Smithy

I don't know whether I'll manage to complete the experiment before falling asleep, so I'll post partial results. I started with the high-temperature braise since I could do 2 dishes at once. I used a 2-qt Le Creuset oval oven and a 1-1/2-qt LC oval oven for the closest comparison possible. Granted, there are some size differences, but I didn't have 2 identical dishes that could tolerate the stove top. By the way, I agree with the complaint about the new phenolic LC handles. I propose eBay and vintage LC as a solution: The meat was my weeklong project, bottom round steak cut 1" thick, then cut here into chunks. This time, I seasoned all of them before searing with a combination of paprika, ground black pepper and dried thyme. After searing, I deglazed all with 1/4c. of last night's red wine, then added enough beef stock to bring the level up to around 3/8". I realize that this shifts the wine:stock ratio slightly between the two vessels, but I didn't bother to compensate. I'm using an electric oven with electric burners, standard household GE variety, relatively new but nothing too fancy. Now for the results. Please forgive the funny batch numbering, but I wrote these in the order Fat Guy set them up, so I did #2 and #3 at the same time, and #1 is in the oven. Think of it as watching the Star Wars series. If I try to translate now, it'll get messed up later when I add the final braise numbers. #2: initial weight 4-1/8 oz, into a 2-qt LC French oven. Temp after searing 118F. Deglazed and added broth as noted above, then placed in preheated 300F oven, on the bottom rack where I've had the best results this week. #3: initial weight 4-1/8 oz, into a 1.5-qt LC French oven. Temp after searing 117F. Deglazed & added broth as noted above, then lowered burner (coil) setting to try to match the simmering happening in the oven. This took a few tries, between trying to match the heat settings and the slow thermal response of LC, but after 21 minutes I had the liquid simmering at the same rate, judging by the bubbles coming up around the meat. Batch....7:30....7:43....8:07...8:34....8:50......9:11 #2........118.....147..!..154.....162.....171 DONE! Fork tender, very flavorful! #3.........117....144..!...171.....162....174.......171 Declared done; juice nearly gone Notes: 1. The stovetop simmer finally matched the oven simmer at 7:51, where the ! appears in the timeline. 2. The oven braise was positively, definitely done, and toothsome at that, at 8:50. Tender, juicy. Is this the same meat I've been braising all along? There was quite a bit of braising liquid left in the pan. I didn't try reducing it. 3. The stovetop braise was defined as being done at 9:11 because it was running out of liquid. I suppose I could have added more, but a lovely caramelization was going on, and the meat was drying out. The juices were actually separating a bit into bits of caramel and bits of fat, evidence that it had gone too far. 4. It's worth noting that, because I wanted to taste the meats side by side and they weren't done at the same time, the oven-braised meat had some 20 minutes' rest before being cut. Resting may have been important to retaining juices. I didn't control for that. 5. The initial weights (4-1/8 oz) and final weights (2-3/8 oz) were the same for both pieces of meat. Nonetheless, the stovetop meat was drier and had considerably less braising liquid. It's possible that my visual estimate of boiling rate was off, and that the stovetop was cooking faster than the oven braise, but they looked the same to me. It's also possible that adding liquid as this cooked down would have done wonders for flavor and texture. That's another experiment. The results: both looked pretty good but there were marked differences in the behavior of stovetop vs. oven as well as the final results. Oven: done, really nicely done, in 1:50, having been at or above 160 for roughly 1/2 hour. Stovetop: this braise looked better because of the heavy sauce, but the meat was quite dry. It never felt as tender as the oven braise meat did. I used the same testing method (ease of insertion and removal of the temperature probe). This time, with the oven braise, I finally think I understand what "fork tender" is all about. I didn't get that with the stovetop braise. If my temperature readings are correct (granted, probe placement can go wrong) then the stovetop meat was at or above 162 for at least an hour, twice the time of the oven braise. Note that the temperature had not yet started to rise when I pulled the meat - so I hadn't cooked through the temperature "stall". I really was surprised and pleased at the results of the oven braise this time. Since the temperature isn't that different than before - and the meat is from the same batch - I suspect it's a result of (a) seasoning the meat beforehand and (b) deglazing with wine and then adding broth. I wouldn't be ashamed to serve the braise from the oven. It still didn't hold a candle to the ribs I braised tonight (beyond the scope of the lab, but a good application of what I'm learning) but the technique seems to be improving. By comparison, the stovetop braise was difficult to control in temperature and didn't yield good results. Once again I was surprised. Time to go check on Step 1. ************************************************ Step 1 results begin here, as an edit the next morning. This test was inconclusive because I gave up at 1:00 and went to bed, leaving the meat in the oven all night. Batch...10:09....10:28....10:50....12:00....12:47.......06:00 1..........108F......133F....153.........151......147..........160 Notes: 1. I think the 12:47 reading of 147 may be probe position error. I've found it's pretty easy for me to shift the temperature reading a few degrees either way by repositioning. 2. At 12:00 when I realized that the meat hadn't even hit the collagen-melting temperature after 2 hours, I turned the oven setting up from 200F to 210F. 3. Note that the initial temperature, just after searing, is 10F lower than the initial temperature of the other two. Searing wasn't quite as hot, apparently, and the meat was just a bit paler. Results: 1. There was a rich brown juice, not reduced that I could tell, in the pan. It looked lovely. This juice had a sheen not present in the other juices. I suspect it's another clue of overdoneness. 2. I now know what "overcooked" actually means and how to judge it with a fork. This meat was very tender, but offered no resistance when the probe went in or out, and the little probe holes stayed open. There was no elasticity left. The meat wasn't tough, but it had the consistency and flavor of, oh, particle board that's been soaked in water long enough to fall apart. Note the probe holes in the photo below. 3. Initial weight was 3-3/4 oz; final weight was 2-3/8 oz. I'm interested and puzzled that this meat lost the least mass during cooking. 4. It seems clear that sometime in the night the meat passed through the "done" stage. I'll have to try this one again before making any judgments. Edited to add the final results - all contained below the ********** line. Sorry if this belonged in a new post, but I preferred to keep everything together.

So, what are some favorite treatments for pork liver? It happens I have several packages in the freezer, leftovers from the hog we had butchered. So far they've continued taking up space while the pork roast, chops, ham, etc. have vanished. Every time I look at a package labeled 'Pork Liver' I remember Mason Williams' "Them Poems". (Anyone else remember "Them Hog Liver Likers"?) That doesn't help clear out the freezer.

I agree, there's something presumptuous and condescending in it. Would I ever be able to put less than my best effort into a gift? Sometimes I am so tired I am tempted just to buy something from the bakery, but my heart wouldn't be in the gift. ← Well, I don't know about the presumptuous and condescending part. Maybe I just have a different attitude about a potluck than about a gift. A gift - that takes my heart and soul, and I'll give it my best effort within the bounds of baking/cooking something I think the recipient will like. A potluck - my office crew has very different tastes than my husband and I, and recipes around here frequently start with opening a can of cream of mushroom soup. I know from sorry experience that hummus (as with another poster) or a roasted red pepper salad will go untouched at the office potluck. I also know my husband would be appalled at the buffalo wing chicken dip (although he might well eat it with gusto, complaining all the while about the fat ) that would be a smash at the potluck. Mind you, *I* like that chicken dip, so I'm bringing something I like - even if I wouldn't serve it at home. But I like the roasted red pepper salad, too, and I know it won't go over in some circles. I don't think that's condescension or presumption so much as realism. BTW, I was horrified at the Cool-Whip incident too...my sympathies!

Oh dear, oh dear! Fiftydollars, I'm so glad that neither you nor your precious knives were hurt. That makes it okay to laugh, no? (Well, maybe later, after the pain of losing all that veal stock is blunted.) I AM glad you weren't impaled, nor evidently damaged beyond a bruise, your pride and the loss of the veal stock. What kind of red wine did you use? Would you use that variety again, in a shorter wine braise? If not, what would you try next, and why?

You'll definitely want to have some of these on hand just to kick things off . Good luck, take lots of pictures and share with us. ← You sneak!

I was thinking the same thing on the bus this morning. But then I thought, even if there is a reason, the reason could be wrong. Then again, so far, our experiments have confirmed that fully submerged (is that redundant?) works better, at least under our test conditions. ← Uhm, haven't most of the posts said the fully submerged pieces had less flavor and poorer appearance than the ones partially submerged with the same liquid? Don't mean to be argumentative, but I do want to understand what you mean by "works better".

My Le Creuset sample of Sunday night supports that assertion. As noted above it seemed overcooked, along with all its counterparts, but it absolutely had the best flavor. The sauce had reduced down to a molasses consistency, the flavor hinted of caramel, and it glazed the meat beautifully. In last night's reheat, that meat and sauce, mixed with the more liquid sauce from Monday night's LC braise, had the best flavor, with much more depth and complexity than the others. (This is all news to me! )

Thanks for that insight. I'd been wondering how much the meat choice was a factor in my disappointment. It certainly was better the second night. We'll see how it does tonight. I'm especially interested in the idea that the clay pot stuff might improve most dramatically although it was among my least favorites the first night.

I second what SnowAngel said: keep reading, the information is still coming! In addition, since you already have both pots, I suggest you try some of the experiments yourself and see which you prefer. Great to have you around, Blondelle. This is a great web site, isn't it? I've learned a ton, and haven't passed my first anniversary as a member.

Lab 2: Effects of braising liquid The braising vessels were 4 identical ceramic "individual gratin" dishes that fit snugly onto a cookie sheet on the bottom rack of the oven. Bottom round steaks, approx. 1" thick, were cut to make 4 pieces, approx. 3"x2". Each piece was browned in 1 T canola oil in an All-Clad SS sauce pan. After browning the meat was removed to its dish and the pan was deglazed with braising liquid, then the liquid was poured in the cooking vessel around the meat. The pan was wiped dry after each batch to prevent cross-contamination of residual braising liquids or fats. The dishes were covered tightly with aluminum foil and placed in the bottom rack of my oven, which had been preheated to 300F in light of apparent overheating at 325 on the previous nights. The braising liquids: A - 1/2" beef broth made this weekend B - 1" (nearly to cover, nearly overflowing the vessel) of the same broth C - Inexpensive red wine Folie a Deux Menage a Trois, a nice blend of zinfandel, merlot and cabernet out of the Napa Valley D - Water, with chopped carrot, celery and onion The batches, and their notes: A & B - temp after browning 86F. Nothing untoward about the browning or deglazing. C - temp after browning 88 F. Deglazing was very different with the wine: it bubbled quickly, reduced rapidly, almost to a syrupy consistency, while I was stirring. The wine and meat juices made a rich dark red braising liquid. D - temp after browning 84F. Sauteed roughly half of the mirepoix before deglazing the pan, and added the rest of the mirepoix raw to the braising vessel. Started all dishes, covered with foil, on the bottom rack at 8 p.m. Sorry, but due to dinner I still didn't get a reading during the first half-hour. However, at 8:42 p.m. there still didn't seem to be any simmering happening. Temperatures and times: Batch 8:00 8:42 9:26 9:50 10:28 A 86 142 174 176 163 B 86 154 183 176 172 C 88 154 165 165 174 (actually seemed done at 9:50) D 84 145 169 178 185 The pan was rotated 180* each time temperatures were taken, to eliminate oven position as a variable. At 8:45 the oven temperature was increased to 325 because nothing seemed to be simmering. At 9:25 (2nd reading) simmering could be heard but wasn't visible. At 9:50 the wine sample seemed noticeably more tender than the others, and ready to come out. For some reason I left it in anyway. At 10:28 I removed everything. Observations: Batch Initial Wt Cooked Wt Notes A 3-3/8 oz 1-3/4 oz Tender, meaty, good flavor. Slightly dry? B 3-3/8 oz 1-7/8 oz Meaty, good flavor, slightly dry? C 3-3/8 oz 1-7/8 oz Deep red beautiful crust, pink inside, moist. This was by far the best-looking and -textured of the samples. Unfortunately it tasted too acidic. I'd like to get that red wine look and tenderizing with a better taste. Maybe mix wine and broth? D 3 oz 1-5/8 oz Tasted like watery mirepoix. The photo shows the color differences. In the back are the shallow broth and high broth. Front left is wine, front right is water and mirepoix. The closeup shows the wine braise with its striking color contrast. Lovely stuff. I didn't try reducing anything to improve the sauce, beyond what had already happened in the oven. I agree with an earlier post suggesting that the mirepoix had given up some of its juices to the braising liquid, but I didn't measure liquid quantities before or after, so I can't be sure. Edited to add photos, and later for spelling.

Tonight's braises are still in progress, so I'll report in the meantime on the reheating experiment. Background: I actually did the first lab twice, the second time with fewer dishes so they'd all sit on one rack. As a result I had 6 sets of meat and juice (stored separately) from Sunday and 3 sets of meat and juice (that's a lot of refrigerator space and containers) from Monday. It was too many samples. The labels fell off a couple, so I couldn't use them, and some others turned up in the back of the refrigerator after I'd finished. So, some of the cooking methods had 2 days' worth of meat and others didn't. The Corning Ware-cooked sample didn't get reheated tonight because I discovered it too late. I was careful to put the juice and meat from a single cookpot together, so that (say) the juice from the foil pan didn't go with the All-Clad braised meat. I loaded everything into ovenproof containers and put them all on the top rack to reheat. The meat and juice from the Egyptian clay pot went back into that pot. Everything else went into a Corning Ware or steel bowl - whatever was available. First, I noticed that all the juices had gelled heavily, and all had a skim of fat that hadn't been obvious while the juices were hot. I removed the fat before adding the juice to the meat for reheating. The Le Creuset on Sunday night had had heavily caramelized juices, but Monday had left more liquids. Those were mixed together. Otherwise, the LC sample would had very little liquid. There was very little juice from the clay pot sample. I didn't supplement it with anything. The original reheating instructions said to test one piece of meat and simply reheat the others. As it happens, I cooked a lot of extras, so I was able to taste them all tonight and leave plenty for successful reheatings. The results in a nutshell were that everything except the foil-cooked sample improved dramatically in taste and texture. Last night and Sunday night I was disappointed in them all - too dry and chewy. Tonight, even after a fine meal of a successful braise beyond the scope of this lab, two of the dishes tasted great. I'm glad there are more pieces with which to continue testing during the week. Le Creuset, with the heavily caramelized juice from Sunday and the more ample juice from Monday, won hands-down in flavor and texture. It was definitely more tender than before, and the flavor was complex. The clay pot sample was my other favorite. Again, the meat was more tender. It may have been a touch drier, but it's hard to tell. It was interesting to me to note that the flavor had improved. On Sunday night I thought the meat tasted too much of the pot. Tonight the pot flavor added only a slight accent, barely noticeable, and quite nice. Looked cool, too, in a low-tech way: The samples braised in All-Clad were chewy, a bit dry. The Ovenshire (also uncoated metal) samples were chewy, not quite as dry as the All-Clad. The foil-cooked samples were unrepentantly chewy and dry, and may not have improved from last night. I don't expect improvement during the week but I certainly plan to test it, since the other samples surprised me tonight.

Ewwww! Nope. Not as I've tasted it, in this country or in Egypt. ("Bamya! It's good! Try it!" Blecch.) I am utterly baffled that otherwise well-educated palates should be so misguided as to think a slimy mucilaginous mass could be good anywhere except in the compost, or as bearing grease. It looks like recently-salted garden slugs and I can think of few things less appetizing in appearance. However. I'll admit I've never had okra crispy, nor have I tried it in gumbo. The door is cracked open for a change of heart, maybe, someday.

The issue is that not one of us seems to have taken temperature readings during that first half hour. The hypothetical proposition of my hypothetical graph is that a lot of action may have taken place during the first 30 minutes and that it may have had the foil racing out ahead in temperature and then being overtaken by the time we measured. Of course, a hypothesis usually isn't worth much until it's proven. So at some point someone will have to test this with probe thermometers so we can take readings every 5 minutes without constantly opening the oven and triggering the uncertainty principle by affecting the experiment with our observations. ← Hmm. I have 1 thermocouple-based thermometer and an older Taylor instant-read thermometer with the small dial on the end of the probe, like the one you show in your first lab instructions. Is that dial oven-proof? If so, I'm in business after a calibration check.

As I read your instructions for the second lab, you're saying to reheat everything from Lab 1 but only taste one sample (for instance, the one from the Corning but not from any of the other pots). Is that right?

My temperature readings don't match up with your hypothetical graph; if anything, I seemed to get the reverse of what you sketch there. The LC and heavy metal pots' meat temperatures came up more quickly than in the foil or the clay pot on my first attempt, with the Corning pot somewhere in the middle as far as temp rise rate. Granted, the first set of measurements may be flawed because the meat in the foil, clay pot and Corning pots all had time to cool before going into the oven, whereas the metal pots and their contents went in straightaway. (I wanted everything to go in at once, and I didn't measure the internal temperature of the meat after searing on that run.) During the second test, I did measure internal meat temperature after browning. The foil meat was a bit hotter to start with because I had it on a hotter burner. Nonetheless, after 1 hour it was cooler than the meat in the other two pans. I had been juggling everything to keep the heat as constant as possible and eliminate pan position as a variable. As far as the usage notes go, I made a number in my earlier post. I was surprised to find, counter to my expectations and your experience, that the LC seemed to brown as well as the All-Clad or the older steel pot. I liked the conveniece of being able to brown in the pot I planned to use, and would be more inclined to use one of the metal pieces for this reason. However, until I can get actually good results I personally won't discount the Corning. It may have the best combination of utility (clear lid, good seal) and thermal mass, not to mention price, to represent an optimal solution. Something's rumbling around in the back of my head about thermal mass and heat radiation, with analogies to resonant frequencies, but so far it all sounds like rubbish when I try to write it. I'll try anyway. Is all infrared energy the same, for our purposes, or are some frequencies in the heat range more useful than others? Sam says these pots are merely conducting heat and not radiating it, but any warm body radiates heat back to its environment. Under some conditions there's a frequency shift downward during the absorption/re-radiation process. Is it possible the foil is so light, so to speak, that it just sits and quivers in the thermal equivalent of a high-pitched whine whereas the heavy pots are booming at a lower and more useful radiation frequency? Or am I just getting carried away with analogies?

Well, the first thing I'm learning from this is that I'm a total piker, playing way out of my league. But hey - I'm here to learn, and I know diddly about braising. I did the full-blown experiment on Sunday and overcooked everything - I think - and realized that it's too much to try to keep track of 6 different pots. Tonight I redid the experiment with only 3 dishes. I'll post the writeup of yesterday's 6-pot exercise first, then follow up with tonight's experiment, which was better controlled. Braising Lab 1, Sunday (first attempt) Equipment/Bottom Dimensions (inches) o Le Creuset enameled cast iron covered dish 8"x8-1/2" rectangle o Ovenshire steel? Dutch oven, round bottom i.d. 8-1/2" o Corning Ware lidded casserole, round bottom i.d. 6-3/4" o All-Clad braiser, stainless steel, round bottom i.d. 10" o Egyptian clay pot, seasoned at home, bottom i.d. o Foil brownie pan 7-1/2" square A note on the Ovenshire dutch oven: it's a family warhorse, probably 60 years old. The mass is roughly comparable to the Le Creuset. The lid doubles as a skillet. The metal is grey and not very shiny. I'm not sure what the metal is - some kind of steel, I think, but not magnetic. It doesn't seem to be reactive as aluminum would be. The pot and lid both have special slots to insert a bakelite handle that came with the set. You can flip the lid over and back, use it as a skillet, with this seemingly wobbly handle that doesn't lock in place, and it doesn't fall off. Well, almost never. I've only dropped the lid once. The meat: o Bottom round roast, cut into steaks approximately 1" thick, then sliced into pieces roughly the size of the short ribs described in the lab briefing. Initial weights of these pieces of meat ranged from 3-1/4 oz to 4-1/8 oz; most pieces weighed 3-3/4 or 3-7/8 oz. The meat appeared to be well-marbled (for a bottom round roast); see photo. The procedure: Browned all meat (2 pieces per pan) in 1T oil on medium heat on large burner of electric stove. The meat for the Le Creuset, Ovenshire, All-Clad were browned in their respective pots. Meat for the clay pot, Corning Ware and Foil pan were browned in the lid of the Ovenshire pot, which doubles as a skillet. In each of those three cases, the pan was deglazed using ¼ c. broth, and the scrapings added to the respective pan. Beef stock (made at home this weekend) was added to each pot to bring the depth to ½". Since I was using only 1 burner for this operation, and running a number of pots, browned meat sat a bit, cooling, before being placed in the oven. Browning notes: The meat browned as well in the Le Creuset but seemes to leave more residue, with marked imprints of the meat. It may have been an illusion caused by the increased contrast between the brown fond and the whitish interior (as opposed to the silver/grey metal interior of the other pans). Meat released very easily from the All-Clad braiser during the browning. The Le Creuset and the Ovenshire pan both required the use of a spatula to loosen meat during the browning phase. Placed all pans, covered (with foil over the clay and foil pans) into an electric oven preheated at 325F. Started taking temperatures after ½ hour. (This isn't what the lab said to do; I misread the instructions. I don't know when things reached a simmer.) Meat was deemed done when the instant-read thermometer probe inserted and was removed easily, with little pressure required from a fork to hold the meat down. Temperatures at ½ hour intervals were as follows: Top rack of oven (2 pieces of meat per pan) What 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 11:00 11:30 12:00 Ovenshire 1 165 165 169 165 176 181 Ovenshire 2 154 163 162 167 185 189 Clay Pot 1 120 133 133 133 147 *169 181 Clay Pot 2 124 136 133 140 144 *185 181 · Moved pot to bottom rack at 10:20 because it still wasn't simmering All-Clad 1 144 147 151 151 165 165 169 AC 2 145 145 147 144 162 172 172 AC 3 136 145 158 147 165 176 174 Bottom Rack: Le Creuset 1 165 169 147 151 LC 2 160 169 156 158 Corning 1 154 154 154 156 180 Corning 2 149 158 151 158 172 Foil 1 135 133 133 135 131 176 172 171 Foil 2 129 154 154 133 133 176 172 172 The last temperature in each line indicates when the meat was deemed done. Notes on the cooking: · This experiment was not well-controlled for temperature. Every time I opened the oven to measure temperature, the interior temperature dropped and meat started to cool off. Since I had 13 pieces of meat to measure, the oven door was open several minutes at a time. The temperature drop was most noticeable in the foil packet, which I never actually caught simmering although it was on the bottom rack next to the Le Creuset. · The Le Creuset came to a simmer and actually boiled a good deal of the time, as I hadn't thought about rack position and what that would mean to temperature, and didn't have a plan for juggling pots in such a full oven. The meat was done first in that pot. · Nothing on the top rack simmered (Ovenshire, clay, All-Clad). The bottom rack was definitely hotter – but only the Corning and Le Creuset appeared to simmer; the foil pack did not (or else it cooled too quickly for me to see the bubbles) · The bottom rack of the oven was definitely hotter than the top rack. However, the Le Creuset and the foil pack, next to each other on the bottom, were the first and last dishes (respectively) to be finished. · I suspect the high thermal mass evened out any temperature fluctuations due to opening and closing the oven, or oven control irregularities, and helped keep the cooking going. With a properly-set oven and a good gauge of doneness, the high thermal mass pots might produce a more reliable result. Since all of my meat was overcooked, I'm only speculating here. The cooked meat pieces ranged in weight from 1-3/4 oz to 2-1/8 oz. Without going to the trouble of typing these into a table, I'll just say that I couldn't make a correlation between pot type and mass loss of the meat. General notes: · First, I have to say that every bit of meat was overdone from what I can tell. I've never braised meat this way, so maybe I don't know what to expect. None of the meat was tough. All of it seemed a bit dry. All of it was well-done. I'm envious of those of you who report fall-off-the-bone tender. Even if I'd had bones, I don't think this would have qualified. · The juices in the Le Creuset thickened and caramelized to the appearance and texture of molasses. These bits of meat were by the far the prettiest, because of their glossy coating, and the glossy coating tasted wonderful. The meat may have been drier than the other meats. · Corning pot was done next. Juices were nicely browned, but not thickened. Meat seemed a bit more moist than in the Le Creuset. · Ovenshire pot batch was done next. There may have been more juice than in the first two pans. The meat may have been drier than the Corning batch. · Clay pot batch was somewhat more chewy, but still tender. The pot, which has a distinctive earthen flavor, had imparted that flavor to the meat. · The All-Clad batch produced a lot of brown juice. The meat may have been more flavorful and slightly less tender. · The foil pan was the last to be pronounced "done" because the meat really never got tender. I never saw the juices simmering. The meat was definitely drier and less tender than the other batches, but it also cooked the longest. If all this sounds inconclusive as to preference, it is. I strongly preferred the appearance (as well as cooking time) of the Le Creuset batch. I didn't care for any of this well enough to serve it to company. Cleanup notes: · The All-Clad stainless braiser was the easiest to deglaze and clean. It really does act like a nonstick surface for these purposes, even though it's just highly polished stainless steel. · The Corning pot looked like a nightmare but cleaned easily. · The Le Creuset cleaned almost as easily as the Corning – a bit more elbow grease was needed, but nothing that would make me get rid of the pot. I really loved the caramelized juices. · The Ovenshire pot, which goes back to the early 1950's or late 1940's, required the most work to clean. Cleanser did the trick. · The foil pouch, of course, was easiest. Into the trash it went. Tonight, I repeated the experiment with only 3 dishes: another foil pan, the Le Creuset, and the Ovenshire. All three fit on the bottom rack of the oven. I preheated the oven to 325F while prepping the meat. I used the same browning technique as before, and browned the meat for the foil pan in the lid of the metal Ovenshire pan. Even though all 3 pans were on the bottom rack, the LC always was at a high simmer and I still never could detect a simmer in the foil pan. After 1/2 hour I switched pan positions to try to keep things more even, and turned the heat down from 325F to 300F. Initial weights in all cases ran from 3-1/2 to 3-7/8 oz. Finished weights in all cases were 2 oz. Here are the temperature results: Pan/ meat After browning simmer time/temp After 1 hour Ovenshire 1 88 18 min/131F 163 F Ovenshire 2 90 18 min/129 162 Le Creuset 1 84 14 min/136 169 Le Creuset 2 90 14 min/136 167 Foil 1 102 never / 138 at 1/2 hr 154 Foil 2 104 never/ 140 at 1/2 hr 156 Compared to last night, these seem ridiculously short times, but the meat was definitely more flavorful and less dry than last night. I thought the meat was still a bit dry, with the foil meat being the driest of the bunch. Certainly it was all well done. It's worth noting that none of it was tough. The LC STILL came up to temperature more quickly, and I can't explain why. I can understand thermal mass evening out the temperature fluctuations, and maybe that's the only difference. The foil pack never seemed to simmer, regardless of its position in the oven. This time, the LC juices didn't caramelize, and I couldn't detect a difference in the juices among the three pans. I think the caramelization of last night is an indication of just how much I overcooked things. I nearly lost this whole post just now, so I'm going to post it, then mess with Imagegullet and add photos in - or give a pointer to my album. Plan to see a "this post was edited" notation. Edited to add some photos, and a link to the album in case anyone's interested in the exhaustive bundle.

Ooh, oh! Mymymy. Me-oh-my-oh! I made my first gumbo Friday night, ate on it Saturday and Sunday. Here's the report, so y'all can comment, suggest, correct where necessary. I know it tasted great, and that's what counts most. Now those of you in the know can critique! Ingredients: Chunks of venison thigh meat, bacon (for the smoky flavor), and what passes for Andouille sausage up this way. The local stuff is a little spicy (no doubt passes for 'hot' up here), certainly flavorful, probably not smoked. Hence the bacon. Many thanks to the person upthread who chops the trinity into identical bowls (one of onion, the other the pepper and celery) to get the proportions right. That's downright ingenious. Here are the ingredients, except the venison (which I remembered to chop after the photo), ready to go: I browned the meat in canola oil: After the meat was browned I removed it, surveyed the mess in my new LC French oven, and thought "I sure hope those LC enthusiasts were telling the truth about cleanup..." I did the roux using half lard, half peanut oil - 1/2 cup worth total - with 1/2 cup of all-purpose flour. Here's the roux at the beginning stages: After a while it went oh, around peanut-butter brown, maybe a touch darker. I certainly wasn't going for any dark records my first time out. Here it is just before I added the trinity: Quenching the trinity in the roux was a real eye-opener, nose-opener, wonderful sensation! I have to say, I don't usually like green bell peppers; they're too, well, green for me somehow. These went to a delicious, delicate smell that reminded me for some reason of my favorite Chinese or Vietnamese restaurants. (Sorry to be so vague, but it's a vague memory, barely identified.) I may not have cooked the trinity long enough - the pieces kept some character in the finished product - but I began to run out of steam and willpower. The smell in the house was amazing. I don't know whether the smell that lingered through the next day was indeed that distinctive roux smell, or the smell of the lard itself. Next time I'll try a roux with straight oil and see what difference it makes. I added broth, simmered until I couldn't stand it any more, and dug in. The finished product, barely with any time for the flavors to marry, was darned good: The next day it did indeed taste better. Two days later (that would be last night) I got around to making rice. That was the final, crowning glory. Man, oh man, what a delight! The pot, by the way, cleaned up pretty easily. I did use a spot of bleach to eliminate the last bit of brown. Thanks, one and all, for the encouragement and instructions! Now, do y'all think I got it right? Could this be called Cajun cooking, or is it just a really good stew? Edited to add broth, just for completeness' sake.

Ha! I had the foresight to arrange pans in the oven and get the racks adjusted before starting the experiment. I did NOT have the foresight to realize that the position in the oven (top rack/bottom rack) would be another variable. With both racks fully occupied (I had a couple of extra-credit pots in there too) I wasn't able to maintain a nice simmer everywhere at once. I got some interesting results anyway, but not as well controlled as I'd have liked. If anyone else hasn't thought of this in advance, make a plan for how you'll juggle pans around in your oven, if you can, to keep the heat more or less even. Fat Guy, have I busted my first lab, or shall I post anyway? I won't be able to repeat the full load tonight, and don't know at what point I'd be able to report on the one or two pots I might manage.

Our riff on tuna-noodle hot dish is strictly a stove-top operation. The downside is that it uses Egyptian feta cheese, or domiata, because it has a smooth creamy texture and melts readily. I don't know if this would work as well with the harder, more crumbly feta cheeses (would they melt as well?), but it might be worth a try. Saute chopped onion until soft. Open some cans of tuna (we generally use 3 or 4 6-1/2 oz cans per pound of noodles) and drain. Boil some wide flat noodles until done; drain them; then pitch in a container of the Egyptian feta. Stir until it melts. Mix in the onion, tuna, liberal amounts of crushed cumin, and salt and pepper to taste. Simple, easy, and very tasty. If you get tired of pasta, remember you can use rice in similar ways. Another simple thing you can do is saute some chicken breasts or thighs (with or without a nice nutty herby buttery stuffing), deglaze the pan, build a mustardy or lemony or creamy sauce around that, and pour that sauce over the chickens on a bed of rice...or pasta, getting back to the thread topic. I wasn't thinking chicken piccata when I wrote the paragraph above, but it just popped to mind as a variation on the skillet chicken theme.

I think this is a hilarious discussion. What a place to vent our collective aggravation, and aren't we lucky that we can afford such angst over minutiae ! But the cilantro business doesn't surprise me a bit. I decided some time ago, when I "discovered" cilantro and began learning how many people think it tastes like soap, that it is an herb of strong reactions. True, many people dislike anise (I too am in that camp) or rosemary or tarragon or whatever, but many are simply indifferent. Cilantro, on the other hand, seems to be the cat of the culinary world: people love cats or hate them, but there are very very few people without a strong opinion about 'em.

Ahh, a light is starting to dawn. I've been pondering flour as a thickener - in the roux, with oil, or toasted as in the 'instant' roux (thanks for the explanations) - and comparing it with my own flour slurry method of thickening some sauces. It's the *cooking* of the flour that makes the flavor difference, and that will happen only if the flour is toasted or cooked in oil...in other words, its temperature has to come above the boiling point of water, which is why the slurry thickener won't get the same effect... <Clunks self upside the head> OK, y'all can laugh now at my grasp of the obvious. This is a wonderfully educational thread!

Beef stroganoff. There are many, many different recipes (some with mustard, some not, for instance). My preferred method is to cut the beef into chunks, season heavily with paprika, salt and pepper (sometimes I dredge in flour seasoned with those, because I end up with a thicker sauce), brown the beef in fat of your choice, remove from the pan for the moment so you don't overcook it. Melt butter in the pan, add sliced shallots and mushrooms, cook them down, add broth or wine or other liquids to get the sauce you want. Thicken with sour cream. Return the beef to the pan. Serve over cooked buttered noodles. Yum. (If your sauce hasn't thickened, you can mix the buttered noodles into the pan before bringing it to the table. Some of us home cooks resort to such gauche measures to cover our mistakes. It still tastes great.) For another take, consider beef stir-fry, served over rice. Sauces over pan-fried steaks have already been discussed above. Once you start in on the sauces, you'll never go back to basic pan-fried steaks unless they are very, very good steaks.

I find it a useful distinction to call the leaf 'cilantro' and the seed 'coriander'. Until recently I thought everyone made that distinction, but a radio food authority uses them interchangeably, and I'm beginning to think I made it all up. Anyone else? I cannot abide cloves. I think it goes back to the holiday travesty, glazed ham with cloves. (WHY do people think pork needs sweetening?) It was decades before I decided there is such a thing as good ham, but I haven't forgiven cloves.

How 'bout right here: Roux ← Holeey smokes! Just when I thought all the bases had been covered (and finely summarized, thanks to Fist), I look at that CajunGrocer web page and find a Cajun-style roux offered...in addition to "Old-Fashioned" dark roux, light roux, and a couple of "instant" roux. (Aren't these all supposed to be "instant"?) Folks in the know, what exactly would a Cajun-style roux be, if not a traditional roux? What color is it likely to be? And BTW, what would be more instant about the instant roux than the other jarred roux? Not that I'm planning to buy roux; I'm looking forward to living dangerously soon. Let's see...dog asleep, cats drugged, it might work. Edited to correct an attribution, although really, there are several excellent expositions in this thread...

I think what makes Steingarten's gratin writeup so exceptional is his fanatical attention to detail, written in his inimitable style. He specifies in the essay that he will be so detailed because it is so important...but he's so entertaining that I laughed instead of saying "oh, c'mon!" while I was reading all that detail. I will say that the gratin I made from his recipe last Friday night is the first with which I've been impressed. My dinner guests were impressed too. My husband said, "You should have ignored his instructions and made more layers so we'd have more." To which I replied, silently, "Aha! A reason to get another pan!" Fifi, one step you omitted was that he adds the cream after the potatoes have baked a while. He starts with the flavored milk over the potatoes, cooks that covered, then adds cream after the milk is nearly absorbed and finishes cooking the dish uncovered. I have no idea whether it matters, but I am not inclined to mess with perfection. By the way...what difference does it make to bring the milk, and later the cream, to the boil (twice) before adding it to the gratin? Anyone? I had never read Jeffrey Steingarten until Fifi set me onto him for this gratin technique. What a treat! Thank you, Fifi!