Talk:Buttermilk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Coolant

"Coolant" brings to mind images of industrial coolant. Perhaps this should be changed. --Arash Keshmirian 04:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buttermilk

It's easy to find whole-fat buttermilk anywhere, even the Pacific Northwest. In a very clean sealable container, mix one cup cultured buttermilk and one quart whole milk. Seal, and set aside in a warm place for twelve to twenty four hours. You now have five cups of whole-fat buttermilk. -- Warren Paprocki (—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.79 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Unclear or incorrect sentence:

"For breads made solely with grains, buttermilk may contain amounts of calcium from its dairy products, such as nonfat dry-milk powder."

This sentence, found at the end of the first paragraph, doesn't make sense. Read it a few times: the phrase before the first comma has nothing to do with anything, and the rest of the sentence doesn't work either. I don't know what it's supposed to mean, but it needs to be re-phrased so that it means something.

I also second the above comment - is "coolant" supposed to mean that people drink buttermilk to stay cool, the way Americans drink lemonade?

--PeaceLoveMath 23:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence does need work. This one does as well:
"The sour taste, or tartness of 'cultured buttermilk' is owing to the fermentation process, which, for buttermilk, begins with a commercial product of buttermilk which has become chemically active, or rather fermented."
I really don't know quite what this is trying to say either. How does the fermentation of buttermilk start with "a commercial product of buttermilk"? Besides that, the sentence is awkwardly structured overall. I'm going to add a cleanup tag to this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.220.124.60 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The article gave me pause when it mentioned streptococcus. The confusion lies in the link provided. The link does not make it clear that streptococcus "thermophilius" is the active agent and not the pathenogenic varieties listed in the link given. Here is a link> http://biology.clc.uc.edu/fankhauser/Cheese/BUTTERMILK.HTM <to the process describiing the use of a manufactured butter milk as a "starter and a link to a description of streptococcus thermophilius here> http://www.ebi.ac.uk/2can/genomes/genomes.html?http://www.ebi.ac.uk/2can/genomes/bacteria/Streptococcus_thermophilus.html <. Hope this is helpful. Chuck Baux CEC, CCE 'Bold text'

I should have noted that some years ago the name streptococcus thermophilius was thought to be easily confused and Lactococcus thermophilius is now in use as well. I should add that I am a first time contributor and hope someone will put this all in the correct form/edit. TY 151.201.121.90CB

[edit] Objection!

"Still, many people enjoy cultured buttermilk as part of a health-conscious diet, particularly in Germany. It is consumed daily by the majority of people in southern India. In both countries, the product is known as aryanfeuden." No, it isn't. Not in Germany at least. The German word is Buttermilch; I never heard anything like "aryanfeuden" in my whole life. And seriously, I cannot imagine that a word like this could be in use anywhere in Germany, considering the "aryan" part, and considering that "feuden" is no German word at all. This wiki page is the only thing that shows up in the Google search results for the term, so I doubt this word is in use anywhere, be it Germany or India or anything else. Are there any reasons why the last sentence should not be removed? I suspect it to be complete nonsense. --217.226.210.26 23:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

How about a picture of actual buttermilk, not buttermilk scones? A person coming to this page and seeing the picture would have the impression from the start that buttermilk is a scone-type object. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.116.162.162 (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2007

(UTC)


[edit] Cleaning up the article

I think the article needed a serious facelift. The copy was largely inarticulate, and many of the same ideas were repeated or conveyed more than once. Specifically, the "buttermilk summary" was not necessary, as it simply mentioned the same information, again, that had been mentioned in the article. Furthermore, a table isn't necessary when comparing only two different things.

I also removed the excessive quote from the references. I cleared up some ideas, and added information about butter flecks being added.

I was sorry that the information about buttermilk as a beverage in places like India had been removed in earlier edits; perhaps someone who can cite accurate referenes can articulately put that information back in at some point?  :) -RJSampson

Some comments about your edits:
  • There is an article that compares the different fermented milk products, and the wikilink was in this article until you removed it. It may be best to include comparisons with other country's variants there. Otherwise product comparisons will end up being spread over several articles -- many countries have a product similar to buttermilk, but with a different name. Another alternative is to create a template with all of the different fermented milk products and add it to all of the relevant articles. I'll probably implement that.
  • There are indeed two different products called buttermilk: traditional buttermilk and cultured buttermilk. When "buttermilk" is cited in a recipe today, it generally refers to cultured buttermilk. So the text, which you removed, stating that it refers to two different products is correct.
  • The current text confuses the two different products. It first talks about traditional buttermilk then states "This is the result of fermentation by naturally occurring or added lactic acid bacteria." Traditional buttermilk doesn't have bacteria added to it AFAIK. Then it starts talking about cultured buttermilk and returns to the description of traditional buttermilk. Cultured buttermilk has nothing to do with the churning process.
  • The table was added because another editor confused the two different types of buttermilk. So it's not obvious which is which and should be re-add it. From your edits, it appears that you've also confused the two products.
  • There's also some errors in the text now:
  • "This is milk to which lactic acid bacteria have been added to simulate the naturally occurring bacteria and fungi found in the traditional product." Fungi and bacteria are not the same thing and if you state that "lactic acid bacteria" have been added, then fungi have not been added and it is not to simulate naturally occurring fungi in the product.
  • "The whole milk from which cream is skimmed to produce traditional buttermilk was typically left to sit, during which time it acquired these microorganisms from the environment." The naturally occurring bacteria in the milk cause the milk to sour, not "microorganisms from the environment".
I would like to revert your edit instead of reorganizing only because there is so much that needs to be fixed. Please don't take it personally. But the previous text could use some editing, of course, to reduce the redundancy.
–panda 15:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Panda,

I appreciate your input and certainly don't take any of it personally. This is the process by which articles are improved, and I welcome your feedback! You bring up a couple of good points:

Indeed, I agree that my revision added some confusion to the distinction between cultured and traditional buttermilk. I agree that your version made the distinction more clear, and mine should have done the same. I have re-written the article somewhat to make sure that this is clearly stated throughout the article.

Another thing you point out which I added was with regards to the fungi. As you said, bacteria and fungi are very different organisms. I will say, however, that in traditional buttermilk, fungi is indeed present (usuall) and active but it only produces a negligible, if any, amount of lactic acid (and only as an intermediate compound within numerous, complex metabolic pathways). An interesting fact, however, is that it does produce other fermentation products (like diacetyl, alcohols, ketones, and other organic compounds) which adds a complexity to the flavor to natural buttermilk that many purists prize. Granted, the concentration of these other compounds is extremely low. For the scope of this article, though, it's probably best to remove that information as I can see how it adds confusion.

Finally, I would like to make a correction, or rather a clarification. In natural buttermilk, the lactic acid bacteria does indeed come from the environment. When the cow is milked, lactic acid bacteria does not pass from the cow's mammary glands into the milk. Lactic acid bacteria, like yeasts, molds, fungi, etc is everywhere, and finds its way into the milk during transport, processing, and pretty much any other time the milk is exposed to the open air. It's probably on the teat, the milking apparatus, the cow itself, and pretty much everywhere else, if even in tiny populations. It so happens that LAB has an affinity for growing in association with Casein... When farmers made butter and buttermilk the old fashioned way, they would take whole milk and let it sit. This allowed the fatty cream to float to the top, and the skim milk to separate to the bottom. They would then skim off the cream for butter-making. This process was repeated several times until enough cream was collected to start churning it. It is during these periods of sitting out that the milk really starts to take on a large diversity of bacteria and fungi.

It really is a miracle of evolution what happens next: Because there is so much lactose in the milk, the lactic acid bacteria thrives and other molds, fungi, and bacteria don't really do so well. As the lactic acid bacteria continues to grow, more lactic acid is produced. The increasing acidity begins to kill off the other bacteria, yeasts, and molds which have NOT evolved to survive in such acidic conditions. Thus, we're left with almost enirely lactic acid bacteria. Of course, nature can be imperfect and nastier critters may well survive which is why this process is almost never seen anymore (lawsuits!) beyond small farmer's markets and personal production.

Anwyay, I am a biochemist by training and not an anthropologist so I can't contribute to the aspect of "buttermilk" as it exists in different countries, although the idea is fascinating. Perhaps you can share some info in that regard :) I did restore that link I accidentally removed, though.

...So in summary, thanks for your input. I did try to make the two products distinct and clear this time around. I added headings, some more information, and reworked the structure. I still think the table is kind of unnecessary when just comparing two things. Now, if we had like 6 or 7 things we were comparing, I think a table is wholly appropriate. But as it was, words weren't capitalized, I don't think it was too complete, and it didn't fit too well in the article from an aesthetic point of view. Hopefully my latest revision makes clear the things I initially screwed up :)

And again, the lactic acid bacteria is not inherently present in natural milk, but does come from the environment (just like wild yeasts fermented ancient wines and beers, and wild lactic acid bacteria created the first sour-dough breads!) This has been demonstrated in several published, peer-reviewed papers. I'll try and get some citations to add to the article for that.

Again, thanks for pointing out my other errors :)

RJSampson 07:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally think your new edit is a major improvement on the article. It needs references, however, which I assume you'll dig up. Regarding the statement that LAB come from the environment, this part could use clarification.
From what I know, there is in fact endogenous LAB in cow's milk,[1] however LAB from the teats are also likely introduced into the milk during the milking process. Beyond that, the rest of the LAB in the environment has a negligible effect on the milk. Otherwise why can't you just make buttermilk at home using the (pasteurized & homogenized) milk you buy from the grocery store? Why would you need to add LAB culture to the milk instead of just letting it sit outside for a couple days? –panda 14:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I did some more major clean-up of the article and added a brief sentence about acidified buttermilk. I simplified the language a little since it was too wordy and unnecessarily technical at times, and reorganized those sections that ended up with almost nothing afterwards. Also, the article needs more references. –panda (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


What is 'buttermilk' in english-speaking countries, it is called 'yogurt' in South East Europe. What is 'yogurt' in english-speaking countries, it is called 'sour milk' (kiselo ml(ij)eko) in SE Europe. So there's a difference in the names, and for someone who doesn't know what 'yogurt' means in North America, can find out that it's actually a 'sour milk', only if he is lucky he can find that what he is looking for (yogurt) is actually called -a 'buttermilk'. Chiirs.24.86.127.209 (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)