Need advice: storing pre soaked beans

[AnthonyJ]

I bought a 1 pound bag of black beans and I'm trying to decide if I wanna just pre soak the whole bag and save the extras or if I'm better off just soaking what I need for my meal and then saving the rest dry until next recipe. Also, if storing them after soaking, what are my storage options?

 

[jennyema]

I bought a 1 pound bag of black beans and I'm trying to decide if I wanna just pre soak the whole bag and save the extras or if I'm better off just soaking what I need for my meal and then saving the rest dry until next recipe. Also, if storing them after soaking, what are my storage options?

If you want to soak the whole bag I think you are better off cooking the whole thing and storing cooked beans. They can be frozen. Uncooked soaked beans that are drained and ziplocked last about 2-3 days in the fridge and then you need to cook them.

I'd soak and cook the whole bag or just soak and use the amount you need for your meal.

 

[Oldvine]

I agree with jennyema.

 

[Mad Cook]

I bought a 1 pound bag of black beans and I'm trying to decide if I wanna just pre soak the whole bag and save the extras or if I'm better off just soaking what I need for my meal and then saving the rest dry until next recipe. Also, if storing them after soaking, what are my storage options?

I wouldn't advise soaking all the beans and storing them uncooked as they won't keep well unless you freeze them, which somewhat defeats the object as they will take up valuable freezer space and defrosting time. The unsoaked dried beans will store well in a glass jar with a screw top lid (eg an old coffee jar) or in a Lock & Lock type plastic container. Make a note of the sell by/use by date as beans get hard and take longer to cook when they get old.

The better thing, if you want to soak the lot, is to soak and cook them. You can then freeze the ones you don't need, in useable amounts, for when you need want them. More economical than just cooking a few for one meal.

Some people on DC say you don't need to soak the beans before cooking but if you do it reduces the cooking time, and therefore the cost of cooking, by about 25%. There are two ways of soaking. Either overnight which is convenient or, if you forget, you can put them in a pan covered with 2-3 inches of water and boil for 2 minutes, then cover and leave to soak for an hour.

Incidentally, some recipes sugest that you cook the beans in the soaking water. Don't. Throw away the soaking water and cook in fresh. This avoids the worst of the "anti-social" effects of bean eating, If you get my drift ;-)

Another thing we have argued about on DC in the past is the advice that salt should not be added until the beans are cooked as it hardens them. Personally I have found this to be correct but others dispute this.

It's important to remember that, like red kidney beans, black beans carry a toxin (Lectin, IIRC) They should always be boiled fast for 10 minutes when you first put them on to cook in order to destroy the toxicity. This is especially important if you are going to cook them in a slow cooker.

I know you didn't ask for all this extra advice but it sounded from your post that you might be a "bean virgin" so I thought I'd give you the benefit of my 40-odd years experience with cooking beans. I'll now sit back and wait for the ensuing arguments

 

[Andy M.]

Soak and cook what you need and store the rest dry until you need them.

 

[cave76]

Soak and cook what you need and store the rest dry until you need them.

My vote for the best way.

 

[AnthonyJ]

*SNIP*

Incidentally, some recipes sugest that you cook the beans in the soaking water. Don't. Throw away the soaking water and cook in fresh. This avoids the worst of the "anti-social" effects of bean eating, If you get my drift ;-)

Another thing we have argued about on DC in the past is the advice that salt should not be added until the beans are cooked as it hardens them. Personally I have found this to be correct but others dispute this.

It's important to remember that, like red kidney beans, black beans carry a toxin (Lectin, IIRC) They should always be boiled fast for 10 minutes when you first put them on to cook in order to destroy the toxicity. This is especially important if you are going to cook them in a slow cooker.

I know you didn't ask for all this extra advice but it sounded from your post that you might be a "bean virgin" so I thought I'd give you the benefit of my 40-odd years experience with cooking beans. I'll now sit back and wait for the ensuing arguments

I appreciate all the helpful tips. I have pre-soaked the beans both the long and short way in the past. Most of the instructions I found on soaking did involve draining the soak water and giving the beans a rinse before cooking. I was just unaware of the storing process afterwords.

The salt is a non-issue. Between not really using much salt for anything since meeting and cooking for my ex (long story short, health freak and had EXTREMELY bland tastes when I met her just over 8 years ago, both part of a very long story) and having slightly elevated BP, I do try to stay away from salt, at least in the amounts I used to use it in.

Last note. I was unaware of the toxin, not that it comes as a surprise to me. I actually enjoy learning about all of the self defense mechanisms plants have. I will be giving them that 10 minute boil before fully cooking. I did manage to find a little more information regarding the toxin:

All legumes, including black beans, contain a compound called phytohenagglutinin, which can be toxic in high amounts. This is a major concern with red kidney beans, which contain such high levels of this compound that the raw or undercooked beans may be toxic when consumed. However, the amount of phytohenagglutinin in black beans is typically much lower than the levels in kidney beans, and reports of toxicity have not been linked to this type of bean. If you still have concerns about phytohenagglutinin, cooking beans thoroughly breaks down the toxin and lowers the levels in the beans. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommends boiling beans for a minimum of 10 minutes before consuming them. The FDA recommends against cooking dried beans in a slow cooker because these devices typically cook food at temperatures that do not break down phytohenagglutinin and may actually raise the levels of this toxin.

Hope that helps.

 

[Andy M.]

...Last note. I was unaware of the toxin, not that it comes as a surprise to me. I actually enjoy learning about all of the self defense mechanisms plants have. I will be giving them that 10 minute boil before fully cooking...

You don't have to "...give them that 10 minute boil before fully cooking." You're going to cook the beans for more than 10 minutes to make them edible. That's all that's necessary. Besides, black beans aren't really an issue because of their low levels of the toxin.

 

[Mad Cook]

You don't have to "...give them that 10 minute boil before fully cooking." You're going to cook the beans for more than 10 minutes to make them edible. QUOTE]Be on the safe side. If I lived on your side of the pond I'd be inclined to listen to the FDA

 

[AnthonyJ]

You don't have to "...give them that 10 minute boil before fully cooking." You're going to cook the beans for more than 10 minutes to make them edible.

Be on the safe side. If I lived on your side of the pond I'd be inclined to listen to the FDA

Yes and no, Mad Cook. They can be trusted to an extent, but in the end, they are funded by, essentially, the same people they are supposed to be protecting us from. So there is a *slight* conflict of interests. Though they seem to be leaning more toward our side more recently.

Andy M, I was personally thinking of something more along the lines of the soak when doing the 10 minute boil. Get them boiling for 10 minutes and change out the water or whatever to finishing the cooking process. You are right in that there is less of the toxin in them and not in an amount that would really affect you. My feelings on it are simple. I already have aspartame poisoning and god only knows what else is going on in there with all the crap I ingest. As it stands, I'm already trying to cleanse/flush my body, so whatever I can avoid ingesting, I will.

 

[GotGarlic]

Yes and no, Mad Cook. They can be trusted to an extent, but in the end, they are funded by, essentially, the same people they are supposed to be protecting us from. So there is a *slight* conflict of interests. Though they seem to be leaning more toward our side more recently.

Howzat? The FDA is a government agency, which means it's funded by all the taxpayers - that includes you and me, not just the food industry.

 

[jennyema]

Yes and no, Mad Cook. They can be trusted to an extent, but in the end, they are funded by, essentially, the same people they are supposed to be protecting us from. So there is a *slight* conflict of interests. Though they seem to be leaning more toward our side more recently..

I also don't understand this comment.

 

[cave76]

They [the FDA] can be trusted to an extent, but in the end, they are funded by, essentially, the same people they are supposed to be protecting us from. So there is a *slight* conflict of interests. Though they seem to be leaning more toward our side more recently.

I agree with AnthonyJ on this issue and give it a 3+.

That being said, I'm very glad we DO have the FDA. It's better than NOT having an FDA for certain things. Be aware I'm not a conspiracist but I have had to learn how to read articles from the FDA with a critical eye.

I believe when AnthonyJ said "they seem to be leaning more toward our side more recently" he may have been talking about the new labeling suggested by the FDA. And the fact that conflict of interest statements are mandatory now for articles written about food and drugs.

 

[GotGarlic]

I agree with AnthonyJ on this issue and give it a 3+.

That being said, I'm very glad we DO have the FDA. It's better than NOT having an FDA for certain things. Be aware I'm not a conspiracist but I have had to learn how to read articles from the FDA with a critical eye.

You can believe what you want about the FDA's recommendations, but the idea that it's "funded by, essentially, the same people they are supposed to be protecting us from" is simply not a fact.

I have had to learn how to read articles from the FDA with a critical eye..."

As have I. And I look for corroboration from university research. Different scientists from different institutions replicating another researcher's work and arriving at the same conclusions provides pretty reliable information, IMO.

 

[AnthonyJ]

I agree with AnthonyJ on this issue and give it a 3+.

That being said, I'm very glad we DO have the FDA. It's better than NOT having an FDA for certain things. Be aware I'm not a conspiracist but I have had to learn how to read articles from the FDA with a critical eye.

I believe when AnthonyJ said "they seem to be leaning more toward our side more recently" he may have been talking about the new labeling suggested by the FDA. And the fact that conflict of interest statements are mandatory now for articles written about food and drugs.

I would rather have one than not. The new labeling and finally catching up with the rest of the world on transfats is mainly what I was talking about. Now, I'm going to try to keep this as far from political as I can. ALL of the government gets money from big industries. ALL of it. From ALL of them. They will spend whatever money they need to in lobbying to protect their own interests. I.E. GMO food. They are so proud of what they have done, yet they aren't proud enough to label it and have spent as much money as they had to to keep from labeling their product. We can have a very long, very drawn out discussion with countless links as to the problems with the FDA as a whole, but I would rather not do that here.

I try my best whenever I am on any forum or during any interaction with others to keep in mind the Irish pub rules: No religion, no politics. Everyone is free to believe what they wish to about whatever topic, I was merely stating that I have my reasons for only trusting them to an extent.

I look for corroboration from university research. Different scientists from different institutions replicating another researcher's work and arriving at the same conclusions provides pretty reliable information, IMO.

There is an issue there as well. There was a university study done by Stanford that said there is no health benefit from eating organic vs "conventionally" grown. This is highly misleading because the study itself even admits:

There were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food; the duration of the studies involving human subjects ranged from two days to two years.

and

While researchers found that organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of pesticide contamination than conventional fruits and vegetables, organic foods are not necessarily 100 percent free of pesticides.

Now, I just read a scientific study done by the government, who just signed a bill into law that no one can sue Monsanto for food related illnesses... that found that about 75% of rain and air samples contains TOXIC chemicals from RoundUp. No surprise that other information has found this:

The health effects of Roundup cannot be understated. Research has linked exposure to the pesticide to Parkinson’s disease and cancers. Laboratory rats that eat Monsanto’s GMO food get tumors and die faster than rats that eat other food. Most children in Argentina where Roundup is used in high concentrations have been found to be in poor health, with 80 percent showing signs of the toxins in their bloodstreams.

Read more: 75% Percent of Rain and Air Samples Contain Roundup Pesticide | Care2 Causes

So unfortunately, even the most organic farms will be contaminated with those toxic chemicals. The reason that all of the people I know who do choose organic food is not for "more nutrition." The argument for nutrition is nonsense, they all have about the same about of nutrients. The argument is for the LACK OF toxic chemicals.

You have to do a lot of reading and research and even more critical thinking about the information you've read. The only thing left I have to say is, I am respectful of others choices to eat whichever they want and I only ask of the same respect in return. This is how I personally feel about my food. I am not trying to preach to anyone or convert anyone to eat this way and I am certainly NOT bashing anyone who eats differently from me.

 

[CWS4322]

According to a search on the 'Net, people do soak and freeze beans without cooking them.

Preparing, cooking, and freezing Dried Beans

Can You Freeze Already Soaked and Uncooked Butter Beans? | Everyday Life - Global Post

Which reminds me, I have a pot of beans in the fridge I better drain and cook...

 

[cave76]

Read up on the Bayh-Dole Act. It's good and it's bad, like most acts/laws but it definitely contributed to the cessation of universities being 'ivory towers' of research.

In the past a person could usually count on university research being almost pure research. The Bayh Dole Act (sometime in the 80's) stopped all that.

Four Unintended Consequences of the Bayh-Dole Act - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

http://waynedev.uakron.edu/dotAsset/727693.pdf

 

[dcSaute]

>> the FDA . . .
aaahhhhhhhh. gotta' luv' 'em but hate 'em at the same time.

the FDA relies - not enough / some what / too much, pick a viewpoint - on "research" provided by the (generically expressed) "supplier"
and we all know, of course, that large corporations and nut-case 'doctors / scientists' _never_ lie, fib, manipulate, alter, skew, yadda yadda yadda - the "real data" to their advantage.

something like the doctor who proved childhood vaccines cause autism. oops. data did not stand up to scrutiny; he finally admitted he's just faked the data, since he knew his theory was right . . . .

regrettably, most of the FDA decisions are not based on truly independent research. when a study is bought and paid for by the supplier of the 'thing' one must be highly suspicious of the validity of the results. it is not unheard of for big companies pay for study after study, modifying / refining the 'study guidelines / conditions' until they get a result that is favorable and 'scientifically acceptable' to the FDA.

 

[GotGarlic]

... You have to do a lot of reading and research and even more critical thinking about the information you've read.

The link you included also says this:

Some scientists pointed out that the types of experimental rats used in the study are prone to tumors, says NPR. David Spiegelhalter, a professor at the University of Cambridge whose specialty is the public perception of risk, said in the New York Times that the “numbers of animals in each group was too low to draw firm conclusions.”

In addition, other scientists pointed out that the rats who ate a diet with a GMO concentration of 11 percent were less healthy than those whose diet contained a GMO concentration of 33 percent: if the experiment intended to show a link between developing tumors and GMOs, those who ate more GMOs should have been less healthy.

In Reuters, Mark Tester, a research professor at the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide, observed that, since genetically modified food has “been in the food chain” in the U.S. for over ten years, “If the effects [of Seralini's study] are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren’t the North Americans dropping like flies?”

And my question is: If FDA and university research can't be trusted, on what are you basing your decisions? A lot of the "alternative research" I've seen is just faked or written in such a way that people without a PhD can't understand them and sometimes it's not research at all but speculation and advocacy disguised to look like it. And "an internet search shows 150,000 results!" means nothing since a lot of it is just echoing what was posted elsewhere.

 

[cave76]

>> the FDA . . .
aaahhhhhhhh. gotta' luv' 'em but hate 'em at the same time.

the FDA relies - not enough / some what / too much, pick a viewpoint - on "research" provided by the (generically expressed) "supplier"
and we all know, of course, that large corporations and nut-case 'doctors / scientists' _never_ lie, fib, manipulate, alter, skew, yadda yadda yadda - the "real data" to their advantage.

something like the doctor who proved childhood vaccines cause autism. oops. data did not stand up to scrutiny; he finally admitted he's just faked the data, since he knew his theory was right . . . .

regrettably, most of the FDA decisions are not based on truly independent research. when a study is bought and paid for by the supplier of the 'thing' one must be highly suspicious of the validity of the results. it is not unheard of for big companies pay for study after study, modifying / refining the 'study guidelines / conditions' until they get a result that is favorable and 'scientifically acceptable' to the FDA.

Can't find anything to 'argue' about with your view point. And I can provide even more proof (not opinions) about this but won't in this thread.