dougal

The Nikon D40 is about as cheap as a digital SLR gets, right now. With the basic zoom lens included, at £270 (that PCW deal), its £200 cheaper than a year ago. But its still £270... with the basic lens. And who knows what it might be next year... The Canon 350d ("RebelXT" in the US) is a better camera. But its also more expensive. With its basic lens £370 on amazon uk. And £340 without any lens looks a keen online price. Its definitely a full step above the D40. And while the "fast" (ie wide-opening to f1.8) non-zoom (fixed) medium telephoto is a nice choice for 'studio' photography, adding that to a body-only deal looks to me like its going to end up at £400 UK tax-paid in Dec 07. Unfortunately.

Tight is not good. You don't want it leaning on the sides... I make small hams (~ 1kg), and I poach them in a pot with about 7 litres of liquid. The more liquid, the steadier you can hope to keep the temperature. I can't say just how small you could go -- I just don't know. But I can see that the tighter the pan, the more difficult things might get... 3 hours 20 for 10lb is about the standard recommendation for a standard (food safety) cooking, 71C internal. I'm suggesting a slightly cooler poaching liquor (so slower) but shooting for a lower core temperature (so quicker). 3 hours-ish of *gentle* simmering is about right. A year and a half ago, I had an online discussion that is pretty authoritative as to what the "standard" recommendations actually mean. http://www.thesausagesource.com/forum/view...php?f=16&p=1438 Apart from a conversion into actual temperatures, the UK Government advice (which has stood since 1949) is discussed in (excruciating ) detail. Treat yourself to a thermometer - of some sort! 60C is too hot to touch. Beyond that, its hard to judge until you get close towards 100C. You certainly don't want any bubbling - which would indicate that the pan base was rather close to 100C. You want it even throughout, steady, and as precise as possible. Simple analogue probe thermometers can be *very* cheap. I think I saw some still in Aldi from a couple of weeks back - worth a check, perhaps. My Lidl one cost me £1.99 - its not high accuracy, but it convinced me that a thermometer is a whole lot better than guessing. However, I upgraded to a digital probe (from Lakeland £12.99) which has seen various uses - including ham internal measurement during poaching. (I've learned to take the battery out when its not being used; but its a rare Lakeland bargain.) Lakeland thermometers I'd like a Thermapen FR. Maybe next Christmas...

As a British "smoked ham" (Birmingham UK), its very unlikely to have been hot smoked (ie cooked at all yet). For judging the saltiness, I like Jane Grigson's tip - When the water with the ham (only) in it comes up to temperature, taste it. If the water is "too salty" then change it, putting the ham in fresh water and bringing the water back up to heat before tasting again, and if required repeating the exercise. Add any aromatics once you commit to continue. As regards the "boiling", I'd suggest applying sous-vide-type thinking to avoid overcooking the outside. While I don't have a pot big enough to take your lump, I've had excellent results with poaching in water at about 75C and turning off the heat when the meat's internal temperature is in the low 60'sC. The internal temperature continues to rise for a while as the heat continues to spread through the meat. I've used a jam thermometer arrangement (clipped to the pan side) to measure the temperature of the broth. And stirred it frequently to keep it a fairly even temperature. At the risk of extending the cooking time, for a bigger lump, I'd actually go slightly cooler with the water (low 70'sC?) to minimise the overcooking of the outside, since you'll be cooking longer... If you are glazing and roasting with the meat hot from the poaching, you might even think of stopping poaching a few degrees lower... As to timing, Jane Grigson's rules of thumb in her "Charcuterie" (some drawn from MAFF sources) suggest a cooking time around 3 1/3 hours for a 10lb ham... but using a meat thermometer shows you what's happening! Classically for hygiene purposes Pork should be cooked to about 70C internally. Julia Childs and many others believe its at its best rather lower than that... As a technique point, it'll help the thing to cook evenly if its not sitting directly on the bottom of the pan. A not very heat-conductive item (like a plate) helps ensure the meat is cooked by the water, not the pan! (I'd expect the cured meat to sink, rather than float... ) Keep the poaching broth (and the skin) as they are the basis of other nice things, like a lentil soup...

Thanks Mike and thanks for the warning! To just nail this (hopefully finally) Yes, aware of the toughness and cosmetic (perhaps frictional) reasons for the cladding. My point was that corrosion will be focussed at the sharp edge of the blade, and the sharper the blade, the more the edge would be subject to attack. Secondly, for a corrosion cell, you ideally need two dissimilar metals - and in that respect the cladding could actually exacerbate the problem. This thing has a pretty acute edge (anyone measured the angle yet?) - so with the cladding layer to provide the second electrode there exists considerable 'potential' ( ) for corrosive dulling of the edge. It may even be that this, rather than wear, will determine the need for resharpening. In the meantime, I'll treat it kindly! As a final point, the strange "no pumpkin or pineapple" leaflet appears to be general guidance from JCK rather than being specific to ZDP189.

In my case, no way until after I have adequate sharpening technology in place to re-dress things. And a microscope, and a few control knives for comparison... I wouldn't ordinarily leave anything acid on any knife for any length of time. I would expect *any* clad knife to tend to have more corrosion problems than a knife of uniform composition. Where you have two dissimilar metals, in electrical contact and both in contact with an electrolyte, you have an electrochemical corrosion cell. The cell voltage (influencing corrosion rate) depends on the difference between the two metals "electrochemical potential". And IIRC even different heat treatments (and different mechanical working) can give rise to different potentials. From what I know of why lightening conductors work (increased charge density at the sharp point), I'd expect any corrosion of any clad knife to be most evident on the sharpened edge, because it is an electro chemical process, and that's where the field would be strongest, ion transport easiest, etc. I don't believe I have any other clad knives to compare it with, to see whether the effect is distinctly worse with ZDP189. However, I do recall the lore that Tomato blunts knives disproportionately quickly. My suspicion has been that that this was due to the acidity of the tomato, rather than any great toughness of the skin. And the lore dates from the time when all good knives were "steel" (not stainless). I'm enjoying using this knife. It goes through onion and carrot... well... "like a knife through butter". Now, while I know this is largely a sharpening thing, my hope and expectation is that this knife will hold this extreme edge way better than something more traditional. And for that, I'm prepared to nanny it a bit.

I did (on the JCK Sanetu ZDP189 Santoku). 10 minutes. No marking whatsoever on the side of the knife. (Where I put the juice drops.) Whatever the effect might be on the exposed cutting blade of the magic stuff, the stainless cladding is just as mirror-pretty as before... Phew!

Which raises questions in the mind of this bystander... ... how often *need* the water be changed, not being in contact with the food? ... and would there be any point in dosing the water with a drop of anything to keep it (and any awkward to clean corners - like inside the pump) sanitary? ... what's the laboratory practice here?

Mike - one or other of us is confused here. The ham of childhood memory was "dark red". Your whole leg of "uncured" pork isn't going to replicate the dark red, is it? Hertagefoods.com say "Red Wattle meat tends to be a little darker than most other pork and is very tender. The variety boasts wonderful hams and a juicy and flavorful taste even though the meat is lean." (Its not a breed I've met in the UK.) So, just roast it and it looks like you'll have "a little darker" roast leg of pork, lean but juicy and flavourful. Not deep, dark red "ham". Hopefully it'll be absolutely wonderful roast pork -- but don't expect "ham"... To make the thing into "ham" rather than "pork" it needs to be cured. My impression (I haven't got that big/ambitious yet) is that brine curing a whole leg/ham needs more like a month than the week suggested above - unless you start injecting ("pumping") it. After brining, the ham would likely be "boiled" (gently poached would be a more accurate description), and then might be finished in the oven (probably with a glaze) to become a "roast ham". Which could well (with nitrite or nitrate in the cure) be a "deep, dark red". There are of course other things people do with whole legs of pork, smoking them, even dry curing them for a couple of years, as in Parma... The English language isn't terribly helpful, using the single word 'ham' to designate both the pig's raw back leg, and some of the very different products made therefrom. As to roasting the leg as pork, there seems to be an agreement to disagree as to the merits of brining pork before roasting. (Another whole different game...) However, my main point is that without getting into the stuff of the "Charcuterie" thread, you should have a splendid (darkish) roast leg of pork - but not a deep red ham.

Steven, the Chorleywood Process, with improvers, was introduced here in the 1960's when we were rather short of foreign exchange, and provided a way of industrially using locally-grown (not imported) lower protein wheat. My understanding is that the mixing can be even shorter if higher gluten flours can be used. 60 seconds 'kneading' in a processor *after* the dough has balled, is a pretty intense workout. I think its plausible to suggest that the work you can do in a minute in a food processor would be rather more than any industrial scale mixer would do in the same time. Hence, I suggest its equivalence to "high speed {industrial} mixing" for several minutes. As you report, the rising time can be accelerated following this treatment. Chorleywood informs us that this is a direct consequence of the intense mixing. It seems to me (maybe not to everyone) that processor kneading followed by accelerated microwave rising is the very essence of a domestic analogue of the fast-throughput industrial Chorleywood process. In breadmaking, speed is the enemy of flavour. Bread flavour that is, rather than added flavours. It seems that you are recommending a method of reproducing supermarket-style bread-taste-less bread at home. Just like Mrs David, my motivation in troubling to bake at home is to produce something way better than supermarket sliced. Its after 1am now, and I'm struggling to find words to express my astonishment at the existence of a thread on eGullet recommending the rapid production of bread that doesn't taste of bread. There's room in the world for all sorts of tastes and opinions. However some are more surprising than others. I *don't* live in a major city. I can (often if not absolutely always) make bread better than I can buy locally. I do have ready (24/7) access to supermarket bread. Hence to me it seems "kind of nutty" to try and reproduce a supermarket-style technique. Mr Whitley may be a bit of a polemicist, but his opinion is that accelerated rising un-naturally denies the opportunity for enzyme and bacterial action, which added to the different hydration of the flour, produces a product that is less digestible than "real bread"*. (I summarise from memory, having returned his book to the Library some while ago). His criticisms, in those specific respects, would I'm sure apply equally to the food processor technique as to Chorleywood. Which (valid or otherwise) seems pretty relevant. * http://www.realbreadcampaign.org/ I'll continue to explore and enjoy the wonderful tastes and textures of bread itself, produced by sourdough ("wild yeasts"), beer yeast, bigas, autolyse, retarding... Steven, I hope you manage to enjoy your quick stuff as much.

There are cheap and simple tools available here in the UK like this http://www.lakelandplastics.eu/product.asp...nsils!10896 presumably something similar where you are - its just an egg yolk sized cup with a strainer overflow...

The camera is still going to need help "to produce nice pictures". Controlling the lighting allows you to make a big difference. A compact camera with inbuilt, directionally-fixed flash *only* is kinda limiting. Its a snapshot camera. The ability to connect other flashguns (typically via a 'hotshoe') is an important attribute for a studio (even a home studio) camera. Even 'bouncing' flash off the ceiling makes a big difference to the 'modelling' (use of light and shadows to show shape)... For still life subjects (like food) a tripod can be advantageous. Your budget of "around £250" is awfully close to PCWorld's advertised £269 (after cashback) deal on the Nikon D40... a proper digital SLR. I can't see you needing more camera than that. (No idea though if there might be even better deals on offer for it.)

Most discussion of the "Chorleywood Process" (by which virtually all UK mass-market, supermarket, bread is unfortunately produced) suggests that it *cannot* be reproduced at home. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorleywood_Bread_Process Also worth noting is that Andrew Whitley, in his book cited above: Bread Matters, makes an association between the adoption of the Chorleywood Bread Process and a parallel rise in (clinical) digestive problems. The suggestion is that eating the tasteless pap just might have negative health implications. In 1977, Elizabeth David wrote in English Bread and Yeast Cookery - Its fair to say she was not an enthusiast for the Chorleywood Process. Neither am I. Now eGullet suggests it can be reproduced domestically. High speed mixing AND microwave rising. Just like the real Chorleywood Process. So that "bread" (even though it doesn't actually taste of bread) can be completed at home in less than 2 hours.

Oh well... BTW, dunno if it was a typo or sloppy reporting, but "Gristers" ?? Perhaps "Ginsters" http://www.ginsters.co.uk (purveyors of pies and "pasties" to motorway service stations across the country... ) To adopt an heretically fundamentalist approach, I tend towards the belief that the pasty filling had its origins in left-over stew, and that the pastry's original function was as, (more or less edible), packaging. Applying this approach legitimises taking all the care you wish to over the cooking of each individual component, before assembling them and giving a final bake to the specific requirements of the pastry. It may not have the ascetic purity of cooking everything together in a single hit, but you just know that if Keller was going to make a pasty, he'd do it as an assembly. And even in Kernow it would be applauded.

harhar ! if only my cookbook budget would stretch to a Bulli book.... ← That's the whole point - it isn't a Bulli book at an outrageous price ! http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cooks-Book-Step-st.../dp/1405303379/ And I hadn't spotted that Jackal10 posted an Amazon review... Its under £20 I got mine from thebookpeople rather cheaper, but they no longer list it.

Fibilou - I believe I'm right in saying that the plastic-bodied models can be used only for cold foams (and I'm not sure how much they may absorb flavours). The stainless ones are more versatile, and can be set into a bain marie to keep warm. The "thermo" ones have an insulated flask, so keep hot (or cold) without assistance for longer. AFAIK, CO2 acidifies. The CO2 cartridges used to be sold for making (english english) soda water. Hence I was surprised to see the advice above to use CO2. Unless you really want the 'soda water' sharpness, use N20, Nitrous Oxide - even though its more expensive. But beware that other folks use Nitrous, uh, differently. Some boy racers use it for a switchable momentary power burst. Others get their 'amusement' , uh, otherwise. Hence, it does no harm to stress your culinary intent when shopping... Try 'health food' shops for Agar in the UK. Have you seen Adria's chapter in "The Cooks Book"? (Even if he does think Gelatine is veggie... )

These are nasty commercial additives, whose prime function is to hold water in the product until after it is sold. (Not necessarily until after it is cooked... ) Water is cheaper than meat. Holding water in the product opens up the route to selling water very profitably. For example see this British page: http://www.foodcomm.org.uk/latest_watermeat_apr05.htm Avoiding this sort of muck is one very good reason that "home made" is better than bought. That's why there's no mention of them in Ruhlman's book recipes!

Maybe my memory was a bit off This article http://www.ecircuitcenter.com/Circuits/pid1/pid1.htm suggests dialling in a little Differential response as the second term, then I as the last one. Hopefully however, the playful experimentation may have a bit of direction...

Likely your "numbers" are the violence of output response. Manual tuning, start with way less than maximum violence. 25% or so. With just P control at 25%, it may respond slowly, but steadily. Adding violence to P, it will eventually start to overshoot. Adding a bit of I should damp that. I hope. EDIT -- the amount of 'violence' your system can take is going to depend (for the sous-vide example) on things like how the heater wattage relates to the thermal mass of the system...

Dunno if this'll help, but it might explain what its trying to do... P I D "3 term" Proportional, Integral and Derivative. It adjusts the output control depending on Proportional - how far off target it is Integral - basically how long its been off target Derivative - the rate of change of the (for you, temperature) measurement Try using proportional control only, then add a bit of consideration of the integral term, then just a touch (if you feel it worthwhile) of Differential - Diff is the one most likely to have the thing overcorrecting and going all unstable IIRC from a bit of large scale process engineering 30 years ago... As to translating that into "numbers" for your bit of kit -- all yours, pal !! EDIT - PS - don't these things have "autotune" these days?

Specifically, the models 3 and 7 (detatchable probe) are not supplied with any probe included as standard. A "fast response" probe is but one of the options... http://www.thermoworks.com/products/therma...rmapen_3_7.html Among the other models, some are sold as "fast response", some aren't. Response time factors will include the thermal mass of the probe (and skinnier means faster, but all other things being equal, means more delicate (fragile) too). There is the rate at which the electronics 'sample' the probe to take individual "instantaneous" measurements. There may be a ("software") averaging function, for rf noise immunity and improved accuracy, combining several (many?) samples. And then there is the rate that the display updates, which (whether or not related to any averaging going on) may be constrained by the display speed (it surely isn't designed for videogame speeds) and human perception, so that the display remains readable, even while changing - and stabilises so that the user doesn't complain of constant "flickering" between readings. However, there is no advantage in "slugging" the total electronics' response to be slower than the response time of the (fastest) probe that it could be used with. Just a BTW that the more sampling, the more processing, going on, then the harder the electronic designers have to work to get reasonable battery life out of the thing... But with a well designed display (and maybe averaging) system, other than battery life, there's no advantage that I can imagine (in the enthusiast kitchen) in having deliberately slow electronics... or am I missing something obvious?

"There are many ways to skin a cat" as the proverb says. There are also several ways to combat botulism. Acidity (pH) is one. Taste apart, the 'cultures' used have the function of acidifying. But there are other ways of acidifying. Heat and even air (oxygen) are other anti-botulism methods, but they are inappropriate for salami-things. The other main defence is the addition of Nitrite and/or Nitrate. Have a look at the ingredients list for "Saucisson Sec" (p 193 in my edition). It includes 6g of Cure No 2. Which has Nitrite and Nitrate. Note that Cure No 2 (not No 1) is specified - specifically because No 2 contains long-lasting Nitrate, for continued defence during prolonged curing (and potentially storage). Certainly its good health practice to have more than one 'hurdle', but with the right amount of Cure No 2 in there, there shouldn't be any botulism risk.

Just a BTW that Google will do it for you... open Google (or use the thingy in the browser bar) and try 275F in C

No kidding, really? I've got to agree that from the standpoint of the dilettante cook (ie those not working in a production or regulated environment, where one scale would be used exclusively) it does seem rather strange. To put on a very old (electronics) hat of mine, I'd bet that there is an internal switch that is set at the factory to determine which way it swings. This is most likely going to be either a solder blob or a resistor that is placed in one of two alternate positions. And could go to a proper switch, without much design difficulty. (Modifying the case moulding would likely be the main expense.) I do wonder somewhat as to whether it might be a design choice for improved reliability (after all, what component has worn out on the Polder!), but I lean towards thinking that their target market might well be seen (by the designers at least) as preferring something that could not possibly be set to the wrong scale, and thereby consequently create a business problem... the KISS principle. I'm sure a special "keen cook's version" (with a switch) would sell well enough. Would you use your gravitas to suggest it to them? I'd buy one tomorrow (rather than wait for next Christmas, as seems likely).

Right... Have you seen the thread here discussing Ruhlman's excellent tutorial book "Charcuterie" ? http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=79195 His "American-style brown-sugar-glazed holiday ham" is, I suspect, pretty close to what you are after. It is brined, hot smoked and glazed. And deals with a 12lb+ (5.5kg+) ham There's another standard reference I'd steer you towards - Jane Grigson's "Charcuterie and French Pork Cookery" - but do note that by today's standards she is *very* heavy on the saltpetre (nitrate). Nevertheless, as a discussion of the slight variations in technique to produce different hams, it makes wonderful background reading. As to a "start here, do this" handholding guide, I wrote something of the sort myself, a while back. At least covering the curing. And others did reproduce it successfully, and (importantly) enjoyed it. Starting small, I used a 750g (under 2lb) boneless leg (roasting) joint. I used Saltpetre (Nitrate) back then. Nowadays, I'd suggest using Nitrite (in the form of Cure No 1 ie "Pink Salt"). No need to rely on friendly bacteria. Slightly less measurement precision required. Just substitute 6g of Cure No 1 for the 2g of Saltpetre, and ignore comments on bacteria! It really is an astonishingly simple process. Anyway, using grams and ºC, trying to dot every i and cross every t, have a go at wading through this : http://forum.sausagemaking.org/viewtopic.php?t=1990 Note that curing recipes *don't* necessarily scale in the way one might expect. The ratio of brine quantity to meat weight is important to preserve. To finish it as a glazed ham, you might take it out of the poaching water a few minutes early, remove the skin, cover with your glaze mix and pop it into a medium/hot oven for 20 minutes or so, just long enough to bring the glaze to the point at which it will set on cooling... And whatever you do, don't throw away the skin (or the poaching stock)!

If you want to poke the thing you're cooking five times while standing there with the oven door open, I suppose you can take a bunch of measurements for practice, but then again you can do this with a cheap instant-read thermometer too -- it will just take a little longer. I'd be interested to know how much longer. If it's, for example, 30 seconds v. 1 minute to take 5 readings then that doesn't seem like a big deal. I guess the Thermapen has a thinner probe. ... ← Steven, you might be interested to see the timings reported in this review http://www.cookingforengineers.com/article...en-Thermometers At 3 seconds a time, you *could* do 5 tests literally in half the time of a more conventional thermometer. Also, the comments on Thermapen calibration might interest those (like Lior) who have thermometers that, never mind trusting, they just don't believe.