sf wrote:
> Bryan > wrote:
>
>> If I were lucky enough to have the lamb fat I'd make
>> fried potatoes with garlic and oregano.
>
> Oh, god no. Lamb fat smells awful when it gets that hot.

You don't like lamb as much as I do then. Pass it this way ...

or this goes back to the oil discussion we had a while back... canola oil
smells rank to me even before you heat it, lamb always smells good to me
unless you burn it.... beef and pork are nuetral unless you cook the pork
too slow, i think this is a genitic thing, Lee
"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 6 May 2011 08:50:33 -0700 (PDT), Bryan
> > wrote:
>
>> On May 6, 9:45 am, sf > wrote:
>> > On Fri, 6 May 2011 06:56:50 -0700 (PDT), Bryan
>> >
>> > > wrote:
>> > > If I were lucky enough to have the lamb fat I'd make
>> > > fried potatoes with garlic and oregano.
>> >
>> > Oh, god no. Lamb fat smells awful when it gets that hot.
>> >
>> Really? I've never had much rendered lamb fat, though I've certainly
>> trimmed a tiny bit off of chops and rendered it into a little oil,
>> then used that to pan fry the chops. I didn't notice any off smell.
>>
> Rendering could be done at a fairly low heat. I'm talking about how
> it would smell when you heat it hot enough to fry anything. I cut as
> much lamb fat off as I possibly can before cooking with high heat (and
> turn the vent fan on high) to keep the odor at bay. If you're frying
> chops and not smelling lamb fat stench, then maybe you're not cooking
> with a very high heat after all.
>
> --
> I love cooking with wine.
> Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"Ranée at Arabian Knits" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Ophelia" > wrote:
>
>> "Ranée at Arabian Knits" > wrote in message
>> news:arabianknits-6E2471.14280405052011@reserved-multicast-range-NOT-delegated
>> .example.com...
>> > In article >,
>> > Cheryl > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 5/1/2011 3:57 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I have one quart of lamb fat, one of pure pork, and a frozen bag of
>> >> > chicken fat pucks from rendering chicken skins. I only get 5-7
>> >> > ounced
>> >> > of the chicken fat at a time so I pour the fat into a flat glass and
>> >> > freeze it, then that fat just pops out and the puck goes into
>> >> > plastic
>> >> > bag.
>> >>
>> >> What kinds of things do you use those fats for? I used to save bacon
>> >> fat but found I never used it so I quit and just let it harden and put
>> >> it into my grease container in the fridge to be thrown out.
>> >
>> > Oh my! We use them all the time, fry eggs, season vegetables, cook
>> > onions and celery for cooking with beans, season beans, use it in rice
>> > pilaf when sauteing the rice and aromatics, if you have enough you can
>> > fry potatoes or onions in it. Any place you would use oil or butter to
>> > cook something, these fats can be used, they provide good flavor and a
>> > savings in money because you are using a byproduct of something rather
>> > than a new product you paid for.
>>
>> I used to do all that when the family were all at home. I don't get
>> enough
>> fat now there are just the two of us.
>
> I just keep adding it to the jars in the fridge. It lasts pretty
> near forever, refrigerated. :-)

I knowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww(((((((( butbutbut we don't get much these
days Hmm if you have a lot maybe you could mail me some? <g>
--
--

https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

On Fri, 06 May 2011 12:24:57 -0700, Ranée at Arabian Knits
> wrote:

> That makes me think that either you just don't really like lamb as
> much as we do or you have bad sources of lamb. Ours doesn't have
> "stench." It smells like roasty lamb. I don't use it to deep fry, but
> definitely to saute.

You have the luxury of farm raised lamb. I probably wouldn't be
complaining about the stench if it was my mother's lamb... but she has
been dead for 5 years and hadn't raised lamb for 10 years before that.

What I have to deal with now is commercial lamb - which is mainly from
Aus and lately mainly from NZ. It's pretty bad.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Fri, 06 May 2011 09:06:30 -0700 in rec.food.cooking, sf
> wrote,
>On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:04:19 -0700, David Harmon >
>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 May 2011 05:38:53 -0700 in rec.food.cooking, sf
>> > wrote,
>> >On Fri, 6 May 2011 05:17:36 -0500, "Storrmmee"
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> in YOUR opinoion only, you really need to lighten up and free yourself from
>> >> rules written in some cook book somewhere and open yourself up to the idea
>> >> that yours is not the only right or "real way, Lee
>> >
>> >I simply do not think calling every bean dish that happens to hit the
>> >oven "baked beans" is a very good/smart idea.
>>
>> It is accurate. If you want to specify the style you are talking
>> about, call it Boston baked beans or something equally specific. Not
>> everybody shares your bean bigotry.
>
>"Boston" is too much of a misnomer for me.

I can believe that, which is why I said "or something equally
specific." But I don't know a better term to propose.
Anybody have other suggestions?

On 5/5/2011 5:28 PM, Ranée at Arabian Knits wrote:

> Oh my! We use them all the time, fry eggs, season vegetables, cook
> onions and celery for cooking with beans, season beans, use it in rice
> pilaf when sauteing the rice and aromatics, if you have enough you can
> fry potatoes or onions in it. Any place you would use oil or butter to
> cook something, these fats can be used, they provide good flavor and a
> savings in money because you are using a byproduct of something rather
> than a new product you paid for.

Do you strain it? I always end up with little pieces of bacon that ends
up burnt because I fry up a few slices at a time, so they're cooked in
batches.

On Fri, 06 May 2011 17:00:49 -0700, David Harmon >
wrote:

> On Fri, 06 May 2011 09:06:30 -0700 in rec.food.cooking, sf
> > wrote,
> >On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:04:19 -0700, David Harmon >
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 06 May 2011 05:38:53 -0700 in rec.food.cooking, sf
> >> > wrote,
> >> >On Fri, 6 May 2011 05:17:36 -0500, "Storrmmee"
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> in YOUR opinoion only, you really need to lighten up and free yourself from
> >> >> rules written in some cook book somewhere and open yourself up to the idea
> >> >> that yours is not the only right or "real way, Lee
> >> >
> >> >I simply do not think calling every bean dish that happens to hit the
> >> >oven "baked beans" is a very good/smart idea.
> >>
> >> It is accurate. If you want to specify the style you are talking
> >> about, call it Boston baked beans or something equally specific. Not
> >> everybody shares your bean bigotry.
> >
> >"Boston" is too much of a misnomer for me.
>
> I can believe that, which is why I said "or something equally
> specific." But I don't know a better term to propose.
> Anybody have other suggestions?
>

If you're stuck, then I'm not such a "bean bigot" after all. That's
what people think of first when the term "baked bean" is bandied
about. Every other bean dish that passes through an oven has a more
specific name.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 2 May 2011 16:07:48 -0700, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>> I bought the fresh garbanzos at Costco and tried eating them raw.
>> Ppppyuck!
>
> All raw beans taste terrible. Mostly their texture. It's like
> eating raw peanuts compared to their roasted, much better cousin.

Raw peanuts are icky too.

once again for you this may be true, but its like the term corn bread, you
have some issue with the southerners who are specific about what corn bread
is and you still insist yours is the only right way, including the name...
that is as silly as saying chocolate cake is one recipe only... just makes
no sense to me,

Lee
"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 06 May 2011 17:00:49 -0700, David Harmon >
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 May 2011 09:06:30 -0700 in rec.food.cooking, sf
>> > wrote,
>> >On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:04:19 -0700, David Harmon >
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 06 May 2011 05:38:53 -0700 in rec.food.cooking, sf
>> >> > wrote,
>> >> >On Fri, 6 May 2011 05:17:36 -0500, "Storrmmee"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> in YOUR opinoion only, you really need to lighten up and free
>> >> >> yourself from
>> >> >> rules written in some cook book somewhere and open yourself up to
>> >> >> the idea
>> >> >> that yours is not the only right or "real way, Lee
>> >> >
>> >> >I simply do not think calling every bean dish that happens to hit the
>> >> >oven "baked beans" is a very good/smart idea.
>> >>
>> >> It is accurate. If you want to specify the style you are talking
>> >> about, call it Boston baked beans or something equally specific. Not
>> >> everybody shares your bean bigotry.
>> >
>> >"Boston" is too much of a misnomer for me.
>>
>> I can believe that, which is why I said "or something equally
>> specific." But I don't know a better term to propose.
>> Anybody have other suggestions?
>>
>
> If you're stuck, then I'm not such a "bean bigot" after all. That's
> what people think of first when the term "baked bean" is bandied
> about. Every other bean dish that passes through an oven has a more
> specific name.
>
> --
> I love cooking with wine.
> Sometimes I even put it in the food.

You're just plain wrong on all points.

--------------

On Sat, 7 May 2011 11:34:26 -0500, "Storrmmee"
> wrote:

> once again for you this may be true, but its like the term corn bread, you
> have some issue with the southerners who are specific about what corn bread
> is and you still insist yours is the only right way, including the name...
> that is as silly as saying chocolate cake is one recipe only... just makes
> no sense to me,
>
> Lee
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 06 May 2011 17:00:49 -0700, David Harmon >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 06 May 2011 09:06:30 -0700 in rec.food.cooking, sf
> >> > wrote,
> >> >On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:04:19 -0700, David Harmon >
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 06 May 2011 05:38:53 -0700 in rec.food.cooking, sf
> >> >> > wrote,
> >> >> >On Fri, 6 May 2011 05:17:36 -0500, "Storrmmee"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> in YOUR opinoion only, you really need to lighten up and free
> >> >> >> yourself from
> >> >> >> rules written in some cook book somewhere and open yourself up to
> >> >> >> the idea
> >> >> >> that yours is not the only right or "real way, Lee
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I simply do not think calling every bean dish that happens to hit the
> >> >> >oven "baked beans" is a very good/smart idea.
> >> >>
> >> >> It is accurate. If you want to specify the style you are talking
> >> >> about, call it Boston baked beans or something equally specific. Not
> >> >> everybody shares your bean bigotry.
> >> >
> >> >"Boston" is too much of a misnomer for me.
> >>
> >> I can believe that, which is why I said "or something equally
> >> specific." But I don't know a better term to propose.
> >> Anybody have other suggestions?
> >>
> >
> > If you're stuck, then I'm not such a "bean bigot" after all. That's
> > what people think of first when the term "baked bean" is bandied
> > about. Every other bean dish that passes through an oven has a more
> > specific name.
> >
> > --
> > I love cooking with wine.
> > Sometimes I even put it in the food.
>


--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

you are either dulusional or a hyporcrite, make yourown choice, you will
never admit when you are wrong and that is truly sad, Lee
"sf" > wrote in message
...
>
> You're just plain wrong on all points.
>
> --------------
>
> On Sat, 7 May 2011 11:34:26 -0500, "Storrmmee"
> > wrote:
>
>> once again for you this may be true, but its like the term corn bread,
>> you
>> have some issue with the southerners who are specific about what corn
>> bread
>> is and you still insist yours is the only right way, including the
>> name...
>> that is as silly as saying chocolate cake is one recipe only... just
>> makes
>> no sense to me,
>>
>> Lee
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Fri, 06 May 2011 17:00:49 -0700, David Harmon >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 06 May 2011 09:06:30 -0700 in rec.food.cooking, sf
>> >> > wrote,
>> >> >On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:04:19 -0700, David Harmon >
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Fri, 06 May 2011 05:38:53 -0700 in rec.food.cooking, sf
>> >> >> > wrote,
>> >> >> >On Fri, 6 May 2011 05:17:36 -0500, "Storrmmee"
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> in YOUR opinoion only, you really need to lighten up and free
>> >> >> >> yourself from
>> >> >> >> rules written in some cook book somewhere and open yourself up
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> the idea
>> >> >> >> that yours is not the only right or "real way, Lee
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I simply do not think calling every bean dish that happens to hit
>> >> >> >the
>> >> >> >oven "baked beans" is a very good/smart idea.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It is accurate. If you want to specify the style you are talking
>> >> >> about, call it Boston baked beans or something equally specific.
>> >> >> Not
>> >> >> everybody shares your bean bigotry.
>> >> >
>> >> >"Boston" is too much of a misnomer for me.
>> >>
>> >> I can believe that, which is why I said "or something equally
>> >> specific." But I don't know a better term to propose.
>> >> Anybody have other suggestions?
>> >>
>> >
>> > If you're stuck, then I'm not such a "bean bigot" after all. That's
>> > what people think of first when the term "baked bean" is bandied
>> > about. Every other bean dish that passes through an oven has a more
>> > specific name.
>> >
>> > --
>> > I love cooking with wine.
>> > Sometimes I even put it in the food.
>>
>
>
> --
> I love cooking with wine.
> Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Sun, 8 May 2011 09:19:10 -0500, "Storrmmee"
> wrote:

> you are either dulusional or a hyporcrite, make yourown choice, you will
> never admit when you are wrong and that is truly sad, Lee

Sorry, Lee. I feel the same way about you and what you think baked
beans are. I have never seen anyone talk about baked beans here and
post or discuss a recipe for anything other than my type. If they are
talking about anything else, it has a different name.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

-"here is not the real world.
-You say baked beans are only one thing yet you say cornbread is not.
-i said baked beans/cornbread/and chocolate cake are not one single item,,
nothing hypocritical about my definition, and no conflict either...

no need to discuss this further if you can't understand it,

Lee
"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 8 May 2011 09:19:10 -0500, "Storrmmee"
> > wrote:
>
>> you are either dulusional or a hyporcrite, make yourown choice, you will
>> never admit when you are wrong and that is truly sad, Lee
>
> Sorry, Lee. I feel the same way about you and what you think baked
> beans are. I have never seen anyone talk about baked beans here and
> post or discuss a recipe for anything other than my type. If they are
> talking about anything else, it has a different name.
>
> --
> I love cooking with wine.
> Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"Storrmmee" > wrote in message
...
> -"here is not the real world.
> -You say baked beans are only one thing yet you say cornbread is not.
> -i said baked beans/cornbread/and chocolate cake are not one single item,,
> nothing hypocritical about my definition, and no conflict either...
>
> no need to discuss this further if you can't understand it,

You can't even use the term "American baked beans" because they are made
differently in different parts of the country. For instance in PA it is
butter beans in a slightly sweet tomato sauce.

sf wrote:
>
> Sorry, Lee. I feel the same way about you and what you think baked
> beans are. I have never seen anyone talk about baked beans here and
> post or discuss a recipe for anything other than my type. If they are
> talking about anything else, it has a different name.

This is like "prime rib". There is beef that is graded prime. There is
a cut of rib that is called prime rib. There's no requirement that the
prime rib cut be rated prime. Likely the popular name for the cut came
from the grade but it has long since lost any such linkage.

Baked beans is term for a class of recipes. It has not meant beans that
are baked for longer than I have been alive.

this is my point, baked beans is more of a process rather than a recipe,
only when you eat one recipe can you know what kind it is, Lee,
"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Storrmmee" > wrote in message
> ...
>> -"here is not the real world.
>> -You say baked beans are only one thing yet you say cornbread is not.
>> -i said baked beans/cornbread/and chocolate cake are not one single
>> item,, nothing hypocritical about my definition, and no conflict
>> either...
>>
>> no need to discuss this further if you can't understand it,
>
> You can't even use the term "American baked beans" because they are made
> differently in different parts of the country. For instance in PA it is
> butter beans in a slightly sweet tomato sauce.
>

In article >,
Doug Freyburger > wrote:


> This is like "prime rib". There is beef that is graded prime. There is
> a cut of rib that is called prime rib. There's no requirement that the
> prime rib cut be rated prime. Likely the popular name for the cut came
> from the grade but it has long since lost any such linkage.

No. Last time I looked it up, the reason that the USDA specifically
mentions that "prime rib" is a cut of beef is because the term existed
long before the USDA was established.

> Baked beans is term for a class of recipes. It has not meant beans that
> are baked for longer than I have been alive.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Mon, 9 May 2011 12:41:49 -0500, "Storrmmee"
> wrote:

> this is my point, baked beans is more of a process rather than a recipe,
> only when you eat one recipe can you know what kind it is, Lee,

Like I said before. Every bean that passes through an oven is generic
"baked beans" to you. Baked Beans is something specific. Everything
else has a different name.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Mon, 9 May 2011 12:41:49 -0500, "Storrmmee"
> wrote:

>this is my point, baked beans is more of a process rather than a recipe,
>only when you eat one recipe can you know what kind it is, Lee,

Huh? All recipes are also a process.

>"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Storrmmee" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> -"here is not the real world.
>>> -You say baked beans are only one thing yet you say cornbread is not.
>>> -i said baked beans/cornbread/and chocolate cake are not one single
>>> item,, nothing hypocritical about my definition, and no conflict
>>> either...
>>>
>>> no need to discuss this further if you can't understand it,
>>
>> You can't even use the term "American baked beans" because they are made
>> differently in different parts of the country. For instance in PA it is
>> butter beans in a slightly sweet tomato sauce.
>>
>

"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 9 May 2011 12:41:49 -0500, "Storrmmee"
> > wrote:
>
>>this is my point, baked beans is more of a process rather than a recipe,
>>only when you eat one recipe can you know what kind it is, Lee,
>
> Huh? All recipes are also a process.

Yes.

and like i said before, no the oven is not the only qualifier, i
specifically stated oven, slow cooker, grill, top of stove, it must be
frusterating for you that no one seems to be agreeing with you, as another
poster said, "baked beans" is only a class of recipes like chocolate cake is
a class of recipes, sorry this is so hard for you to understand, everyone
else seems to get it, Lee
"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 9 May 2011 12:41:49 -0500, "Storrmmee"
> > wrote:
>
>> this is my point, baked beans is more of a process rather than a recipe,
>> only when you eat one recipe can you know what kind it is, Lee,
>
> Like I said before. Every bean that passes through an oven is generic
> "baked beans" to you. Baked Beans is something specific. Everything
> else has a different name.
>
> --
> I love cooking with wine.
> Sometimes I even put it in the food.

think of it this way, chocolate cake is a group of reciepes, candied,
apples, carrots,fruit, denotes a thing you do to something and yet none of
these are the same, i have eaten many kinds of bean recipes, some baked some
not, to denot baked beans is not only wrong, its narrow minded to the
possiblilities out there, and since i am writing this for the zillionth
time, baked beans can also be sweet or savory and still be baked beans,
another example is dressing for the thanksgiving dinner, some sweet some
savory but all are dressing, how hard is that to understand...

Lee

ps, julie i answered on your post because i don't get his.

lee


"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 9 May 2011 12:41:49 -0500, "Storrmmee"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>this is my point, baked beans is more of a process rather than a recipe,
>>>only when you eat one recipe can you know what kind it is, Lee,
>>
>> Huh? All recipes are also a process.
>
> Yes.
>

On Wed, 11 May 2011 12:53:46 -0500, "Storrmmee"
> wrote:

> and like i said before, no the oven is not the only qualifier, i
> specifically stated oven, slow cooker, grill, top of stove, it must be
> frusterating for you that no one seems to be agreeing with you, as another
> poster said, "baked beans" is only a class of recipes like chocolate cake is
> a class of recipes, sorry this is so hard for you to understand, everyone
> else seems to get it, Lee

I've been there before, like carnitas. Guess what? Virtually every
comment in the last thread reflected my comments that were shot down,
just like you're trying to do now. So, the fact remains that I'm
right and everyone else will catch up eventually.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Wed, 11 May 2011 12:53:46 -0500, "Storrmmee"
> wrote:

>and like i said before, no the oven is not the only qualifier, i
>specifically stated oven, slow cooker, grill, top of stove, it must be
>frusterating for you that no one seems to be agreeing with you, as another
>poster said, "baked beans" is only a class of recipes like chocolate cake is
>a class of recipes, sorry this is so hard for you to understand, everyone
>else seems to get it,

Correct... the "baked" in baked beans is just a figure of speech, they
needn't be literally baked in an oven, can just as easily be cooked in
a pot on the stove top... actually more easily because it's easier to
check for reseasoning, for liquid loss, and doneness. I always cook
baked beans on the stove top... unless they are canned, then I may
reheat in the nuker... but I'll just as soon eat baked beans right
from the can without heating. I'll bet every brand of canned baked
beans is cooked in huge kettles, never sees the inside of an oven.


>"sf" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Mon, 9 May 2011 12:41:49 -0500, "Storrmmee"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> this is my point, baked beans is more of a process rather than a recipe,
>>> only when you eat one recipe can you know what kind it is, Lee,
>>
>> Like I said before. Every bean that passes through an oven is generic
>> "baked beans" to you. Baked Beans is something specific. Everything
>> else has a different name.
>>
>> --
>> I love cooking with wine.
>> Sometimes I even put it in the food.
>

"Storrmmee" > wrote in message
...
> think of it this way, chocolate cake is a group of reciepes, candied,
> apples, carrots,fruit, denotes a thing you do to something and yet none of
> these are the same, i have eaten many kinds of bean recipes, some baked
> some not, to denot baked beans is not only wrong, its narrow minded to the
> possiblilities out there, and since i am writing this for the zillionth
> time, baked beans can also be sweet or savory and still be baked beans,
> another example is dressing for the thanksgiving dinner, some sweet some
> savory but all are dressing, how hard is that to understand...
>
> Lee
>
> ps, julie i answered on your post because i don't get his.

Okay.

On Wed, 11 May 2011 17:25:35 -0400, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:

>On Wed, 11 May 2011 12:53:46 -0500, "Storrmmee"
> wrote:
>
>>and like i said before, no the oven is not the only qualifier, i
>>specifically stated oven, slow cooker, grill, top of stove, it must be
>>frusterating for you that no one seems to be agreeing with you, as another
>>poster said, "baked beans" is only a class of recipes like chocolate cake is
>>a class of recipes, sorry this is so hard for you to understand, everyone
>>else seems to get it,
>
>Correct... the "baked" in baked beans is just a figure of speech, they
>needn't be literally baked in an oven, can just as easily be cooked in
>a pot on the stove top... actually more easily because it's easier to
>check for reseasoning, for liquid loss, and doneness. I always cook
>baked beans on the stove top... unless they are canned, then I may
>reheat in the nuker... but I'll just as soon eat baked beans right
>from the can without heating. I'll bet every brand of canned baked
>beans is cooked in huge kettles, never sees the inside of an oven.
>
>
>>"sf" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Mon, 9 May 2011 12:41:49 -0500, "Storrmmee"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> this is my point, baked beans is more of a process rather than a recipe,
>>>> only when you eat one recipe can you know what kind it is, Lee,
>>>
>>> Like I said before. Every bean that passes through an oven is generic
>>> "baked beans" to you. Baked Beans is something specific. Everything
>>> else has a different name.
>>>
>>> --
>>> I love cooking with wine.
>>> Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Being physically unable to shop... I shop online, and as a result, are
never privy to all items, such as "Dark Red Kidney Baked Beans".
I hate to mention this type, because whenever an item becomes one of
demand.... somehow it either becomes unavailable, or their is a price
jack-up... Well hare goes...

I buy just plain ol' Dark "Red Kidney Beans"...
Place them in a covered microwave able vessel, add extra water,
salt, brown sugar to taste.... Adjust time and level settings, and all
ingredients, as you go, and micro until all cooks to a consistency as
that of a regular can of beans.....Viola

More than one way to skin a cat.... Please.... No Animal Rights
Activist, especially those living off the taxpayer's Federal
Grants!!!!

On May 6, 2:24*pm, Ranée at Arabian Knits >
wrote:
> In article >,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *sf > wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 May 2011 08:50:33 -0700 (PDT), Bryan
> > > wrote:
>
> > > On May 6, 9:45*am, sf > wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 6 May 2011 06:56:50 -0700 (PDT), Bryan
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > *If I were lucky enough to have the lamb fat I'd make
> > > > > fried potatoes with garlic and oregano.
>
> > > > Oh, god no. *Lamb fat smells awful when it gets that hot.
>
> > > Really? *I've never had much rendered lamb fat, though I've certainly
> > > trimmed a tiny bit off of chops and rendered it into a little oil,
> > > then used that to pan fry the chops. *I didn't notice any off smell..
>
> > Rendering could be done at a fairly low heat. *I'm talking about how
> > it would smell when you heat it hot enough to fry anything. *I cut as
> > much lamb fat off as I possibly can before cooking with high heat (and
> > turn the vent fan on high) to keep the odor at bay. *If you're frying
> > chops and not smelling lamb fat stench, then maybe you're not cooking
> > with a very high heat after all.
>
> * *That makes me think that either you just don't really like lamb as
> much as we do or you have bad sources of lamb. *Ours doesn't have *
> "stench." *It smells like roasty lamb. *I don't use it to deep fry, but
> definitely to saute.

"Roasty" is a nice word.
>
> Regards,
> Ranee @ Arabian Knits
>

--Bryan

"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 12:53:46 -0500, "Storrmmee"
> > wrote:
>
>>and like i said before, no the oven is not the only qualifier, i
>>specifically stated oven, slow cooker, grill, top of stove, it must be
>>frusterating for you that no one seems to be agreeing with you, as another
>>poster said, "baked beans" is only a class of recipes like chocolate cake
>>is
>>a class of recipes, sorry this is so hard for you to understand, everyone
>>else seems to get it,
>
> Correct... the "baked" in baked beans is just a figure of speech, they
> needn't be literally baked in an oven, can just as easily be cooked in
> a pot on the stove top... actually more easily because it's easier to
> check for reseasoning, for liquid loss, and doneness. I always cook
> baked beans on the stove top... unless they are canned, then I may
> reheat in the nuker... but I'll just as soon eat baked beans right
> from the can without heating. I'll bet every brand of canned baked
> beans is cooked in huge kettles, never sees the inside of an oven.


--
--

https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 12:53:46 -0500, "Storrmmee"
> > wrote:
>
>> and like i said before, no the oven is not the only qualifier, i
>> specifically stated oven, slow cooker, grill, top of stove, it must be
>> frusterating for you that no one seems to be agreeing with you, as
>> another
>> poster said, "baked beans" is only a class of recipes like chocolate cake
>> is
>> a class of recipes, sorry this is so hard for you to understand, everyone
>> else seems to get it, Lee
>
> I've been there before, like carnitas. Guess what? Virtually every
> comment in the last thread reflected my comments that were shot down,
> just like you're trying to do now. So, the fact remains that I'm
> right and everyone else will catch up eventually.

Your arrogance knows no bounds!
--
--

https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

> On May 6, 2:24*pm, Ranée at Arabian Knits >
> wrote:

> >
> > * *That makes me think that either you just don't really like lamb as
> > much as we do or you have bad sources of lamb. *Ours doesn't have *
> > "stench." *It smells like roasty lamb. *I don't use it to deep fry, but
> > definitely to saute.

I'd agree with bad sources of lamb because I don't like lamb sourced
in Australia or New Zealand (although I like it better than Aus lamb).
That's what's in the grocery store and I'm not buying designer lamb at
a premium.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Thu, 12 May 2011 08:38:58 -0700, sf > wrote:

>
>> On May 6, 2:24*pm, Ranée at Arabian Knits >
>> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > * *That makes me think that either you just don't really like lamb as
>> > much as we do or you have bad sources of lamb. *Ours doesn't have *
>> > "stench." *It smells like roasty lamb. *I don't use it to deep fry, but
>> > definitely to saute.
>
>I'd agree with bad sources of lamb because I don't like lamb sourced
>in Australia or New Zealand (although I like it better than Aus lamb).
>That's what's in the grocery store and I'm not buying designer lamb at
>a premium.

What don't you like about Australian lamb?
Janet

sf wrote:
> Ranée at Arabian Knits > wrote:
>
>> > * *That makes me think that either you just don't really like lamb as
>> > much as we do or you have bad sources of lamb. *Ours doesn't have *
>> > "stench." *It smells like roasty lamb. *I don't use it to deep fry, but
>> > definitely to saute.

People who don't like lamb don't like the smell of it in my experience.

> I'd agree with bad sources of lamb because I don't like lamb sourced
> in Australia or New Zealand (although I like it better than Aus lamb).
> That's what's in the grocery store and I'm not buying designer lamb at
> a premium.

To me the US domestic lamb has less flavor and the ANZAC lamb has more
flavor. Since I like lamb I'd rather have more of the flavor so I like
the imported lamb. What I've seen is that folks who don't like lamb
want the type with less flavor because it's less like lamb and more like
other types of meat.

That's my theory.

Doug Freyburger > wrote:

>sf wrote:
>> Ranée at Arabian Knits > wrote:
>>
>>> > * *That makes me think that either you just don't really like lamb as
>>> > much as we do or you have bad sources of lamb. *Ours doesn't have *
>>> > "stench." *It smells like roasty lamb. *I don't use it to deep fry, but
>>> > definitely to saute.
>
>People who don't like lamb don't like the smell of it in my experience.
>
>> I'd agree with bad sources of lamb because I don't like lamb sourced
>> in Australia or New Zealand (although I like it better than Aus lamb).
>> That's what's in the grocery store and I'm not buying designer lamb at
>> a premium.
>
>To me the US domestic lamb has less flavor and the ANZAC lamb has more
>flavor. Since I like lamb I'd rather have more of the flavor so I like
>the imported lamb. What I've seen is that folks who don't like lamb
>want the type with less flavor because it's less like lamb and more like
>other types of meat.
>
>That's my theory.

I think it might have merit. I try lamb every few years. I
can't get my head to stop telling me I'm eating spoiled beef. I
don't really find the flavor objectionable-- it just doesn't match
what I'm expecting because it looks like beef. I think if it was
blue or green, I could get over it.

Or maybe if it was more pronounced, it would stand on its own and I'd
like it.

Jim

Jim Elbrecht wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>>sf wrote:
>>> Ranée at Arabian Knits > wrote:
>>>
>>>> > * *That makes me think that either you just don't really like lamb as
>>>> > much as we do or you have bad sources of lamb. *Ours doesn't have *
>>>> > "stench." *It smells like roasty lamb. *I don't use it to deep fry, but
>>>> > definitely to saute.
>>
>>People who don't like lamb don't like the smell of it in my experience.
>>
>>> I'd agree with bad sources of lamb because I don't like lamb sourced
>>> in Australia or New Zealand (although I like it better than Aus lamb).
>>> That's what's in the grocery store and I'm not buying designer lamb at
>>> a premium.
>>
>>To me the US domestic lamb has less flavor and the ANZAC lamb has more
>>flavor. Since I like lamb I'd rather have more of the flavor so I like
>>the imported lamb. What I've seen is that folks who don't like lamb
>>want the type with less flavor because it's less like lamb and more like
>>other types of meat.
>>
>>That's my theory.
>
> I think it might have merit. I try lamb every few years. I
> can't get my head to stop telling me I'm eating spoiled beef. I
> don't really find the flavor objectionable-- it just doesn't match
> what I'm expecting because it looks like beef. I think if it was
> blue or green, I could get over it.
>
> Or maybe if it was more pronounced, it would stand on its own and I'd
> like it.

You could try goat meat. It's fibers are different from meat. The
muscles are a lot smaller and more complex and the bones are a lot
smaller. As a result while it has the same color as beef it doesn't
take much observation to be clear it isn't beef. And it tastes similar
to lamb but stronger. If you like goat you'll like lamb. If you don't
like lamb you won't like goat.

thanks so much for making this post, seeing just how silly you are means i
need no longer take you seriously and therefore try to educate you as to
real world cooking... i am proud to be in such wrong company,

Lee
"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 12:53:46 -0500, "Storrmmee"
> > wrote:
>
>> and like i said before, no the oven is not the only qualifier, i
>> specifically stated oven, slow cooker, grill, top of stove, it must be
>> frusterating for you that no one seems to be agreeing with you, as
>> another
>> poster said, "baked beans" is only a class of recipes like chocolate cake
>> is
>> a class of recipes, sorry this is so hard for you to understand, everyone
>> else seems to get it, Lee
>
> I've been there before, like carnitas. Guess what? Virtually every
> comment in the last thread reflected my comments that were shot down,
> just like you're trying to do now. So, the fact remains that I'm
> right and everyone else will catch up eventually.
>
> --
> I love cooking with wine.
> Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On May 12, 5:51*pm, Doug Freyburger > wrote:
> Jim Elbrecht wrote:
> > Doug Freyburger > wrote:
> >>sf wrote:
> >>> Ranée at Arabian Knits > wrote:
>
> >>>> > * *That makes me think that either you just don't really like lamb as
> >>>> > much as we do or you have bad sources of lamb. *Ours doesn't have *
> >>>> > "stench." *It smells like roasty lamb. *I don't use it to deep fry, but
> >>>> > definitely to saute.
>
> >>People who don't like lamb don't like the smell of it in my experience.
>
> >>> I'd agree with bad sources of lamb because I don't like lamb sourced
> >>> in Australia or New Zealand (although I like it better than Aus lamb)..
> >>> That's what's in the grocery store and I'm not buying designer lamb at
> >>> a premium.
>
> >>To me the US domestic lamb has less flavor and the ANZAC lamb has more
> >>flavor. *Since I like lamb I'd rather have more of the flavor so I like
> >>the imported lamb. *What I've seen is that folks who don't like lamb
> >>want the type with less flavor because it's less like lamb and more like
> >>other types of meat.
>
> >>That's my theory.
>
> > I think it might have merit. * *I try lamb every few years. * * I
> > can't get my head to stop telling me I'm eating spoiled beef. * I
> > don't really find the flavor objectionable-- it just doesn't match
> > what I'm expecting because it looks like beef. * *I think if it was
> > blue or green, I could get over it.
>
> > Or maybe if it was more pronounced, it would stand on its own and I'd
> > like it.
>
> You could try goat meat. *It's fibers are different from meat. *The
> muscles are a lot smaller and more complex and the bones are a lot
> smaller. *As a result while it has the same color as beef it doesn't
> take much observation to be clear it isn't beef. *And it tastes similar
> to lamb but stronger. *If you like goat you'll like lamb. *If you don't
> like lamb you won't like goat.

I like lamb, but not goat. The fatty acid profile of goat is pretty
extreme toward medium chain capric and caprylic acids. Goat is more
similar to mutton. I wish that I liked mutton and goat, and goats'
milk as well, because it is a lot healthier than cows' body fat or
milk fat. I wish I liked cruciferous veggies too.

--Bryan

On Thu, 12 May 2011 12:51:05 -0600, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:

> On Thu, 12 May 2011 08:38:58 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
> >
> >> On May 6, 2:24*pm, Ranée at Arabian Knits >
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > * *That makes me think that either you just don't really like lamb as
> >> > much as we do or you have bad sources of lamb. *Ours doesn't have *
> >> > "stench." *It smells like roasty lamb. *I don't use it to deep fry, but
> >> > definitely to saute.
> >
> >I'd agree with bad sources of lamb because I don't like lamb sourced
> >in Australia or New Zealand (although I like it better than Aus lamb).
> >That's what's in the grocery store and I'm not buying designer lamb at
> >a premium.
>
> What don't you like about Australian lamb?

The nicest thing I can say about it is it's "strong". If the only
lamb I knew was Australian, I would say I didn't like lamb.
Fortunately I know it can taste much better than that.


--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Bryan wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
>> You could try goat meat. *It's fibers are different from beef. *The
>> muscles are a lot smaller and more complex and the bones are a lot
>> smaller. *As a result while it has the same color as beef it doesn't
>> take much observation to be clear it isn't beef. *And it tastes similar
>> to lamb but stronger. *If you like goat you'll like lamb. *If you don't
>> like lamb you won't like goat.
>
> I like lamb, but not goat. The fatty acid profile of goat is pretty
> extreme toward medium chain capric and caprylic acids.

I've read all sorts of articles about the nutritional benefits of
caprylic acid. One more reason for me to have more goat. That and it's
my favorite ...

> Goat is more similar to mutton.

My Dad called goat meat mutton. I know it's technically incorrect usage
but that's how I learned the word originally. Goat meat is like intense
lamb meat. It does teach a lesson that applies to beef - Older lamb is
called mutton. It has stronger flavor and is tougher than younger lamb.
If you like the flavor of beef and you're willing to cook it low, slow
and moist like a slow braise or a stew, older cows taste awesome. Older
cows are only common food among dairy farmers to my knowledge. They
don't want to waste the food when they kill an older milker who's no
longer producing economically. I have a lot of relatives who live in
dairy territory.

> I wish that I liked mutton and goat, and goats'
> milk as well, because it is a lot healthier than cows' body fat or
> milk fat.

I love goat cheese but I get tired of it very quickly.

> I wish I liked cruciferous veggies too.

More for me. Please pass the cauliflower. I'll trade you my bell
peppers.

On 5/13/2011 10:34 AM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Bryan wrote:
>> Doug > wrote:
>>
>>> You could try goat meat. It's fibers are different from beef. The
>>> muscles are a lot smaller and more complex and the bones are a lot
>>> smaller. As a result while it has the same color as beef it doesn't
>>> take much observation to be clear it isn't beef. And it tastes similar
>>> to lamb but stronger. If you like goat you'll like lamb. If you don't
>>> like lamb you won't like goat.
>>
>> I like lamb, but not goat. The fatty acid profile of goat is pretty
>> extreme toward medium chain capric and caprylic acids.
>
> I've read all sorts of articles about the nutritional benefits of
> caprylic acid. One more reason for me to have more goat. That and it's
> my favorite ...
>
>> Goat is more similar to mutton.
>
> My Dad called goat meat mutton. I know it's technically incorrect usage
> but that's how I learned the word originally. Goat meat is like intense
> lamb meat. It does teach a lesson that applies to beef - Older lamb is
> called mutton. It has stronger flavor and is tougher than younger lamb.
> If you like the flavor of beef and you're willing to cook it low, slow
> and moist like a slow braise or a stew, older cows taste awesome. Older
> cows are only common food among dairy farmers to my knowledge. They
> don't want to waste the food when they kill an older milker who's no
> longer producing economically. I have a lot of relatives who live in
> dairy territory.
>
>> I wish that I liked mutton and goat, and goats'
>> milk as well, because it is a lot healthier than cows' body fat or
>> milk fat.
>

Goat is fairly low-fat meat and is often on the menu in Indian
restaurants. Unfortunately, a lot of them actually use mutton because of
the cost.

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm *not*

In article >,
Doug Freyburger > wrote:

> If you like the flavor of beef and you're willing to cook it low, slow
> and moist like a slow braise or a stew, older cows taste awesome. Older
> cows are only common food among dairy farmers to my knowledge. They
> don't want to waste the food when they kill an older milker who's no
> longer producing economically. I have a lot of relatives who live in
> dairy territory.

Don't worry. It doesn't get wasted. Much of it ends up in school lunch
programs, and in cans.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA