paulraphael

99% agree, except the type of oil will effect your process. I think you'll find that with a mostly unsaturated oil, you'll get where your going in fewer layers than with bacon fat. The result probably won't be any different, you'll just be saving time.

The pan won't season properly from cooking bacon properly. You need to get the pan past the fat's smoke point. This would mean wiping the pan after cooking the bacon, and putting it in a hot oven, or on a very high flame. The "greasy" quality of the oil isn't relevant. There's no greasiness to a seasoned pan. It needs to be partially carbonized, fully polymerized oil. If the pan's greasy, it's just not clean. Bacon fat works, but being high in saturated fats it will be less efficient than the unsaturated options, meaning it will take more coats to get a durable seasoning. And being a very unrefined fat, the smoke point is relatively low, which means you'll have to season at a lower temperature, and possibly have a less durability than with a more refined oil.

The theoretical differences between these oils are real. But I think it's unlikely that in practice you'll tell the difference between anything high in mono- and poly-unsaturated oils. Grapeseed, safflower, sunflower, and canola all work very well. Flaxseed should theoretically work at least as well, but it's not a standard kitchen oil. Animal fats like bacon will work less well. Oils that are more unsaturated will just get the job done faster, because you can get away with fewer coats (each coat should be as thin as you can make it; otherwise it's easy to get an uneven finish that chips off). If you use whatever high-heat, unsaturated oil you normally use for sauteeing, you'll be fine. I pay most attention to it being a refined oil with a high smoke point, because this is most useful for sauteeing anyway. To make the seasoning stick-restant, it needs to be heated past the smoke point. It's the carbonized particles within the polymer that are slippery. But you don't want to go too far. Beyond 700°F or so, you'll break down the polymer to gray ash and it will just flake off. As if you'd put it in a self-cleaning oven. Take a look at a grill pan that's been used on a restaurant's 20,000+ btu/hr burner. There won't be any seasoning. I like to season / reseason pans in an oven set to the oil's labelled smoke point plus 25°F. I use safflower oil, and it usually takes around 5 thin coats. Not counting preheating this takes half an hour or so.

In Dave Arnold's Liquid Intelligence, he talks about nitro-muddling and blender muddling to defeat PPOs (polyphenol oxidases, the enzymes that brown fresh herbs and make them taste like a swamp). In this case, nitro means liquid nitrogen, so the blender method is in reach of more people. In nitro muddling, you freeze the herbs with LN2, pulverize them to dust with a muddler, and then thaw by pouring alcohol over them. Ideally the alcohol should be over 40% ABV and should have some citric acid (maybe just some lemon juice) added. The alcohol and acid will infuse into the tiny herb particles so quickly as they thaw that the PPOs will be inactivated before they can do anything. Blender muddling just means blitzing the herbs into the booze / acid in a high speed blender and immediately straining out. It works by the same method, although is maybe 10% less effective by Arnold's estimation. But still really good. I'm working on the problem of mint infusion into ice cream, which is compounded because I don't want to use alcohol. I may experiment with blending into citric acid-spiked sugar syrup.

Me too. I've rarely met a vegan Indian dish I didn't like. My luck's been much worse with California-style vegan restaurants and cookbooks, where it sometimes seems the chefs don't have any roots in food that tastes good.

A Dremel would be much better than a bolster. The bolster makes a knife impossible to sharpen properly. I don't understand why they continue to exist in knifeland.

You really can't compare teflon to seasoned steel and iron. They excel at different things. If you think the steel / iron pans are as nonstick as teflon, then your teflon is completely wrecked. I'd agree that steel / iron pans are much more useful. Teflon pans are great for eggs, middling to terrible for most other things, and essentially disposable.

Well, sure, that's a one-trick pony by design. No one tries to sell it as a chef's knife.

For anything requiring precision and a sharp knife, nothing I've used can touch a Japanese Wa handle. For heavier tasks that need a duller, sturdier chef's knife, I prefer a plain old Western handle. The exact handle size and style is unimportant. Two factors that matter: a rounded spine on the knife (so you don't get blisters) and no bolster. Traditional bolsters are stupid. They making proper sharpening impossible. My heavy German knife, which I like in other respects, had a big dumb bolster. I had Dave Martell Grind it down to get it out of the way. If I were buying a heavy knife now, I'd get a Messermeister or any lower-priced Japanese yo-deba (western handled, heavy chef's knives made for abuse). All these innovative handles look to me like they were created by marketing departments, or by inventors who don't really understand they're making one-trick ponies.

Cold brew seems to be a popular method for coffee ice cream, but I'm not so interested in it because it actually de-emphasizes the origin character of the beans. You extract fewer of the acids and aromatics than when hot brewing. I think this is why it's popular with casual coffee drinkers ... if the coffee beans aren't great quality, you can still get a satisfying cup out of them. But if the coffee beans are awesome, you lose a lot of what makes them so. The sugar and dairy tend to mute those acids and aromatics, so I think you'd risk getting coffee flavor that's all low notes. A final issue is that you get less extraction overall than you do from hot brewing, so to get equivalent strength you have to use more coffee. I'm already putting about $6 worth of coffee into a quart of ice cream ... it would be nice to not spend even more.

Interesting article at Serious Eats on the flavors of different garlic prep techniques. It's all based on one guy's non-blind tasting, so far from definitive, but worth a read.

I'd imagine "low" means speed 2, which is the only speed that KA recommends for bread. On 1 the motor doesn't get enough air flow and is danger of overheating. I don't know if the MC crew define their speeds. I think most people think of 4 to 6 as "medium." If you've got really soupy high-hydration dough I can imagine this working ... if for some reason you really need to beat the crap out of it. With firmer dough this seems pretty dicey to me. KA's top-end machines aren't really what bakers think of as commercial mixers, even though plenty of them get used commercially for smaller stuff. The one labelled "commercial" is distinguished by a few tweaks that make it easier to clean, so it gets an NSF approval. All the real commercial mixers (Hobart, Globe, etc.) change speeds through changeable gears, so they have monstrous torque in low speed, with no sacrifice of cooling power. But it's still not terribly hard to break them!

Kitchenaid's guidelines are not very useful for bread. They don't take into account hydration or degree of gluten development you're going for. You really just have to pay attention to the machine. Watch it, listen to it, keep a hand near the vent to feel how warm the exhaust air is, smell it. Don't wait for the motor to labor, or for the smell of sizzling hot motor windings. The only problem with the higher speeds is that when the mixer gets overwhelmed, it happens much more quickly. You'll have less time to react. You'll be more likely to break a gear than to just overheat the thing. But as long as it the mixer isn't showing signs of struggle it's probably fine. It's telling that actual commercial mixer companies like Hobart give more precise—and conservative—capacity recommendations.

Really? Has any researched actually linked aluminum to anything? I haven't seen any new evidence. If aluminum were a problem, then spinach and other leafy greens would be be a bigger problem than cookware. Unless you make acidic sauces in uncoated aluminum. Which would taste bad.

I can imagine that with some very lean, delicate proteins there could be an advantage to defrosting before cooking. At least with larger portions. Not because the speed of defrosting makes a difference, but because defrosting and cooking in one step will necessarily lead to the outer portions staying at cooking temperature longer than if you started thawed (the outside will defrost quickly; the insides much more slowly as they're getting heated by conduction). This could lead to the outsides being a bit drier. But I haven't tested this. It's possible that other people have and found no problems.

Very much so. In that evaluating taste requires more scientific rigor than most other senses. Scientific methods are designed to eliminate the influence of bias. Bias (expectations, associations, moods, habits) play a huge role in taste. Scientific methods also work against experimental bias (biases toward one result or another that are inadvertently built into the experiment), unrelated variables, and chance. It's not so uncommon today, when one chef says to another "X method tastes better than Y method," to ask, "did you do a blind triangle test?" 10 years ago no one would have known what that meant. Soon it's going to be Triangle-Or-It-Didn't-Happen.

There's a link at the end of the first post in this thread. The blog series includes a few recipes, mostly to illustrate the many pages of theory. My hope is that people can use the recipes as jumping-off points. You should be able to use the ideas to tweak a recipe in whatever direction you like.

There are many ways to get a creamy mouthfeel and freedom from ice crystals that don't require a 100% cream base, or even a 50% cream base. Milk fat is actually less effective at suppressing ice crystals than milk solids, and neither can compete with hydrocolloids, which work their magic in minute quantities. When you're no longer dependent on the cream for texture, you have the freedom use it purely for its effect on flavor. Some flavors work better with high fats than others. A high-fat vanilla or caramel flavor works well. Fruit flavors (in my opinion) lose some of their mojo unless the fat level comes down. High milk fat chocolate ice cream is just lousy. And for coffee ... it really depends on if you want a latte or a macchiato. I've never had a latte in my life and don't plan on it. I'm more biassed than many people against high milk fat ice creams. For me 15% or 16% is a nice point for flavors that play well with fat. I find 18% fat cloying, and 30% gross.

I'd suggest that the 100% cream and the coffee are fighting each other. Milk fat mutes coffee flavor, softening any brightness and slowing its release. To get all the flavor I was looking for, I started with my typical 15% milk fat and ended up backing down all the way to 10%. The creamy body comes from lots of milk solids, which don't mute the flavors anywhere near as much as fat. I'd also suggest that with proper extraction, you get so much natural caramel flavor out of most coffee beans that you'd only want to add actual caramel if you were going for something along the lines of caramel latte.

There's never just one right answer, but I found it surprisingly challenging to answer a more specific question: how can I get the full, thee-dimensional flavor profile of a single-origin coffee into ice cream? How can I get the kinds of intense flavor sensations I get from a one-in-a-hundred, brilliant espresso shot from a master barista? This is something I'd never experienced before.

That's true, unless you're using the raw processing software made by your camera maker. This will usually import your camera style settings. In general I think it's a poor tradeoff; camera companies usually write lousy software, and insist on keeping your files in proprietary formats that could cause problems down the road. The exception being PhaseOne, but if you have one of their cameras you don't need my advice on anything. I'd suggest that using camera styles is a shortcut, similar to shooting in jpeg. It's designed to speed your workflow, but isn't relevant if you're going for the best image quality. Using styles (or jpeg) is about trying to do your processing in-camera, using the built-in, small, not very good screen to make your judgements. Raw workflows are generally about capturing as much high-quality information as possible, and fine-tuning the color balance and density curves when you're in front of a good monitor. Nevertheless, I find that my default Lightroom settings are good enough for posting casual images online much of the time, without any tweaking.

If you shoot raw format, it should be easy to get good color balance from any light source. The only thing that will cause problems is mixed lighting—like, light coming from the window on the left and an incandescent bulb on the right, or incandescent bulbs with different color temperatures, or worst of all, an old-fashioned fluorescent tube somewhere in the mix. There are other reasons you should be shooting raw if you're at all serious about picture quality.

I've made several versions now with different coffees. It's striking how the origin quality of the coffee comes through the ice cream. Right now there's a batch in the freezer made with Stumptown Ethiopia Duromina, and one made with Long Miles Coffee Burundi Gishubi natural process, roasted by my friend at a local coffee shop. The difference is night and day. The first is like cocoa, caramel, and blood oranges. The second is like blackberries, blackberries, and more blackberries. I stopped by the shop last week for a quick espresso, and they pulled me one of the best shots I'd had in my life. It was the blackberry-bomb from Burundi. The owner happened to walk in, I told him how much ass the espresso kicked, and he said, "come back tonight, the producer is giving a talk." I came back with a pint of Ethiopian Stumptown ice cream. The shop owner and the guy from Long Miles flipped out that they could really taste the coffee. The Long Miles guy ate the whole thing. They gave me 100g of the Burundian natural process, which went into the next batch. Next experiment will probably something from Indonesia, just for something entirely different. This project is turning me into a coffee nut.

Fairway probably upgraded the oil quality. Bitterness is a desirable trait among the olive oil cognoscenti. If you want mild, are you sure olive oil is even the best choice? There are oils for cooking that won't add any flavor, and that come with other advantages. If you want olive oil flavor, you can add a bit of good olive oil after cooking. The truth is, virtually none of the inexpensive oil sold as extra virgin is extra virgin. Much of it isn't even olive oil. Some of it doesn't even contain olive oil. The industry is dominated by fraud at the distribution level, and the public just blindly believes that every bottle on the shelf can be extra virgin and can cost under $15. EVOO should be an exceptional oil, not the norm. It should be fairly expensive, and it should be used raw. There is never a reason to cook with actual EVOO. You're paying a premium for oil that tastes good because it wasn't exposed to heat! When I've needed a cheap, mild olive oil, I've had good luck with Whole Foods 365 store brand. It's labelled EVOO, which is almost certainly a lie. But it's inoffensive and affordable. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/08/olive-oil-fake-larry-olmsted-food-fraud-usda/ https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/08/13/slippery-business https://www.oliveoiltimes.com/tag/olive-oil-fraud?page=6

I doubt many people get sick. It would take a lot of negligence and not a lot of ventilation. But this is the best explanation I've found for why nonstick pans eventually stick.