| |
Main
Date: 16 Jul 2007 07:30:56
From: shane
Subject: Microfoam and skim milk
|
I had a bit of an extended go around with the espresso machine at
church this weekend. A couple of the people scheduled did not show up
or got called away, so I jumped in to help.
We have been using skim milk in our lattes and cappucinos. This
decision was made as it was determined to be "easier" to make foam
with. I would prefer to use 2%, but oh well. I think the skim
milk foams too well, I have to watch otherwise I will spill the foam
out the top of the pitcher. I seemed quite close to making foam I
could pour latte art with.
I have noticed that once the foam is steamed, it needs to be poured
right away. Sometimes a pitcher of milk sits for a bit and the foam
settles out. We usually use a 25oz or larger pitcher, I tried
using a smaller 12oz pitcher and managed to splash milk everyplace.
Is it the lack of fat in the skim milk that makes it give more volume
when foaming?
Shane
|
|
| |
Date: 19 Jul 2007 15:26:50
From: Travesso
Subject: Re: Microfoam and skim milk
|
On Jul 19, 2:41 pm, shane <shane.ol...@juno.com > wrote:
> On Jul 18, 7:44 pm, Marshall <mrf...@ihatespamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:27:34 -0700, Travesso <cpaso...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Am I the only one wanting to know how I can find a church that serves
> > >espresso?????????????????????????????
> > >You would cry if you saw our coffee service at church--perculated year
> > >old pre-ground.
>
> > The Cathedral in Los Angeles has a Starbucks, but that's probably not
> > what you meant.
>
> > Many smaller churches have independent coffee shops, often in finished
> > basements. There is nothing unusual about it. They are an important
> > market for Fair Trade coffees.
>
> > Marshall
>
> We give our coffee away, to make people feel welcome.
>
> A slighty used espresso machine was purchased with the idea of using
> it for special occasions. When it was realized that it did not cost
> that much more to offer espresso drinks all of the time, we decided
> to operate it on a regular basis. Milk is the biggest extra expense.
>
> >From what I have noticed, when I am working behind the coffee bar,
>
> most people still seem to drink the regular drip coffee.
> I enjoy the opportunity to play with a real commecrcial machine and
> hone my barista skills. It is fun.
>
> Shane- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
WOW, I guess I will get out of my hole.
|
| |
Date: 19 Jul 2007 11:41:28
From: shane
Subject: Re: Microfoam and skim milk
|
On Jul 18, 7:44 pm, Marshall <mrf...@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:27:34 -0700, Travesso <cpaso...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Am I the only one wanting to know how I can find a church that serves
> >espresso?????????????????????????????
> >You would cry if you saw our coffee service at church--perculated year
> >old pre-ground.
>
> The Cathedral in Los Angeles has a Starbucks, but that's probably not
> what you meant.
>
> Many smaller churches have independent coffee shops, often in finished
> basements. There is nothing unusual about it. They are an important
> market for Fair Trade coffees.
>
> Marshall
We give our coffee away, to make people feel welcome.
A slighty used espresso machine was purchased with the idea of using
it for special occasions. When it was realized that it did not cost
that much more to offer espresso drinks all of the time, we decided
to operate it on a regular basis. Milk is the biggest extra expense.
>From what I have noticed, when I am working behind the coffee bar,
most people still seem to drink the regular drip coffee.
I enjoy the opportunity to play with a real commecrcial machine and
hone my barista skills. It is fun.
Shane
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jul 2007 22:04:48
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: Microfoam and skim milk
|
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:41:28 -0700, shane <shane.olson@juno.com >
wrote:
>We give our coffee away, to make people feel welcome.
>
>A slighty used espresso machine was purchased with the idea of using
>it for special occasions. When it was realized that it did not cost
>that much more to offer espresso drinks all of the time, we decided
>to operate it on a regular basis. Milk is the biggest extra expense.
>
>>From what I have noticed, when I am working behind the coffee bar,
>most people still seem to drink the regular drip coffee.
>I enjoy the opportunity to play with a real commecrcial machine and
>hone my barista skills. It is fun.
>
>Shane
Ota be better than pillow-pack in the ol' institutional urn.
Marshall
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Jul 2007 17:22:41
From: North Sullivan
Subject: Re: Microfoam and skim milk
|
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:04:48 GMT, Marshall
<mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:41:28 -0700, shane <shane.olson@juno.com>
>wrote:
>
>>We give our coffee away, to make people feel welcome.
>>
>>A slighty used espresso machine was purchased with the idea of using
>>it for special occasions. When it was realized that it did not cost
>>that much more to offer espresso drinks all of the time, we decided
>>to operate it on a regular basis. Milk is the biggest extra expense.
>>
>>>From what I have noticed, when I am working behind the coffee bar,
>>most people still seem to drink the regular drip coffee.
>>I enjoy the opportunity to play with a real commecrcial machine and
>>hone my barista skills. It is fun.
>>
>>Shane
>
>Ota be better than pillow-pack in the ol' institutional urn.
>
>Marshall
I have three area churches that serve our coffee at services. Each
was placed in the position to upgrade coffee upon receiving specific
gifts for that purpose. Two of the churches get whole beans and have
commercial Bunn brewers and grinders. Another church gets pre-ground
but are heading toward the road of commercial equipment as well.
My best wholesale accounts are churches and taverns. There's gotta be
a country-western song there somewhere.
North Sullivan
|
| |
Date: 18 Jul 2007 17:27:34
From: Travesso
Subject: Re: Microfoam and skim milk
|
On Jul 16, 10:30 am, shane <shane.ol...@juno.com > wrote:
> I had a bit of an extended go around with the espresso machine at
> church this weekend. A couple of the people scheduled did not show up
> or got called away, so I jumped in to help.
>
> We have been using skim milk in our lattes and cappucinos. This
> decision was made as it was determined to be "easier" to make foam
> with. I would prefer to use 2%, but oh well. I think the skim
> milk foams too well, I have to watch otherwise I will spill the foam
> out the top of the pitcher. I seemed quite close to making foam I
> could pour latte art with.
>
> I have noticed that once the foam is steamed, it needs to be poured
> right away. Sometimes a pitcher of milk sits for a bit and the foam
> settles out. We usually use a 25oz or larger pitcher, I tried
> using a smaller 12oz pitcher and managed to splash milk everyplace.
>
> Is it the lack of fat in the skim milk that makes it give more volume
> when foaming?
>
> Shane
Am I the only one wanting to know how I can find a church that serves
espresso?????????????????????????????
You would cry if you saw our coffee service at church--perculated year
old pre-ground.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jul 2007 00:44:07
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: Microfoam and skim milk
|
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:27:34 -0700, Travesso <cpasoren@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>Am I the only one wanting to know how I can find a church that serves
>espresso?????????????????????????????
>You would cry if you saw our coffee service at church--perculated year
>old pre-ground.
The Cathedral in Los Angeles has a Starbucks, but that's probably not
what you meant.
Many smaller churches have independent coffee shops, often in finished
basements. There is nothing unusual about it. They are an important
market for Fair Trade coffees.
Marshall
|
| |
Date: 17 Jul 2007 07:56:56
From: shane
Subject: Re: Microfoam and skim milk
|
On Jul 17, 5:27 am, "ramboori...@gmail.com" <ramboori...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Jul 16, 10:30 am, shane <shane.ol...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I had a bit of an extended go around with the espresso machine at
> > church this weekend. A couple of the people scheduled did not show up
> > or got called away, so I jumped in to help.
>
> > We have been using skim milk in our lattes and cappucinos. This
> > decision was made as it was determined to be "easier" to make foam
> > with. I would prefer to use 2%, but oh well. I think the skim
> > milk foams too well, I have to watch otherwise I will spill the foam
> > out the top of the pitcher. I seemed quite close to making foam I
> > could pour latte art with.
>
> > I have noticed that once the foam is steamed, it needs to be poured
> > right away. Sometimes a pitcher of milk sits for a bit and the foam
> > settles out. We usually use a 25oz or larger pitcher, I tried
> > using a smaller 12oz pitcher and managed to splash milk everyplace.
>
> > Is it the lack of fat in the skim milk that makes it give more volume
> > when foaming?
>
> > Shane
>
> Not that these guys need my concurrence, but I gotta agree with Ken.
> I'd always 'heard' that skim milk frothed more easily. I've only been
> at this at any sort of level of competence since last November-ish, so
> I'm a relative newbie. But I HATE dealing with skim milk. My wife and
> daughter insist on skim. I fight with it every day and it ends up too
> bulky, too airy, too dry, and not at all creamy or smooth. On a good
> day, I can get a nice even pour but too often it comes out in clumps
> and stumps. Hard to break down or smooth out no matter how long I
> swirl it around in the pitcher or how many times I rap it on the
> counter. Then I get to the whole milk for my cappas and its a whole
> 'nother world. Nice creamy microfoam almost every time and any little
> clumps or bubbles easily rapped and swirled away. I'm not sure how the
> 'skim is easier to froth' myth got started, but I don't buy any part
> of it.
>
> -Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The "skim is easier to froth" myth was/is probably created by people
who have no idea what proper foam should look like. Some people like
bulky, airy, stiff, dry foam.
What about the add air above 100 degrees myth? I showed a guy how to
foam milk buy adding the air up to 100 degrees and then submerge the
tip. He tried it and was amazed, as it was the first time he made any
foam at all. He now regards me as a milk foaming expert.
Whole milk or 2%? I usually use 2% as I usually only buy one kind of
milk.
Shane
|
| |
Date: 17 Jul 2007 10:27:22
From: ramboorider@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Microfoam and skim milk
|
On Jul 16, 10:30 am, shane <shane.ol...@juno.com > wrote:
> I had a bit of an extended go around with the espresso machine at
> church this weekend. A couple of the people scheduled did not show up
> or got called away, so I jumped in to help.
>
> We have been using skim milk in our lattes and cappucinos. This
> decision was made as it was determined to be "easier" to make foam
> with. I would prefer to use 2%, but oh well. I think the skim
> milk foams too well, I have to watch otherwise I will spill the foam
> out the top of the pitcher. I seemed quite close to making foam I
> could pour latte art with.
>
> I have noticed that once the foam is steamed, it needs to be poured
> right away. Sometimes a pitcher of milk sits for a bit and the foam
> settles out. We usually use a 25oz or larger pitcher, I tried
> using a smaller 12oz pitcher and managed to splash milk everyplace.
>
> Is it the lack of fat in the skim milk that makes it give more volume
> when foaming?
>
> Shane
Not that these guys need my concurrence, but I gotta agree with Ken.
I'd always 'heard' that skim milk frothed more easily. I've only been
at this at any sort of level of competence since last November-ish, so
I'm a relative newbie. But I HATE dealing with skim milk. My wife and
daughter insist on skim. I fight with it every day and it ends up too
bulky, too airy, too dry, and not at all creamy or smooth. On a good
day, I can get a nice even pour but too often it comes out in clumps
and stumps. Hard to break down or smooth out no matter how long I
swirl it around in the pitcher or how many times I rap it on the
counter. Then I get to the whole milk for my cappas and its a whole
'nother world. Nice creamy microfoam almost every time and any little
clumps or bubbles easily rapped and swirled away. I'm not sure how the
'skim is easier to froth' myth got started, but I don't buy any part
of it.
-Ray
|
| |
Date: 16 Jul 2007 22:41:57
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Microfoam and skim milk
|
"shane" <shane.olson@juno.com > wrote in message
news:1184596256.049036.132480@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>I had a bit of an extended go around with the espresso machine at
> church this weekend. A couple of the people scheduled did not show up
> or got called away, so I jumped in to help.
>
> We have been using skim milk in our lattes and cappucinos. This
> decision was made as it was determined to be "easier" to make foam
> with. I would prefer to use 2%, but oh well. I think the skim
> milk foams too well, I have to watch otherwise I will spill the foam
> out the top of the pitcher. I seemed quite close to making foam I
> could pour latte art with.
>
> I have noticed that once the foam is steamed, it needs to be poured
> right away. Sometimes a pitcher of milk sits for a bit and the foam
> settles out. We usually use a 25oz or larger pitcher, I tried
> using a smaller 12oz pitcher and managed to splash milk everyplace.
>
> Is it the lack of fat in the skim milk that makes it give more volume
> when foaming?
>
>
> Shane
>
I come before you, a changed man:-)
I'm a bit of a slow learner, and I stuck with skim milk for several years
longer than I should have. Truth be told, it is hopeless for use in a
decent espresso milk drink. Good espresso milk drinks are drinks that
accentuate the coffee itself (and hence don't use a whole lot of milk), but
at the same time use the milk to impart a creaminess that can only come from
real microfoam that doesn't separate 15 seconds after it was poured. This
simply does not happen with skim milk "microfoam," if "skim milk microfoam"
even exists.
There are things you can do to lower-than-whole-milkfat-milks to improve
them; one is to use dried "non-instant" skim milk powder added in, to say,
2% milk, using a high speed blender. This is not your standard "Carnation
Instant Milk" type product, which gives a "cooked" flavor, but rather an
expensive health food store like product that can be mixed in which will
improve less fatty milk. In skim milk, it is basically a waste of time and
money, but in 2% you have a chance to come close to what you can get with
whole milk.
"Ultra pasteurization" does something to milk that both prolongs its
(refrigerated) shelf life and improves its microfoaming capability; I try to
only buy milk processed this way for use in espresso milk drinks as it
froths better, makes microfoam more easily, and the microfoam is less apt to
separate after frothing. If you take this sort of product in a 2% version
and blend in some the above mentioned dried milk powder, you can reduce your
fat intake and still get decent microfoam most of the time. With skim milk,
it is basically a waste of time as you will either get fake microfoam that
separates almost immediately, or dry foam, which does not really mix with
the coffee nor produce the creaminess that I hope you are seeking.
On the whole it is probably better to just bite the bullet and use whole
milk. If you limit your proportions to using only 4 oz or so in one cappa
per day, it is not going to kill you and the calories coming from it won't
break the bank. If you insist on making 20 oz "milk drinks" I suggest you
give up coffee altogether and just have milkshakes or something else, as 20
oz of skim milk are not going to taste very good, and 20 oz of whole milk
are not a very good thing to consume, considering the fat and calorie
content, not to mention that the coffee is so diminished and diluted by such
a drink that it isn't worth the effort in the first place.
ken
|
| | |
Date: 18 Jul 2007 00:08:58
From: *alan*
Subject: Re: Microfoam and skim milk
|
"Ken Fox" wrote
> [...]
> On the whole it is probably better to just bite the bullet and use whole
> milk. If you limit your proportions to using only 4 oz or so in one cappa
> per day, it is not going to kill you and the calories coming from it
> won't break the bank. If you insist on making 20 oz "milk drinks" I
> suggest you give up coffee altogether and just have milkshakes or
> something else, as 20 oz of skim milk are not going to taste very good,
> and 20 oz of whole milk are not a very good thing to consume, considering
> the fat and calorie content, not to mention that the coffee is so
> diminished and diluted by such a drink that it isn't worth the effort in
> the first place.
>
> ken
I agree with you completely about the desirability of using whole milk in a
"milk drink". Just leaving aside the important issue of foam quality,
nonfat and low-fat milk both taste like crap (to me, anyway), so how could
one expect a decent drink using either one of them? We should remember,
however, that taste is a very subjective matter, and if someone (not I)
happens to like foamed milk with a hint of espresso taste, then it *is*
worth the effort (to them).
--
alan
|
| | |
Date: 17 Jul 2007 00:53:33
From: Jim
Subject: Re: Microfoam and skim milk
|
Ken Fox wrote:
> "shane" <shane.olson@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:1184596256.049036.132480@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I had a bit of an extended go around with the espresso machine at
>>church this weekend. A couple of the people scheduled did not show up
>>or got called away, so I jumped in to help.
>>
>>We have been using skim milk in our lattes and cappucinos. This
>>decision was made as it was determined to be "easier" to make foam
>>with. I would prefer to use 2%, but oh well. I think the skim
>>milk foams too well, I have to watch otherwise I will spill the foam
>>out the top of the pitcher. I seemed quite close to making foam I
>>could pour latte art with.
>>
>>I have noticed that once the foam is steamed, it needs to be poured
>>right away. Sometimes a pitcher of milk sits for a bit and the foam
>>settles out. We usually use a 25oz or larger pitcher, I tried
>>using a smaller 12oz pitcher and managed to splash milk everyplace.
>>
>>Is it the lack of fat in the skim milk that makes it give more volume
>>when foaming?
>>
>>
>>Shane
>>
>
>
> I come before you, a changed man:-)
>
> I'm a bit of a slow learner, and I stuck with skim milk for several years
> longer than I should have. Truth be told, it is hopeless for use in a
> decent espresso milk drink. Good espresso milk drinks are drinks that
> accentuate the coffee itself (and hence don't use a whole lot of milk), but
> at the same time use the milk to impart a creaminess that can only come from
> real microfoam that doesn't separate 15 seconds after it was poured. This
> simply does not happen with skim milk "microfoam," if "skim milk microfoam"
> even exists.
>
> There are things you can do to lower-than-whole-milkfat-milks to improve
> them; one is to use dried "non-instant" skim milk powder added in, to say,
> 2% milk, using a high speed blender. This is not your standard "Carnation
> Instant Milk" type product, which gives a "cooked" flavor, but rather an
> expensive health food store like product that can be mixed in which will
> improve less fatty milk. In skim milk, it is basically a waste of time and
> money, but in 2% you have a chance to come close to what you can get with
> whole milk.
>
> "Ultra pasteurization" does something to milk that both prolongs its
> (refrigerated) shelf life and improves its microfoaming capability; I try to
> only buy milk processed this way for use in espresso milk drinks as it
> froths better, makes microfoam more easily, and the microfoam is less apt to
> separate after frothing.
I've noticed this with the organic milk that I sometimes buy. It's
ultra pasteurized, so I guess that's why it foams better???
If you take this sort of product in a 2% version
> and blend in some the above mentioned dried milk powder, you can reduce your
> fat intake and still get decent microfoam most of the time. With skim milk,
> it is basically a waste of time as you will either get fake microfoam that
> separates almost immediately, or dry foam, which does not really mix with
> the coffee nor produce the creaminess that I hope you are seeking.
>
> On the whole it is probably better to just bite the bullet and use whole
> milk. If you limit your proportions to using only 4 oz or so in one cappa
> per day, it is not going to kill you and the calories coming from it won't
> break the bank. If you insist on making 20 oz "milk drinks" I suggest you
> give up coffee altogether and just have milkshakes or something else, as 20
> oz of skim milk are not going to taste very good, and 20 oz of whole milk
> are not a very good thing to consume, considering the fat and calorie
> content, not to mention that the coffee is so diminished and diluted by such
> a drink that it isn't worth the effort in the first place.
>
> ken
>
>
|
|
