paulraphael

Marie Sharp's habanero pepper sauce is my runaway fave. This sauce used to be Melinda's (the U.S. distributor screwed Marie out of the name, so now Melinda's is a more generic, industrial recipe). It may be blasphemy, but I'm not a fan of Tabasco. It just tastes like hot vinegar to me.

I don't know where you get this idea. Deep frying is not boiling in oil (the oil is not boiling), nor is it some new deviation. It's a classical technique (friture). "Pan frying" is a useful term because it distinguishes shallow frying (done in a pan, with the food only partially immersed in oil), from deep frying, and from sauté (where only enough oil is used to coat the pan to provide better heat transfer along the surface). Of these, pan fying in a moderate amound of oil seems like the modern deviation (at least looking at the continental tradition). I don't see any reference to it either in larousse or escoffier. In both these sources, frying is synonymous with deep frying.

Cool, Daniel, looks delicious. I suspect the brining might have been unnecessary (and might have contributed to the uneven browning on the breast). It would be an interesting side by side comparison. Anyone making two turkeys on thxgiving?

This is what I would have assumed, but the bulk of fish sold for raw consumption is cryogenically flash frozen. It's required by law for all but one or two species of fish, in order to kill parasites ... but it's done fast enough that cellular damage is minimal, and the texture of the fish doesn't suffer. I've read that some sushi chefs actually prefer flash frozen fish, because in many cases the texture penalty is minimal if it's there at all, and the improvement to freshness is noticeable. I'd think these freezing conditions would be the exact ones that encourage parasites to survive, but apparently that's not the case.

This usage seems like it's so standardized now on both sides of the atlantic, that I wouldn't bother trying to fight it. Once upon a time, your definition was basically right. Sauté means "jump." It's the reason we have slope-sided pans (which are no longer even called sauté pans, but fry pans or poêls). And what we call sauté pans are large, straight sided, and better suited for frying, pan frying (what we now call sauté much of the time), braising, and frickasees. Getting back to FG's original question, "sweat" is usually applied only to vegetables, but it generally means to cook in a little oil on low heat (with the intent to cook/wilt without browning).

This scene played out between two glove-wearing, prison-tatooed cooks at my old company cafeteria: Cook 1: drops burger on the floor, picks it up, tosses it to Cook 2 Cook 2: receives pass, sends it into trash with a perfect hook shot. Then, with same pair of gloves, goes back to making my sandwich.

You could be right. It was a science fair experiment from a long time ago. After "thawing," the fish lived about two minutes (during which he seemed completely drunk). I've been doing some searches on cryonics, and most suggest that goldfish can't, in fact survive freezing. But according to many sources, including this one, some fish and small animals can: "Viruses, bacteria, sperm/eggs, embryos at early stages of development, insects, and even small animals (small frogs, some fish) can be cryogenically frozen, preserved for an indefinite time (as long as low temperature is maintained) and then thawed and returned to a living state. Large animals or organs (a few centimeters and larger) can not be safely frozen because removing heat via thick tissue by natural thermoconductivity becomes so slow that ice microcrystals grow big enough to damage cell membranes." At any rate, the issue seems like a complicated one. There are different mechanisms at work causing cell damage, not just in the freezing process, but in the storing and also the thawing process. And these processes seem to be dependent on many variables. It's still seems curious that freezing reliably kills parasites, but not some larger organisms like insects and embryos.

I probably seem paranoid, but it's just that I'm taking a food safety certification course and some of it is counterintuitive. The Man says: "May ready-to-eat foods be touched with bare hands if the hands are washed or a germicidal soap or hand sanitizer is used? No. Although hand washing is effective in reducing contamination, many people forget to wash their hands or even fail to wash them properly. Germicidal soaps and hand sanitizers have not been proven effective in destroying viruses." Is this just extreme caution in the low end food service industry? Does Thomas Keller actually wear gloves when he slices and plates meat for service? Gloves always make me suspicious. I see the way people behind counters use them (as if they're magically, permanently sterilized). I suspect people are actually more vigilant about sanitation when they don't have surgical gloves on. Meanwhile, my sense is that doctors and nurses wear gloves primarily to protect themselves. They protect the patients by washing their hands all the time. Thoughts?

Well, the point isn't stopping time; it's stopping the mobility of water. Biological processes can't take place if water can't move. The temperature at which water is completely immobilized depends on what's disolved in it; in general by the time something is at -20F you can assume that all biological activity is stopped. Not just slowed. Physical processes, like dehydration (freezerburn), and chemical processes, like oxidation (rancidification) can continue. I still don't understand why a specific amount of freezer time kills parasites.

From New York Health Dept: "The most common fish parasite is the anisakis round worm that causes the illness anisakiasis. Fish eaten raw, marinated or partially cooked can be made safe by being frozen in one of two way (1) Frozen and stored in a freezer at -4°F or lower for 7 days or secondly, frozen at -31°F or below until solid and stored at that temperature for 15 hours." How does this work? Especially the flash freezing that's used on sashimi-grade fish ... why wouldn't the minute size of the ice crystals that preserve the cell structure of the fish also preserve the cell structure of the creepy crawlies? I remember a kid at science fair flash freezing a goldfish and bringing it back to life. Thoughts?

I haven't used the Masterchef pans. My side by side comparisons involve a clad stainless all clad fry pan, and similar pans by calphalon (heavy, straight gauge aluminum), various heavy aluminum disk bottom pans, various 2.5mm copper pans clad with stainless, and cast iron skillets The all clad pan responds the fastest of the bunch, with the heavy copper close behind. The different flavors of heavy aluminum are far behind those, and the heavy cast iron is in last place. The all clad also seems to have the lowest thermal mass, so I have to be careful to get it screaming hot before searing any protein. I assume the all clad pan also has the least even heat distribution, but in the 10" fry pan it's more than adequate ... I've never had an issue with hot spots. All in all I love the performance of the clad 10" pan. For a larger saute pan I'm not sure this construction would be as good a choice. The question in my mind about the masterchef is how thick the aluminum is ... will the performance be closer to the clad all clad pan or the heavy (5mm+) calphalon pan?

I think around 2% are graded prime ... is that what you mean? Part of what's tough is that so much goes into the quality of meat, which makes it difficult to do a direct comparison. For example, that Montana ranch that you linked claims to wet age its beef, which is an inferior process to dry aging. If you don't like the meat, how much of the trouble is the feed and how much is the aging (or something else)? I'm tempted to go someplace like Lobel's that sells premium quality of both types and see how they are side by side. An expensive experiment!

I know this topic has come up before in different guises. From what I've read, grass fed beef tends to win in the depth and purity of flavor; grain finished beef tends to win in marbling, tenderness, and succulence. And there are hybrid approaches that fall somewhere in the middle. Is it always true that grass fed beef is leaner? Is it possible to raise beef entirely on grass and hay and develop marbling that would earn a USDA prime grade? And if so, is anyone doing this? And can I get some in NYC??

So I just took a close look at the d'artagnan recipe. I'm not so impressed by it. The only reason I can imagine you'd poach in stock made by diluting their duck demiglace is if you feel compelled to hand d'artagnan unnecessary amounts of money. A court bouillon is the traditional poaching liquid. It can be tailored to add any subtle seasoning you like. I don't know why you'd choose duck, unless you're a closeted turducken fetishist. I'm also not crazy about the two day process. I would want a hot bird going into the oven, so I'm not depending on the radiant heat warming a big bird all the way through (I don't even know how it's possible to do in 30 minutes). And I don't like the idea of a poached bird cooling at room temp for 4 hours and then being refrigerated. Most likely any colonies of bad things that form would get killed off in the oven, but the outer parts of that bird will spend a long time ... well over two hours ... in the breeding zone, and then won't be cooked at all again for another 12 hours or so. The one detail I like is basting with goose fat. I use butter, but I'll bet goose is a nice touch. My recipe is here. It includes suggestions for stuffing and a pan sauce, which can be freely interpreted. It started as George Perrier's recipe and evolved over the years as I learned more about food science and roasting.

I've never done it on separate days. Always went straight from the poach into the oven. I'm not sure why you'd want to split it up (other than to sleep in later on turkey day ...)

I've done George Perrier's method a few times and since have done several variations on it. Basically a poach in court bouillion and then roast at high temperature. It makes the best turkey I've ever had. No issues at all with the skin--my birds have been crisp, with mahogany brown coloring. I think about 90% of the cooking happens in the poaching. The high roasting just brings the meat up a few degrees, and does a killer job on browning the skin. One of the keys to this method is keeping the poach low ... ideally well below a simmer. If you just see ripples on the surface of the water, that's ideal. The other key is getting the bird out of the stockpot without dropping it back in and sending yourself and any helpers to the emergency room. I have some suggestions on this topic, including this one: don't pick up a 16lb bird by the trussing, the way Mr. Perrier tells you to.

This is my pancake essay from a similar thread. Includes a link to a more complex (but insanely delicious) recipe.

That's more than double the baking powder you need for that amount of flour. That could easily be a source of bitterness. Otherwise, that's such an unusual recipe that I can't say much helpful about it.

I've used those speckled things in a pinch, but I don't like the way enameled surface behaves for deglazing pan drippings. For one thing, they often don't stick, so they float away with the fat. But worse, when they do stick, they're camouflaged by the speckled surface, so it's hard to tell browned from burnt. And worse than that, the thin metal/dark surface captures a lot of radiant heat, so it's much more likely that your pan drippings will burn before the meat is cooked. I'm a big fan of light colored metal and heavy gauges for these reasons.

by creamy, do you mean perfectly smooth (sugar completely disolved in the butter), or did the sugar still give a grainy texture to the butter?

weight is better than volume, but these cookie recipes just don't require much precision. You can have a lot of slop with any given ingredient and still get a decent cookie. People have been making these things for decades without scales, so i doubt the problem here is measurement. Unless she flat out made a mistake and doubled something or left something out!

It's hard to say what went wrong, but it's possible that the bad batch got overmixed during the creaming stage. That often leads to flat cookies. it's also possible (but unlikely) that the flour got overmixed. And even though the recipe doesn't call for it, most cc cookies are improved by chilling for several hours before baking. especially ones like these that use all butter ... and i don't know why anyone makes cookies that don't use all butter

I'd take a closer look at the mixing method. Could you describe how you mixed, including the final consistency of any creamed butter/sugar, and the temperature of the dough before it went into the oven? Did you chill the dough at all before baking? It does look like a lot of sugar, but I don't see major problems there besides them being too sweet. The baking soda should provide plenty of leavening. It reacts with the acidic molasses in the brown sugar.

ahhh ... that explains it.

If you go this route than I think the best choices are unclad aluminum commercial pans. Many are available in the best shape (low sides) and the best color (dull metal). Like some of these. I do like the option of using the the roasting pan on the stovetop for certain kinds of browning tasks. It's a bit of a luxury but has come in handy. For this kind of thing having a conductive pan with stainless interior has been great.