russ parsons

paula is right (of course), that i should have specified new world beans rather than implying the same was true for chickpeas and dried favas. i don't have enough experience cooking with them to make any judgement on those, certainly not compared to her. i should also have pointed out that you do need to adjust the amount of water in the recipe when you don't soak. the beans take up a lot more water during the cooking. i have not done any work comparing beans cooked in the pressure cooker. offhand, i can't think of a reason why it would make a difference, but it is possible that the increased heat could have an effect on the sugars. Because i'm sure the statute of limitations has run out, here is the piece i wrote in 1994: Almost every recipe in every cookbook you've ever read says you must soak dried beans before you cook them. In almost every case that advice is wrong. Letting dried beans sit overnight in a bowl of cold water does nothing to improve their flavor or their texture. In fact, it does quite the opposite. While soaking shortens the unattended cooking time of beans somewhat, the time saved is marginal and there are no other labor-saving benefits. Finally, soaking does absolutely nothing to reduce the gas-producing properties of beans. These may be difficult ideas to get used to, flying as they do in the face of everything most of us have been taught about cooking beans. One friend, an Arizonan, dismissed the idea out-of-hand, attributing it to my New Mexican background. "What do they know about beans?" she said. But cooking unsoaked beans is not new. No less an authority than noted Mexican cookbook writer Diana Kennedy has advocated it for years. "If you want the best-flavored beans, don't soak them overnight, but start cooking in hot water," she says in "The Cuisines of Mexico" (Harper & Row: 1972). In fact, the more I asked around, the more people I found who cooked beans this way--mostly, it seemed, people from Mexican or Central American families--although at least one prominent New American chef and another well-known French chef agreed. What's more, few commercial canners soak dried beans before cooking. In fact, in a way they don't cook the beans at all. The heat and pressure of the canning process (called the retort) is enough to cook--perhaps even overcook--the beans right in the can. * Still, I wanted to see for myself. Call it trial by frijoles. First, I cooked three pots of beans: one soaked overnight, one quick-soaked (brought to a boil and left to sit, covered for one hour), and one simply covered with boiling water. To each pot I added a hunk of salt pork, some sliced onion and a bit of garlic. I simmered them slowly on top of the stove, covered. The two soaked beans did cook more quickly than the unsoaked--they were finished in about 1 hour and 15 minutes, as opposed to two hours. But when I sampled them, the extra 45 minutes paid off. The two pots of soaked beans were pallid compared to the unsoaked (though the long-soaked were better than the quick-soaked). The unsoaked beans had a noticeably deeper flavor; they were firmer to the bite, and they did not break up as much in cooking. Then came the ultimate test. I sat down with a big bowl of the cooked unsoaked beans (after a little refrying with bacon and a handful of grated Monterey Jack cheese) and ate lunch. I waited, half expecting to blow up like a balloon (as a precaution, I did this test at home, alone). Nothing untoward happened. That experiment was far from scientific, but after talking to a couple of researchers who confirmed my results, I moved on to more phone calls and other tests. * All of us, it seems, have our own set of folk tales about cooking beans. And most rules are followed simply because that's the way someone told us to do it, rather than as a result of any kind of testing. * Some people told me quite firmly that beans should never be salted before cooking--that this keeps them from softening during cooking. In fact, Kennedy herself makes this claim. So I cooked beans with salt added (1 teaspoon per pound of beans turns out to be about the right ratio) and without. They cooked to exactly the same degree of softness in almost exactly the same time. Interestingly, though, to get the same level of saltiness in the unsalted batch of beans, I had to add more than twice as much salt. And even then, it was more a case of the broth being salty than the beans. * Other people said that the type of pot in which beans are cooked is the most important thing--only earthenware will do. I cooked beans in three different pots--earthenware, stainless-steel and unlined aluminum. There was some difference in the rate at which the beans soaked up water (or, probably more accurately, the pans soaked up water). The earthenware needed more water early but then seemed to maintain a steady level a little better. I could find little difference in flavor between the earthenware and the stainless-steel, but the unlined aluminum lent a distinctly metallic flavor to the beans. * One chef told me he never allowed his beans to be cooked on top of the stove. Only by cooking them in the oven is it possible to get the slow, steady pace they need, he claimed. * I cooked beans both on top of the stove and in the oven. With constant attention and a ready flame-tamer, I could manipulate the temperature well enough to keep the beans at a sufficiently slow simmer. But, covered, in a 250-degree oven, the cooking was almost effortless. All I had to do was check every half-hour or so to make sure there was sufficient water. The effect of the cover was particularly amazing. Cooking beans in one test without a cover took six hours. The same quantity of beans, cooked at the same temperature with a lid, was done in about 1 hour, 15 minutes ( without pre-soaking). All of these tests were done with commonly available varieties--pinto and white northern--that had been purchased from stores that seem to sell a lot of beans. In fact, the age of the bean may be the most important factor. Dried beans continue to lose moisture as they sit. With very recently picked beans--say, the Scarlet Runners I pick and shell in the summer in my back yard--a quick simmer is all that is necessary. (Actually they are quite good even raw when doused with a little olive oil, mint or basil and salt). On the other hand, those dried flageolet beans you bought on a whim a couple of years ago that have been sitting in the back of the pantry ever since may be quite dry. In fact, with these beans, soaking may be necessary to bring the cooking time down to a matter of hours, rather than days. * Finally, it was time to put the beans to the final test--cooking them in recipes. What good is science, after all, if it is not in the service of mankind? So test we did, adapting old favorite bean recipes to this "new" way of cooking. The results were gratifying: In every case, the dishes were done in almost the same amount of time as the originals. And the textures and flavors of the beans were much improved. Progress is great when it tastes so good. AND THIS IS A SIDEBAR ON THE CHEMISTRY: There is no getting around it--beans cause flatulence. The degree to which different beans affect different people varies, but the truth is inescapable. And there seems to be little a cook can do about it. "Whether to soak beans prior to cooking or not is simply a culinary question," says Gregory Gray, who has been studying beans for 10 years at the U. S. Department of Agriculture's Western Regional Research lab in Albany, Calif. "It may shorten the cooking time, but other than that, there's no effect (on flatulence)." Louis B. Rockland, who has been studying beans even longer--first at Albany and now with his own research firm, Food Tech Research in Placentia, concurs. "There are lots of old wives' tales (about reducing flatulence)--people use bicarbonate of soda, ginger, sulfur, castor oil--a whole series of them. But there's no evidence that any of them--including soaking--work effectively." The problem with beans is well documented. At its root are two factors. First, beans are high in fiber, which most Americans don't eat much of and which can cause flatulence. Second, beans contain complex sugars called alpha-galactosides. The human body does not produce enzymes to digest these sugars. Mainly raffinose and stachyose, they pass through the stomach undigested until they reach the large intestine. There they ferment, producing gases--hydrogen, carbon dioxide and--in some people--methane. The rest is faux pas. * It was thought that soaking beans in cold water leached these sugars out of the bean. Throw away the water and you throw away the gas--it has a simple appeal. Unfortunately, it isn't true. These sugars are part of what the bean uses for nourishment as it grows into a plant, and the bean does not part with them gladly. "When you soak beans in cold water, the beans are actually still alive and their cell walls are still functional," explains Gray. "Those walls are designed to be a very good barrier--to take water in, but not to let the seed nutrients out." Gray and his colleagues developed a method for extracting most of the alpha-galactosides from beans. The beans are boiled for three minutes (effectively killing the bean and allowing the sugars to pass through the cell walls), then allowed to stand for two hours. That water is poured off and the beans are covered and soaked for another two hours. Then they're drained, covered and soaked another two hours before being drained and rinsed a final time. * This method succeeded in ridding the beans of 90% of the troublesome sugars, but as you might expect, there was a side effect. "I used to do this blanch-soak method all the time at home and it works very nicely," Gray says. "The one thing people who ate dinner with us have noted is that you do lose some flavor." What's more--without going into details of what they measured and how--suffice it to say that even with almost all of the alpha-galactosides gone, there wasn't a consistent marked decrease in human flatulence. "We reduced the alpha-galactoside content by 90% but we haven't done anything to dietary fiber," says Gray, "and dietary fiber produces similar effects." This casts doubt not only on this particular pre-soaking method but also on the effectiveness of enzyme additions, such as Beano, which supposedly supply the chemicals necessary to break down the problem sugars. * In fact, it seems, the surest cure for flatulence caused by beans is eating more beans. "Apparently, if you eat beans regularly, the microflora (which ferment the sugars causing gas) adjust somewhat," says Gray. "If you eat bean-and-cheese burritos every day, unless you have some kind of specific problem, you probably won't notice it at all. In cultures that routinely eat beans, you don't hear a lot of complaining about flatulence."

for a while, i was afraid that my tombstone would read "did not soak beans". here's what i believe about beans: 1) you do not NEED to soak them. soaking does speed up the cooking process and, i think, result in slightly more uniform cooking among the beans. not soaking, of course, means you don't need to plan the night before about what you're going to fix for dinner. also, and maybe more important, not soaking the beans results in a very, very flavorful broth. this is much more like mexican-style beans than, perhaps, french. 2) salt them right away. try them unsalted and salted side-by-side and you won't believe the difference. salted beans are seasoned all the way through. salting at the end you just get a very salty broth and bland beans. 3) acid is somewhat problematic. it does delay cooking. add tomatoes, etc., only after the beans have begun to soften. 4) alkaline substances are VERY problematic. they'll stop cooking cold. this is why boston baked beans you add the molasses at the very end. it's also why in certain cities at certain times of year, beans will never soften (alkaline salts in the water). 5) i do believe that beans need to be started slowly and cooked slowly. the starches soften and dissolve in order rather than all at once. cook them too quickly and you'll find that more beans break up. 6) there is almost nothing you can do about the "digestive unpleasantness" issue. certainly, soaking has absolutely no effect. i talked to a scientist who had measured the sugars left in beans after soaking. cold soaking removed only a very negligible amount (the sugars are the stored energy the beans will need in their role as seeds--growing new plants; soaking is the first stage of germination, it would make no sense to purge sugars at that point). hot soaking removed about 10-15%, if i remember correctly. and, he said, if you repeated the hot soaking three times, you actually reached a decent level. of course, beans that were hot-soaked three times in a row lacked something gustatorily. beano, the product, is an enzyme that dissolves the specific sugars that beans contain. it does work. on the other hand, part of the musical nature of beans is that they are very high in fiber, which the american diet is very low in. beano does nothing for this. the only thing that works is eating beans frequently; your system will adjust. note that in mexico and central america, where beans have always been eaten in abundance, 1) they never soak beans and 2) rarely experience digestive distress. cook more beans.

he's a helluva writer, that's for sure. the piece he did on mario batali for the new yorker was really wonderful. and i'd heard he'd spun it out into a book deal. it will be interesting to see how they finesse that conflict, if true.

i remember when the matanzas creek first came out. that was a great merlot. the one i like best these days (i'm repeating myself) is sinskey's carneros merlot. really lean and elegant.

what's highlands inn like these days? that used to be a great place, back when brian whitmer and then cal stamenov were cooking. i haven't been to bernardus, but i do have a lot of respect for both cal and mark jensen, who runs the wine program there.

one good tip i learned (from doing a story on last year's champion barrista, heather perry), is that when you're stretching the milk, hold the pitcher at an angle. this exaggerates the "turning over" of the milk and really does a great job of turning any big bubbles into little bubbles.

it's not on your list, but i'm trying to learn to bake and the new baking book by sherry yard is really wonderful.

we visited the waterfalls at nardis, which was a pretty drive and a nice little trip to the mountains.

i spent a week in trento a couple of years ago and heartily recommend it. the town is beautiful. to me, though, the area is not "typical italian", in the same way that friuli isn't. to me there is a strong austrian influence, though certainly not when compared to alto adige! one of the things i loved best about trento was the place we stayed, the villa madruzzo. i can't say enough about this hotel. it is one of the best places i've ever visited. the rooms were a great blend of old and modern (it's in an old monastery, as i recall, which was redone into a retirement home and now into a luxury hotel). but it's fully modernized, with a/c, nice showers, and everything. there's a michelin-starred restaurant downstairs. it's on the hill outside of trento (technically, cognola di trento) and it's surrounded by private gardens. Villa Madruzzo best of all, it was downright cheap when we stayed there. In the late '90s, i believe it was around $85 a night for the best room. looking at the price list, it doesn't seem to have gone up hardly at all (adjusting for exchange disasters). not far away is maso cantanghel, a very Slow restaurant where they cook (extremely well) mostly from their own farm. Great local wine list, too. I've actually been thinking of going back, just to stay at the hotel, though.

i know he's been working on one for years. the first one is such a monumental work, i can't imagine facing updating it.

Once again, evidence that restaurants are more than places that dispense "cuisine". Almost everyone loves Zuni unreservedly, almost no one would claim that it serves the best food in town. Here's to the intangibles that make a great place work.

As I understand it, the arguments in favor are these: 1) Money--always compelling. 2) Chances to eat places you might not otherwise--I'd say arguable: In the first place, really good places aren't going to be paying for advertorial reviews. Do you really want more chances to eat at mediocre restaurants? 3) "Contacts in the culinary world" which "this guy" could tap for charities he's involved in -- Very problematic: If you're really going to do this restaurant reviewing thing, you're going to have to get used to the idea that you can't owe favors to the people you're covering--whether those favors are done under your byline or not. It's not pretty, but I think it was in the Godfather that they said: "This is the business we've chosen." Very wise.

beware blanket statements. they'll always come back to bite you on the ass (this one included). have you had rob sinskey's carneros merlot? incredibly elegant wine. how about Melville's Inox chardonnay from the santa rita hills? all stainless steel and crisp fruit. maybe it's better to say "i tend not to like", in which case, i'd agree about both merlot and chardonnay.

I've got a Reg, too, but I have to confess that I can't tell the difference in effect between that and the little plastic tamper that came with the Silvia. It sure looks nicer, though, and it feels good and heavy, like a real tool rather than a playtoy. But the coffee tastes the same.

as it happens, i'm working on a piece for next week on "knock-off" truffles, both white and black, that we're getting in la. the whites are from oregon. i find them very sharp, almost petroleum-y (but quite acceptable at the $15 an ounce they're going for down here). the blacks are chinese and at least the ones i bought were very convincing ($4 an ounce). i mistook them for lesser perigord truffles until i found out where they were from. by the way "risotto con fonduta e tartuffo bianco"?

my technique, which is indisputably the best ever, is close to Jaymes'. the only difference is that i use a couple of tablespoons of cold butter rather than the cream. the trick is catching it just as the eggs are starting to set. the butter lowers the temperature enough that you get that silky quality you get with long-cooked scrambled eggs, but you can do it in less than 10 minutes. as for beating eggs, you should do it as little as possible, just enough to incorporate the yolks and whites. of course, all of that said, i think there are two schools of egg scrambling: the soft, moist, kind (mine), that is closer to a broken hollandaise, and then the fluffy, dryer kind that you find at most restaurants. not to place any value judgements, of course ....

i've got a gaggia mdf that i bought on sale at zabars about 20 years ago. and it's still going. i replaced the grinders on it three or four years ago and it works perfectly. if you're serious about espresso machinery, this is a very good site: whole latte love

I don't recall the details, but someone who was shopping for pans recently pointed out that he thought the all-clad pans seemed lighter, and when he checked the bottom, he found that they were stamped with a place of manufacture someplace other than "canonsburg, pa" (sp?). i wasn't clear whether this was a special discount line that was made for sale to department stores, or what.

Just fyi: i got a copy of vol II yesterday. haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but it is out there (in spanish).

I agree, Paula. I think one thing that happens when we (speaking for all food writers, here) write those "ultimate" types of stories is that we leave the impression with our readers that a) there's no point in doing anything other than this, and b) that cooking well is so hard and exacting that it can only be done by lunatics like us who will go through a dozen tests. so, in a way, we are actually distancing people from cooking rather than involving them in it. the answer, of course, is that it's hard to make a very enticing headline (or headnote) out of "a really good beef stew" as opposed to "the very best beef stew".

2-gallon ziplocks rock. i use them to brine whole 8-pound pork shoulders. and to stuff with undies, socks, t-shirts, turtlenecks, etc., when packing.

One thing it seems writers rarely talk about to writers is how they actually go about their business. Maybe it's too personal. But since we are now engaged over the impersonal internet, rather than face to face where I may have to confront a look of scorn, there's something I've always been curious about. The thing that impresses me the most about your pieces (not that there is only one, of course, but one that is predominant in my mind right now), is the balance of research and humor (the "Jeffrey factor"). The pieces read so easily, the kind of flow that can only come with repeated and painstaking rewriting. So what I want to know is: Which comes first? Obviously this is not cut-and-dried, but when you are working a story, do you find the first draft is devoted mainly to getting the structure of the facts, to which you then add personality in rewrite, or to establishing a personality which you augment with facts later on? Do you even think about this? Would you? And, of course I knew that was a chalkstripe, not a pinstripe and I kicked myself as soon as I posted it. But that really is some fine wool. I wish I was an ex-lawyer and not an ex-sportswriter.

what a lovely answer.

I read the pasta book last year as part of my research for a story. It was fairly interesting, though there is something about a certain kind of academic writing that tends to be both dry and seemingly unreliable. I found no errors, or differences from other texts, it just seemed shakier than necessary. I do believe Clifford Wright has some material on the origins of pasta in his Mediterranean Feast.

and what about that cashmere chalkstripe suit?