Cayenne vs. Chili Arbol... any difference?

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Steve Pope, Jan 8, 2006.

  1. Steve Pope

    Steve Pope Guest

    I sometimes buy powdered Chili Arbol from a local store;
    in my experience it is identical in color, hotness and
    flavor to cayenne. Wikipedia says the are the same biological
    species.

    Is there any difference?

    Steve
     
    Tags:


  2. Bubbabob

    Bubbabob Guest

    [email protected] (Steve Pope) wrote:

    > I sometimes buy powdered Chili Arbol from a local store;
    > in my experience it is identical in color, hotness and
    > flavor to cayenne. Wikipedia says the are the same biological
    > species.
    >
    > Is there any difference?
    >
    > Steve
    >


    Flavor. Definitely flavor.

    Same species, very different cultivar. Arbols are also usually much smaller
    than cayennes and less fleshy.

    If you're buying powdered chiles they're probably too old and oxidized for
    the differences to be obvious.
     
  3. Steve Pope

    Steve Pope Guest

    Bubbabob <[email protected]_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:

    >[email protected] (Steve Pope) wrote:


    >> Is there any difference?


    >Flavor. Definitely flavor.


    >Same species, very different cultivar. Arbols are also usually much smaller
    >than cayennes and less fleshy.


    >If you're buying powdered chiles they're probably too old and oxidized for
    >the differences to be obvious.


    Well, possibly, but I used dried chilis alot and there are definite
    culinary difference over fresh chilis that can be used to advantage.
    Furthermore fresh chilis, of a given variety, are not alwasy
    in season.

    The main thing I'm wondering about is whether there's enough
    of a difference between these two products that I should keep
    both on hand. I'm leaning towards "probably not", but so
    far I instinctively put cayenne into an Italian dish, and arbol
    into a Mexican dish.

    Steve
     
  4. modom

    modom Guest

    On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 19:27:50 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Steve
    Pope) wrote:

    >I sometimes buy powdered Chili Arbol from a local store;
    >in my experience it is identical in color, hotness and
    >flavor to cayenne. Wikipedia says the are the same biological
    >species.
    >
    >Is there any difference?
    >
    >Steve


    They look different as whole pods. Most, if not all chiles are
    members of the same species.


    modom
     
  5. Steve Pope

    Steve Pope Guest

    modom <somebody> wrote:

    >They look different as whole pods.


    Thanks

    >Most, if not all chiles are
    >members of the same species.


    According to Wikipedia, five common species. Cayenne and arbol
    are from C. frutescens, most other chilis and sweet peppers
    from C. annuum, and habaneros are C. chinense.

    Steve
     
  6. modom

    modom Guest

    On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 20:35:23 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Steve
    Pope) wrote:

    >modom <somebody> wrote:
    >
    >>They look different as whole pods.

    >
    >Thanks
    >
    >>Most, if not all chiles are
    >>members of the same species.

    >
    >According to Wikipedia, five common species. Cayenne and arbol
    >are from C. frutescens, most other chilis and sweet peppers
    >from C. annuum, and habaneros are C. chinense.
    >
    >Steve


    You're right, I think. I misspoke. It was C. annuum I was thinking
    about. And I knew that habs are C chinense. Somebody here told me
    years ago that cross pollination between the two can produce fertile
    offspring. Does this mean the species are not really that different?
    (College biology class was a long time ago.)


    modom
     
  7. zxcvbob

    zxcvbob Guest

    Steve Pope wrote:
    > modom <somebody> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>They look different as whole pods.

    >
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    >
    >>Most, if not all chiles are
    >>members of the same species.

    >
    >
    > According to Wikipedia, five common species. Cayenne and arbol
    > are from C. frutescens, most other chilis and sweet peppers
    > from C. annuum, and habaneros are C. chinense.
    >
    > Steve



    Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. Cayenne and (I think)
    arbol are C. annuum. Tabascos are C. frutescens.

    I've caught other errors on Wikipedia too. Usually the article is right
    for the most part and screws up a few details.

    Best regards,
    Bob
     
  8. Sheldon

    Sheldon Guest

    Steve Pope wrote:
    > Bubbabob <[email protected]_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:
    >
    > >[email protected] (Steve Pope) wrote:

    >
    > >> Is there any difference?

    >
    > >Flavor. Definitely flavor.

    >
    > >Same species, very different cultivar. Arbols are also usually much smaller
    > >than cayennes and less fleshy.

    >
    > >If you're buying powdered chiles they're probably too old and oxidized for
    > >the differences to be obvious.

    >
    > Well, possibly, but I used dried chilis alot and there are definite
    > culinary difference over fresh chilis that can be used to advantage.
    > Furthermore fresh chilis, of a given variety, are not alwasy
    > in season.
    >
    > The main thing I'm wondering about is whether there's enough
    > of a difference between these two products that I should keep
    > both on hand. I'm leaning towards "probably not", but so
    > far I instinctively put cayenne into an Italian dish, and arbol
    > into a Mexican dish.


    Growing conditions (soil, weather, etc.) will make a major difference
    (flavor, appearance, etc.) even using seeds of the same plant.
     
  9. Steve Pope

    Steve Pope Guest

    zxcvbob <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Steve Pope wrote:


    >> According to Wikipedia, five common species. Cayenne and arbol
    >> are from C. frutescens, most other chilis and sweet peppers
    >> from C. annuum, and habaneros are C. chinense.


    >Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. Cayenne and (I think)
    >arbol are C. annuum. Tabascos are C. frutescens.


    >I've caught other errors on Wikipedia too. Usually the article is right
    >for the most part and screws up a few details.


    Yes, thanks for the reminder of how unreliable the entries
    can be. Of course you supposed to correct them when you find
    a wrong one but I never do that either.

    teve
     
  10. >I've caught other errors on Wikipedia too. Usually the article is right
    >for the most part and screws up a few details.


    Wikipedia has huge problems with factual truth. Since literally anyone
    can change a fact, they can change true facts to false ones.

    And getting it changed back can invoke all of the social ills of the
    Wikipedia's design.

    It entrenches a lot of bad information by making the right people
    walk away and leave it to rot.

    --Blair
     
  11. Alex Rast

    Alex Rast Guest

    at Sun, 08 Jan 2006 19:27:50 GMT in <[email protected]>, spope33
    @speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote :

    >I sometimes buy powdered Chili Arbol from a local store;
    >in my experience it is identical in color, hotness and
    >flavor to cayenne. Wikipedia says the are the same biological
    >species.


    From a flavour standpoint, Arbol tend to have a flatter, "woodier" flavour
    than Cayenne which is "fruitier". From a heat standpoint, the crucial thing
    isn't the power but the intensity profile. Arbol, a little like Thai
    chiles, comes on right away with a recognisable, intense "spike", so that
    right away you're jolted to life. Then it subsides gradually before
    building up to moderate heat at the end. Meanwhile, Cayenne is more
    consistent and insistent with its heat, much more like a defensive lineman
    in football, pushing you back, back with irresistible force. It just stays
    at the same, medium-high level. That level isn't as momentarily intense as
    that quick Arbol spike, but it lasts much longer, so the impression of hear
    may be more. Added to food, then, Arbol is better if the idea is to create
    interest without overwhelming the taste of other things. Cayenne is better
    when the idea is heat without mercy or when you want the flavour of the
    chile itself to be the keynote.

    How this will play out in powdered chili is a little different, I think.
    The flavour characteristics won't be as prominent, so it will be the
    differences in how the heat manifests that will dominate.


    --
    Alex Rast
    [email protected]
    (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)
     
  12. BoboBonobo

    BoboBonobo Guest

    Steve Pope wrote:
    > Bubbabob <[email protected]_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:
    >
    > >[email protected] (Steve Pope) wrote:

    >
    > >> Is there any difference?

    >
    > >Flavor. Definitely flavor.

    >
    > >Same species, very different cultivar. Arbols are also usually much smaller
    > >than cayennes and less fleshy.

    >
    > >If you're buying powdered chiles they're probably too old and oxidized for
    > >the differences to be obvious.

    >
    > Well, possibly, but I used dried chilis alot and there are definite
    > culinary difference over fresh chilis that can be used to advantage.
    > Furthermore fresh chilis, of a given variety, are not alwasy
    > in season.


    I grow Numex Big Jims and poblanos, but will probably grow a few others
    this year.
    >
    > The main thing I'm wondering about is whether there's enough
    > of a difference between these two products that I should keep
    > both on hand. I'm leaning towards "probably not", but so
    > far I instinctively put cayenne into an Italian dish, and arbol
    > into a Mexican dish.


    I like this site: http://tomatogrowers.com/hot.htm and this one:
    http://www.chilepepperinstitute.org/NMSUCultivars_1.htm Heck, I just
    like to look at chiles.
    >
    > Steve


    --Bryan
     
Loading...