dougal

Expect aviation folk to be even more picky... "But that's a model 172 and we fly 192's..."

Adam, I sadly fear that you have thereby just nominated Delia Smith's "How to Cheat at Cooking" as the being "the most authentic" book on British cookery!

This might come down to "how do you like eating your regular coffee beans?"

I'm one of, seemingly, the minority to look at both Silver Spoon and 1080 and replace them rapidly on the shelf. These are not 'books about Italian and Spanish cooking', these are 'basic general recipe collections intended for home cooks, in Italy (SS) and Spain (1080)'. The very inclusion of "american macaroni and cheese" in a Spanish book ought to be a pretty significant clue. Regardless of the bizarre incorporation of curry powder. Spanish curry powder? IIRC, on thumbing through 1080, I was surprised to find a 'recipe' for opening a tin of sardines and arranging them on a slice of toast - or something very close to that. EDIT: Checked quickly at the bookshop. It was No 12, that Spanish speciality "smoked salmon canapé"... place smoked salmon on buttered toast, sprinkle with lemon... Similarly, I looked unsuccessfully for real charcuterie instruction in Pork & Sons, and put that back on the shelf, despite the equally glowing write-ups from both professional reviewers and amateurs. That said, and the reason for this post, I wouldn't automatically damn on sight any Phaedon offering. Their Rose Bakery "Breakfast Lunch Tea" book is quite nice. Not fantastically instructive, and a book that might well have been presented in a more compact form, but nice nonetheless. (Not that scones are actually a breakfast dish... but that's the section they are in.) I was particularly impressed with the fantastically simple idea of making the individual square tarts their signature (or core) dish. "Nice", as I said, but having had it from the library, I doubt its a book I'll buy. I'd have to second Jon Tseng's warning though. Particularly with this publisher, do look beyond the appearance. Check the content. Carefully. ADDED - So don't buy it blind! Funny how Phaedon shrink wrap their books... hence I can't comment on their latest title "Creole" other than to say it claims to be about Caribbean cookery, has an appropriately snazzily coloured cover, and, er, its shrink-wrapped...

I'd be surprised if the cooking made a big difference. "Big" that is, in comparison to the type of pasta (egg, wholemeal...) and what you choose to serve with the pasta. AFAIK, wholemeal everything is (or was) regarded as a good starting point for steadying diabetics' blood sugar levels.

Any suggestions about how baking time (or temperature) might vary with different sized tins? Or is it near enough the same with the same batter depth, whatever the tin size?

Nathan, thank you for troubling to to that. It does show the type of effect that e_monster and I had envisaged -- but as you say, the size of the effect is quite small. Regarding my own 'feel' for what is happening, I think that the specific heat must be lower in proportion to the conductivity than I'd have expected - hence there is rather less heat stored within the steak, and the effect of the chill is felt much faster. And I was being guided by my personal experience of watching the size and duration of the temperature overshoot when poaching hams, rather than 15mm-to-the-middle steaks. A (quasi-cylindrical) chunk of ham even brings in different geometrical considerations... The graphs show that, even after 18 minutes 20 seconds of heating, removing the bag from the 70C bath to a (hot-kitchen temperature) 30C bath, the core temperature only rises/overshoots by a mere 2.6C. And peaks just two and a half minutes (146 sec) after heating ceased. And that is indeed way less overshoot, and peaking quicker, than I'd have guessed (but then I wasn't thinking specifically of steaks). Since the graph's figures indicate that ice bath chilling (instead of hot kitchen ambient) reduces the steak's further rise from 2.59 to 2.22C - a 14.3% reduction in "overshoot" temperature - and the time to peak dropping from 146 to 116 seconds - a 20.5% reduction - I'd say that the effect we expected is indeed there, but that it, and the whole 'overshoot', is much smaller than I, for one, was thinking of. Hence I have no hesitation in agreeing that, for inch-thick steaks, it it does appear of little practical consequence to the peak core temperature whether they were to be chilled in a room temperature bath or in an iced-water bath.

Ummm, NathanM, I'm a bit troubled by the physics of this. And the implicit confusion between "heat" and temperature. I don't see gravity as being any sort of analogue for thermal transfer. Which means there's some false logic (a "fallacy" ) in associating Galileo's proposition with yours! "All heat travels at the same speed" (even in the same material) has to be an oversimplification in the discussion of the size of temperature transients. I'd suggest that it is perfectly possible that the time before the central temperature peaks is indeed not going to be affected by the application of a surface chill. (If it actually 'peaks' at all, see below!) However, the time to peak, and the size of the peak are very different questions. It seems to me that the quantity of energy that reaches the centre (to raise its temperature) is going to be less, and thus the peak core temperature would be lowered, by a greater external chill application. If we think of your "heat wave" as an energy pulse, then because of the chill, energy from the pulse is being 'bled away' towards the cooled surface - leaving less energy to progress to the centre. If there is a thermal gradient (temperature difference) then heat energy will flow - in proportion to that temperature difference (and distance - to give the gradient). And as long as the outside is cooler than at the 'wave crest', then some energy must flow back out of the wave, out of the testpiece. That "heat wave" has no momentum. Its only reason to move is temperature difference. Change the temperature gradient that drives the flow and you immediately change the rate (even the direction) of energy flow. The units of thermal conductivity are something like watts per metre per degree Kelvin. Heat energy will flow down any temperature gradient. So, after a specific amount of heating, the greater the external chill applied, the greater the rate of energy flow to the outside, leaving less heat energy to flow towards the centre, and so the less the peak temperature of the core will be. In extremis, with a 'thick' testpiece, a 'brief' heat pulse and 'prolonged, intense' chilling, the core temperature might not actually rise at all before it starts to chill... because, (effectively) all the pulse's energy has preferentially flowed to the very cold outside rather than the merely cool centre. More heat energy will flow in the direction of the greater temperature gradient. (EDIT - gradient, not "difference".) Hence it would seem that chilling the surface of a heated (but not equilibrated) testpiece DOES have the potential to affect the peak temperature experienced at the centre. However, I must say that the whole application of non-equilibrium cookery concepts to sous-vide methods does seem to me to be missing the main point - the control to be able to cook things to a precise degree ( or fraction of a degree!) That said, I really have no idea whether gradual or crash cooling would result in the meat/fish ultimately retaining more of its own juices. My suspicion (for what little its worth) would be that there could be little ultimate difference if it were then to be reheated in the same bag/juices before service.

Most of my Italian cookbooks are in Italian - so I as I do read Italian - I am curious what you would be recommending. ← Sadly, Dan Lepard no longer wishes to post on eGullet, so its unlikely your question will be answered here.

I'm not disagreeing with Andiesenji. One need not worry about over-kneading bread dough. That is very, very hard to do at home! Even with a mixer. But its actually surprising just how little kneading effort one can get away with... And here, I'd like to sharpen up Andiesenji's terminology. Specifically "resting". That term would not normally be used to describe overnight in the fridge - good technique though that is. But a different "resting" of the dough is a very good thing to learn to do. Rather than kneading for fifteen solid minutes, try kneading for just two, then resting the dough (covered to protect against drying out) for 15 minutes, knead again for two, and rest for another fifteen before a final two minutes kneading. Less than half the work should get you a smoother dough. One can quickly start throwing around terms like 'autolyse' (a specific refinement of the 'resting' idea) - but the basic point is to learn to leave the dough to develop by itself. You can just help it along rather than trying to knock six bells out of it! Similarly, I've learned about the value of resting during shaping. Divide and pre-shape, then let the dough rest and relax for ten minutes or so, before final shaping. And I'm currently learning that a similar idea improves my pastry (which I'm not very good at!) But the point I'm making is that the business of patient coaxing, rather than wrestling with, gluten is a different aspect to the development of more flavour in the bread by long, slow and usually cool fermentation - which would more usually be one of the things referred to as "retarding".

Not 'softer'. Yes flours are different. More gluten (higher protein flour) will make for more physical work kneading, etc, and should give a more 'risen' (taller, lighter) loaf. Hints, tips? Use a recipe that gives weights, not 'cups'. Its easier to follow more accurately. Really! And rather than flouring your 'kneading' surface, wipe it and your hands with a couple of teaspoonfuls of cooking oil - extra virgin olive oil is nice. Beginners tend to mix in a lot of extra flour, resulting in a heavier, duller loaf. "Warm" for yeast and dough means like a baby's bath. Blood heat. Test with your elbow. If you cannot feel it hot or cold, then its right. Too hot kills yeast. Use instant-mix (easyblend) yeast - at the very least to start with. Its pre-measured and very forgiving. See if you can find one without 'improvers'. I'd suggest you take just one trusted recipe, and practice it, with only minimal and intentional variation (like adjusting the salt to taste, or the length of bake for your particular oven) until you have conquered it, then progress to another type of bread... And stuartlikesstrudel is quite right about starting with a 'white' loaf and following Dan Lepard's ideas of plenty of time and not much kneading. Here's Dan's recipe for "the easiest loaf in the world" http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/200...nddrink.baking8 That said, I'd simplify even more, skipping the warming/sterilising of the bowl with boiling water, and the oven steaming, slashing and dusting until you know what you are doing! BTW Google will do any unit conversions you need ... http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/help/featu...html#calculator The rest of the text from the excellent Guardian baking guide is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2007.../24/bakingguide Good sensible stuff.

Nice hack(saw) job! Care to share the make and model, in case they are being sold off elsewhere?

"Secrets of the Great French Restaurants" might not be the most believable title, but the fact that Bertholle co-authored "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" with Julia Childs does correctly indicate a certain authority. First published 1975. I definitely had a copy, (in 1975!) - not many photos, but the particular resto's were fully credited IIRC. I haven't seen it for ages. Now that I could appreciate it more, I'm wondering where its gone to. Rats! http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-French-Resta.../dp/0333334590/

For converting "cups" (of different origins and vintages) there's good info here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cup_(unit) And never forget that Google is super useful for conversions just type straight into the search box (for example) 1.4 us gallons in ml or whatever is fazing you. Its a great first shot. http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/help/featu...html#calculator

Should I be surprised that people have recommended books that you say you already have? From what you say it sounds as though Bouchon might be just the thing. Dishes that are conventional Bistro fare -- BUT recipes/methods that illustrate just how much care can be taken to lift the ordinary to the level of extraordinary. If genius really is an infinite capacity for taking pains, then Keller has to be a genius. And it ticks your "French/Italian" box. And for presentation, the pix are hardcore gastroporn. Another one (also suggested upthread) is Bertolli's "Cooking by Hand" - which additionally ticks the 'pared down' requirement. And since you mention Waters, it might interest you to know that Bertolli was the chef at Chez Panisse and co-authored "Chez Panisse Cooking"... (And Cooking by Hand has a good charcuterie section, too!)

Chris - if you've got stuff stuck, it has to be scraped off somehow. But, with induction under the ceramic (rather than radiant or simple conductive heating under there) the top stays much cooler - so 1/ immediate collection of spillage is easier and 2/ it doesn't burn on nearly as hard - making cleaning much easier. However, one of the 'things-to-know' is that there are specialist "ceramic hob {cooktop} cleaners" on the market - at least some of which are/contain a silicone polish. Crud doesn't stick nearly as well to a +polished+ surface! (So its a bit easier to clean next time.)

At that price point, its a reasonable supposition that the patterns are there purely for decorative/marketing effect. The swirls on a $100 knife will be in the form of a cladding layer, rather than having been produced in the forging of the blade. However, the presence of some form of cladding (plain or swirly) may well have a metallurgical/engineering function. However, as to being 'sharper', remember that the cladding doesn't extend to the cutting edge of the blade...

No idea about current US availability. BUT, its only a week or so since, while archaeologically excavating the attic, I rediscovered the 3-piece set bought specially for specific family holidays many years ago. Which brings me to the point -- if they are still available today, the people selling them would likely be camping and caravanning equipment suppliers. Hope that helps your friend.

This is one area (among many) where I think vacuum sealers like these are a significant improvement over FoodSaver machines. ... ← I don't doubt that its better. Likely much better. However, it does cost 8x what I paid and the V475 so far seems to be (while that wretched Krups simply ain't) adequate for my humble needs for a while. I really like total, maximal overkill and bulletproof tools built to last a lifetime or two. But sadly its not something I can indulge in routinely!

I took a photo to illustrate this tonight: <snip for space> Within the sealed component of the bag there's about an inch below the seal and above the bacon -- no problem. But look at the extra bag above the seal. Is that typical on most vacuum sealers? ← Chris, I don't think it is typical. On my V475 you could have a minimum of 1/4" to a max of 1.5" of waste bag above the seal, depending on how carefully you positioned the bag. On the Krups its zero, and that really doesn't work at all well.

This would seem to be "actively dried" yeast (rather than "easyblend") because of the way it is rehydrated as the first stage. My contention is that "actively dried" is best suited to pizza - where the requirement is for a smooth and extensible dough, with little need for strength. This dough conditioning effect (from the 30% dead - "deactivated" - cells in actively dried yeast) will be emphasised by both the long period of retarding, and the hitting of the newly rehydrated yeast with a dose of salt before mixing it through the flour. There's going to be a lot of "deactivated" yeast giving up lots of glutathione - this looks like a recipe for an extremely soft and extensible dough -- exactly what a pizza demands!

What makes the difference between a decent machine and a piece of junk? When shopping, how can you tell? This is (quite literally) valuable information for those who have not previously bought such a device, and would prefer to avoid their first purchase being relegated to the status of "a learning experience". As a very recent graduate from junk to Foodsaver, I can offer my observations, but I do so in the hope that others would have more and better info for the checklist. 1/ Avoid machines that use a (heated) wire to 'seal' the bag and use the same heated wire to cut sections off a roll of bag material. The best such machines can do is to create a fragile 'line-seal' along the extreme edge of the bag. 2/ You need to create a sealed strip with a measurable width (more like an 1/8th of an inch, than 1/64th or less) and not exactly at the edge. A little bit of "bag waste" outside the seal is a positive asset and not a negative. 3/ And such a wide strip of seal can only be made by a heated bar (or approximation thereof), not a narrow wire. If the same element both cuts and seals, it can do, at best, only one of them well. This "wire" (over a strip of braid) narrow line-sealing (and roll-cutting) design is used by my (rubbish, but cheap second-hand) Krups "Electronic Vacupack" and the cheapie recently offered in the UK by Netto. I believe that it is also employed by the cheap (~£20/$40) machines recently offered by Lidl and Tchibo, and most (maybe all) of the similarly cheap machines. An "accessory connector" and an optional manual "enough sucking" cancellation before sealing feature are clearly good to have, as is a powerful sucking action -- but effective, robust, basic vacuum-sealing is the primary function. I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that those machines that claim to work with plain (untextured) bags, actually don't work very well at all. Is that a fair generalisation? BTW, I picked up the ('international model' - its 240v thankfully) Foodsaver V475, brand new, plus some bags, a roll (cut it to length by hand!), accessory tube, canister and one bottle stopper for under $50 via eBay UK. It's sealing strip is 12" long and it melts a strip at least 1/16" wide. It pumps bags of dry stuff down to a nicely 'hard pack' and the welded seals seem nicely robust. "Bargin" - as so many eBay sellers claim!

In the absence of active cooling, dry ice, liquid nitrogen, etc, you need two things: insulation and thermal mass. Lots of thermal mass, as cold as you can, and lots of insulation to restrict the flow of heat trying to warm that mass. However, cheap thermal mass works against portability, and effective but cheap insulation works against compactness. Extra layers, or more thickness, of insulation is better. Rather than thinking "cheap", think "low extra cost" - or what have you already got that can be pressed into service? Assuming that you don't have access to either a "thermal cooker" or some other stainless steel vacuum flask with an adequately wide neck, maybe you have some sort of coolbox or insulated picnic/shopping bag (or even both) ... and some gel packs for them... and a cast iron casserole... and some bubblewrap packing material... ??? Freeze the gel packs and the casserole for a few hours. Then, working fast, wrap the ice cream container in bubblewrap and pack it inside the frozen casserole. Wrap the casserole and frozen gel packs in more bubblewrap (so the lid is held in place). Put this in the picnic bag, and the picnic bag inside the coolbox. Then hit the road. You did get all the other preparations out of the way before packing the ice cream, didn't you?

A couple of points. As Jackal10 points out, the "T55" grading has nothing at all to do with the protein level (just the bran {=> mineral/ash} content) - Calvel says "farine panifiable" T55 (T55 breadmaking flour) would be between 11.5 and 12.5% protein, and then gives Avleograph curves for two examples - one of which is 11.5% and the other 11.2% ... Lalos (Le pain envers du decor) says T55 can be 8 to 12% "gluten". So its a lot lower than North American "bread" flours - Lalos actually says "Le blé tendre est utilise pour le fabrication de pain" (soft wheat is used for making bread) ... hard wheat is for pasta! So if a Montréal bakery was wanting to make their bread closer to French, then they'd need a lower than usual-in-North-America protein bread flour. The industrial bread here in the UK is actually made with rather low-protein flour, intensively mixed to strengthen it by oxidation, so needing the fermentation time to be very short, which calls for lots of yeast, and the process then requires the presence of a cocktail of additives to delay staling. So not all supermarket pap is made with high protein flour, and low protein flour is used for rubbish bread as well as artisan baguettes!

Its conventionally 6.25% (1/16th) nitrite - which is an ounce of nitrite made up to a pound (ie plus 15 oz) of salt. (Rather than 1/17th 5.88% as quoted) However - the point about "prague powders" is that they were produced by a specific method, really rapid ("flash") evaporation of a mixed salt+nitrite solution. The reason for that was to get equal-sized (and incidentally small) crystals. Having equal-sized crystals means that segregation isn't a problem. It can be with homebrew cure mixes...