paulraphael

Ok, you guys talked me out of it.

Interesting. Where could I find more info about this? I don't believe Reinhart mentions yeast side products.

All the delayed fermentation techniques (retarding dough, preferments, etc.) seem to be about giving the enzymes time to develop flavors before the yeast finishes fermenting. So is there any reason at all to add the yeast before the dough ages? One kind of preferment is called a soaker; it's just flour and water set aside to age before being incorporated with the yeast and the rest of the dough. Why can't the whole recipe be a soaker? You could do it like this: roughly mix up the flour, water, and salt, and let it sit for as long as you want. A day. A week. Whatever you can get away with before any bad creepy crawlies have their way with it. Then mix in the yeast and work it until you have adequate gluten development. At this point you should be able to proof at high temperatures and get it over with in a hurry, because you're not waiting for the enzymes to break down the starch. They've already had plenty of time. I'm not sure what the best way would be to incorporate yeast into dough that's already partially formed. One possibility would be to make the initial mixture with just 80% of the dough's water. The yeast could be disolved in the remaining water and mixed in. The advantage over regular delayed fermentation (like Reinhart's Pain a L'ancienne or the 5-minute method or the no-kneed method) would be that you're not forced to precisely manage the time and temperature of the dough. There's no race between the enzymes and the yeast. Is this already a known method? Or a method known to not work? Thoughts?

I'm just talking general principle. Sanding produces very fine dust, which is universally bad to inhale. Teflon is inert so it would probably be the least of your concerns, but who knows what adhesives and bonding agents might be between the teflon and the pan. And the aluminum itself might not be the best thing to breathe.

Has anyone compared the results of this method to Peter Reinhart's pain a l'ancienne method? They have a lot in common, though the 5-minute method (ironically) ages the dough even longer. I'm curious to know if this leads to any noticeable improvements in flavor or texture.

Thanks for that clarification alana. I make tons of sucree as well, and the mixer is fine for that. ← I've noticed people use pate sucrée to mean different things. Sometimes they mean a pate brisée that's sweetened (in which case Chef Peon's advice applies). Other times they mean a sugar cookie-like dough that's thoroughly mixed (which I think is what alanamoana means).

I like it for certain thick purees because it's easier to get them through the food mill than through a strainer. It's also good for anything that you don't want to beat up with a machine (potatoes, etc.). But I don't use it as much as I'd hoped. If it hadn't been for a W.S. gift certificate, I probably wouldn't have gotten it. It's a cuisipro, and it's excellent.

What's your prefered method for mixing dough for tart shells or pie crusts? For crumbly pate brisée/sucrée type dough, or pies, I like the food processor. Cuts fat into the flour beautifully and works so fast that nothing has a chance to get warm. And I know hand mixing works well if you know what you're doing. How well does a stand mixer work for this kind of dough? It's it's a good option, are there any special techniques? I've never tried it. Seems like a good idea if it works, since the machine is easier to clean.

I know a lot of people who use the 600 for small jobs without trouble. It may have trouble with a really small job, like whipping a single egg white (something I'd probably do with a hand mixer anyway). For something this small, before getting the $70 small bowl, I'd try the new 11-tine whisk attachment. Supposedly it whips more efficiently, and reaches better into the bottome of the bowl. It's more like a classic balloon whisk (and is similar to the newer hobart whips). They're around $30. And they can replace the old whisk for every kind of job.

Very true, though if anyone's tempted to sand the surface to turn a wrecked nonstick pan into a plain metal one, you should wear a dust mask. No telling what's going to be in the dust, so you should probably avoid breathing it.

I think that's how it is everywhere. And I always thought it was strange that it refered to both. Do the pancreas and the thymus have anything in common? And if they're different, do people specifically look for one or the other?

It would be just like an unanodized pan, like the cheap ones used in most restaurants. Useful for everything but very acidic ingredients.

Seems there's an opposite trend in England: added service, large print at the top of the bill, and no charge whatsoever: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...ire/7253002.stm

Thanks, Devlin. Anyone have tips on how to find auctions and liquidators in NYC? It's been a while since I've shopped seriously for anything on the Bowery. Not sure if that's still a place to go for bargains.

I consider cast iron pans to be pretty specialized. They have high heat capacity and low conductivity, so they respond very, very slowly to changes in heat. This makes them great for some things (browning, blackening), and borderline useless for other things (any time you need control). The surface is also great for some things, borderline useless for others. Copper is indeed great, but completely different. It's the responsiveness champion of cookware materials. It makes sense to have both, but not to substitute iron for copper (or vice versa). Restaurant pans come at diffferent price points. The low end are typically unfinished heavy aluminum (lincoln, volrath, generic). They work well and have a good blend of heat capacity and responsiveness, but the aluminum surface isn't the best. It's actually probematic with more acidic ingredients. The midrange and higher end pans are typically stainless with an aluminum disk bottom (Sitram, etc.). They work well also, and have an ideal cooking surface. They tend to have a seriously heavy bottom, which emphasizes heat capacity over responsiveness. This is good for some things but less so for others. In many cases the disk doesn't go all the way to the edge of the pan; if you're not careful with the position over the flame, you can burn food around the edges. These pans seem to cost about the same as Allclad. The AC pans are thinner; they emphasize responsiveness over heat capacity. Personally, I like this more responsive design for things like a 10" fry pan. The disk-bottom pans might be better for a large sauté pan or a stockpot. There are also some higher end restaurant pans (Bourgeat, Demmiere, etc.). These have a range of constructions and cooking qualities, and all cost considerably more than AC.

If you're on a budget, there are plenty of used Hamilton Beach commercial bar mixers out there. They can be had for cheap, and are serious workhorses. I bought my first one after destroying three k-mart level blenders in one month. It had been replaced by a restaurant, presumed worn out, and left for consignment at a restaurant supply store for about $40. It lasted me 16 years. When the bearings finally died (and they were on the verge of death when I bought the thing) I found a newer, more powerful motorbase on ebay for $7. I think this one will outlast me. I have a small (about 1.5 quart) stainless carafe and a large (about 2.5 quart) glass carafe. The motor is heavy duty enough to run continuously while blending heavy mixtures without getting hot. Only complaint is that it struggles to move stiff mixtures through the blades. Things like puréed celeriac and pesto and harissa often have to be thinned more than I'd like to get them moving. Maybe high end blenders like the Vita Mix are better in this regard. But as far as power and durability, I can't imagine needing anything more.

Every year or so I consider getting a stand mixer, and start researching choices. It seems like just a couple of years ago, you could find a used Hobart N50 on ebay for less than the new price of a top-of-the line Kitchenaid. Not anymore. The cheapest I see see them now is over $600, even for one that's taken a beating. While I'm open to the idea of KA pro 600 refurb (around $240, when they're available), they seem like a pretty ratty design compared with the hobarts. The whole idea of electronic speed control instead of shiftable gears is an unfortunate compromise. And I think it's telling that the KA sounds like a chainsaw while the Hobart barely whispers. I'm wondering if there are any lesser known commercial brands worth checking out. I'd be looking at the 5 to 7 quart range. Flipping through restaurant supply websites, I see many different brands that seem to undersell Hobart, but reviews and details are hard to come by. Thoughts?

I checked them out at the store. They look nice; the rectangular ones I was shopping for were a lighter gauge metal the the similar Magic Line pans (which cost a bit more). I went with magic line, but might consider the Dadio's if I had to buy a ton of pans and needed to save money.

stock, glace, soup!

I find the bakers percentage system really useful for understanding recipes. In some that I've developed, I've used the nontraditional approach of using things besides flour as the 100% ingredient. Usually chocolate. In something like a flourless chocolate cake, a mousse, or even brownies, chocolate makes the most sense to me, and I've used it in my recipes. I've gone to the trouble of converting other recipes to this system, so i can compare them and see what's going on.

Well, when you make a roux thickened brown sauce, typically fat rises to the surface along with white scum (which includes, among other things, milk proteins). The only way the fat can get dispersed in the liquid is if it gets emulsified. Maybe if you're making something like a gumbo, with things like file powder or okra, they can serve as emulsifiers and bind the fat into the liquid. With sauces like bechamel the milk or cream is an emulsion and can bind smoothly with the butterfat. But with a brown sauce, it typically only happens if the stock is allowed to boil, in which case the fat can be broken up into tiny globules and stay bound up in the liquid, along with small protein particles. The result isn't richness ... it's a muddy, cloudy, greasy stock. So it's customary to bring roux thickened brown sauce to a very light simmer, and to skim them constantly to remove the scum and the fat from the top. One reason that non-roux brown sauces (made from reduced bone stock) have become popular in restaurants is that they need much less skimming while they simmer away.

Yeah, I don't think I'd want to use arrowroot get anything as thick as a traditional gravy. It would be kind of strange (gelatinous in the way cathrynapple describes). I like it to add just a bit of thickness, to get a brothy sauce to cling to the food. Or else in conjunction with a non-starch thickener, like the gelatin in a moderately reduced stock.

They will give different appearances and different consistencies. Brown roux adds toasted flavors, depending on how much you brown the flour (the thickening power of the flour declines the more it browns). Blonde roux doesn't have any significant flavor. Roux is a lot more time consuming to use, because fat needs to be rendered out and skimmed. But it's a more stable thickener; high heat will break down the corn starch much faster than the flour starch. You can also add flour at the end (beurre manié) by kneading flour into an equal weigh of butter and stirring it in right before serving. This is fast, but the mixture can't be cooked after it's added (flour is flavorless when it's raw and when it has all the cereal flavors cooked out of it; but when it's cooked a little, it tastes bad) Arrowroot is another option; I use it more than the other starches. Flavorless, works in small quantities, can be added at the end, and is more temperature stable than corn starch. Will give a slightly different texture/appearance than other starches. Just don't use too much ... it can get a little too glossy and slick.

MyWeigh sent me an ibalance 5500, which will probably be the foundation of the baking percentage scale. It's pretty close to ideal for a serious kitchen scale. -5.5kg capacity -0.1g resolution -simple interface -easy to clean -professional quality components It also fixes my major gripe with the i5000: the auto-off feature can be disabled. I have two minor gripes: -the bubble level built into this particular scale is completely wrong. But it doesn't seem to matter ... the scale has been accurate on every surface I've tried. -the display backlight actually makes the display harder to read (in some cases impossible), depending on viewing angle. But it doesn't matter much, because the backlight can be disabled. This scale is otherwise perfect for anyone who has the budget ($180 to $200) and who doesn't need higher capacity. It's great to be able measure all ingredients by weight, right down to salt and leavening.

I had ok results with the oxygen bleach. Got much of the coffee smell out, but not all. worked GREAT for de-stinking sponges, though. And everyone, please be wary of using newspaper on any food surface. Newspaper ink isn't the toxic soup that it used to be, but it still transfers easily, contains any number of organic compounds that weren't meant to be eaten, and there's no telling what kinds of oils and toxic metal dust can be picked up from running through an industrial press.