Processing pumpkins

This is one case where I definitely don't use state of the art methodology.  I do it the old-fashioned way--slowly, awkardly, and potentially painfully.

The standard approach is to cut the pumpkins in half, scoop out the seeds, then put the halves face-down in about an inch of water and bake at 450 for 45 minutes.  This will soften the flesh, which can then be scooped out and used.  This entire procedure can also be used for butternut squash, which I consider to be essentially the same for all practical purposes.

Cutting can range from difficult to horrifically hard.  It all depends on the rind.  The pumpkins I processed last month were very tough.  That may be good for storage, but it's not so good for cutting.  The problem is that the pumpkin is small, and moves around as you try to get leverage on it.  And a knife--I tried three--isn't the best tool for tackling something like that.  A saw or hatchet would've been better.  A clean hacksaw has possibilities and I'll consider it--though that would lead to fragments of rind embedded in the flesh along the cut.  When you're putting great force on a sharp object partly embedded in something that's unstable, there's obvious potential for injury.  It took 20 minutes or more to cut two pumpkins; you can see that the edges of the cut are pretty ragged.

Then I put them in the oven and all went well.  After 45 minutes the flesh had softened so much that it almost fell out of the shells, which themselves seem to have some potential for future use for... something.

There may be a better way.  Jill Winger at The Prairie Homestead suggests putting the pumpkins in the oven whole (at 350 for 45 minutes to 2 hours).  At that point they cut open easily and can be processed as above.  I might give that a shot next year...or later this year when I tackle the butternut squash on the kitchen counter.

So far the only thing I have done with pumpkin and squash is make puree for various dishes--pumpkin pie (shown above), pumpkin casserole, and pumpkin scones (the latter courtesy of the Paratus Familia Blog; they also work well un-iced).  The pumpkin casserole recipe I use (from somewhere online that I don't remember) is:

2 c pumpkin puree

1 c evaporated milk

1 c sugar

1/2 c self-rising flour*

1/4 tsp cinnamon

2 eggs

1 tsp vanilla extract

6 tbsp butter

Preheat oven to 350. Combine all ingredients (mixing the dry ingredients first helps avoid lumps in the flour) in a casserole dish.  Bake at 350 for 1 hour (covered for 45 min, open for 15).

*In lieu of self-rising flour can use 1/2 c all-purpose flour, 3/4 tsp baking powder, 1/4 tsp salt

This comes very close to being pumpkin pie filling minus the crust, so it is almost a dessert in itself.

One other thing about processing pumpkins: the seeds.  There are a lot of ways to roast them; I just toss them in some salt water for a few minutes, then put them in the oven at 400 for 15-20 minutes.  They usually turn out okay.

Last, what to do with all of the puree?  It takes a pound to do a pumpkin and about the same for the casserole (2 cups = 1 pound, more or less).  I got about four pounds from the two pumpkins above (which is more than normal).  I got about six pounds from a tan cheese pumpkin last year.

I put the puree in one-pound lots into containers and freeze; they stay good for about a year.  Over at Dehydrate to Store there's a video on dehydrating pumpkin puree; I haven't done it yet but it looks like it has some potential as an alternative to freezing.  Pumpkin puree is apparently one thing that cannot be safely canned (even in a pressure canner), so alternative methods are needed.  The fresh pumpkins themselves (uncut) don't keep all that long; butternut squash will last longer, but at some point it will probably make sense to process before you are ready to use them.

Kerosene lighting

I've been aware of Aladdin lamps for a few years.  The online consensus-backed up by some YouTube videos is that they are very bright (see also this one).  They also are reported to put out a lot of heat.  I toyed with the idea of getting one for a while, but never pulled the trigger.  Some of them are very nice-looking, but they are hideously costly.  You can get one for about $135 [update 11/22: now $199; welcome to Inflationworld].  If you look around, nice used ones may show up on Craigslist, eBay, or retail antique dealers.  If you want a pedestal design and shade, the price is probably going to end up north of $200 [Update 11/22: now over $300].  So that deterred me.

The mantle is another factor: Aladdin has changed them recently because of concerns with thorium, which was in the old design.  The new mantles aren't as bright, but I'm willing to stipulate that they're still brighter than any non-pressurized alternative (though there are many variables with flat-wick lamps that impact their brightness).  Mantles are somewhat fragile, and from reading various comments from users, the mantles need to be replaced with some degree of regularity--though that would depend for the most part on the amount of use. The mantles represent an ongoing cost; though flat-wick lamps also need new wicks periodically, those are cheaper and they are consumed at a lower rate.

I was partly interested in a good light source for emergency use--the power here does not go out often, but it has been out for about 24 hours a couple of times while I've lived here due to ice.  I wasn't sold on the practicality of a kerosene lamp for that purpose.  I have flashlights and batteries, plus options to run low-wattage things (like strings of LED Christmas lights) for a time if the power is out.  When I began to plan for a kerosene heater as well, it made more sense to get something for lighting that could use the same fuel.

I ran across this duplex (double-wick) lamp offered by Lehman's one day, and decided to give it a try [Update 11/22: no longer available].  I'm willing to spend $50 on a speculative basis.  It arrived in July, which was not necessarily a good time to either 1) find kerosene or 2) use a lamp that puts out a lot of heat as it runs. So I didn't do much with it until fall, when its heat output would be an asset.

I didn't know what to expect.  I have some battery-powered LED candles, and figured that amount of light was about what I'd get out of a single-wick lamp.  I was surprised.  The duplex burner (two 1 1/16" wicks) puts out a lot of light.  It's not like an electrical light, but it's more than enough to read by if sitting close to the light source.  The picture makes it look like it's somewhat brighter than it actually is, but it's close.

I also got a lantern (the second picture above); they have some advantages over lamps.  They can be carried around more easily and are more weather-hardy.  I bought a #2 Champion from W.T. Kirkman, though other brands and cheaper versions can certainly be found.  I liked the galvanized finish.  This lantern has a 7/8" single wick.  It's also brighter than I thought it would be--my expectations were apparently too low before I started this--but it's noticeably dimmer than the duplex (as you might expect, with only 41% as much wick width as the latter).  The lantern also puts out less heat, although the Kirkman site helpfully estimates the heat output: 1400 BTU per hour (compared to about 10,000-23,000 BTU/hr for a kerosene heater...that suggests they have limited potential as mini kerosene heaters: one lantern, the Jupiter, was designed with a large font/tank to enable it to burn for a long time and heat greenhouses).  The light output is estimated at about 12-14 candlepower with a max of 20--getting from there to lumens seems to be somewhat of a messy calculation.  However, it's also bright enough for reading and general low-level illumination, though you wouldn't mistake it for an electric table lamp with a 60- (or even 20-) watt bulb.

You may be able to see in the picture that the walls are a bit darker with the lantern; the difference between the two is reasonably close to how they look when viewed live, but to my eyes, the brightness of the duplex lamp was about equivalent to that of the second picture, meaning things were dimmer still for the lantern.  Either would work fine for non-electric lighting.

What about fuel efficiency? I have not done a fuel consumption test.  Patrice Lewis, on her blog, has.  She used a lamp with a 3/4" wick for her test and found that it consumed about 0.61 ounces of kerosene per hour (2.5 cups used in 33 hours).  If the amount of fuel consumption is linear at a 1:1 ratio with wick width, that would mean the 7/8" wick lantern uses 0.71 ounces per hour and the duplex lamp uses 1.71 ounces per hour (if you ever had any doubts, yes, algebra has real-world uses).  If all of these assumptions and calculations are correct, the duplex lamp is a fuel hog, relatively speaking.  The Aladdin should be somewhat more fuel efficient than an equivalently-bright flat-wick lamp if it converts some of the heat to light through making the mantle glow.  However, I've seen some sources--like Jack's Country Store, which sells them--report that consumption is about 3 ounces per hour (if they use that much, they really would put out a lot of heat).

And what about fuel?  K-1 kerosene can be bought at big-box stores in the early winter months as heater fuel for around $9-$10 per gallon [Update 11/22: LOL--$14 to $18]--they advertise it as ultra-low in sulfur, and therefore low emission.  It can be bought at the pump at service stations for maybe half that amount.  W.T. Kirkman has a summary of fuels as well as a list of ones to avoid.  The only ones I have used so far are Florasense, which definitely has a kerosene-like smell when it burns in the lantern, not so much in the lamp, and Klean-Strip kerosene substitute (which still has a smell on first lighting in the lantern, but it soon dissipates).

One other thing about the duplex lamp: The chimney assembly comes off of the burner for lighting--you don't have to pull the chimney up by itself then get it back into the prongs after lighting.  I found that tip on a YouTube video that I can't locate at the moment.  It makes things a bit easier.

There are other options for emergency lighting--the aforementioned LED Christmas lights will do a decent job if you have a battery and inverter to run them (this isn't as hard to set up as you might expect; some car starters have small inverters and outlets, and you can also hook an inverter up to your car battery).  Or you can use LED lanterns (like the Streamlight) with a couple of sets of batteries at the ready.

Kerosene lamps and lanterns are in many ways antiquated and sub-optimal; they are relatively dangerous; they pollute as they burn; and they are relatively inefficient.  There are a number of international initiatives to transition rural areas in the developing world to solar LED lanterns.  However, for some uses, the inefficiencies of kerosene are bonuses.  Winter ice storms are one such situation.

Reviewed: 11/1/22

Cranberry Sauce

I made some sugar-free cranberry sauce today.  I've been doing it for a few years.  Originally, I didn't can it and only made it as needed, storing it in the refrigerator.  I also used aspartame as the sweetener, which worked in terms of sweetness, but changed the consistency.  At the end of the season, I'd buy bags of berries, put them in the freezer, then try to use them in ensuing months.

Whey Low works much better as a non-sugar sweetener.  And when I started canning it, my experience with cranberry sauce in the off season improved.  Warehouse clubs often get three-pound bags of berries, which is too much if you just want a side dish at Thanksgiving, but works out well if you're doing a canner load of sauce for use in the next year.

I use this recipe, adapted from the Ball Blue Book (BBB):

About 21 1/3 cups of cranberries
10 2/3 cups each of water and sugar (or Whey Low)

The berries have to be picked over carefully.  I always find a lot of bad ones.  They're often off-color and squishy; they may be translucent pink, or turning black.  If you don't get all (or most of them) out, the cranberry sauce will have an off-odor and flavor, somewhat reminiscent of PineSol.  Tonight I started off with nine pounds and culled out about 26 ounces, or 18%.  It took about an hour to do so.  I used the above amounts of water and sugar, but didn't measure out the berries.  From past experience, I know that nine pounds will net out to about 8-9 quarts.  Tonight I got about 8.5.  They can be canned in the boiling water bath canner.  I do them for 25 minutes.

 To make the sauce itself, I just boil the water and sugar, then add the berries.  They'll start to rupture immediately.  I stir them and eventually mash the few remaining stragglers against the side with the slotted spoon I use to stir.  Everything fits into a 16 qt. stock pot, though it is tight at first.  Until the berries break down, it will be nearly full.

You can see a couple of things in the picture.  One is that foaming becomes a problem as it continues to cook (and boil).  Another is that the berries (even once they burst) float at the top of the mixture, leaving a more syrupy consistency below.  I try to balance out what goes into each jar, but obviously miss the mark sometimes.  Still, it all works out and they're good.

The Whey Low does admittedly make this an expensive indulgence.  The three bags of berries cost about $14, and the amount of Whey Low (a little over four pounds) costs probably $30 or so (without any discounts, which are easy to get if you're willing to go on their e-mail list).  I could use sugar, which would cut the price dramatically. For preserves I use sugar; Whey Low would be prohibitive.  But for cranberry sauce, I figure it's worth it to lighten the load calorically.