paulraphael

Makes me feel better about the $18 vinegar.

I just discovered Despaña in NYC, which is the motherlode of mind-blowing sherry vinegars. I visited the brick and mortar shop but they sell everything online. Get a bottle of the Montegrato Pedro Ximénez vinegar, and curse me later for your new addiction. I've been drinking it straight, and have just formulated an ice cream recipe from it. They also have a whole lot of Iberico and Serrano hams at startling prices that are probably worth it.

Well, "modernist cuisine" is a made-up name that covers all kinds of things, and I'd argue it's a lousy description for most of them. Many people would consider SV a modernist technique no matter what you're doing with it. Here are the origins, according to the Oracle of Wikipedia: The method was first described by Sir Benjamin Thompson, Count Rumford in 1799 (although he used air as the heat transfer medium).[2][3] It was re-discovered by American and French engineers in the mid-1960s and developed into an industrial food preservation method.[4] The method was adopted by Georges Pralus in 1974 for the Restaurant Troisgros (of Pierre and Michel Troisgros) in Roanne, France. He discovered that when foie gras was cooked in this manner, it kept its original appearance, did not lose excess amounts of fat, and had better texture.[4] Another pioneer in sous-vide is Bruno Goussault, who further researched the effects of temperature on various foods and became well known for training top chefs in the method. As chief scientist of Alexandria, Virginia-based food manufacturer Cuisine Solutions, Goussault developed the parameters of cooking times and temperatures for various foods.[4] I wonder if the industrial food preservation method from the 60s is boil-in-bag. The Modernist Cuisine books don't make a claim about the first restaurant use, but offer this as a conspicuous early story: On a September evening in 1985, a privileged group of diners sat down to enjoy the cuisine of Joel Robuchon, a legendary French chef whose Jamin restaurant in Paris had earned three Michelin stars and a reputation as one of the best in the world. It was in many respects a typical Thursday dinner scene, with business executives and politicians on expense accounts settling into plush leather chairs before tables set with the very best linens, china, and silver. Michel Cliche, Chef Robuchon's trusted aide of many years, was overseeing the cooking and presentation to ensure that the food met Robuchon's renowned standards. It did not disappoint, and as the guests ate they were also treated to a remarkable accompaniment to their meal: a view of the French countryside whizzing by in a blur. For this evening they were dining not in Jam in but in the Nouvelle Premiere car of an eastbound bullet train streaking from Paris to Strasbourg. Even more amazing, the entire meal had been cooked days before in an experimental kitchen in the depths of the Gare de l'Est train station. Mr. Cliche had been able to reheat the food in the cramped galley of the dining car without diminishing its quality.

There's a lively discussion about the Tongs Embargo back in the archives. The former TFL cook made one good point in Keller's defense: they didn't serve anything that you'd need tongs for. They didn't even make any brown stocks that would require turning bones in a roasting pan. It was all fish spats, palette knives, fingers, tweezers.

Also, the OP asked about hydrocolloids, presumably to stabilize hollandaise. This seams like a no-brainer of an idea, but I haven't heard of anyone having good luck with it. I've added a bit of xanthan and couldn't discern any difference. So I looked through the literature, and found no recommendations for doing it, and one scientific paper that strongly recommends against it. It seems that chefs who stabilize just about everything else agree with the scientists. The only counter example I've found is a derivative technique on the Ideas in Food site. It's more of spheriphication technique than a stabilizing one.

The siphon is nice if you have a lot of stuff going on, want to do the hollandaise well in advance, and don't want to worry about it at all. But more importantly, it's going to give a different texture. You get a lighter-than-air pillow of hollandaise that you can't get any other way. If you want a more traditional consistency, I don't know if the siphon will work. Traditional methods (whisk or blender) probably make more sense. Another question is cooking methods. A lot of people who whip the hollandaise in a siphon cook it sous-vide. I've only done this once, but see the advantages as far as perfect control over thickness, perfect cooking, and indefinite holding.

Masamoto. http://korin.com/HMA-AHYA-270?sc=27&category=280030

There have been people on egullet over the years who have worked in Keller's kitchens. Can anyone remember who they are? They should be able to solve this riddle. I remember one of them mentioning that Keller had them measure out mirepoix to the gram. And how tongs were forbidden.

McGee's talking about mayonnaise, which is a little easier than hollandaise, because milk fat is trickier to hold in an emulsion (after it's de-homogenized) than liquid oils. You might be able to make a hollandaise with a minute amount of yolk. But it would likely be even less stable than a normal version, which isn't all that stable. It's correct that you'd need to add proportionally more water if you're using proportionally less yolk. There needs to be something to emulsify the butter fat into. And fixing a hollandaise emulsion that's broken is harder than making one in the first place.

Re: the intended audience ... it's unclear, but it seems that they're putting in enough pure chemistry content to make the course worthy of chemistry credits. I've just crept along to week 3 so far, but it seems more like they're using cooking as a framework for explaining chemistry ideas rather than emphasizing application. Which unfortunately makes poor use the many impressive chefs they've lined up for the demonstrations. I'm happy for the reminders on how to balance equations. But doubt I'll ever do so for culinary purposes, just as I never did so in the darkroom. FWIW, I think the main guy giving the lectures is an excellent teacher.

The classic repair method is to beat an egg yolk with about 15ml cool water or heavy cream. Then whisk the broken sauce into this emulsion, very slowly at first. Once you have a decent quantity of repaired sauce, you can go much faster. You'll lose a bit of lightness because you're deflating the sabayon, but the result should as smooth and stable as new. If your holding temperature goes above 158°F, the sauce will probably break. It can also break from losing too much water to evaporation, so it should be kept covered.

They are typically doing dishes with many components. Some of those components might be best cooked sous-vide. Maybe they can only be done sous-vide—or maybe sous-vide is just the smartest choice. If there are several ways to get a result (and there usually are) you would pick the one that's easiest, or fastest, or most reliable, depending on the priorities of the moment. SV will often make sense.

I haven't made these recipes, but would be surprised if it's a typo. The Bouchon version will just be lighter, less intense. There's a huge range in solids:water ratios used by different chefs for different purposes. I'd honestly be surprised if Keller is doing anything like these recipes anymore. It would be hard to imagine anyone doing it without a pressure cooker, given the choice, and he's got a choice.

Ah, ok. Some of the store-bought circulators can be calibrated (as Jo said) but Anova, at least, discourages trying. The circulator's temperature sensors are about an order of magnitude more precise than a thermapen. I imagine if you're programming your own PID it's a whole nuther story. I was concerned about my Anova once and so bought one of those ovulation thermometers ... mercury, accurate to about 1/10°F. But over a range of just a few degrees. Happily the circulator passed the test, so I didn't have to mess with it.

You calibrate your fridge or your circulator?

I mean on the sous-vide issue. If there was any context or if he was just dismissing it outright.

I just keep a spray bottle of restaurant sanitizer by the sink. Quaternary ammonium. Odorless, tasteless, harmless to people (when diluted), and doesn't attack fabrics or wood or metal. It's more effective than bleach at some things, less effective at others, but has few of bleach's problems. Spray on and let it air dry. Are Thermapens water resistant? I have a Taylor thermometer in the same form factor that can be held under a sink and soaped up and rinsed off. It's nice to not have to be precious about washing it before sanitizing. Re: sponges ... these are the biggest failing in my kitchen sanitation. I like using them, but know there's no sanitary way to do so. Maybe if you kept them soaking in sanitizer, and nuked them every night and changed the sanitizer every day. But the time I tried that I didn't stick to the program. And I could never get my g.f. to stick to it. So basically, I use filthy sponges like most people do. And when I'm cooking a big dinner for other people I switch to my big stack of side towels, use them, and throw them in a pile to be washed. Re: peroxide ... I'm interested. I've seen a lot of literature on its use as a hospital and brewery disinfectant, but surprisingly little on food service use.

Sure, but does anyone remember the whole conversation? I'm not about to spend $20 for the whole season on Netflix!

What was the total water weight of the recipe? If it was much over 500g and still tasted too salty, then you're probably right that the carcasses brought a lot of salt with them. Edited to add: salting to taste is usually the best idea with a broth, since other things you do to it will affect its apparent salinity. Including the acid level, and of course any reduction. If you're using it as stock it's best to leave it out entirely.

Is it also possible that we're taking this out of context? Among Collichio's friends are chefs he'd probably admit to being at a higher level than than he is, and who cook a lot of meat sous-vide. It's hard to imagine him holding onto (and blurting out) such small-minded and sweeping statements on the matter.

Interesting. I've seen all kinds of protein rafts used in classical cooking, but hadn't seen ground meet suggested before the MC books. I don't recall them specifically claiming it's a new technique. That was just my assumption. I haven't seen it mentioned in traditional texts (with the exception of ground meat combined with egg white when making consommé from an existing stock). It works beautifully.

Sushi is just one of many kinds of food where the quality of the product is affected by the quality of the cutting. Herbs are another. Cooked proteins. Fruits. Vegetables that will be served raw. Arguably, raw meat that's going to be cooked doesn't put much demand on cutting technique. But good technique will still make you more efficient, and the job more enjoyable.

The basic principle is that you'll make a rough cut if you change directions while cutting. What you can't see in that video is that he's (probably) letting up on the pressure when he changes directions. The result is a cut that looks as clean as if it had been done in a single draw. The 1-2 cut is fast and efficient, but you'd get the same result if you had to do it in more strokes, as long as you're not actively cutting at the moment you change direction. Sometimes if I have a knife that's too short for the task, I'll cut a big piece of meat with multiple drawing strokes. When I push the knife forward to begin the next stroke, I'll remove pressure so there's not cutting on the forward push. It's slower than what you see in the video, but still gives a clean cut. I worry about this more with cooked proteins that are about to be served. If it's a steak that hasn't been cooked yet, small imperfections will rarely show in the final dish. This is even more the case with a stew or a braise.

Yeah, sounds fishy. Of course I haven't done an a/b test and so am guilty of trusting the conventional wisdom. FWIW, the clearest stocks I've made have been in a pressure cooker, kept below a boil, with a bit of raw (unbrowned) ground meat in the pot to clarify the proteins (a Modernist Cuisine technique). These stocks also taste and smell better than the others I've done, so I'm not really jumping at the chance to experiment.

I saw it on Fresh. Still haven't decided if we want to spend the premium for this.