"Discover Cooking, Discuss Life."

Go Back   Discuss Cooking - Cooking Forums > General Cooking Information > Cooking Resources > Terms & Techniques
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 05-06-2008, 09:53 AM   #31
Certified Pretend Chef
 
Andy M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 41,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maverick2272 View Post
Its not the price difference, the idea is to buy one gallon of whole milk then add a gallon of water to it, thus giving you two gallons of milk that is thinner than whole milk and thicker than skim. Probably close to your 1% or 2% milk.
We pay $2.70 for whole milk right now at ALDI, so that works out to $1.35 per gallon when watered down.

But then you're geting half milk with half the nutritional value and half the flavor.
__________________

__________________
"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -Carl Sagan
Andy M. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2008, 10:39 AM   #32
Executive Chef
 
bethzaring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Northern New Mexico
Posts: 4,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maverick2272 View Post
Its not the price difference, the idea is to buy one gallon of whole milk then add a gallon of water to it, thus giving you two gallons of milk that is thinner than whole milk and thicker than skim. Probably close to your 1% or 2% milk.
We pay $2.70 for whole milk right now at ALDI, so that works out to $1.35 per gallon when watered down.
Wouldn't you have to mix a gallon of skim milk and a gallon of whole milk to get your 1% to 2% milk? I'm having trouble with the logic here, my brain is not coming up with the answer, but adding water to a product and expecting the water to enhance anything is not ringing true for me. Andy is correct, you are reducing the nutritive value by 50%. Just not sure that adding 1 gallon of water to one gallon of milk is cost effective, or nutritionally adequate, or something? I guess since milk is about 88% water to begin with, I can't see adding any more water to it!.
__________________

__________________
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead
bethzaring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2008, 02:57 PM   #33
Senior Cook
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maverick2272
Its not the price difference, the idea is to buy one gallon of whole milk then add a gallon of water to it, thus giving you two gallons of milk that is thinner than whole milk and thicker than skim. Probably close to your 1% or 2% milk.
We pay $2.70 for whole milk right now at ALDI, so that works out to $1.35 per gallon when watered down.
There have been two posts dismissing this idea out of hand, but someone correct me if I am wrong. Whole milk is 3.25% butterfat, so if you retained one half and mixed the other with water 1:1 then you would have half a gallon that is still at 3.25% and one gallon that is 1.625% butterfat. So Maverick is right about percentages. So the only problem remaining are the vitamins and other things in milk. This method only really stands up if whole milk has more (by percentage) of the vitamins, etc. then its lower butterfat counterparts. I don't know if it does or not.

-Josh hart
__________________
"All of my comments are random thoughts, meant to help, praise or suggest a path of travel. All should be pondered, and disregarded as you see fit." -me
josh_swinehart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2008, 04:24 PM   #34
Certified Pretend Chef
 
Andy M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 41,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by josh_swinehart View Post
There have been two posts dismissing this idea out of hand, but someone correct me if I am wrong. Whole milk is 3.25% butterfat, so if you retained one half and mixed the other with water 1:1 then you would have half a gallon that is still at 3.25% and one gallon that is 1.625% butterfat. So Maverick is right about percentages. So the only problem remaining are the vitamins and other things in milk. This method only really stands up if whole milk has more (by percentage) of the vitamins, etc. then its lower butterfat counterparts. I don't know if it does or not.

-Josh hart
Your math is correct regarding the fat content. My point was that diluting milk with water costs you half the nutritional value of the milk.

Milk producers reduce the fat content without diluting the rest of the product.


For future reference, here is a list of the fat content of some common milks and creams:

Heavy cream has a milk fat content of between 36 and 40%
Light whipping cream, 30 to 36%
Light cream (also called coffee or table cream) 18 to 30%
Half and half is 10 to 12% milk fat.
Whole Milk is 3.7% milk fat.
Then there are 2% and 1% milks and...
Skim, which must be less than 0.5% milk fat.
__________________
"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -Carl Sagan
Andy M. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2008, 04:32 PM   #35
Executive Chef
 
bethzaring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Northern New Mexico
Posts: 4,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by josh_swinehart View Post
There have been two posts dismissing this idea out of hand, but someone correct me if I am wrong. Whole milk is 3.25% butterfat, so if you retained one half and mixed the other with water 1:1 then you would have half a gallon that is still at 3.25% and one gallon that is 1.625% butterfat. So Maverick is right about percentages. So the only problem remaining are the vitamins and other things in milk. This method only really stands up if whole milk has more (by percentage) of the vitamins, etc. then its lower butterfat counterparts. I don't know if it does or not.

-Josh hart
I can answer your question regarding the different milks (whole vs 1%) and the vitamin and mineral content. There is negligible difference in the vitamin, mineral and other components of milk, among the different fat levels of milk. In fact, there are slightly more vitamins and minerals in 1% butterfat milk than whole milk. That is because the fat is displaced by more whey in the lower butterfat milks, and the whey is where the vitamins and minerals are. So the only difference in the milks are the butterfat levels, not the vitamin and mineral levels.

And I do not follow this sentence..

Whole milk is 3.25% butterfat, so if you retained one half and mixed the other with water 1:1 then you would have half a gallon that is still at 3.25% and one gallon that is 1.625% butterfat.

Do you mean 1/2 gallon that is 1.625%?

Did I answer your question?
__________________
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead
bethzaring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2008, 05:33 PM   #36
Senior Cook
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by bethzaring View Post
I can answer your question regarding the different milks (whole vs 1%) and the vitamin and mineral content. There is negligible difference in the vitamin, mineral and other components of milk, among the different fat levels of milk. In fact, there are slightly more vitamins and minerals in 1% butterfat milk than whole milk. That is because the fat is displaced by more whey in the lower butterfat milks, and the whey is where the vitamins and minerals are. So the only difference in the milks are the butterfat levels, not the vitamin and mineral levels.

And I do not follow this sentence..

Whole milk is 3.25% butterfat, so if you retained one half and mixed the other with water 1:1 then you would have half a gallon that is still at 3.25% and one gallon that is 1.625% butterfat.

Do you mean 1/2 gallon that is 1.625%?

Did I answer your question?
You answered my vitamin/nutrient question but my volume and percent butterfat math does seem to be correct.

1 gallon whole milk < 1/2 gallon whole milk + (1/2 gallon whole milk + 1/2 gallon water) = 1/2 gallon whole milk + 1 gallon Frankenmilk (1.625% butterfat)

Ok I agree with you on the vitamins/nutrients.
__________________
"All of my comments are random thoughts, meant to help, praise or suggest a path of travel. All should be pondered, and disregarded as you see fit." -me
josh_swinehart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2008, 09:27 PM   #37
Master Chef
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cicero, IL
Posts: 5,093
Not to mention you reduce the hormones by half....

The point is you are saving money by doubling your milk. Considering the amount of milk the kids get these days, thats not a bad thing at all.
And they get plenty of vitamins and nutrients from other sources as well, so reducing by half causes no harm at all. Taste wise it doesn't taste any different to us then 1% or 2% and is still better tasting to us than skim.
__________________

__________________
Maverick2272 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



» Discuss Cooking on Facebook

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.