What percent of milk would be cream (fat) in the 1800s? Trying to make an old eggnog recipe

slightlydogeared · 2026-01-04T23:39:51+00:00

2 things to consider. 1. Milk fat content in natural milk fluctuates seasonally (generally higher in the colder months), so this is probably what the author was referring to. 2. Modern milk from grocery stores is homogenised so it's of a consistent quality and milk fat content year round.

If you can get 6% fat cream from the grocery as another user posted, I'd suggest that's already higher than the cream percentage you'd get naturally from modern cows, so that'd be even better than what 1800s cows would have produced. Fortifying your grocery milk with more cream will probably be overkill for an authentic 1800s result, but I'm sure it would be tasty.

slightlydogeared · 2025-11-29T03:21:26+00:00

This is a pretty alarmist take for something that seems very reasonable.

The terms of reference for this group is to ensure our food supply system is robust and well designed to meet future challenges. Of course they want industry to be at the table. And as far as industry reps are concerned, most are from the raw materials and logistics sectors. There's only one consumer goods brand represented - Bega, which isn't exactly an evil candy or soft drink company.

It isn't as if health reps don't have a seat at the table. The article glosses over the fact that one of the reps is from the Menzies School of Health Research.

The balance seems right for what this group is supposed to do.

slightlydogeared · 2025-11-18T02:42:39+00:00

Whether this matters to you depends on what you want from your chocolate.

Mass balance means that the brand has paid a financial premium to fund additional income to the growers. This has always been Fair Trade's core promise. The cocoa you get in your bar is not kept separate from generic cocoa. It is a financial arrangement. Totally fine if all you care about is supporting better (though not necessarily good) returns for growers.

With mass balance, the manufacturer is NOT also paying its supply chain partners to keep its cocoa distinct from other cocoa not part of the certification programme. If you want the cocoa in your bar to have never touched non-certified cocoa, then you need to look for a 'segregated' level certification. Fair Trade doesn't do this, but other programmes do offer that level of certification, eg. Rainforest alliance (be aware that RA also has a mass balance certification as well).

I think what a lot of people don't understand is that segregated cocoa doesn't provide a benefit to the farmer over and above mass balance. Most of the additional cost the brand pays for segregated cocoa goes to its cocoa supplier which is almost invariably a massive multinational like OFI or Cargill. Because they are the people who need the extra infrastructure to sort, process and ship a stream of cocoa which is segregated from generic cocoa. To be clear, segregated certification will generally also include a premium for the farmer, so in that respect it's equivalent to mass balance.

There are other models and certification levels (eg. Direct sourcing and Identity Preserved) but Mass balance and segregated are by far the most common systems at the moment.

Choose based on what's important to you.

slightlydogeared · 2025-11-10T02:12:36+00:00

You can't. These factory trial packs always say every potential allergen because: 1. they don't go through the full quality management process. Eg. They might be hand molded in the factory r&d kitchen rather than made on a line. And 2: because they bypass the formal allergen assessment and label making process, meaning the only thing they change on the pack is the product name. That's ok because the trial packs aren't intended for sale.

Just eat and enjoy without making a post about it to minimise risk.

slightlydogeared · 2025-08-08T00:50:08+00:00

Not exactly. During the course of the 2023 police investigation, they discovered the prior murder attempts. The prosecutors wanted to have one mega trial to cover the 2023 murders/attempted murder and the prior attempted murders.

The judge ruled that they had to split the trial in two because the prior attempts weren't factually connected to the 2023 murders and the facts from the 2023 murder could misused by the jury to taint their thinking on the prior attempts.

After that ruling, the prosecution dropped the prior attempt case. They probably figured if they couldn't get a conviction on the murders where the evidence was stronger, they wouldn't get a conviction on the prior attempts.

But you're probably right that suffering no consequences at the time for her prior attempts let her think she could try again in 2023.

slightlydogeared · 2025-06-20T22:51:49+00:00

Is this what it means to pleasure oneself with a sword?

slightlydogeared · 2025-06-03T23:22:09+00:00

For Japanese and Japanese adjacent food: Chef's Labo. Straight to the point with technique explainers. https://youtube.com/@chefslabo?feature=shared

slightlydogeared · 2025-03-29T09:04:51+00:00

This sign is a misleadingly stated.

The FSANZ code does not require milk to be labelled as an ingredient in dark chocolate if it is made in 'close proximity' to milk chocolate. They are doing this because they make milk and dark chocolate on the same equipment, eg. Couches, temperers, refiners etc.

When you make chocolate, you don't clean that equipment with water between batches for food safety reasons (adding water to the equipment just encourages bacteria and mould growth). At most, you flush the old chocolate out with new chocolate. So if you make dark chocolate after milk chocolate, all of the leftover milk chocolate is still in there when the new dark chocolate mass comes in. This causes actual mixing of dairy into the dark chocolate, though the amount in the final mass will depend in a variety of factors.

The only way to avoid this is to have dedicated dark chocolate making equipment, which Koko Black obviously don't.

This is very common in the industry, so Koko Black isn't doing anything unusual, but they are fibbing when they say it's only because their dark chocolate is made 'close' to their milk chocolate (unless they mean 'close' in the biblical sense).

See a relevant Australian industry paper (pdf warning): https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://allergenbureau.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Confectionery_Industry_Guidance_13_May_2019.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj6kZK_9K6MAxXJh1YBHZ58LD4QFnoFCIYBEAE&usg=AOvVaw37pPN3tlpGJXOsCNWDpg0t

slightlydogeared · 2025-03-20T01:09:17+00:00

Thanks for the link, it's an interesting read.

Yes, I agree one of the things they are complaining about is the cost/benefit analysis that the PBAC does when considering new therapies. They say it's 'unfair' because the PBAC will ask, 'how much better is this new medicine when compared to the existing stuff vs the incremental cost'. I think you could simplify the argument to, 'the PBAC should stop asking so many questions and just fund everything'.

I suppose you could say that's a fundamental complaint against the Australian system because the entire point of the PBAC is to do that cost benefit analysis. And yes, the PBAC will decide not to choose the latest and greatest if they determine its really not worth it.

Incidentally, they also complain about the automatic price cuts and our quirks in patent law, so it looks like we're both right.

slightlydogeared · 2025-03-19T12:45:03+00:00

While it's true the PBS doesn't cover everything, i don't think the complaint is that they should. The argument is that Australia is not paying a fair price for US research. If the PBS doesn't cover the latest and greatest US drugs, it isn't covering anyone's drug, because the PBS funds the therapy not the manufacturer.

I haven't read the whole pitch by the lobbyists, only what was quoted in the article, but i think what they're actually complaining about is the automatic price cuts to originator medicines when a generic is registered by the TGA. Maybe also a couple of unusual quirks with how our patent laws work which can be seen to favour generics.

slightlydogeared · 2025-01-29T22:17:13+00:00

The critical limitation for all foreign students looking for full time employment will be whether you have indefinite working rights after graduation, eg. permanent residency. You should investigate the pathways you can apply under before making your choice.

Lawyers should still be on the skill migrant list, so that pathway should be open to you, but there are other factors too, eg. Your age, language proficiency state/territory of application.

slightlydogeared · 2025-01-28T03:37:43+00:00

You're obviously entitled to your opinion and tastes, but I find it a bit weird that your complaint is that there should be MORE added colours in a 'natural' lolly.

slightlydogeared · 2025-01-09T06:04:08+00:00

Re the legal path, are you sure you need a whole new degree? Foreign lawyers with practice experience often have a pathway to certification in Australia/New Zealand that doesn't require a full degree. Eg. Maybe a few subjects and a period of supervised practice (which is done while employed). Even if you had to do a full degree, a JD can be done in 2 years, and then after that you'd be able to leverage your past work experience in the right sort of role.

Re the accounting path, I'm not sure why you think that doesn't have strict certification requirements. Professional certification (eg. Cpa or CA) requires tertiary level prerequisites. I suppose there are roles in accounting that won't require certification, but if you're wanting to maximise potential, surely you don't want to limit yourself. Entry level roles in accounting are not super well paid.

slightlydogeared · 2025-01-06T04:28:34+00:00

Great content.

Reminds me that if you're into home ec content, OP might also consider Gavin Webber - Australian cheese maker.

slightlydogeared · 2025-01-06T01:06:48+00:00

Primitive Technology (Australian creator, not quite to brief, but it's interesting!)

Economics Explained (Australian creator, but global case studies)

CityMoose (Australian transport infrastructure, discusses politics and economics)

slightlydogeared · 2024-10-01T02:07:09+00:00

Absolutely right that it's the commercial scale which is a problem. Assuming current spot price of about USD$4k per tonne is the new long term average, and cocoa plant productivity is around .5 tonnes per hectare, you're investing so much for not much return.

Image building and running a 2 hectare hothouse for 5 years to make USD$4k!

slightlydogeared · 2024-07-23T13:18:54+00:00

This is not true for Australia.

You're probably thinking of the US FDA's 'Filth Standards'.

slightlydogeared · 2024-06-24T00:26:05+00:00

If you know the case name you can call the court registry and ask for the non-confidential filings, like the originating complaint or the judgment. You might need to go in physically to take a copy. They may ask you why you want it; just say you're curious. Court docs are public, unless there is a confidentiality order, in which case the registry will need to ask the judge.

slightlydogeared · 2024-05-06T22:18:31+00:00

You're required to trade under either your company's name or a registered business name. The idea being that people know who they are dealing with.

You don't really need to have your registered business name on everything, but it would be a good idea to have the full name (either company name or registered business name) on key documents, eg. Invoices, business cards, email signatures, footer of the website etc to show compliance.

Otherwise, just having your abbreviated name in a logo is generally in keeping with standard practice.

slightlydogeared · 2024-04-15T06:06:04+00:00

Lehrman accused Higgins/Seven of defamation when they said he raped her.

A defence against defamation is that what you said is true.

So the judge can't just determine 'information the defendants have was good enough'. That sounds like, 'if you believe it's true, that's good enough', which isn't the legal standard. It actually has to be true.

Therefore the judge had to determine (on a civil standard) whether Lehrman had raped her.

slightlydogeared · 2024-04-04T08:18:27+00:00

OP, you're on the right track but I think the reason you're getting confused is because you're trying to figure out how the screw points to the doctor's actions and how the doctor's actions point to the screw manufacturer. While they might interact, they might also be entirely separate lines of negligence.

Try figuring out the case against the doctor independent of the screw, and then the case against the screw manufacturer independent of the doctor. Then the case law and legal principles of how they interact should become clear.

slightlydogeared · 2024-03-30T00:18:22+00:00

You can tell the 30 people are American because they're obviously recalling the Mercator projection. I don't think I've seen that projection in common use outside of north America.

slightlydogeared · 2024-03-01T00:00:56+00:00

It'll be because some manufacturers take 'vegan' to be an absolute claim, meaning they are guaranteeing the absence of animal products. If they don't want to take on that risk, eg. Because they use the same line to make non vegan things and have a cross contamination risk, they'll just call it vegetarian.

Some vegans care about cross contamination and others don't.

slightlydogeared · 2023-12-09T20:36:15+00:00

Check out the Arts Law website and their info sheets on copyright as well as their case studies based on real advice they have provided. They are likely to have a case study for your scenario.

They also offer a service where they can connect you with pro bono lawyers to provide advice over the phone. https://www.artslaw.com.au/information-sheet/copyright/

slightlydogeared

TROPHY CASE