beans are a thickening agent. then you wouldn't need to add flour (wtf?)
no fuggin white beans either. beans must be red.
beans are a thickening agent. then you wouldn't need to add flour (wtf?)
no fuggin white beans either. beans must be red.
mine has turkey and white beans and is sooooooooooooooooooooo good :awe:beans are a thickening agent. then you wouldn't need to add flour (wtf?)
no fuggin white beans either. beans must be red.
beans aren't a thickening agent, wtf are you talking about? they are used to replace meat. look at my recipe then look at his. mine has more meat, he has substituted that meat for beans. it's perfectly fine but it dramatically changes the dish. maize or flour is a thickening agent.
OH I LEFT OUT THAT I LIKE TO USE MOLE as well. Big table spoon is usually pretty good. I want to experiment using really really finely ground coffee.
by volume it has more meat. big f'ing deal. people were poor back when chili was invented and didn't always have a ton of meat.
and the starch in beans will thicken the chili.
holy fuck you add ground coffee? gtfo!
when chili was invented people had beef because it was in san antonio and beef was plentiful. people then wanted to replicate the dish in different areas of the country, but beef was not as plentiful and cheap so they used beans which were instead. what i'm saying is not that mine is better because it has more meat, but that it's a completely different dish. hence CHILI and CHILI BEANS. I'm not saying one or the other is superior, although I happen to enjoy chili con carne(chili) more.
re-read that. I don't use coffee, but i want to try it. instead of using mole use really finely ground coffee.
dirt poor people in SA put beans in their chili because even back then in texas it was expensive and people had 20 kids so needed beans to stretch the dish. and they invented the thing so i'm not going to question.
'chili beans' is a term used by yankees. no one in texas has ever said that.
when chili was invented people had beef because it was in san antonio and beef was plentiful. people then wanted to replicate the dish in different areas of the country, but beef was not as plentiful and cheap so they used beans which were instead. what i'm saying is not that mine is better because it has more meat, but that it's a completely different dish. hence CHILI and CHILI BEANS. I'm not saying one or the other is superior, although I happen to enjoy chili con carne(chili) more.
re-read that. I don't use coffee, but i want to try it. instead of using mole use really finely ground coffee.
beans aren't a thickening agent, wtf are you talking about?
Guess it depends on your defintion of "thickening agent". If you add beans to something I almost guarantee you will have a thicker consistency to your meal after resting overnight. To me, that's a thickening agent. It's not in the traditional sense like flour or corn starch. But they do absorb fluid making for ultimately a "thicker" soup/stew/chili.
Good god not this topic again.
you guys don't want to argue semantics about the chili name, but you want to argue semantics about what is a thickener and what is a meat substitute? come on lol
starch thickens, beans are high in starch. mash them a bit first.
now you're getting ridiculous, who has ever had chili beans where the beans are mashed up?
* 1 and 1/2 lbs of ground beef
I'm pretty resilient to heat (I grow habaneros) but 8-15 jalapenos seems like quite a bit for that volume of chili.
It is. That chili can be wicked hot if you use the seeds from all 15 jalepenos. I usually use the husk from all 15, but the seeds from about 6 or 7.
The recipe makes about 4 gallons, so bring your apetite.