![]() |
Arguments for vacuum sealing vs. oxygen absorbers alone
I'm a relative newcomer to food preservation. Even so, I've learned a few things recently that I thought I would pass along.
I debated about whether to get a vacuum sealer or to just go with oxygen absorbers, which will produce a mild vacuum on their own. I ended up getting one, and I'm very happy I did -- but for a reason I didn't think of in advance. What I've noticed is that it's much easier to detect leaks in vacuum-sealed bags. I've only had a two leaks so far, but without vacuum sealing I would have missed them. One was in a gallon-sized bag, where a small fold in the mylar caused a leak at the heat seal. The other was a bag of pasta, where the pasta poked a hole in the bag (I'm using thicker mylar now for stuff like that). In addition to the oxygen permeability problems with large plastic buckets, I've decided that storing food in them is a bad idea for the same reason. Detecting leaks or bad seals in a mylar bag that entirely fills a 5 or 6 gallon bucket is all but impossible. I've decided to stay with a maximum 1 gallon bag size for that reason. That's about 5 pounds of flour, which is also a pretty convenient size for cooking, etc. |
Re: Arguments for vacuum sealing vs. oxygen absorbers alone
can one use both at once ?
put an oxygen absorber into a bag and then vacuum seal it ? |
Re: Arguments for vacuum sealing vs. oxygen absorbers alone
Quote:
|
Re: Arguments for vacuum sealing vs. oxygen absorbers alone
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Are they the foil-embedded mylar, or the clear stuff? I get the 7 mil mylar + foil bags from Sorbent (PAKDRY1500), but the case price on the 10x20 inch ones are more than twice as much as LDS. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM