scott123

Less sugar=harder sorbet. If you cut the sugar by 1/4, you'll end up with something slightly firmer. How open are you to artificial sweeteners? 75/25 sugar/splenda would probably buy you a little more firmness. Splenda has a tendency to react a little strangely with citrus, but I don't think that ratio would be a problem. There's also aspartame if you're willing to go that route. And, I could be wrong about this, but thicker mixtures tend to thaw more slowly, because, as they melt, the outer layer tends to cling and create a bit of insulation. So give the gelatin a try.

Yup, what started off as "Best Deal on" thread, has now become a simple "Where can I find" endeavor. Who would have thought San Marzano puree would be so hard to find? I called Corrados. They said that they 'used to carry the San Marzano puree, but the distributor started demanding too much for it, so they dropped it.' Thanks for the lead on Corrados, though, Tracey, they do have a couple of other hard to find items that I've been looking for like citric acid (for mozzarella) and good pizza flour. Septemberdog61, your pureeing experiments are a huge help. The milling technique failed me as well. The prospect of hand crushing the tomatoes and pressing them through a sieve with the back of a spoon doesn't sound very appealing, but, if I can't find puree, I guess I don't have a choice. How about a potato masher for the first phase? I would think that would be a little faster than hand crushing.

Yet another ________ in North Jersey topic I've been scouring my local supermarkets for San Marzano puree to no avail. I'm sure it exists somewhere, though. Of the places that carry it, who's got the best price? I'm willing to do non DOP San Marzanos, as long as someone can vouch for their quality. Btw, by the lack of puree available on the retail level, is it safe to assume that I'm committing some sort of culinary sin by not pureeing them myself? I tried seeding/pureeing whole peeled San Marzanos a few weeks ago and the experience was not pleasant. The output was minimal as well.

Thanks! Wegmans is a bit of a trek, but I hope to get there soon.

Like I said before, I will use arrowroot for certain dishes, but when I turn to roux for classic sauces, I do so because I prefer it's toasty, slightly less processed flavor. Re; inulin in discussions, a few years back inulin producers were trying to position it as a fat replacer, and, although I'm sure that there's still someone trying to sing that song, fortunately, the bulk of the industry has backpedaled from such silliness. So, in a sense, it does have a history of being discussed in savory applications, just in a somewhat twisted and misrepresented manner. Re; quantities, if memory serves me correctly, xanthan traps liquids in a matrix, starch swells to many times it size with water, while inulin (like sugar) just dissolves. In other words, if you want thickening, you can't use it in hydrocolloid quantities. The molecular weight is close to 8 times that of sugar, so you do get more viscous solutions with the same amount of inulin as you would sugar, but, if you've ever made a simple syrup, you'll see that sugar isn't giving you much viscosity at all. 8 times very little is still not so much And then there's the sweetness level. At 10 percent the sweetness of sugar, it's not very sweet, but that can add up the more you use. Basically, you want enough to add some viscosity, but not so much that savory sauces become sweet or your dinner guests all start lining up for the loo. If you've never worked with inulin before, I'd make a 1:1 inulin/water syrup with it just to see the viscosity it's bringing to the table, but when it comes time to formulate... I think 10% should be a good ballpark (in conjunction with xanthan and another thickener such as gelatin). Like xanthan, and, to an extent, starch, inulin has assimilation issues. Fibersure's 'dissolves in water' claim is a bit off the mark. It has a tendency to form hard candy-like clumps unless you agitate the mixing process carefully. Even with agitation, you may still get some clumping that will need to be dissolved with heat. I tend to make thick syrups (in the 3:1 inulin/water realm) in advance and use it in that form. I find it a lot easier to work with as a syrup. Also, inulin isn't all that salt stable. I've tried using it for a Chinese take out style brown sauce and the next day, much like corn starch, it had completely broken down. Brown sauce isn't as salty as soy sauce based sauces, but I'd still add the inulin right before serving, just to be safe. Lastly, I've thought about it a little more, and one more thickener comes to mind. Apparently when you combine different hydrocolloids, the end result is a thickener that's not quite so slimy as xanthan is by itself. I use xanthan and guar, but I hear acacia really works wonders. If you're budget allows it, this seems to get good reviews: http://www.expertfoods.com/package_notStarch.php Rather than give them a boatload of money to combine hydrocolloids, I've been hoping to find acacia and mix them myself. I've been keeping my eye out for small quantities of good quality acacia at a reasonable price, but, so far, it's been slim picking.

I used roux for years; stopped using it not out of principle but because I thought other things worked better. Now I'm looking for EVEN better Fair enough. Should you ever decide to give roux another chance (combined with gums), though, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. If you feel absolutely intent on pushing the envelope, I would recommend experimenting with inulin. Inulin is a pretty big player in the confection/sugar free realm, but I think it's poised to play a role in savory products as well. It's basically non sweet corn syrup in a powdered form. It has a tiny bit of sweetness, but I think you could get around that by cooking the tomato paste (in brown sauce) less/adding it later in the process. It's molecular size is massive, so it should play beautifully with gums and gelatin, and there's zero masking of flavors. In large amounts it can be laxating (it's basically the ingredient in beans that can give them a gassy quality), so if you're cooking for company, you need to be careful, but as a single component in a multi thickener approach, I don't think you'll have to worry about it. Btw, while we're on the topic of laxation... just in case you weren't aware of it, xanthan, being pure fiber can cause laxation issues as well. Trader Joes carries it. Most health food stores (and Walmart) have it under the brand name Fibersure. It's heinously expensive. If it works out for you, let me know- I have some bulk sources for it.

I've been checking the freezer section twice a week for the last 3 months. At least now I know to stop checking And referring customers to pie crusts? What's up with that? They might as well refer customers to green beans or potato chips because that's how much pie crust and puff pastry have in common. Horseshoes and hand grenades, folks. Horseshoes and hand grenades. I've seen TJs products get discontinued because of sourcing issues (potstickers) and then come back when a new source was located. I wouldn't get your hopes up, but, it is possible.

Paul, I used to subscribe to the concept that more flavor is better, and, like you, I went to great lengths in my attempts to thicken classical sauces without roux. After spending years experimenting and pondering the subject, I came to the conclusion that some masking isn't necessarily a bad thing. Also, on a similar note, after years of revering all things Blumenthal, I came to the conclusion that he's a bit of a twat. I'm all for experimentation and moving forward, but I think this whole 'flavor masking' phobia is, to an extent, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Properly prepared, brown sauce base should be a little too intensely flavored and the roux should play a role in dialing that intensity back. In other words, let's not turn back the clock, but, at the same time, let's not run away from valid ingredients. There's a happy medium here. Instead of removing roux completely from the equation, I understand it's shortcomings and mitigate them by combining roux with xanthan and guar. I'm a little more wary of cream than I was 10 years ago, but I still judiciously cook with that as well. One thing that you might want to consider is that thickening is about molecules bumping into each other. Generally speaking, the more variety in molecules (different shapes), the more clutter, the thicker the sauce. Gums have a very well documented synergy with each other, but I have no doubt that other thickeners provide a synergistic bump as well. It's additional measuring/labor, but the more thickeners, the merrier. At the moment, though, I'm pretty happy with roux, xanthan, guar and, occasionally, arrowroot.

You're welcome. Quite a few supermarkets have xanthan. If there's a Bob's Red Mill section, that's where it tends to be. Whole foods will carry it as will any mom and pop health food stores. When I was looking for it last, there didn't seem to be any good deals on it- it's pretty much super expensive no matter where you go.

Do a freeze test. Freeze a non potato saline solution next to an equal amount of potato boiled (and then removed) solution. If you've removed as much salt as you say you have, you should be able to get a considerably firmer freeze. Potato starch does the lower freezing point, but it should be negligible compared to the freezing point lowering capabilities of the salt. OR Put this argument completely to rest and shell out for one of these: http://www.acornnaturalists.com/store/SALINITY-TEST-KIT-P450C108.aspx

At the moment, I'm leaning toward recommending 1/4 t. xanthan. The recipe might accommodate 1/2 t. but, on your first run, you'll probably want to err on the side of caution. Btw, I really can't guarantee you that xanthan, on it's own, is going to resolve your emulsification issue. If, say, you're making this for company and the texture has to be spot on, I'd bite the bullet and add another yolk along with the xanthan. It may very well not need the extra yolk, but I think it's a good insurance policy. Room temp should be fine on adding the mascarpone, but make sure it's room temp throughout and not warm in the middle. Btw, from what I've read, mascarpone is frequently smooth, but you can get a grainy batch. If your mascarpone was grainy, then this may not be an emulsification issue. Taste it before you use it. If it isn't perfectly smooth, you might be able to remove the grittiness by passing it through a sieve with a silicone spatula. Lastly, I have no idea how that sauce will turn out, but, should you decide to make it, I'd use half the nutmeg first and see how you like it. 1/8 t. feels a bit heavy handed.

It's an emulsification issue. Some starch might help, but you might end up masking the delicate flavor of the cheese. More eggs would help, but you'd end up with an eggier taste. Non fat dry milk is a decent emulsifier, but, what you get in emulsification, you'll pay for in flavor. Using a less sweet form of sugar (glucose) in greater quantities helps emulsification to an extent, but if you use too much, the ice cream will have a chewy quality. What's your budget like? Lecithin would probably help quite a bit. I tend to avoid lecithin because, no matter where I store it, it tends to go bad/gummy on me and buying it for a single recipe is just way to cost inefficient. It's also not quite as neutrally flavored as I'd like. Xanthan gum would probably be invaluable, both from a perspective of emulsification and scoopability. If I were making it... I'd probably go with glucose, xanthan, and, if I was feeling flush, some lecithin. P.S. I'm not sure what recipe you're using, but you'd definitely want to add the mascarpone to the chilled base. Even doing this, though, I'd still incorporate one or more emulsification aid that I listed above.

I've been doing the paneer/ricotta thing for a while and I think it's time to graduate to rennet based cheeses. Anyone have a good source in North Jersey? None of my supermarkets (SR, Pathmark, Kings, A&P, Foodtown) seem to carry it. The Junket web store has an 8 tablet package for $1.50- that's the price range I'm looking for (without the $7 shipping).

Update: My chiles came!!!!! I got four pounds of the NM mild and one pound of the guajillo (the one pound minimum for the Arbol was just too much for my present needs). The NM mild is just gorgeous. I am in love (again). I keep opening the ziplock bag, sticking my face in and breathing deeply. I'm intoxicated. Grand total for five pounds, including shipping to NJ- $25. My mind is officially blown. $5 a lb. for what appears to be the chile of my dreams.

Do magnetic stirrers apply much force against the bottom of the beaker? It seems like they spin fairly effortlessly. Traditional sauces need some pressure against the bottom of the cooking vessel in order to avoid buildup.

Interesting. One would think a ceramic surface, although potentially somewhat slow to heat, would heat fairly evenly. As far as preheating goes, if you're using a quality heavy gauge clad pan, that should remove uneven heating completely from the equation. I would also think that the "Microprocessor-controlled feedback technology" would give you the precision you're looking for. In other words, this shouldn't heat up past your target temp. That's why labs buy these, correct? Now, that kind of precision probably comes with a price, and that price is most likely BTUs. I would expect this to take a while to heat a heavyweight pan to frying temps. Another potential price might be the lack of resistance to thermal shock. Slowly heating up a pan from room temp to hot probably won't be issue, but, depending on the conductivity of the pan, putting a wet steak in it might be too much for the ceramic surface to handle. All this being said... I just don't see much of a need for that much precision when frying. Generally, you either want intense preheat-the-crap-out-of-the-pan heat or something low for sauteing/sweating. The variables are such in frying, that setting it and forgetting it would never be an option, even if the temperature were exact. Not that this wouldn't be absolutely amazing for chocolate making. Sure, they sell chocolate melting burners, but, assuming this hits that +-5 deg. realm well, I think it could make tempering easier. Also, depending on how evenly this warmed, if you could set this to just below the gelatinization of your flour starch for making bechamel, you could do something else and then come back and stir for the final bump in temp. BTW, I could be wrong here, but I don't think a magnetic stirrer would work for something thick like bechamel. If I had $360 to burn, I'd probably get one. Although, if I had $360 to burn, I'd probably have $720, so I'd probably opt for the more precise version. How about giving your local high school/college chemistry teacher a call? They might be able to give you a better idea how precise these are.

Well, regardless of whether or not McGee said it, I still think it holds water (no pun intended). I'll take that bet. Take too identical cuts of meat. Confit one, rinse it, pat dry. Steam the other, pat dry. Weigh both. The confit will weigh more.

What theory is that? It's a new one on me. I've never heard that muscles contract more or lose more moisture when heated quickly vs. heated slowly. Their final temperature seems to determine how much they contract and dry out. I can't comment on fat absorption. No experience at all making confit. I'm not sure where I picked it up, possibly McGee. It's basically that high temps denature the muscle faster, which, in turn, causer greater contraction/greater water loss. If memory serves me correctly, McGee proved this the same time he disproved 'searing/sealing.' I think he seared the meat (on high heat) and there was more moisture loss than when roasting it at an even temp.

Fat can't penetrate meat? What? Overcook any meat on the planet and then dunk it in any liquid fat. I guarantee you that it will absorb plenty of fat. Now, as to whether or not confit is effective in taking external liquid fat and actually injecting into meat, that I'm not so sure of. The power of confit is, imo, extremely slow cooking/not shocking the muscle fibers so they contract and push any liquid out. At least that's the theory that I resonate the most with. Steam = above 212 = hot = muscle contraction = impaired meat

So, what's the final word on refrigeration? Can these mayos be refrigerated without compromising texture? I'm guessing they can't, but it would be nice to know for certain from someone who's tried. As exciting as this sounds, I prefer my mayo chilled. If this has textural issues when chilled, count me out.

What's the cheapest yet most marbled part of the lamb? Is there a lamb equivalent of boneless chuck roast? Leg is just too lean for me. I want something fattier, but, at the same time, I don't want to have to take out a second mortgage.

I'm in the process of shopping for a new microwave and have stumbled across inverter technology. Of the people that own these types of machines, what are your thoughts? Experience has shown me that greater complexity usually results in a greater chance for failure/breakdown, but... the prospect of being able to slow the cooking (rather than just cycle the machine on and off) sounds appealing.

Besides finding out what kind of pan (material and size) your friend uses (both for browning and for braising), I would also suggest finding out how dark they brown it. His browning process might be cooking the meat further. For instance, preheating a massive cast iron griddle until it's almost red hot and browning the meat to a dark brown on all sides in two batches will produce an ENTIRELY different product than preheating a non stick aluminum pan and tossing all the meat in at once and cooking it until it's a greyish brown. I would also confirm the thickness of rib he's using. English-cut short ribs, depending on how the butcher cuts them, can vary in thickness. The thicker the rib, the longer they take to cook. It also might be worth comparing fridge temps. If your fridge is colder, then that will prolong the cooking time. Two layers of aluminum will create an air pocket, albeit a small one. Air is an insulator. Gas oven? Electric? Other than thermodynamics, I think biology could be playing a role. Most of the time, short ribs have fantastic marbling (probably the best in the entire animal), but I have seen short ribs that were so marbled they look like pale pink Kobe (drool!) while other times the fat distribution wasn't quite so gorgeous. If your ribs aren't as marbled as your friend's, they will both take longer to get tender and the end result won't be as tender overall. When marbling is compromised, even if you cook the living daylights out of it, it will never have the same succulence as it's marbled brethren. Onions can vary in quality as well. I'm not sure how often you cook with onions, but, in the last 7 years, onions have taken a nose dive in quality. The trend has been towards a tough/fibrous/flavorless onion that takes longer and longer to cook properly/soften. I sweat onions for hours on end to get them soft, and frequently they never soften completely and I have to hand blend them. As far as agricultural trends go, it's one of the most depressing (on par with breeding leaner livestock). Vidalia onions will soften, but, when slow cooked, they offer almost no flavor. Sweet onions have no cohones. An onion that has flavor when slowed cooked should make you cry when you cut it. Not crying when I cut onions makes me want to cry. It's possible that your friend lives somewhere where the onions are better (are they typical California supermarket yellow onions?) or maybe he's just lucky. I know, for a fact, that here in NJ, onions are total garbage. Btw, acids (vinegar) prevent vegetables from softening. If you're already starting with a potentially hard fibrous onion, cooking it with the vinegar in the pouch liquid is pretty much the kiss of death.

I just gave them a call. $3.50/lb for New Mexican chile powder and a verbal guarantee that I'd be getting powder from 'this' fall's harvest. I think we've got a winner. Now comes the hard part- deciding on how much I'm going to need. If memory serves me correctly, I went through 2#s in a year when I had NM chiles available. That involved quite a lot of restraint, though. I think 4# should do the trick. I'm also leaning towards a pound of arbol. A pound will probably last me a decade, but that's the smallest amount I can buy. *rubbing my hands together* This is SO exciting! I've been chile deprived for way too long.

A couple of years back, a friend was hooking me up with what I believe were ground New Mexican chiles. They were $5/lb and she'd get them in the early fall (around the harvest). This powder was pure chile bliss. It was dried/ground, but it had this vibrancy/freshness that I've never tasted in a ground spice. It was bright red/brown, very soft to the touch, a little bit moist- absolutely nothing like anything I've ever seen for purchase or ground myself. One whiff and you knew that this hadn't been sitting on a shelf somewhere gathering dust for months. I didn't know a great deal about the source, but, judging from the flavor, you'd swear that the chilis were picked, allowed to dry for a few days, ground, and then immediately shipped. I say that I 'believe' they were New Mexican, but she was never completely clear on the type. I do know that they had a little more heat than anchos, but were still very mild- which worked out absolutely perfectly for my needs. My friend and I have since lost touch (really dumb move, I know). I'm fully aware that $5/lb for the best powdered chiles on the planet is a pipe dream, but I would love to find an online source that sold something as phenomenal. Powder would be ideal, but whole dried chiles would be fine too, as the long as the quality is top notch and the price reasonable.