dougal

Very well spotted! And even the price is sane ... Available now for pre-order on Amazon UK http://www.amazon.co.uk/Macarons-Pierre-Herme/dp/1908117230/

You are half way to discovering/understanding something. Time and temperature. The meat's internal temperature determines how "well done" (rare to 'overcooked') it becomes. And if you cook meat for "a long time" (without it getting up to 'overcooked' temperature), it tenderises nicely. One can make tender, juicy 'steak' out of "stewing"/pot-roasting cuts. To control the temperature accurately and over "a long time" (could be 48 hours), the magic words for you to research (start right here on eGullet) are ... ... sous vide.

My belief is that such products are indeed of much higher purity than mere 'food grade' products. Moreover, any impurity (or potential impurity) content ought to be discoverable from the suppliers - who would likely be quite forthcoming about such things. If you were to ask, I'd expect you could get datasheets on each product. Laboratory products tend to be more expensive than kitchen products - but that does not rule out any exceptions. Of course pharmaceutical grade would be even better ... ! Because food additives ("molecular biology ingredients") are used in tiny % with food, and this food is going to be a small % of one's total diet, any tiny % impurity in the additive would need to be of something extremely powerful to represent a health risk. Anything having that potency in vivo would surely be significant in vitro, and be flagged up on the datasheet. My suspicion would be that the manufacturers would be encouraged by their legal departments to display "not a food" warnings in order to avoid any potential involvement from product liability insurance, food inspectors, labelling requirements, and even building requirements. I'm sure they'd pass all the tests, but by insisting that they aren't making 'food', they would be bypassing a vast amount of cost and bureaucracy. Notwithstanding all the above, I'm sure that it would be inviting the possibility of all manner of legal difficulties to use something explicitly marked as "not for food use" in the context of commercial food.

Paté? Off-the-cuff suggestion. Take a couple of ordinary pork sausages. (More if appropriate.) Empty them into a processor/blender, add the liver and and blitz together. Then mix that paste with some minced pork and a some coarsely chopped pork belly for textural variation. Mix in any any scraps, trimmings and leftovers from the rest of the rabbit ... (cooked or raw). Season to taste. Maybe fry off a teaspoonful or two to check and adjust the seasoning. I'd probably think of adding some garlic, mixed herbs and nutmeg - but you don't want to drown the rabbit's flavour. Cook gently to a core temperature of about 62C ... and cool, pressing if you choose to.

Kerry, note that the Rev 2 has a "cheapest" UK price of £399 + tax (20%) + delivery. So, at least £480 which today Google says is US$ 775. That's a significant investment when you have "no clients as yet". But I believe that machine does come well recommended. Has anyone had any joy using a sous vide setup for chocolate tempering?

A serious recommendation for what I believe to be a UK-only book (but see if Amazon UK could get it to you economically). Its by Jason Atherton (who used to run maze for Gordon Ramsay). Absolutely everything is designed to be do-able in a home kitchen. Generally the instructions are to prep components and set aside, before a (single-handed) last-minute finish and assemble on the plate. Very much restaurant-style. Full plating instruction is given and the result of that plating is illustrated - for all the dishes. The plating is largely what makes the book stand out - the cooking itself isn't really tricksy. The food is modern Euro/British with some multiculturalism. Naturally, metric measures (and largely weights) are used throughout. (As with all current UK cookbooks.) There are hardly any exotic or expensive ingredients called for. I think the title doesn't do the book justice - Its called Gourmet Food for a Fiver ("fiver" = £5 ~ US$8). The costing is actually per head for 4, for more than one course. So its a £20 budget for meal ingredients ... but even that doesn't include "store cupboard ingredients" like cooking wine and other alcohols... so its NOT about cooking on a very tight budget - even if the book itself is inexpensive! http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1844008169/ Of the 'look inside' recipes, the Chilled Cucumber Soup with Salmon Tartare is probably the most typical of the book. Atherton has another book maze: the cookbook detailing dishes from the original restaurant, with suggested home-kitchen derivations and variations. The 'restaurant' versions are more complex than the recipes in Gourmet Food - so that might be what you are looking for. There is a cheaper and lighter physical weight (thinking of postage!) softcover edition in the UK. The USA (thus almost certainly non-metric) edition has been retitled "Gordon Ramsay's Maze - with recipes by Jason Atherton". No wonder he wanted to set up on his own! Since Raymond Blanc was mentioned upthread, I'd suggest that his most appropriate title might be his newest, Kitchen Secrets - UK book, Amazon UK link - the book of his two latest BBC series, in which he explains dishes from simple to complex, and the cheffy touches and techniques that 'make' them. He's much more traditional than Atherton, "Recipes from Le Manoir" particularly so! If that's what you think you are after, you might have a look at Ducasse's Grand Livre de Cuisine. And then think again! Regarding Keller, you probably wouldn't choose Ad Hoc (since its about US home cooking translated to a restaurant and then back to home) or Bouchon (haute cuisine treatment of Bistro classics) or Under Pressure (unless you have sous vide aspirations). But French Laundry? Quite possibly - as long as you know what you are getting into!

Did you use water immersion to evacuate the bag? Was the patty tight or loose (with lots of entrained air)? ... and its at least a bit hot (if your temperature control is accurate).

Long after rice flour ...

Let me take a wild guess that he might have been trying to sell you something different! I can stand on my current Siemens ... (but not while its working, I don't have appropriate footwear.) My strong suggestion is that you should shop somewhere that the sales staff 1/ know what they are talking about and 2/ cut the BS. Whatever you buy - don't buy it from a shop that would employ someone with that much of a problem with either ethics or product knowledge.

An unfortunate experience indeed Alex, however, from your report that the thing was indicating (a very believable) 100C, my expectation would be that the failure involved the switching of the relay (sticking 'on'), rather than the "thermostat". Regarding the main control 'thermostat' - its actually a small computer, and subject to all the sorts of glitches that computers can encounter, including susceptibility to mains-borne interference. But I don't think this incident sounds like the computer going haywire. However, any 'secondary' thermostat that might be fitted would be likely to be of the form of a thermal cut-out -- when it gets 'too hot', the heat opens a switch, cutting off the power completely. It would be very old tech, and very robustly reliable. I think such things are normally required for product liability insurance. I'm just slightly surprised that the SVS safety cut-out (assuming it has one) would be designed to operate at a temperature ABOVE 100C. Since the machine should never be operated that hot, and boiling causes pressure build-up inside bags that will soften below 100C - with the potential for dangerous bag bursting, as you experienced. Perhaps they just used a standard 'kettle boiled dry' component for the safety cutout... My own sv setup is home-made, with electronic modules bought on eBay and sent from China. As you might suppose, I had some concerns about reliability and safety! Initially, I plugged the whole arrangement into the mains through an RCD safety cutout plug, so that any electricity leakage to earth would cause an instant shut-off. I seem to have stopped using it, but such physical insurance really ought to be used with any homebrew stuff involving mains electricity. An RCD only costs £5 to 10 at somewhere like B&Q. And it does no harm to use such a thing on anything electrical (particularly high-power devices) left running while your home (or office, etc) is unattended. Even if your house 'fusebox' has an overall RCD, using a more sensitive single-socket one, as well, is no bad thing. Also, my heated tank being a tea-urn, it has its own adjustable thermostat, mechanical and inaccurate though it may be. I don't set it to maximum (as is the normal advice to over-ride such things), instead I set it only slightly above my desired temperature. Thus, it should only come into play if my home-made controller were to 'stick full on' - but by setting the urn thermostat to less than maximum, it would actually intervene as my secondary 'thermal cutout' (before relying on any safety 'boil dry' cutout that my urn might have).

Let me begin by saying that simmering and poaching are words that should be relegated to history - at least for descriptive instructions. Just as descriptive quantities like 'a pinch', 'a handful' or 'a cupful', are more accurately described by weights (and accurate scales are cheaply available to all), so its well beyond time (the thermometer no longer being an exotic 'modernist' toy) to quote specific temperatures for operations outside the oven. Its not very long ago that thermostatically-controlled ovens were leading edge, and so recipes would only ever specify something like "a hot oven" or "a very slow oven". Progress is possible! Even a little sous vide experience demonstrates the difference between 55C and 65C for cooking proteins, and the difference between 70C and 88C for veg. Thinking about my understanding of the words, to me "poach" is only used to describe a process involving protein changes (well below water's boiling point), while "simmer" describes something only just below boiling - and thus appropriate for vegetable cooking - though some authors will speak of simmering proteins, 'poached veg' just sounds wrong. And these different usages would account rather well for the different temperature ranges that hansjoakim cites. Ok, but if it's not boiling, why is it bubbling? Where you don't have a mixture of different boiling-point liquids, the bubbles would indicate localised attainment of boiling temperature. This would be where there is not enough energy input to raise the temperature of the entire system to boiling point, the heat losses from top and sides making them cooler, while the heat input at the base will make it hotter than the average of the whole panful. I think 'Simmering' describes the (near steady-state) condition where heat transport away from the base is not always fast enough to prevent hot spots (and/or nucleation sites) from reaching the liquid's boiling point.

You would be absolutely correct to go with the weight measures. See Page 28 "... So we cannot recommend strongly enough measuring dry ingredients by weight rather than by volume." Personally, I'd always suggest also using weights for liquid ingredients, when accuracy is required!

Ummm. Dropped past this thread to admire the latest food pron from the Baron. Came in at the top of the last page, and scrolling down, noticed this post from last year -- .25% nitrite of meat weight. ... I beg to suggest that (as written) this sounds very very high. (2500 ppm nitrite) However, using 0.25% of Cure No 1 (which itself contains only 6.25% nitrite) would give 156 ppm, which is exactly the US commercial limit for 'comminuted' meat products (which would include patés). Using 0.25% of Cure #1 would be much better than using 0.25% of Nitrite !

Put me down as one of those who simply doesn't understand the Ruhlman-hate so much in evidence in this thread. I think its a VERY good book indeed. Not flawless. I certainly don't know of a better book to introduce the techniques to a home (non-pro) kitchen enthusiast. And I certainly do know of many that are worse. First nomination HFW's River Cottage Meat book - there you'll find brine recipes where the quantity of salt physically will not dissolve, and the universal experience that the recipes turn out inedibly salty. Oh, and lets not forget his *dried* 'Chorizo' that does not use either starter culture OR any curing salt (nitrate/nitrite) whatsoever -- which I consider to be a downright irresponsiblly dangerous suggestion. The strength of 'Charcuterie' is the descriptive, tutorial writing. Its weaknesses (such as they are) are generally down to the recipes - and, actually, as with The French Laundry Cookbook, the formula part of the recipes cannot be blamed on Ruhlman! I simply do not understand the vilification of Ruhlman because Polcyn's recipe uses a non-authentic cut of pork for Coppa. The provenance of the recipes is clearly stated in the last paragraph of page 26 (you all did read Chapter One, didn't you?) - "The recipes in this book, with a handful of exceptions, reflect Brian's work .. While some are wholly his own, most are standard preparations that he has molded over the years to satisfy his own tastes and spirit. ... " And Jason, shame on you - have you forgotten that Ruhlman personally replied in 2006 to your specific quibble regarding 'authentic' Coppa - and explained that this was "Brian's" recipe? See http://egullet.org/p1132680 Why hate the Wordsmith because you disagree with the Cook's recipe? "Authenticity" does not seem to bother Polcyn much, if at all. Real Merguez wouldn't be made with pork! And I could generally do without the flavouring additive "Fermento", and much less starter culture ... The book is frankly weak on 'authenticity' - but viewed as a technique tutorial with illustrative examples, that hardly matters. If anyone was expecting more authenticity than than they got, blame Polcyn for his recipes, not Ruhlman for explaining them. For authenticity on French recipes, look to Jane Grigson, but marvel at the way Nitrate (saltpetre) used to be used! And specifically regarding Nitrite (and Nitrate) levels, I have done the maths for the corned beef recipe that concerned dls, and its not far (if at all) over the US limit, while his own variation produces only about half the minimum required level for a US commercial product. The description on the packet isn't always the best recipe - just as with yeast! Before working through the Maths, I'd like to make a few things clear - - firstly the US regulations are arbitrary and inconsistent --- they don't concern themselves with the amount actually in the product, just whether or not it complies with the codified process --- if 201 ppm Nitrite (plus no Nitrate) is not allowed, and 751 ppm of Nitrate (with no Nitrite) is not allowed, then why is it permissible to have both 200 ppm Nitrite AND 750 ppm Nitrate together in the same product? That simply doesn't make sense, because Nitrate turns into Nitrite, over time. --- since there is actually a different amount of actual Nitrite in 200 ppm Sodium Nitrite and 200 ppm Potassium Nitrite, (because of the different weights of Sodium and Potassium), wtf do the regulations set the same limit for both Sodium and Potassium Nitrites? Yes - they really are controlling the input of the whole curing salt, rather than the amount of active Nitrite! Except of course for bacon curing, (did I say it was inconsistent?) where the limits do take account of this, and are 23% higher for the potassium salt! --- if 201 ppm nitrite is excessive in a brine-cured product, why is it permitted to sell a dry-cured product with 625 ppm nitrite? - and the regulations are based on flawed science --- for equilibrium brine curing, they assume that the nitrite (or nitrate) will all remain present, and will divide itself so that its concentration (by weight) is equal between meat and brine. Actually, the nitrite (or nitrate) gets used up in the meat (as Ruhlman's response to dls indicates) ... --- for shorter (non-equilibrium) cures, they assume that the nitrite (or nitrate) is absorbed by the meat in the same proportion as it has picked up water. I have no idea where they got that idea, but it does produce a process code that can be checked without sophisticated equipment. So, unless you are a US commercial producer, you should take these regulation limits as guidelines rather than life-or-death critical thresholds. They indicate the right ballpark, not extensively-researched medical threshold criteria. Download link for the PDF of official US limits and calculation methodology http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FSISDirectives/7620-3.pdf OK, those regs say for long (equilibrium, no further weight gain) curing, the limit is 200 ppm with at least 120 ppm being required, even for products that require refrigeration. 5 days is actually a bit short for equilibrium, but without knowing the weight gain, equilibrium is the only calc we can do - but if we calculate the equilibrium result, we could suppose that the 5-day result would be slightly lower than what we calculate, if it hasn't yet reached equilibrium. Lets do the maths. (Metric for simplicity) Polcyn says to use 4 litres water, 2.25 kg meat and 25 g of 'pink salt' So 2.25/(2.25+4) or 0.36 of the pink salt end up in the meat. Which is 9 g of pink salt into the meat. Pink salt is 6.25% nitrite, so the "ingoing nitrite" is 0.5265 g As a proportion of the starting meat weight, that is 0.5265/2250 or 0.000250 which would be 250 ppm. As noted, if this were an equilibrium cure that would be over the US limit - but only by 25% too much. I wouldn't worry about that - its not equilibrium and I don't believe its anything like dangerous. (Compared to a possible 'legal' addition of an extra 625 ppm of nitrate!) However, using 1/5 the quantity of pink salt (as dls did) would mean 1/5 of the ingoing Nitrite, ie just 50 ppm. Sadly this is less than 42% of the mimimum level (of 120 ppm) that the US code requires. Nutshell upsum : If Polcyn went down from 25 to 20 g of Pink Salt, it would meet the US commercial code, with no dispute. As it is, the question is 'how close to equilibrium did it get?' I'm not sure why Jason (jmolinari) should be concerned that the moderate salting that Polcyn proposes would be "downright dangerous" and "really critical, potentially harmful". Wouldn't it be the case that too little salt (and I'm not sure Polcyn is exceptionally light on salt) would increase the risk of obvious product spoilage, rather than sneaky C. bot poisoning. Charcuterie is a very good (but not perfect) book. Its the best tutorial intro that I know of. Ruhlman has done much better than most authors to make himself available (not least on these forums) to continue to enthusiastically offer "product support" for this book. I am astonished at the level of personal vitriol expressed against this author - and doubly surprised to see such a 'hate' thread on the august eGullet.

Yes, but neither of us explained it properly. What looks like a solid dark blue cone isn't. gfweb speaks of a line - it isn't exactly that either. Imagine for a moment, a cone made of cardboard. That cardboard represents where the combustion reactions start to take place. The space inside the cone is filled with colourless gas that has not started to combust yet, and is therefore 'cold'. You don't want to place your food inside the dark blue part. The hottest part of the flame is outside it. Inside there is unburned stuff that you'd better keep off your food. I have two small, preset, non-mixture-adjustable torches. They both give crisp blue cones in their butane and butane/propane flames.

C. bot toxin (which is the danger) is broken down by fairly gentle heat. (The spores produce the toxin, which is why spores need to be considered, but its the toxin that is the actual danger.) Expect something like a 100x reduction in toxicity with every 30 minutes at 56C (133F) ... http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=4700984 so 10,000x (10^4) after 1 hour, 1,000,000x (10^6) after 1 hour 30, 100,000,000x (10^8) after 2 hours and so on. Re-pasteurising should be effective against C. bot toxin. (If there was any there with your nitrite and salt.) But you do need pressure-cooker temperatures 120C+ (250F+) to hurt the spores themselves ... Is C. perf very different?

Really, the sprouting can be barely visible, and still 'damaging' to bread quality. Pictures here -> http://www.grainscanada.gc.ca/wheat-ble/factor-facteur/sptd-sevsptd/sptd-eng.htm Story here -> http://www.grainscanada.gc.ca/fact-fait/sd-gg-eng.htm (from the Canadian Grain Commission) One of the reasons for using long, retarded fermentation is to boost amylase activity, and one of the consequences is a darker, reddish-brown crust. However, if you give it three days (retarded) fermentation, AND use whole-grain 'damaged' high amylase (sprouted) wheat grain, then a gummy crust looks like a very likely consequence.

Are you sure about that? Yes. No. The blue is unburned, therefore cold. The hottest part is just ABOVE THE TIP of the cone. In the UK this is taught in schools before mid-teenage. http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/ocr_gateway/carbon_chem/7_using_carbon_fuels2.shtml The problem isn't entirely the gas itself. Most (all?) fuel gases have tiny traces of 'very smelly stuff' added to them so that you can "smell gas" if there should be a leakage. You want that stuff to be burned before it hits the food.

Don't let the central part of the 'flame' - the blue cone - touch the food. It is (cold) unburned (as yet) gas. So if you don't want to taste the gas, keep the blue cone off the food! Same goes for any torch flame, not just butane.

Like you might with bread and olive oil. Cold-pressed, extra-virgin, etc Rapeseed Oil really is the Michelin-starred Chefs' currently fashionable oil of choice ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/search?keywords=rapeseed&x=0&y=0 Edit - corrected apostrophe position (unprompted).

Its very odd that Canola was THE specific type of Rapeseed that could be eaten without needing to have toxins removed, and that it has a taste-perception problem, while at the same time its very cheffy-trendy (at least in the UK and Europe) to use cold-pressed, unrefined, extra-virgin 'Rapeseed Oil' - not least because of its bland but pleasant taste! One might almost think that there was another, newer, cultivar on the scene. But not according to this article on the product in the Times (... of London.) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article1341694.ece And the oil is specifically promoted for its flavour http://www.rapeseedoil.co.uk/guide.php ADDED - my conclusion is that the off-taste would be due to either a specific part of the mass-production process, or excessively long storage -- not the Canola/Rapeseed seeds themselves.

++This++ might be of interest - the Pro-Q is pretty cheap in the US. It works very well, but it does want fine and dry sawdust.

Bacon curing - in the USA, NitrAte (thus No 2) is prohibited from (IIRC) some (rather than all) commercial bacon cures. (IIRC its not prohibited from dry cures, only brines/pickles.) There is no such ban in Europe (where for example Brominated flour is banned everywhere). In the UK, Nitrate is commonly seen on ingredient listings on commercial packs of bacon. Cold smoking time - this greatly depends on your taste preference and on the intensity of your smoke! My Pro-Q (which is excellent; my thanks to Jason for the original heads-up on that) produces nice thin smoke. Especially if you are hitting it with heavy smoke (or are curing with nitrate), giving the bacon at least a few days (well wrapped - for everything else's sake) in the fridge, to 'mature' and equilibrate after smoking will improve your product. The nice thing about cold smoking is that, if you want something to be "more smoked", you can just put it back in the smoker for some more time. In fact both Jane Grigson and Erlandson specifically point out that cold smoking need not be continuous, and that intermittent smoking can on occasion be advantageous

There are better vac-packers for sv cooking than the SVS-branded offering. Without spending much. A pump-while-I-press button and a just-seal-it-now button make things (especially fluid things) so much easier! Next truth: you don't necessarily get the best deal with rolls, AND rolls are only strictly needed for big items (like a whole side of Salmon) which won't actually fit into a SVS. For sv, you don't need a roll. You can get pretty good deals on bags by buying in bulk. Take a look at http://www.nisbets.co.uk/products/ProductList.asp?TopGroupCode=C25&ParentGroupCode=S1358&GroupCode=10806 BUT do note that 1/ even for online orders (unless they are doing another promotion) you need to spend £30 to get free delivery ... AND 2/ being a trade supplier, they quote prices trade-style, without adding the VAT - but even so, the prices really aren't too bad. (And for tiny things, you can cut the bags in half ...) By the way, does anyone know if John Lewis will be offering the SVS Demi?

Mine is (newly-arrived) on-loan from the Library, but it definitely looks like one to buy. Haven't spotted any direct usages, but there's some VERY close connections. As with the "Jersey Royals with avocado, smoked trout and horseradish cream". Though the presentation is different ... Notable is that the recipes just end (or peter out) with the last 'cooking' instruction. However there are large 'final dish' photos with an overlaid paragraph explaining how the plating was done - and, praise be, the photos actually illustrate exactly what is described! As a seeming fan of this place, I think you will be well pleased with the return on your investment of £7.70p ... even though you might not find dishes exactly from the menu, the same themes are very obvious, and its very home-doable (an ice-cream-maker is about the only special kit that I've noticed to be needed).