paulraphael

A portion of liquid sugars will help. So will higher protein flours that absorb more moisture. Bread flour can work, if your method minimizes gluten formation. I make chocolate chip cookies with a significant portion of oat flour, which is high-protein and non gluten-forming. Even without a liquid sugar component, and with tons of butter, these stay soft and chewy almost indefinitely.

This is right; the trouble with ice cream that lacks enough dissolved solids (with sugars being the most effective) is that at -12C, they're still hard as a rock. To get them soft enough, you have to warm them to a temperature that feels unnaturally warm for ice cream.

You're covering a lot of territory! You can think of the milk fat percentage as a mostly separate issue from the others. It doesn't have a significant effect on freezing point (am I right in understanding that this is the biggest problem you're tackling?) I'd start with a milk fat percentage that you like. More than 16% you risk an ice cream that mutes flavors and that leaves a greasy film your mouth; lower than 10% you risk one that has no creaminess and tastes more like sherbet. Context is also important here. Some pastry chefs go for a low fat level because the ice cream will be part of a big plated dessert served after a rich meal. Flavor also matters. Fat-soluble flavors (like spices) come through well in a high-fat bass. Water-soluble flavors (like fruits) don't. If you want to avoid milk sugars, I suppose you could start with lactose-reduced milk (sold for lactose-intolerant people) and experiment with building up the body with some whey and/or casein. I have no experience with these ingredients, so you'd have to do the research and experimenting. Luckily, you said you don't mind lots of egg yolks. Making a rich, French-style base with lots of custard takes care of a lot of the problems. You get stabilization, body, and smoothness. I don't see a need for added emulsifier if you're using 4 yolks or more per liter of mix. I use just 2 and don't add emulsifying ingredients. You shouldn't have to whip the cream before spinning the ice cream, unless your ice cream maker is specifically designed to make very low overrun ice cream. Whipping is one of the things that happens naturally during the process. Are you aging your mix overnight in the fridge before spinning it? It needs to chill at least a few hours for the fats to crystalize and become whipable. Stabilizers also improve whipability. You can buy an off-the-shelf ice cream stabilizer blend, or I can recommend a DIY recipe (requires a scale that reads to 0.01g and a blender).

I wasn't responding to you with my annoyance on demonizing sugars. You didn't make any sweeping statements about sugar's universal evil ... Note that erythritol is less likely to cause digestive problems, but the other sugar alcohols, and the polydextrose are all likely to cause such issues. It may be less likely than the others (not sure) but they all work in essentially the same way. I would expect people's tolerance for sugar alcohols to be quite variable. My advice (to anyone) is to go easy until you know how much you can tolerate. Just to avoid unpleasant surprises. Does milk help primary because of its sugars or because of the proteins? Both. The sugars probably suppress the freezing point more; the proteins offer other textural advantages. The proteins include molecules that work as emulsifiers (which in ice cream is really a de-emulsifier, but that's a different topic). This is especially helpful if you're using fewer egg yolks. Would egg white protein be expected to lower freezing point significantly? I've seen several recipes that contain egg whites, though a few egg whites doesn't give you all that much protein. I've never experimented with this, because all the literature says flat out that egg whites are bad for texture in ice cream Do you have any idea what goes wrong if you add too much whey (or egg white) protein to an ice cream? Too much whey results in a problem called "whey-off" or whey separation, by which the whey proteins coagulate and come out of solution, wrecking the texture. Whey is a common filler in economy ice cream ... it adds body in very low-fat ice creams that don't have other sources of milk solids. I have never used it, and don't know what advantages (if any) it would have over nonfat dry milk). Small quantities of carrageenan help prevent whey-off. Whey can also lead to off-flavors (people describe it as graham cracker flavor, or just a lack of freshness).

Stabilizers are great, but they don't have any effect at all on freezing point suppression. The quantities are too minute for this. All else being equal, they increase the whipability of the ice cream so you'll get more overrun. This makes the ice cream softer ... but you may not want more overrun. If you're going to use stabilizers for the more traditional purposes (reducing iciness, improving freezer life, and adjusting texture) xanthan works pretty well, but after a few years' experimentation I've found it to be one of the less effective stabilizers. Locust bean gum is just about the best of the commonly available natural ones. In combination with guar and lambda carrageenan it works wonderfully.

If you're making these with high proportions of sugar alcohols (xylitol, erythritol, etc.) you probably want to restrict the total amount of ice cream you eat, or at least experiment slowly with what you tolerate. We don't count these as sugars because we don't digest them, but our gut bacteria do, and this can cause gas and bloating and other kinds of gastric upset. Any dissolved solids in the ice cream will suppress the freezing point. The lower the molecular weight of substance in solution (the smaller the molecule), the greater the freezing point suppression. This is why monosaccharides like glucose work better than disaccharides like table sugar. And why salt works better than both (not recommended ...) Nonfat dry milk will help suppress freezing point and will also give your ice cream more body and better smoothness. Almost every pastry chef uses this. I don't like to use alcohol (unless it's a booze flavored ice cream, because it contributes nothing positive to texture besides freezing point suppression. Milk, of course, is full of sugars (particularly lactose). But stop demonizing sugar. It is not "bad" for you. That's b.s., unsupported by any science. We evolved to eat sugar. Just not nearly as much sugar as the modern diet often entails. If you want eat a sugar-restricted diet, great, but please don't spread internet health memes as if they're factual. We can all go to Facebook for that. If you don't tolerate foods well that have a high glycemic load, you can control the effects of this by what you eat with or before the sweet food. Your body only responds to the glycemic index of the mix of foods in your stomach. If you put prosciutto on a piece of french bed, the effective glycemic index drops from very high to very low.

I think they're mostly repeating lore when it comes to flavor. It's the exact same strain of saccharomyces cerevisiae regardless of what form it's in. I can imagine a flavor difference if you used a huge amount of cake yeast, and did a very short proof. But that would really just be about adding the flavor of lots of dead yeast organisms.

If you're smelling ammonia, that's from spoilage bacteria. Which (probably) won't hurt you. But the conditions that allowed the stinky organisms to grow also allow the infectious and toxic organisms to grow, and these are not polite enough to warn you with smells and flavors. So yeah, you dodged a bullet. I too question the idea of spending as little as possible on your protein. Stop and consider for a minute how it's possible to raise a mature pig for $1.63 a pound. Most farms can't grow lettuce for that little. Is this something you want to support? To eat? I'd rather see all of us eating better-raised animals, and doing it less often.

When I call yeast flavor a defect, I don't mean to do so authoritatively. One person's bug is another's feature. That just seems to be the convention in most of the writing I see on artisan bread. If you do like the flavor /aroma of yeast, my suggestion of getting it through brewer's yeast is for the purpose of getting more predictable and consistent results. I haven't tried this, but am imagining it would work. I agree with Jo that instant is superior, at least to 'active dry' yeast in every way. I'm not sure why active dry is still sold. It's the same yeast organism as instant, but with no way of knowing how much of it is dead or alive. Maybe it's for people who like surprises. As Franci says, in Italy they traditionally use the yeast very low quantities, and grow it through long fermentation times. Because of this, you're not going to be loading the bread with dead yeast, so you wouldn't expect to taste it. I believe the Italians prefer cake yeast the reason they prefer many things: unquestioning devotion to tradition. Bakers didn't start using cultivated yeast until around 150 years ago (they got it from brewers; it's the same basic strain we buy today). But that's about the age of the Kingdom of Italy.

Fresh cake yeast is exactly the same organism that's in active dry and instant yeast. What's different is that in fresh yeast, a very high proportion of the organisms are dead. So to compensate, you use the yeast in a much higher proportion in any given recipe. The dead yeast don't contribute to leavening, but they taste like yeast ... hence the yeasty flavor and aroma. Most artisan bread bakers consider yeast flavor a defect, so this isn't something you often see them striving for . If you do want yeast flavor in bread, a more predictable approach would be to use instant yeast (which is just yeast that's been dried in a way that keeps virtually all the organisms alive) for leavening, and that add brewer's yeast (inactive) for flavor.

This will definitely be easier with an IR thermometer. In general, the lower in the oven you put that pizza steel, the greater the proportion of heat the pizza will get from the bottom. The steel is really effective at storing and delivering heat, so generally what will work is a position that's as high as possible, even with no broiler. Those stones you're putting on top are a wild card. They may even be reducing the heat the getting to the top of the pizza. Here's why: usually, the top of the pizza cooks part by radiation (IR coming off the top of the oven), and part by convection (hot air up there that's risen from the bottom heating element). But what heats the top of the oven and allows it to radiate IR is that same convective air. It rises and pools at the top of the oven before being vented. It's possible that those stones, separated from the top of the oven, will never get as hot as the oven top proper. It's also possible that they are weaker radiators of heat than the black steel of the oven, even when heated to the same termperature. I think you'll do best with either 1) steel in top rack position, and no stones, or 2) stones in top rack position and steel directly underneath. If I had to make a bet, it would be on #1. I'm curious to hear what actually works.

"On the page 351 example above, he lists examples of what non-fat solids are, and he does include "sweeteners", maybe meaning sugar? So maybe that is how he gets to the 15%-30%? Though he does add sugar separately at the bottom. So maybe not..." If he IS including sugars—which would be completely reasonable, just not the way i've seen it done—then 20–30% would be totally reasonable. Whether or not you include the sugars in the solids is up to you. You just have to make sure you're speaking the same language as whoever you're swapping formulas with. I think you have the right idea with figuring out percentages. It can just be an annoying amount of math when you're dealing with fruit and nuts and chocolate. Chocolate makers sometimes don't tell you everything. And with fruit, if you want to precise, you want to figure out the ratio of the different kinds of sugars. The chart on p. XXX cleared up all these issues for me.

How are the Sassos compared with the Bobo chickens? (I'm thinking the ones they called the black plume birds, that had the big thighs and small breasts. Jeffrey had them. Now I have wander around Chinatown).

I don't doubt the quality control was better with Hobart, but the design was identical for tilt-head mixers. And the few bowl-lift versions from that era were a lot less powerful. You'd be buying a machine that's 30+years old, probably with original grease, and who knows what history. Also, those machines weren't designed with a thrust bearing that allows you to use the spiral dough hook. This new design is much, much better than the old-style c-hooks. If you're working with dough, this is a big deal.

I've been trying to find a simple way to use the circulator to proof bread dough and starters. Something like what Rotus describes for mash seams reasonable. Might be kind of clunky in practice though.

Absolutely, 100% get a refurbished Kitchenaid. There's really no downside, if you plan to use a lot during the warranty period. If you're using it hard you'll know in the first couple of weeks if you got a bad one. I think the refurbed 600 costs a bit more than 179 now (I paid about $240 for mine in 2008, and they've gone up a bit). It's still a bargain. After the 6 month warranty, just learn to repair it yourself. You need a $20 set of snap ring pliers, $10 worth of grease, and whatever replacement parts (cheap). You can keep the thing running forever if you take care of it. The real secret to longevity: don't follow KA's recommended capacities. Those people are crazy. Use your judgement if you have good mechanical aptitude. If you don't, look up the recommended capacities for mixers like the Hobart N50 and Globe SP8. Know that these are much more powerful, much more expensive machines. And notice how the rated capacities in most case are lower than the KA's. These companies are conservative, and are telling their customers how to keep the machines running forever. KA is making promises it can't keep, for marketing purposes. Aim low. And if the machine gets hot or makes bad noises, back off.

I'd sous-vide. I haven't done Japanese Kobe, so maybe someone else can weigh in on temperature. My first thought is to set the circulator to 55°C, aiming for an internal temperature of 54°C. It's important to cook it far enough into medium-rare territory that you melt the marbling, otherwise you'll get a waxy, greasy mouthfeel. Cook only until cooked through. Any longer will just lose juices and mess with the texture. Cutting the steaks to 1.5" thick is ideal in terms of time and ease of browning. Finish on the stove. Go for browned, not charred and crispy. You don't want to mess with the delicate flavors. I'd salt the sv'd meat, let it sit while the griddle or pan preheats, and at the last minute dust with baking soda / glucose (I use a 1:5 ratio). This will speed maillard reactions so you can get solid browning without introducing burned fat flavors, or overcooking below the surface. The steaks can be served whole or sliced for service (won't matter which direction you slice). Sauce is up to you, of course, but whatever you do, think delicate, and serve on the side.

In my own personal lexicon, which I don't expect anyone else to adopt, I think of additives as anything that isn't fundamental to the flavor of food. So, for example, leavening agents and texture modifiers. In ice cream, I think of egg yolks as additives, because I don't want the flavor of eggs. So when I consider gum-based stabilizers, I don't see them as the addition of an additive; I see them as replacing one additive (eggs, which work in large quantities) with another (gums, which work in tiny quantities). In this model, an additive isn't a bad thing, but it's something that has the possibility of interfering with the flavor of the main ingredients. So additives that work in smaller quantities, or ones that are by their nature less intrusive, are better. But these are all just types of ingredients. There is no fundamental problem with an additive, no matter how you want to define it. You can't make a cake without a leavener; you can't thicken sauce without a thickener; you can't cure meats without curing salts, etc. etc.. Of course there are crappy additives, just as there are crappy ingredients of every type. They are not crappy by virtue of someone labelling them an additive.

I always use hot water from the tap to save time. It also saves money, at least in my situation. I'm in a building where hot water costs are included, but we have our own electric meter. This is a bit of selfish gaming of the system, but in the big picture it probably uses less energy overall. There's the issue of water waste, but I usually use old sous-vide water for the plants. Especially in the summer, when the patio garden drinks a lot. This water has the advantage of being mostly dechlorinated, which some plants prefer.

Anova people, are you talking about the first model (still for sale I think) or the newer one?

I had habaneros once that were grown oddly (maybe too much water?) and had virtually no heat. Fantastically delicious. Super cool that you can basically deconstruct a chili and use the various components separately.

Is this something that could be useful in softening pizza dough (making it less tough and elastic) without actually weakening the gluten? Making a decent faccimile of a Neapolitan pizza in a home oven is difficult, because baking times are long and the dough cooks through and toughens. Added oils tenderize the dough, weaken the gluten structure so you get smaller, less convincing bubbles.

Also, next time I hear the word "additive," I'm going to hang the person from a nail by their underwear waistband and challenge them to make a distinction between additive and ingredient. What the hell is an additive? If your answer has anything to do with whether you can pronounce it or not, I'm not letting you down from the nail.

The one I'm thinking of used xanthan, guar, and locust bean gums. I don't recall one with glycerin. Where did you see it? I used the stabilizer portion of Migoya's blend but not the emulsifier portion. I've started to think that xanthan, in spite of its magical versatility, isn't a great ice cream stabilizing ingredient. Using a pre-made stabilizer mix is fine ... it's what every pastry chef I know does. I like to make my own so I can tweak it and get the exact qualities I like. Also, years of being a photography taught me that mixing your own recipes offers some protection against manufacturers messing you up by discontinuing or "improving" what you've grown to rely on.

I've found the Migoya book interesting, and one of the only non-food-science industry books that tries to get into the nitty gritty. But it seems unreliable on many details. I'm not sure I'm going to keep my copy. The erata link posted by Gap may clear up some issues. Aside from errors, I've found some of his formulas, like his basic stabilizer formulas, to be not very good. I used them as a point of departure, and ended up very from that point when I finally got things working well. Your two specific questions that I can answer: nonfat solids should generally be between 8 and 10%, and that does not include the sugars (except for the lactose in the milk). Non-lactose sugars are usually above 14%.