paulraphael

I'm assuming you can't get half and half. But if you can, just substitute that for the cream and the milk. It will be like using half of each, and put you into the 14 to 16% milkfat range. If you don't have that, you could try a creamless gelato, either thickened with egg yolks (northern style) or corn starch (southern style). I've never made any of these recipes so I can't comment on how they'd turn out. I expect they would be very low on creaminess. If you're willing to mess around with some less conventional hydrocolloids, there are tons of recipes for low fat and no fat ice cream like substances. supposedly some of them mimic the texture of cream really well. Again, I have no experience with this approach. Cream abounds where I live!

To be scientific you'll need a panel of tasters. In the interests of science, I could be persuaded to volunteer some time.

I think you just have to adapt time and temperature to different thicknesses. 10 minutes per side on medium heat seems to be the right treatment for a 1-1/2 to 2 inch steak. A 1 inch steak will need less time (to avoid overcooking the center) and more heat (to brown the surface in that shorter time). I don't know if there's an advantage to cooking steaks at a single temperature all the way through. My habit has been to sear them on high heat, and then (still in the pan) let them continue to cook on very low heat. I feel this make the timing a little easier, since you're taking care of the browning and cooking the center in mostly discreet steps. But I'd be surprised if the results would be substantially different from the consistent temperature method. It would be interesting to compare both side by side.

The idea of stock being made with just bones is a new one. Until recent decades, no one would have dreamed of doing it, at least within the French tradition. The exception would be the first stock of a double stock ... they often made the first stock with just veal bones (purely for gelatin) and then used used that stock as the liquid for simmering the meat to make the final stock. Bone stocks as final stocks came into vogue during the Nouvelle Cuisine era, where they primarily contributed gelatin and roasted flavors, in place of traditional stocks that carried the full flavors of meat. There were lots of rationales for this, but the overriding one was economy. And that's why bone stocks are still popular today. As an example of a classical stock recipe, Escoffier called for 13lbs shin of beef on the bone, 13lbs knuckle of veal on the bone (or lean veal trimmings) 1 knuckle of raw ham (on the bone), and 1-1/2lbs of blanched pork rind, to make 10 liters of stock. This is not the same as ordering, say veal knuckle bones from the butcher--this is the lower leg of veal, on the bone, and lower leg of steer, on the bone. This works out to 3lbs of very meaty bones per liter of stock ... probably more meat per liter than most people would use to make broth today. Our modern bone stocks are short cuts derrivied from this kind of stock.

More significantly, mirepoix doesn't stand up to the extended cooking that the bones need. In the amount of time it takes to extract the flavor and gelatin from the bones, you'll extract the flavor of veggies and then cook most of it away. I think putting it in 2 or 3 hours before the end is a good solution. And some people put in two batches; one halfway through cooking time, one closer to the end. If you put in aromatics, I think the timing depends on each individual one (it's why I rarely make a traditional bouquet). Bay leaves can go in near the beginning; thyme can go in with a couple of hours to go, parsely can go in for the last few minutes. You can also omit them entirely and just add them when you make your final sauces.

My understanding is that rigor mortis gets underway in poultry about an hour after slaughter. If you could butcher and cook the bird within this timeframe, you'd have some unusual and very fresh tasting chicken. Enzyme action starts to loosen up the tensed muslces after several hours, and probably completes its work after a day or two. But the bird should be properly hung for this to happen, and the temperature needs to be right (I have no idea how to do it ...) After this one or two day age, the chicken should be at its most tender and have the best flavor. It doesn't benefit from extended aging, like beef. I have no idea how common these practices are. My butcher gets local poultry that's freshly killed; judging by the eyes they were walking around within 12 hours of the time I buy them. And they're not hung; they're kept in a display case on ice. And they taste great. So maybe I've never had poultry that's prepared as I describe. Typically, "air drying" means that the bird isn't wrapped in plastic after it's been washed or steamed or whatever it is they do to get the feathers off and clean it. Factory chickens are wrapped wet and take on 10% or so of their weight in added water. Most artisinal birds (and I believe kosher birds) are air dried. Air drying makes for a more flavorful bird, and a crisper skin if you're roasting.

Chicken soup has been supported by research; most of the ideas about salt have not. There's a lot of study on the topic in the food science literature. Most of the mistaken ideas are based on assumptions that osmosis goes on during cooking. Study after study shows that it doesn't. I also frequently reduce poultry stocks a lot when making pan sauces. The pan sauce will often start with a fair amount salt from the roasted / sautéed bird, which ends up in the pan drippings. I don't want any extra salt in the stock. If you never do this, then it's less of an issue.

The more meat still on the bones the better! Using bones is actually an economizing measure; stocks were traditionally made with piles of meat. If you have meaty bones, be happy. The only thing I look out for is lots of marrow. Shin bones especially are packed with it. If I see a big volume of marrow I roast at a lower temperature, like 375°, so it doesn't burn before the meat and bones brown. A heavy, light colored roasting pan also helps.

Ok, so I have mice. It's hard not to ... I live in a civil war-era brewery in one of the filthier corners of Brooklyn. The long term plan is to block off the points of entry with steel wool, metal plates, whatever. Short term I'm trying to trap them. Trying really hard. Actually, it's gotten personal. For the last month I've been the straight man in a cartoon. The little bastards (I once thought they were cute) have outsmarted me every step of the way. Here's what I've tried: -Live catch traps. In a month I caught a total of one mouse. I let him go out on the street, a dozen paces from my gate. He hit the pavement, turned around, and sprinted back into my courtyard. I headed him off and then he disappeared ... probably into my pantry. -Cat. Once a competent mouser, in spite of looking more like a throw pillow than a predator, he's made it clear that he's retired. -Conventional traps. I put them out with cheese and peanut butter at night. In the morning the trap is still set but the cheese and peanut butter are gone. These are not traps, they are feeders. -Glue traps. Supposedly the most barbaric of all. But in the morning the peanut butter is gone (see note on feeders, above). But this time there are little paw prints in the glue, placed there no doubt to mock me. Suggestions? And if this is one of those candid camera shows, I'll eventually get paid ... right?

There are many old wives tales about salt; most of them have no basis in reality. A tiny bit of salt in stock won't hurt anything, but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest it helps anything. Almost all these ideas about salt are based on mistaken notions of osmosis.

If you have a long, strong wooden spoon or spatula, or set of tongs, you can insert it deep into the turkey's cavity and use it as a handle. The other hand can hold the head side of the turkey with a towel or silicone mit. If the turkey is big and you are small, you might want to delegate. At any rate, get the roasting pan and platter on a surface right next to each other so you don't have to go far. Actually, your biggest concern is taking the turkey out of the oven at the right time. That spells the difference between a really good bird and the kind of dried out bird everyone seems to be used to. If it's your first time, I'd skip any turkey lifting gadgets and treat yourself to a remote probe thermometer. And if you get one of those birds with the built-in indicator that pops up, ignore it! Using that thing is no better than using the smoke alarm to tell you dinner's ready.

Sorry, I missed the question a while back. That was just my descriptive name for a stuffing recicipe by George Perrier, who I thnk has some great ideas about thanksgiving turkey. His version is basically this: olive oil 1/2 lb veal stew meat, in 1” cubes 1/2 lb pork butt,, in 1” cubes 2 shalots, finely chopped 9 slices firm white bread 1 cup milk 1 egg 1/4 cup cognac 1 Tbs chopped fresh parsley salt white pepper 1 lb chestnuts (prepared ones are great) Heat olive oil in sautee pan, add veal, pork, and shallots. Cook but do not brown. Soak bread in milk until soft. squeeze out excess milk. Put meat and shallots and all pan juices and bread in food processor. Chop until sausage-like. Beat in egg and parsely, cognac and seasonings. Gently mix in whole chestnuts. I've played with it over the years. The last version I made was this: 1 lb. veal stew meat in 1” cubes (or half can be replaced with ½ lb pork butt, 1 inch cubes) 2 shalots, finely chopped 2 granny smith or macintosh apples, peeled, cored, and chopped into small pieces 1/2 cup golden raisins 5-7 slices lightly toasted sourdough bread 1 cup milk (for soaking bread if it's stale; otherwise don't bother) 2 eggs 1/4 cup calvados 1 Tb chopped fresh parsley 1 Tb chopped fresh thyme 1 tsp ground allspice 1/2 tsp ground mace 1 ground nutmeg nut 2 tsp ground cinnamon salt, cracked pepper, cider vinegar to taste Macerate the apples and raisins in the brandy (in a covered bowl) for at least an hour before mixing. Heat olive oil in sautee pan, add meat and shallots. Cook but do not brown. Soak bread in milk until soft. squeeze out excess milk. Put meat and shallots and all pan juices and bread in food processor. Chop coarsely. Beat in egg and parsely, cognac and seasonings. Gently mix in apples and raisins.

Well, you and Ducasse. And a few others I think finishing in the oven is a convenient technique for restaurants. The oven is the fastest way to do the slow cooking of the center ... if that makes any sense. The heat can be low, but it's hitting the meat on all sides. And more importantly, it frees up a burner on the stove for the next round of food. If you don't face a restaurants time and stove space constraints, I think finishing on the stove is a better option, if for no reason other than it gives you more control.

This is a classic definition that people argue about. I personally think the difference, if there is any at all, is intent. There are many kinds of broth, many kinds of stock, and the overlap is almost 100%. It's usually called broth if you plan to consume it as is, either as a soup or the main ingredient of a soup. It's usually called stock if it's a component. The word "stock" implies that you're making a bunch of it to keep in inventory, for multiple purposes. Particularly for saucemaking. In French cooking, broth has been around since time immemorial. Stock was invented (or rose into prominence) after the Revolution, when the chefs started cooking for the middle class in restaurants, and had to start cooking a la carte and with a budget. Instead of elaborate integral sauces made with jus and braising liquids for all the dishes, they needed a system for making sauces from economical, pre-made components. Stock was a key part of the answer. As far as technical differences, broth might be seasoned; stock never is. Stock may be used in many applications, including reductions, so it's always a mistake to season it in advance.

Are you talking about sanitizer in file I linked to? That one's 5 times as concentrated as the brand I got locally. With mine a capful per 16oz is just right. With a super concentrated brand, the trick would be to do what photographers do with concentrated chemistry. Mix up a less concentrated stock solution. If you filled a gallon jug with a 1:4 solution of that stuff, it would still be concentrated enough to keep indefinitely, but you'd be able to mix the working solution with a capful or teaspoon full per pint of water.

I find thermometers tricky to use on steaks. Maybe a steak this thick would make it easier, but typically it's hard to know exactly what point of thickness is being measured. And for a steak that's even 1-1/2" thick, even if i'm sticking the probe in at an angle, the temperature gradient can be steep enough to throw me off. That's my guess too. Well I like to cook for about 120 hours, at 41C (the temperature of a steer who's running a strong fever). And I find it best to sear before, after, and (with a handheld torch, leaning over my guest's shoulders) several times during the meal.

When I sear steaks on very high heat I never char them. However, I haven't cooked steaks that are as thick as yours. I'm guessing that someone calculating the heat conductivity of meat would find the ducasse method used on a fat steak to basically be an adjustment of the high heat method used on a thin one. For the medium steaks that I usually cook (1 to 1-1/4", my method is a bit of a hybrid. I sear the first side on very high heat, flip to the second side, and after a minute or two, turn the heat very low. Then I pour out excess cooking oil, and finish with butter, which browns slowly as the meat heats through. The disadvantage is that the first side isn't actually cooked in the butter (but gets basted). I'll have to see if a variation of the ducasse method might work on medium thickness steaks (forget about rendering fat on the edge; cook a bit hotter than medium for maybe 7 minutes per side, etc.).

Digital oven controls (like the ones on my oven) make me want to go on a shooting spree. It's not just that they're unintuitive. Even after you learn how to use controls like mine, it takes half a minute to click the thing from 500 degres to 200, instead of the half second it takes to turn a knob.

First of all, I've never seen prime steaks like that. I assumed from the pics that they were Kobe. Which of Lobel's steaks did you buy? On their site they list prime, prime dry aged, and natural prime, and maybe others. Your results are beautiful, and I don't understand them. I don't understand how steaks can cook for 45 minutes even on medium heat and not be cooked through at least to medium. Likewise for resting in a 150 degree oven. I agree wholeheartedly with ducasse about not wanting to char a good steak. And with you about the glories of butter. But the nerd in me has trouble grasping why this particular method works.

Hervé This answered this one. There's are a whole slew of experiments testing various wives tales about how to use salt when cooking meat. The conventional wisdom is all based on ideas about osmosis, and it all falls flat. Apparently the presence of salt in poaching liquid makes no difference at all, at least in regard to the juiciness of the meat. The reason turns out to be simple. Osmosis is the diffusion of water through a semi-permeable membrane. But plant and animal cells aren't covered with semi-permeable membranes. Plant cells are covered with cell walls, and meat cells are covered with collagen. While these are both ever so slightly permeable, allowing a bit of osmosis to occur, once the cooking gets underway they break down and become completely permeable. So osmosis doesn't happen; cells take on or lose fluids (and salt) like sponges. Based on this, Shalmanese made the winning point. Since I plan to use the poaching liquid to make stock, I'm not going to add salt.

Yeah, that's my assumption. I'm wondering if there's a standard starting point for salt %. Many poaching recipes I've seen omit salt, and this seems like an oversight.

My one Bayliss book is Authentic Mexican. Is this not representative of his other books? It strikes me as fiercely authentic, and so full of recipes that seem geared towards a kitchen full of daughters spending days preparing feasts, that I've used it more for salivating than actual cooking. Are Kennedy's books even more authentic and impractical than this one??

Is there any conventional wisdom on the ideal salt content for poaching liquid? I've seen recipes that don't include any, but I'd worry that this would leach juices out of the uncooked meat (osmosis and whatnot). Thoughts?

I'm waiting for the end of sauces with the consistency of oil paint wiped in pseudo artistic, completely useless smears on the edge of the plate. I LIKE sauces. Meaning, I like to TASTE them.

Just to clarify, parboiling bones and carcasses is called for when making a white stock. If you're making a brown stock (browning the protein and bones first) the blanching step is unnecessary. The browning process stabilizes the proteins that would otherwise turn into scum and contribute cloudiness.