best popcorn maker?

donald girod said:

I would like opinions on what you think is the best popcorn maker out there (not air-popped, that
stuff is really only good for packing material in my opinion). I have one of those overpriced
aluminum pots with a crank, and it is fast and does a decent amount, but the bottom of the pot
warped almost immediately, and the thing manages to trap quite a bit of steam in the popped corn,
so that it can be tough sometimes.

A good sturdy pot, leaving the lid cracked during popping has always been my preference. Goomba

in article [email hidden], donald girod at
[email hidden] wrote on 12/27/03 9:13 AM:

Quoted message said:

I would like opinions on what you think is the best popcorn maker out there (not air-popped, that
stuff is really only good for packing material in my opinion). I have one of those overpriced
aluminum pots with a crank, and it is fast and does a decent amount, but the bottom of the pot
warped almost immediately, and the thing manages to trap quite a bit of steam in the popped corn,
so that it can be tough sometimes.

It would seem to me that about the only thing those "pasta pots" with the colander in the lid is
good for is popping corn.

it's a reasonably heavy bottomed pan, and the vents in the lid allow the steam to escape.

Frankly, I like microwave popcorn but I realize I'm in a minority here on that.

In article <[email hidden]>, "donald girod"

Quoted message said:

I would like opinions on what you think is the best popcorn maker out there (not air-popped, that
stuff is really only good for packing material in my opinion). I have one of those overpriced
aluminum pots with a crank, and it is fast and does a decent amount, but the bottom of the pot
warped almost immediately, and the thing manages to trap quite a bit of steam in the popped corn,
so that it can be tough sometimes.

If the "best" is what you desire only a commercial corn popper will do, the type found at carnivals
and in movie theaters... otherwise choose your favoritre heavy pot and practice, practice,
practice.... and here again is where a gas cooktop is far superiour to electric.

---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =--- ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =--- Sheldon
```````````` "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

donald girod said:

I would like opinions on what you think is the best popcorn maker out there (not air-popped, that
stuff is really only good for packing material in my opinion). I have one of those overpriced
aluminum pots with a crank, and it is fast and does a decent amount, but the bottom of the pot
warped almost immediately, and the thing manages to trap quite a bit of steam in the popped corn,
so that it can be tough sometimes.

When you say "best," do you mean least expensive? Fastest? Least likely to burn kernels?
Easiest to clean?

My best popcorn maker is an ordinary sauce pot. I put a little oil on the bottom, maybe 1/8th of an
inch. I put the kernels in to cover the bottom of the pan. Cover. Put it on medium heat and wait
until you hear popping. When the popping dies down, look at your watch and count 15 seconds. If you
hear a pop, start over. When you get up to 15 with no pops, remove from heat, apply butter, salt,
spices, whatever.

--Lia

donald girod said:

I would like opinions on what you think is the best popcorn maker out there (not air-popped, that
stuff is really only good for packing material in my opinion). I have one of those overpriced
aluminum pots with a crank, and it is fast and does a decent amount, but the bottom of the pot
warped almost immediately, and the thing manages to trap quite a bit of steam in the popped corn,
so that it can be tough sometimes.

I love popped corn over a wood fire. Upon Sheldon's recommendation I got a Bromwell non-stick
corn popper (was it last year or the year before?) which I use in the fireplace. It comes with
an extention handle for the fireplace, but can also be used over the eye of the stove.
Wonderful popcorn!

Jill

donald girod said:

I would like opinions on what you think is the best popcorn maker out

there

Quoted message said:

(not air-popped, that stuff is really only good for packing material

in my

Quoted message said:

opinion).

A heavy saucepan and a strong arm are really all that you need to make popcorn!

That said, West Bend made a decent popcorn maker - looked like a giant dome top with a bar at the
bottom that rotated like a clock hand. You'd put in oil and kernels, fit the lid on, and that was
it! It is a standalone electric thing. It's been years since I've used one, but I bet they're
still around.

I'm an airpop gal myself, though lately I've been eating the microwave ones without the fat.

-j.

"donald girod" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I would like opinions on what you think is the best popcorn maker out there (not air-popped, that
stuff is really only good for packing material in my opinion).

The West Bend Stir-Crazy, hands down. Perfect popcorn every time. The only down-side is that it
takes up cabinet space. That's not a huge issue for me, since the popper is something I've grown up
with and don't begrudge its space, but it's something to consider.

And the best popcorn popper isn't worth what you paid for it if you don't use the best popcorn. I'm
an Orville Redenbacher fan, myself. It's a rare popping where I have more than five or six unpopped
kernels to eight quarts of popcorn (roughly 2/3 cup popcorn to two tablespoons oil). Pretty
impressive performance for both the machine and the popcorn.

-j

In article <[email hidden]>, "donald girod"

Quoted message said:

I would like opinions on what you think is the best popcorn maker out there (not air-popped, that
stuff is really only good for packing material in my opinion).

We've loved both our West Bend Stir Crazy poppers.
--
-Barb 12-23-03: Tourtiere pictures and recipe have been added to my site: <www.jamlady.eboard.com>
"If you're ever in a jam, here I am."

Quoted message said:

I would like opinions on what you think is the best popcorn maker out there (not air-popped, that
stuff is really only good for packing material in my opinion). I have one of those overpriced
aluminum pots with a crank, and it is fast and does a decent amount, but the bottom of the pot
warped almost immediately, and the thing manages to trap quite a bit of steam in the popped corn,
so that it can be tough sometimes.

I use my wok w/ a gas ring for my gas stove. I just happen to have a lid that fits. It works
perfectly every time.

~Kat

"I think I would like to call myself 'the girl who wanted to be God'. Yet if I were not in this
body, where would I be--perhaps I am destined to be classified and qualified. But, oh, I cry out
aginst it." --Sylvia Plath

Goomba38 said:

donald girod said:

I would like opinions on what you think is the best popcorn maker out there (not air-popped, that
stuff is really only good for packing material in my opinion). I have one of those overpriced
aluminum pots with a crank, and it is fast and does a decent amount, but the bottom of the pot
warped almost immediately, and the thing manages to trap quite a bit of steam in the popped corn,
so that it can be tough sometimes.

A good sturdy pot, leaving the lid cracked during popping has always been my preference. Goomba

Good stirdy pot, and forget about leaving the lid cracked. Just shake the heck out of it over the
flame and let it go to town!

Jill

"jacqui{JB}" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:bskfs1
[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

"donald girod" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I would like opinions on what you think is the best popcorn maker out there (not air-popped, that
stuff is really only good for packing material in my opinion).

The West Bend Stir-Crazy, hands down. Perfect popcorn every time. The only down-side is that it
takes up cabinet space. That's not a huge issue for me, since the popper is something I've grown
up with and don't begrudge its space, but it's something to consider.

And the best popcorn popper isn't worth what you paid for it if you don't use the best popcorn.
I'm an Orville Redenbacher fan, myself. It's a rare popping where I have more than five or six
unpopped kernels to eight quarts of popcorn (roughly 2/3 cup popcorn to two tablespoons oil).
Pretty impressive performance for both the machine and the popcorn.

-j

I totally agree. My Stir-Crazy finally gave up the ghost after years of use and I haven't replaced
it yet, but it made the best popcorn I've ever eaten. We often splurged and used coconut oil or palm
oil for popping which made it that much better, though not very healthy. <G> I will definitely buy
another one.

Wayne

Julia Altshuler <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<TmhHb.677023$Fm2.584244@attbi_s04>...

Quoted message said:

donald girod said:

I would like opinions on what you think is the best popcorn maker out there (not air-popped,
that stuff is really only good for packing material in my opinion). I have one of those
overpriced aluminum pots with a crank, and it is fast and does a decent amount, but the bottom
of the pot warped almost immediately, and the thing manages to trap quite a bit of steam in the
popped corn, so that it can be tough sometimes.

When you say "best," do you mean least expensive? Fastest? Least likely to burn kernels? Easiest
to clean?

My best popcorn maker is an ordinary sauce pot. I put a little oil on the bottom, maybe 1/8th of
an inch. I put the kernels in to cover the bottom of the pan. Cover. Put it on medium heat and
wait until you hear popping. When the popping dies down, look at your watch and count 15 seconds.
If you hear a pop, start over. When you get up to 15 with no pops, remove from heat, apply butter,
salt, spices, whatever.

--Lia

I do exactly the same thing but add a little extra popcorn, which tends to make it less oily,
overall, and they still all pop. Nothing tastes better than popcorn made the "old fashioned" way.

-L.

jacqui{JB} said:

And the best popcorn popper isn't worth what you paid for it if you don't use the best popcorn.
I'm an Orville Redenbacher fan, myself.

I'm not impressed with Orville Redenbacher. Before putting the corn in the popper, I always spread
the popcorn out in a dish or something and inspect it for bad kernels. I pick out all the bad
kernels (especially the ones that are black at the tip) and discard them. I do that because corn
is the second biggest source of cancer-causing aflatoxins in a typical U.S. diet. (Peanuts are the
#1 source.)

If you've ever noticed a piece of popcorn that had an off taste, it was made from one of these bad
kernels. It's caused by a mold.

In doing these inspections, I've found no difference between Orville Redenbacher and the cheaper
brands. They all contain about the same number of bad kernels.

I vote for the West Bend Stir Crazy too. It makes great popcorn. I always put a half of sugar in the
oil before starting. It gives a popcorn a slightly sweet taste that goes very well with the salt.
Don't use too much.

The best popcorn popper in the world is an iron dutch oven. I use a couple teaspoons of vegetable or
corn oil, toss in my corn, heat till a few start to pop then shake the pot on the stove to keep the
corn from burning until it pops.

Paul

"donald girod" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I would like opinions on what you think is the best popcorn maker out

there

Quoted message said:

(not air-popped, that stuff is really only good for packing material in my opinion). I have one of
those overpriced aluminum pots with a crank, and

it

Quoted message said:

is fast and does a decent amount, but the bottom of the pot warped almost immediately, and the
thing manages to trap quite a bit of steam in the popped corn, so that it can be tough sometimes.

Quoted message said:

I always put a half of sugar in the oil before starting. It gives a popcorn

A "half" of what, please?

Paul M. Kook said:

The best popcorn popper in the world is an iron dutch oven. I use a couple teaspoons of vegetable
or corn oil, toss in my corn, heat till a few start to pop then shake the pot on the stove to keep
the corn from burning until it pops.

An iron dutch oven of say 6 quarts would weigh nigh onto ten pounds, and has itty-bitty
handles...you must have arms like Popeye, and a brain like Bluto if you expect anyone to believe
your fercocktah sea story.

---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =--- ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =--- Sheldon
```````````` "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

"Mark Thorson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And the best popcorn popper isn't worth what you paid for it if you don't use the best popcorn.
I'm an Orville Redenbacher fan, myself.

Quoted message said:

I'm not impressed with Orville Redenbacher. Before putting the corn in the popper, I always spread
the popcorn out in a dish or something and inspect it for bad kernels. I pick out all the bad
kernels (especially the ones that are black at the tip) and discard them. I do that because corn
is the second biggest source of cancer-causing aflatoxins in a typical U.S. diet. (Peanuts are the
#1 source.)

If you've ever noticed a piece of popcorn that had an off taste, it was made from one of these bad
kernels. It's caused by a mold.

In doing these inspections, I've found no difference between Orville Redenbacher and the cheaper
brands. They all contain about the same number of bad kernels.

While I appreciate your concern about aflatoxins, I'm not sure where you got the idea that you could
successfully visually inspect popcorn at home for such contamination. May I suggest some further
reading on the subject from reliable sources -- here's a good start:

***
Detection

Detection of aflatoxins in corn lots is necessary for regulatory agencies, producers, and the grain
buyers for obvious reasons. The detection of aflatoxins is not exact and there are opportunities for
error in all of the steps involved. Perhaps the greatest chance for error is in the sampling
process, either in the field or from truckload lots. The data obtained in this area indicate that at
least a 10 lb. sample should be obtained from the area to be sampled, and the sample should be as
representative of the total lot as possible.

Once the main sample has been obtained, a sub-sample must be obtained. This is probably the second
greatest source of error. The final analysis for aflatoxin is done on a 50 to 100 gr. sample, which
again must be representative of the larger sample. The sub-sampling error can be reduced if the
total sample is ground before the sub-sample is obtained. However, in many laboratories neither time
nor equipment is available to grind the entire 10 lb. sample. Thus, a sub-sample of the intact
kernels is taken before grinding.

Although there is a chance for error in the analytical process, this is the most accurate step in
the detection procedure. There are several ways of detecting aflatoxin once the sub-sample has been
obtained. Detection methods range from procedures as simple as visual observation of the toxin-
producing fungi to complicated chemical analyses of the toxins themselves.

Ultraviolet light. This is the so-called black light method and is used by several buying stations.
An ultraviolet light of 365 nm is normally used. However, it is not a reliable method of detecting
aflatoxin since the compound that produces the bright, greenish-yellow fluorescence is kojic acid
and not aflatoxin. It may be used as a presumptive screening method, but not as an analytical method
since fluorescence may occur without aflatoxin being present.

Minicolumn method. Velasco devised a minicolumn method employing florisil for rapid screening of
aflatoxin B1 (16). This procedure has been modified and is used by several buying stations to
determine whether or not to purchase a lot of corn. Elevators frequently use this method to follow
up on black light positive samples, particularly during years when aflatoxin problems are common.
The method can detect B1 as low as 5 PPB in cottonseed products, but cannot be used analytically
because it lacks resolution, and more importantly, because it does not definitely identify B1.
Normally, a sample is called positive for B1 if an aflatoxin-like fluorescing material is found
absorbed to the florisil layer of the column. Generally, an unknown sample is compared to one or
more known aflatoxin positive samples (usually at 20 and 100 PPB).

Fluorometric-iodine method. Davis and Diener developed a method for detecting aflatoxins in which
iodine is used to convert aflatoxin B1 into a more intensely fluorescent derivative which is then
quantitated using a comparatively simple photo-fluorometer and filter combination. The instrument is
adjusted to read directly in micrograms per kilogram (PPB) of aflatoxin. This method also has the
advantage of using less solvents, which makes it much safer for the operator.

Thin layer chromatography. This method is approved by the Association of Official Analytical
Chemists and is referred to commonly as the CB method. In this method, the aflatoxins are extracted
from corn using solvents concentrated and spotted on chromatograms. The presence of spots on thin
layer chromatograms with RF values similar to or identical with those of aflatoxins B1, B2, G1, or
G2 is a tentative identification. To confirm the presence of aflatoxins, the suspect spot is reacted
with trifluoroacetic acid or glacial acetic acid, and developing the reaction products in a new
solvent system and comparing with known standards. This method is used by several laboratories, but
is not used by buying stations.

High performance liquid chromatography. This is a relatively new method of detecting aflatoxins and
is very reliable. Again, it is used by several research laboratories, but not by buying stations. A
recently developed HPLC procedure is more rapid, more sensitive, and more precise than the TLC
procedure at high toxin levels.

Mass Spectrometry. There is no more definitive confirmation of the aflatoxins than mass spectroscopy
because this method is a direct molecular characterization of the molecule. However, this method is
used by only a few research laboratories.

***

From persephone.agcom.purdue.eduNCH 52.htmlOpen ↗

As you can see, the level of contamination we're discussing is minute -- measured in parts per
*billion*, far below anything which could be viewed with the naked eye. Keep being concerned, of
course: make wise food choices, keep abreast of current regulations and *compliance* with such
regulations, write letters to food companies, and lobby the government to increase the safety of the
food supply.

But picking through your popcorn isn't going to do you any good.

I choose Orville's because it's, imo, a better tasting, better performing, bigger, fluffier popcorn
(if you believe their marketing hype, they "specially condition" their kernels, thus retaining
optimal moisture for popping -- see orville.comA02 History.jspOpen ↗). Since I
don't live in the US anymore, I eat popcorn maybe half a dozen times a year (and even when I did, I
didn't eat popcorn much more often). Now I'm limited to when I bring a jar back with me when I visit
San Diego ... which has happened once in the last three years. But I digress ...

I just can't see getting too hysterical about popcorn or my corn/maize intake (or too many other
foodstuff concerns), since I don't eat much processed food nor much corn-fed meat/poultry. Your
mileage, and hysteria, may vary. -j

jacqui{JB} said:

Although there is a chance for error in the analytical process, this is the most accurate step in
the detection procedure. There are several ways of detecting aflatoxin once the sub-sample has
been obtained. Detection methods range from procedures as simple as visual observation of the toxin-
producing fungi to complicated chemical analyses of the toxins themselves.

See. There ya go. "visual observation of the toxin-producing fungi". That's a recognized
detection method.

In popcorn, it is a black mold (_Aspergillus_) which lives in the germ of the kernel. Often, the tip
of the husk over the germ of an infected kernel flakes off, so you can see the blackened germ. This
is one of the most common reasons for me to reject a bad kernel. Sometimes the husk over the germ
remains intact, but you can see visually that the germ under the husk is blackened. Those are also
rejects. Just to play it safe, I reject any kernel that looks out of the ordinary. Broken kernels,
swollen kernels, kernels with visible desposits of black crud on them, all get rejected. (I believe
the black deposits are picked up from the corn handling machinery, which needs to be cleaned.)

When held up to a light, a good kernel is translucent yellow, with no internal black features.

Bad kernels can pop like good kernels, and those are the occasional pieces of popcorn that have an
off flavor, which you get if you don't pick out the bad kernels before making a batch of popcorn.

I avoid them both for the bad flavor and the cancer risk.