4x6 print.


Good luck!


--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Apr 24, 6:00*pm, "Bob Terwilliger" >
wrote:
> Cindy wrote:
> > I don't use much white sugar. *Usually saccharin in coffee and brown sugar
> > most everywhere else.
>
> I always used to think that brown sugar had not been processed as much as
> white sugar, so it was somehow more healthy or "natural." In fact, the
> opposite is true: Brown sugar is made by starting out with refined white
> sugar and processing it *more*: Specifically, brown sugar is made by adding
> molasses to white sugar.
>
> Nowadays I just use whatever seems to best give me the taste I'm after.

Me, too. And that's usually brown sugar. I tried Haagen Dasz' brown
sugar
ice cream, and it was everything the label promised.

My late brother-in-law worked in the sugar industry, and refused to
eat
"Sugar-in-the-Raw".

Cindy Hamilton

In article >, "James Silverton" <not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not> wrote:
> Phred wrote on Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:55:54 GMT:
>
>> In article >, "James
>> Silverton" <not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not> wrote:
>>> It's perhaps OT Phred but let me encourage you to try
>>> restoring some of the colors with Photoshop, either one of
>>> the full versions or Elements. So long as the red (most
>>> often), blue or green is not completely bleached out, I've
>>> had a good deal of luck with pictures from the late 50s.
>
>> Thanks for that tip, James. I'll have to give it a go once I
>> get a new PC that can run a decent version of Elements.
>> However, to continue the OT -- what sort of gear did you use
>> to scan the slides so you could play with them? I suspect you
>> need something like a 3000x2000 scan to get a good
>> reproduction from a slide?
>
>I haven't scanned too many slides or negatives but I use an attachment
>that came with my Canon flat-bed scanner. It's a bit slow but there are
>dedicated scanners that can be bought for about $100; Brookestone has
>one. I don't have any experience with trying to make new slides and my
>final result is usually a 3x5 or 4x6 print.

Thanks for the reply, James. And, no, I wasn't suggesting making a
new slide -- just wondering how good the scan of a slide needed to be
to get an acceptable digital image that would be worth playing with in
Photoshop Elements or whatever for subsequent printing or just viewing
in a PowerPoint presentation or similar. (You can breathe out now. :-)

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

Phred wrote on Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:04:10 GMT:

> In article >, "James
> Silverton" <not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not> wrote:
>> Phred wrote on Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:55:54 GMT:
>>
>>> In article >, "James
>>> Silverton" <not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not> wrote:
>>>> It's perhaps OT Phred but let me encourage you to try
>>>> restoring some of the colors with Photoshop, either one of
>>>> the full versions or Elements. So long as the red (most
>>>> often), blue or green is not completely bleached out, I've
>>>> had a good deal of luck with pictures from the late 50s.
>>
>>> Thanks for that tip, James. I'll have to give it a go once
>>> I get a new PC that can run a decent version of
>>> Elements. However, to continue the OT -- what sort of gear
>>> did you use to scan the slides so you could play with them?
>>> I suspect you need something like a 3000x2000 scan to get a
>>> good reproduction from a slide?
>>
>> I haven't scanned too many slides or negatives but I use an
>> attachment that came with my Canon flat-bed scanner. It's a
>> bit slow but there are dedicated scanners that can be bought
>> for about $100; Brookestone has one. I don't have any
>> experience with trying to make new slides and my final result
>> is usually a 3x5 or 4x6 print.

> Thanks for the reply, James. And, no, I wasn't suggesting
> making a new slide -- just wondering how good the scan of a
> slide needed to be to get an acceptable digital image that
> would be worth playing with in Photoshop Elements or whatever
> for subsequent printing or just viewing in a PowerPoint
> presentation or similar. (You can breathe out now. :-)

My Canon scanner can go up to 2400 dpi on slides but I have used 1200
dpi successfully. I don't remember how long it took at 2400 dpi but it
wasn't fast!

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> Me, too. And that's usually brown sugar. I tried Haagen Dasz' brown
> sugar
> ice cream, and it was everything the label promised.

When you mentioned the brown sugar Haagen Dazs ice cream, I was tempted
to go to their website and check it out, but it would be in my best
interest not to. Still dieting, doncha know.


Blue Bell Ice Cream has a new flavor called Mocha Madness, it is a
"rich, coffee-flavored ice cream, with roasted pecan halves, chocolate
chips and a swirl of caramel sauce", and I found this online by
accident. Really, I did. <drooling> lol


I am not going to buy it, nope, no way.


Becca