paulraphael

So has anyone sucessfully stored demi ice cubes by individually wrapping in plastic and then putting a few together in small ziplock bags?

You haven't lived if you haven't tasted the *real* thing. ← I'm not a big fan of the dark irony note that browned/long cooked tomatoes get nor do I enjoy the alcoholic bite of uncooked sherry (or madeira, port, etc.). ← Me neither. At least not enough to make it a standard part of the preparation. I do what I think a lot of people do ... make a less authentic but more versatile version by leaving out the tomatoes and the fortified wine.

This is a great observation. I suspect Old School to Escoffier was the 17th and 18th century, when the chefs were in service to the kings and aristocracy, and didn't have to deal with the vulgarities of a la carte cooking, restaurants, the middle class, and budgets. Back then, naturally thickened jus (called coulis) were prepared as sauces for roasts and sautees. This was done a number of ways, but it all amounted to cooking a lot of pieces of meat in order to get enough sauce for one piece. In a sense this is what we do with stocks, but we use bones and much cheaper cuts, and long cooking and reduction in order to concentrate flavors. This is just not capable of achieving the fresh complexity of a natural jus or coulis. The simplest approach was to roast multiple pieces of meat on spits, and eventually collect enough jus to serve with the final roast. Sometimes they would squeeze all the juice out of these pieces of meat in a big iron press. Another approach was to make stock from the poaching or braising liquid from a piece of meat, and then to poach another piece of meat in that liquid. This was called a double coulis. A tripple coulis might also be prepared. I don't know what all these extra pieces of meat were used for. Given to the dogs, maybe, or the kitchen staff. At any rate, after the revolution disenfranchised the chefs from their patrons (and their patrons from their heads) the middle class was born, along with restaurants and a la carte cooking. The old ways wouldn't work with the new time and budget constraints, so chefs created time and money-saving shortcuts to simulate the favor of the grand old coulis. Careme and the chefs of his generation created these shortcuts (including the family tree of classic sauces and glaces). It's worth remembering that the extravagant preparations of haute cuisine (like double stocks made with staggering amounts of meat) were actually born as shortcuts. Escoffier's methods from a generation later no doubt simplified and economized Careme's shortcuts, just as the mid-20th century chefs simplified and economized Escoffier's, and the chefs of Nouvell cuisine simplified and economized theirs, and as our generation is currently simplifying and economizing theirs. This isn't to say that a restaurant that makes a demiglace by reducing stock made from bones and vegetable ends is doing anything wrong, but it's folly if they don't recognize their methods as a shortcut on a shortcut on a shortcut, many times over.

That makes me nobody too. I'd agree that hardly anybody makes the stock for their demis a la escoffier anymore--i wonder if even trois etoille french restaurants have the budget to use 16 pounds of meat and bones to produce a quart of demi. but that's really not my point. What I've been finding is that a lot of people make glace de viande and call it demiglace. This is just confusing because it destroys a significant distinction. The working definitions you give (demi = stock reduced to sauce consistency, etc.) are ok, because they preserve the distinction. They won't lead someone with a half-baked education to make a cup and-a-half of brown sauce with a whole cup of glace de viande.

Balducci's (R.I.P.) used to have it for a fraction the cost. And it was delicious. I haven't looked around since then (the only whole tenderloins I ever roast are the ones my mom buys over the holidays). have you tried Jefferson Market on 6th? the've become my favorite poor man's high end butcher. At any rate, thanks everyone for the feedback. The roast came out great. I cut off the silverskin and biggest chunks of fat and put it on a rack over a tray for 2 days in my mom's fridge (40 degrees). It didn't smell at all, nor did it drip. The afternoon before cooking it I trimmed and shaved the dry parts and much of the remaining fat on the outside, and tied it at up to get fairly consistent diameter. I preheated a roasting pan in a 500 degree oven, then put the pan over a hot flame on the stove and seared the meat on both sides (especially the smooth side, which i left on top). I then popped it in the oven and let it sit at 500 degrees until the middle hit 120. My mom has a remote probe thermometer, so pulling it out at the right time required not even a lick of skill or even attention. I tented the meat very loosely for about 20 minutes. in that time i deglazed the pan with white wine and added the deglazing liquid to a brown sauce that i'd previously prepared with a duxelle infused, demiglace based brown sauce. the meat ended up 135 to 140 in the middle, with a crisp, mahogany brown skin. we served it plated on top of a small pool of the sauce, so no one would be tempted to drown the meat. Overall I give the meat an A-. It was tender and juicy, but not as much as the prime tenderloin my mom bought (for double the price) last year. It also had less flavor. But it was perfectly pleasant. And I was the only one there nerdy enough to be sweating the details. I have no way of knowing what difference (if any) the makeshift dry aging made. I will say that there was more marbling in the meat than I expected. Tenderloin isn't by any means 100% lean, so it makes sense to me that prime would be better. And authentic dry aging does seem to bring out more flavor than what I was able to do with my shenanigans.

I think there's confusion between demiglace and glace de viande. Glace de viande is a 4x to 10x reduction of gelatinous beef bone stock. It's traditionally used to enrich nouvelle cuisine-style interpretations of sauces that are finished with reduced cream and/or butter. Demiglace is basically 1/2 to 2/3 reduction of a sauce espagnole (one of the original four mother sauces) and is the base for classical brown sauces. Espagnole itself is traditionally made from beef and veal-rich brown stock that is thickened with roux, enriched with pork (and often tomatoes) and reduced slightly. Modern restaurant kitchens usually make glace de viande (it's cheaper and much less labor intensive in spite of the increased reduction) but for some reason call it demiglace, so everyone gets confused. At any rate, it's more than just a semantic point, because the two are used differently, and if you indescriminately use one in a recipe calling from the other, you probably won't be happy. Ao, an ice cube of glace de viande might be similar to a cup of stock, but an ice cube of demi would not. I agree with the person who said reconstituted glace will taste flat compared with unreduced stock. Even with judicious replenishing of the bouquet garni, you're going to lose many of the aromatic elements of the meat in any extreme reduction. A classically prepared sauce with real demiglace (which few people ever have the opportunity to taste) will have much more depth and savor than a nouvelle sauce made with glace de viande. Although some prefer the more velvetty texture of the nouvelle sauce, which is thickened by cream, butter, and gelatin, with no starch. For sources, check out Escoffier's Le Guide Culinaire, Larousse Gastronomique, Peterson's Sauces, or Raymond Sokolov's Saucier's Apprentice. As far as the original question, I put mine in 1 cup quantities (demi, not viande) in ziplock bags and freeze them. I'm curious to try the ice cube trick for smaller quantities, maybe by individually wrapping the cubes in plastic and putting a few at a time in a ziplock.

I don't know the answer for sure. Has anyone tested different height pans side by side? I absolutely get better browning in a skillet than i do in my 3.5" high roasting pan. But I'd just be guessing about the differences between 2" and 2.5". The duraware pan is definitely intriguing. but I don't know what to expect from 14ga aluminum on the stove.

there are a whole lot of similar options here: http://www.bigtray.com/productlist.asp?catid=16340&tr=bc and a nice high end one here: http://www.chefsresource.com/viking-3-func...-chefs-pan.html

So has anyone tried to deglaze a regular half sheet baking pan? Like an aluminum one, or aluminized steel? It sounds like something they'd tell you not to do, but it also seems like you could do it without harming anything if you were careful. Thoughts?

That kind of thing would be nice. The price of copper puts it out of my reach right now, but I think I'll do a search for other gratin and lasagna pans ... there might be some gems out there that i've been missing.

I just don't like to use racks. It's one more thing to clean, and I find it harder to keep pan juices from burning when I use one. If someone made a nice clad stainless/aluminum roasting pan in the basic shape of a pyrex lasagna pan, with solid handles, I'd snap it up in a heartbeat. I'd get two, in large and medium sizes. For small stuff I use skillets.

Admin: Threads merged. I have a roasting pan made out off clad aluminum/stainless steel by kitchenaid. it's quite beautiful, but the sides are 3-1/2 inches high and interfere with air circulation and browning. I'd love a similar pan that cooks as well (especially on the stovetop for making pan sauces) that has much lower sides. I think between one and two inches would be perfect. Does anyone make such a thing? I'm fond of stainless steel surfaces, for ease of deglazing and cleaning, and enough conductivity to work on the stove without major hot spots. In a pinch I'm wondering if I could get away with a heavy baking half-sheet. I have some chicago metallic aluminized steel jelly roll pans that i've roasted veggies on. I've always assumed you couldn't put these on the stove, but now i'm wondering why not? I'm sure they'd get vicious hot spots, but if i'm stirring fast the whole time, would I cause any damage?

doesn't residual heat continue to cook it quite a bit after you pull it out? I like a final temp of 135 or so, so I take it out of the oven when the internal temp is 118 to 120 degrees. I tent it very loosely with foil (to retain some radiant heat, but not all the steam). I just made a delicious tenderloin for xmas, and did it a bit differently than i had in the past. I preheated the oven to 500, with the roasting pan in the oven. While the meat warmed to room temp, i salted and peppered it and brushed it with clarified butter. When the oven (and pan) were preheated, I put the pan on the stove, with the fire turned up, and browned the tenderloin on the smooth side. then I flipped it over, and popped the pan in the oven. In just over fifteen minutes, the meat was a crisp mahogany brown on the outside, and 120 degrees on the inside. After 20 minutes rest (plenty of time to deglaze and finish the sauce) the internal temp was 135. Fast, easy, and perfect. Much more nicely browned than I was ever able to get from just the oven.

i'm hoping someone answers with something better than this, but here's how i do it: cut the meat into fairly small, serving size pieces, and microwave, briefly. if it's a powerful microwave, use a low power setting. covering with a paper towel can help retain a bit of steam heat. and don't go for hot! hot will mean it's more cooked than rare. just warm it, and serve immediately.

I used to work at a homemade ice cream store, where we took our vanilla pretty seriously. We made it in quantities that were too large to make using the beans practical, but we used expensive, single origin extracts. We had been told that vanilla lovers usually prefer mexican vanilla. but in side by side taste tests of the ice cream, the owner and I consistently liked the big, round flavor of the madagascar vanilla better. The tahitian vanilla was at the bottom of our list. I don't know if you can generalize anything about this (we were only tasting ice cream, and only comparing a handful of diifferent extracts) but i thought it was interesting.

I'm not sure where anyone's getting the idea that prime doesn't make a difference with tenderloin. or that it's never dry aged. Prime, dry aged tenderloin and cut fillets are pretty widely available in new york city, and are a lot better (flavor and texture) than the choice variety from the supermarket, including the 'certified angus' brand. I can't comment on the science, but I can say from experience that the difference is not subtle.

sure, that's why i usually save up for the prime dry-aged stuff with this kind of cut. it finesses more flavor out of the meat. it's still a pretty delicate flavor compared with a strip steak, but it's delicious. and i admit that i'm a sucker for melt-in-your mouth beef. i usually make some kind of sauce (lightly bound or unbound) to focus the flavors a bit. i'm making some variation on a sauce chasseur this time. i like the way shallots and mushrooms can bring gentle beef flavors into focus without overwhelming them. thanks for all the tips, everyone. i'll report back with results. have a great holiday!

Hi, I'm not talking about true dry aging (for weeks) ... just a day or two outside the cryovac before cooking. Any thoughts on this? good idea? bad?

My mom asked me to cook the dinner on Christmas, and she went out and bought a 6 lb beef tenderloin ... at costco. I've been spoiled by prime dry aged meat in new york, and so I'm not completely confident in my abilities to make this cryovac monster taste delicious. I'm intrigued by some of the information on the home dry-aging thread, and wonder if anyone has suggestions on how to proceed with this piece of meat. There's only one fridge, and my mom has given me permission to stink it up with uncovered beef for at most a couple of days. I'm also interested in some of the debate on los-and-slow vs. high heat cooking. I have always roasted hot and fast, and gotten wonderful results. My last tenderloin was done at 500 degrees all the way through, cooked to 120 degrees on the inside and mahogany brown on the outside. It was delicious, but was also a much nicer piece of meat. If anyone thinks another method would do better with this thing, I'm open to suggestions.

K8memphis, you have to be really careful about what you read in diet books. The title "Doctor" seems to have no connection to the veracity of the information. Medical schools do not teach nutrition, and they do not teach people how to do research. Any information that isn't backed by a study that's been published in a peer reviewed journal is about as compelling as heresay. Notable authors who made careers out of citing unpublished studies include Dr. Atkins and Bary Sears (the guy behind "The Zone"). The real journals are full of studies contradicting almost everything these two ever said. But it didn't stop them from selling boxcars worth of diet books. Do yourself a favor and look for real studies on the subject. You might even find some reviews of this particular doctor's claims.

Yes, I know other things can lead to heart disease. Almost anything out of balance can be unhealthy. The question is, is there room for ingredient X in a healthy, balanced diet? There's certainly room for saturated fats and refined sugar, in moderation. Trans fats on the other hand appear to be more harmful in smaller quantities than other nutrients. Your point about it being a matter of opinion which ingredients are necessary raises an interesting question ... it makes me wonder what a chef might need trans fats for. Besides just doing things the way they're used to doing them. I understand why industry likes them for preservation of texture in processed foods, but I honestly wonder what couldn't be done as well or better without them in a restaurant kitchen. This is culinary question, not a regulatory one.

I would love to see someone do high and low heat method side by side, with the other variables kept the same. Which would mean starting the low heat one a lot earlier, so you eat them at the same time. My inclination is always for more fire: I love the crisp skin and the deep roasted flavors that only come from a healthy dose of the maillard reaction, which won't even occur below 300 degrees. In the last week I roasted cornish hen and pork tenderloin at 550 degrees, and chicken at 500. All came out tender, juicy, and with a crisp, mahogony brown finish with deep, complex roasted flavors. I have no doubt that I'd like the browned crust of the high temperature roast more; what would be interesting to compare is the meat on the inside. I'd expect to see more of a gradient from well done to extremely rare in the high temp version, and I'd also expect it to retain more moisture overall. but i have no sense of which would produce more tender or flavorful meat in the middle. Then there are the 2 temperature methods people mention. If it's a tossup between high and low, maybe the dual approach would give the best off both worlds.

I've rolled my eyes at just about every food fad/demonization that's come along. I always check the supporting evidence, and am always amazed to find next to nothing. Your anti-sugar kick, for example. I've been looking for support for all those claims for years. haven't found any, except concerning people who are diabetic or tend towards unstable blood sugar. Which isn't to say it's healthy to eat with impunity, but that there's a place for it in a balanced diet. Trans fats, on the other hand, are the one ingredient I've seen completely compelling evidence against. What also sets them apart is that they're unecessary. The artificial variety exists purely for the convenience of food manufacturers. I won't miss them. There are many bigger problems in the world, but few that are so easy to fix. I have great respect for all the counter arguments based on limiting the reach of the government. The world would be a scary place without them.

So would I. In general I'm against unecessary regulation, and so I'm one of the nuts who thinks most of the drug laws cause much worse problems than they solve (witness little episodes in history like prohibition ...) I see the trans fat issue as different, and in fact somewhat unique. They're insidious, because they're invisible, abstract (difficult to explain to anyone lacking education and a specific interest in them), and arguably unecessary (they seem to be replaceable with very little trouble, at least in the restaurant setting. The food processing industry might have a harder time, but I suspect they'll discover they have the resources). In the end, I see many potential benefits to doing away with them, and precious little harm. It wouldn't surprise me if the two regulatory steps that have already been taken--the federal labelling mandate on packaged food, and the restaurant ban in NYC--is all that it will take to turn the whole food industry around, at least in this country. We may not even need any more local or state regulation after this.

It's not MY position and it's not hypocritical. I'm not professing a belief that I don't abide by, so I don't see any hypocisy. Philosophically, I'd agree with you that labelling is preferable solution to banning. But it's not something I'm going to complain about, because I think we'll all benefit from a trans fat ban. Manufacturers are going to work faster to make trans fat-free substitutes (like Crisco already has with its fully hydrogenated shortening ... it wasn't even hard to do) and so there won't even be much price to pay. The slippery slope warning is well taken, but it's used as a defense against any and all regulation. I don't really see us teetering on the edge of a regulatory abyss just yet. One city is doing an experiement. Future regulation (or lack of it) will likely be based on how it works out. Practically speaking, there's one benefit to the ban that hasn't been brought up: kids, who don't pay attention to labels, and who eat an inordinate amount of chips and fried crap no matter what anyone tells them. This is a way to make their junk food habits a little less toxic, and they won't even notice.