Cookbook talk:Pulses

Cooking Beans
I recently added a section talking about an alternative cooking method and reasons why it may be superior to the traditional soaking method. After writing it all, I realized that I don't have my sources handy and I felt uncomfortable about committing it, so I just commented it out and left it for another time.

My sources are several fold, though:


 * Mark Bitman, in How to Cook Everything, cites the overnight soak as unnecessary in terms of cooking time.
 * John Thorne, in Pot on the Fire, cites it as unnecessary in terms of
 * cooking time
 * flatulence (effect is negligible)
 * flavor (salting early doesn't toughen beans but makes them taste better)
 * Cooks Illustrated, in an article entitled Eliminating Gas from Beans, did some lab analysis and found that very few of the fart inducing compounds are removed by soaking and only 20-40% are removed by repeated water changes as they cook.

Also, my own experience shows that all of that work isn't really necessary. So, anyone have any objections to be adding this information? I can dig my sources out of storage if it matters. Crcarter 14:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Removing 20% to 40% is pretty good I think. I wonder how long they cooked the beans though. I suggest 6 or more hours, and at least several water changes, in addition to the overnight soak. Your experience that "all of that work isn't really necessary" may reflect a simple lack of concern for farts or your luck in having low-gas gut bacteria. AlbertCahalan 04:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say that 20-40% is pretty good so much as it's something, especially as if you're talking about hours of extra work. (I now must dig my sources out of storage to satisfy my curiosity.) Is there policy on presenting different methods of preparing certain foods? I would think it best to present the simplest and most straightforward method of preparation. Other methods (eg, `Fart Reducing') could be presented as variations, especially since such methods may be prone to diminishing the flavor, texture or character of the food being prepared.

Fart apathy and above average gut-fauna diversity doesn't change the fact that I think the "common knowledge" that beans must be soaked (and require extensive cooking times) is unfounded. Simple experience shows otherwise. Clayton Carter 00:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Well actually that brings to mind other benefits of long cooking times: you can get rid of the awful beany taste and make the beans easy to mash. Mashing the beans to make refried beans for a burrito is way easier after 6 hours of cooking. This isn't much work for the human. The human just needs to plan ahead. The stove does almost all the work. It's not a problem to have multiple cooking methods on this page as long as they all focus on the beans and don't turn into real recipes. If you start needing ingredient lists, make seperate pages. AlbertCahalan 18:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Right. So, I'll -- at some point soon -- make a change to indicate these cooking techniques:
 * 1) Conventional: overnight soaking and simmering.
 * 2) Skip the soak, just simmer. (Mine, I guess.)
 * 3) Fart reduction: soak and extended simmer w/ water changes.

On our personal debate, though, I happen to like that "awful beany taste". Why would you eat beans if you don't like the way they taste? I guess it's a matter of kitchen philosophy, but I generally try to prepare foods so as to preserve as much of their inherent character as possible. Of course long cooking will make beans easier to mash, but this is a discussion of cooking beans in general, though, and not specifically about mashing them. And your point about the work involved is just a matter of semantics. Obviously the human isn't doing the work to generate the energy to cook the beans for six hours, but it still seems like an awful lot to invest if you just want to soften up some beans. Clayton Carter 20:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Beans are cheap and nutritious, and they have the right texture for a burrito. Do you know a substitute? Perhaps butter with rice flour and powdered milk? That wouldn't be cheap though. Mushroom paste? Again, not cheap or even available. AlbertCahalan 01:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Farts, Flatulence, Gastric Distress and Wording
I think that "flatulence" sounds better, esp. in the section heading. The next sentence has an unambiguous reference to "farting". I don't think that flatulence is any less clear than farting, and it sounds a bit less silly. Clayton Carter 20:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Nothing sounds more silly than using a big long aristocratic word when a simple and common one will do. Come on, do people say "oops, sorry I flatulated"? Nobody I've ever known would use this word. Likewise, we don't use cranium all that much. AlbertCahalan 00:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)