On 05 May 2005 22:37:18 GMT, "Peter.QLD" <a@b.c> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"KGB" <FedUpWithSpam@NoEmailAddre.ss> (KGB) wrote in
>news:427a66e1.9658808@nntp.dsl.pipex.com:
>[color=green]
>> On 05 May 2005 06:55:00 GMT, "Peter.QLD" <a@b.c> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>"mark thomas" <marycoy4@execyulinky.comy> wrote in
>>>news:kOqdnSnTCsJjB-TfRVn-tw@golden.net:
>>>
>>>> Stupid question but...
>>>>
>>>> Why do the instructions say to use a plastic stirring spoon
>>>> instead of a wooden one? Does it really matter?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> MT
>>>>
>>>Wood is a lot more porous (however you spell that) and could have
>>>lots of bacteria etc. lurking where you can't wash them off. If
>>>you're stirring boiling wort it probably doesn't matter.
>>>
>>>peter[/color]
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I remember reading somewhere some time ago that in cooking, wooden
>> chopping boards are more hygienic than plastic. Trying to confirm
>> this, I found the following article taken from "The New York
>> Times" regarding tests carried out by the University of
>> Wisconsin's Food Research Institute.
>>
>> Quote:-
>>
>> "The scientists, Dean O.Cliver and Nese O. Ak, stumbled upon
>> the
>> finding while seeking ways to decontaminate wooden boards and make
>> them as "safe" as plastic. Much to their surprise, they found that
>> when boards were purposely contaminated with organisms like
>> Salmonella, Listeria and E.coli that are common causes of food
>> poisoning, 99.9 percent of the bacteria died off within three
>> minutes on the wooden boards, while none died on the plastic ones.
>>
>> When contaminated boards were left unwashed overnight at room
>> temperature, bacterial count, increased on the plastic, but none
>> of the organisms could be recovered from the wooden boards the
>> next morning.
>>
>> The researchers tested boards made from seven different species of
>> trees and four types of plastic and found similar results: wood
>> was safer than plastic, regardless of the materials used. Thus
>> far, however, the researchers have been unable to isolate the
>> agents in wood that make it so inhospitable to bacteria."
>>
>>
>>
>> OK, we are talking wooden chopping boards used in cookery here NOT
>> wooden spoons used for brewing, but presumably the same thing
>> holds good.
>>[/color]
>That's rather a good point, I'd forgotten about that. Though it's
>worth noting that a plastic stirrer should be hard plastic that you
>take care no to scratch. Unlike the plastic cutting boards that are
>designed to be a bit softer and easier on your knives. That should
>mean there's little room for anything to cling on/avoid the
>sanitizer. But if wood kills anything infectious quickly, that's
>better. Anyone care to guess at whether it could be expected to kill
>wild yeasts?
>
>peter[/color]
Should it matter all that much if it doesn't kill wild yeast? When
you pitch your yeast you're probably adding billions of lively viable
cells, do a few thousand wild ones matter? Wood is probably OK.
Unless they are genetically engineering the yeast we buy they are all
wild in some sense of the word.
I bought a 22" SS spoon at a restaurant supply house for ~$5. I won't
own a plastic cutting board, too dangerous. (but an excellent source
of plastic for all kinds of tinkering)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
[url]http://www.newsfeeds.com[/url] The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----