paulraphael

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.

I like them both. They have different qualities. The AC heats a little more evenly and is more responsive. And I like a stainless steel cooking surface for its brightness, especially for sauteing or roasting where you want to be able see how browned the pan drippings are. For saucepans I would always prefer AC. For frying pans and saute pans each has its place. For putting a hard sear on a big piece of meat, or browning a pile of mushrooms, I'd reach for the carbon steel or cast iron. That said, if you like AC, there are many pans with similar construction and performance that cost less. And a few that cost more. Shining up the AC is a piece of cake with Barkeeper's Friend.

Has anyone eaten at Roberta's in the last several months, since Nick Barker left as chef? A friend told me he went recently and everything was terrible. Broke my heart. It's been my global pizza benchmark for the last 10 years. The brilliant small plates were just icing.

I think they're now the best in the city. It's nearly a 2-hour round trip for me but it's where I get just about all my seafood. If you're in the city you can have them deliver via Amazon ... something I haven't tried yet.

Storage aside, I'm glad to hear they do this. One of the many many sources of my Amazon guilt is the packaging waste. Do they use the reusable totes in all their markets? Re: camembert, yeah, in the U.S. cheese has to be pasteurized unless it's going to be aged a minimum of 60 days, presumably so the cheese salts and acids can kill all the pathogens (which just this minute I read is an arbitrary standard, adopted in 1949 without any evidence ...)

Stainless alloys are much, much less conductive than carbon steels (which themselves are only modestly conductive). But It's generally not a fair comparison, because what we call stainless cookware usually has just a thin veneer of stainless steel over a more conductive layer, or on top of a thick conductive disk. So these pans are really aluminum or thin copper pans with stainless cladding. Carbon steel pans are like lighter weight cast iron skillets. How much lighter depends—they range from very thin to gauges that feel as heavy as typical cast iron. I think the middle weight ones are the most popular. Every restaurant cook I know loves cooking on carbon steel. It's fast and easy, it's not precious, hits the balance between heat retention (for a great sear) and responsiveness (so you don't have to wait forever for it to heat up or respond). They don't distribute heat very evenly, but for fast cooking where things are in motion, it doesn't matter. They develop a fairly stick-resistant finish, but not as durable as what forms on cast iron (the surface doesn't have big pores for the finish to adhere to). The finish really doesn't matter when you're cooking fast and hot with good technique. I happen to have American-style cast iron pans, but would be just as happy with carbon steel. It does some things a little better, some things a little worse.