paulraphael

That's become a standard for us too. The local food coop carries a brand that comes boneless and pre-vacuum packed. Couldn't be easier.

Interesting. I think I've only had one leak ever. If you decide to double-bag, is there any reason you could reuse the outer bag indefinitely? It's only coming in contact with food if the inner bag fails.

Thanks for the link on dextrose. The interesting tidbit in there is that perceived sweetness is different in ice cream than in other contexts (no reason given). But their tests showed that the usual figure of dextrose being 0.7 times as sweet as sucrose isn't correct; in ice cream it's more like 0.83%. Meaning, for equivalent sweetness, you need 1.2 times as much dextrose. Less the most of us assumed. The data on people's preferences don't strike me as very useful. These are in situations where all else is kept equal, so people were judging based on sweetness and rate of melting and body ... all qualities that can be controlled by other means. Here are the conclusions with some of my annotations: The following conclusions apply to ice creams sweetened with sucrose as compared with those in which one-fourth of the sucrose is replaced with dextrose. 1. Consumer tests show that hydrous dextrose has a sweetening value which is 83 percent as effective as sucrose in ice creams, and anhydrous dextrose has a value equal to sucrose. [interesting!] 2. The use of dextrose in ice cream does not affect the time to freeze and whip the mix. 3. When 25 percent of the sucrose is replaced with dextrose the drawing temperature will be approximately one degree lower. 4. Dextrose imparts as desirable flavor and body to batch- frozen ice cream as does sucrose. When dextrose ice cream is frozen on the Vogt continuous freezer, the stabilizer content must be reduced in order to avoid a sticky body. [so, no significant flavor difference. Possible differences in body can be compensated for by reducing stabilizing ingredients] 5. Dextrose ice cream melts slightly faster at room temperature, which possibly accounts for the greater refreshing qualities of high- fat ice creams having one- fourth of the sucrose replaced with dextrose. [This is the expected result of the lower freezing point and increased scoopability] 6. Dipping the dextrose ice cream at lower temperatures than the sucrose ice cream helps to minimize dipping losses. 7. Dextrose imparts slightly more color to the mix, slightly lowers the pH, and decreases mix viscosity.

If you're in a town with a Whole Foods, they often have a small selection of Valhrona and Callebaut chocolates in bulk. Prices are decent and of course you don't have to deal with shipping.

Yes, you can, although with the drawback that you're actually making a very high-sugar ice cream. Dextrose is both less sweet than table sugar, and has nearly double the freezing point suppression. So your final blend that gives the hardness and the sweetness you like will be a much lower sugar ice cream. It's possible that the formula with trehalose, just by adding a lot of extra nonfat solids, is improving the texture. But I'd bet that milk solids would accomplish this more effectively. The proteins have emulsifying capacity, and the lactose has exceptional water binding capacity.

That's cool ... definitely an odd one. I bet the bread starch makes significant stabilizing and solids contributions. You might be able to cut down on gums and egg and any added dry milk. It must be begging for some salted butter.

Interestingly, this exact question with trehalose has been addressed (it's the only trehalose / ice cream article I've seen so far): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2006.01484.x/full It suggests that this sugar is not what's responsible for the lack of iciness.

I've never seen trehalose used in ice cream before. Does trehalose have water binding properties that you're aware of? Does it come in syrup form? Usually alternate sugars are used for their increased freezing point suppression. You can predict this quality with the molecular weight of the sugar; the lower the number more it depresses freezing point. Trehalose is a disaccharide like sucrose, and has a molecular weight that's very similar. So you wouldn't predict any freezing point effect. The only sugar I know that has a significant effect on iciness and texture is trimoline. It has pretty strong water binding properties (and a low molecular weight, so it's useful generally). It's pretty typical to use this for 10-20% of the total sugar weight. It's a little bit sweeter than sucrose by weight, so between sucrose, dextrose, and trimoline, you can fine tune the sweetness and the freezing point independently. For ice crystal control I use a blend of hydrocolloids. I don't get a noticeable increase in iciness over the course of two weeks. But ... I'm working on getting the ice cream smoother on day one. The holy grail in texture is (sad to say) industrial ice cream, and mine isn't that smooth. My KA ice cream maker can freeze a batch in around 15 minutes, which is pretty quick ... I won't be able to afford anything that goes faster. So that's a small disadvantage over, say, a high end Carpiggiani machine that works in 5 or 6 minutes. But the other industrial advantages are a blast freezer (-40 or lower, to flash harden the ice cream), and homogenization of the mix (Jo, you are the victor here!) I'm working on how to get the best flavor textural results possible without high end equipment. Presumably if Santa brings me a Carpigiani machine or a homogenizer, things will only get better, but I'm enjoying the challenge of seeing how far things can be pushed in their absence. It's amazing how there is to learn at every turn.

I like the magnetic ones. They're easy to use and easy to clean. And you can trim them for a perfect fit. They're a bit heavy, but I only hear this complaint from pros who have to transport a whole lot of knives. I usually just have three or four in my knife roll and the weight isn't noticeable.

What's the advantage of the KA heat mixer bowl over a laboratory magnetic hot plate? I've seen ones with thermostats for under $200.

I've already searched for an attachment designed for it. No hits. BTW, in the homogenizer world, the rotor-stator is called a generator (don't ask me why). Seems like homogenizers today are like immersion circulators were 5 years ago. Priced for the lab market. An attachment for a Bamix would an interesting project for someone with access to a CNC machine. Or maybe we can convince Anova to get to work ...

If anyone has a Bamix (I don't) I'm wondering if the whisk attachment would make a reasonable poor man's homogenizer. Some models go up to to 17,000 rpms.

The cooking issues guys say they circulate detergent water.

I'd be interested to know if there's an effect on final texture if you homogenize at the beginning of cooking rather than at the end. Maybe I can commission a batch.

There are a lot of issues with nonstick pans, but it's beyond my imagination why plastic would be one of them. But yeah, unless you're doing lots of egg cookery, or delicate fish with the skin on, there isn't much justification for nonstick. a metal surface almost always gives better results.

It's all based on PTFE and it's all disposable. If you really need a nonstick pan, best to get a cheap one. Restaurant stores are a safe bet.

I'm sure someone will volunteer to buy the O.P.'s circulator

Dave Arnold and Nils Sorensen on Ziplocs for sous-vide: The advantages of the Ziploc are: you don’t need to buy a vacuumfood can be bagged hotfood can be removed from the bag and re-bagged easilythe process is very gentle on foods and doesn’t change food textures the way vacuum bagging canit’s just as effective for cooking as vacuum bagging for most itemsThe disadvantages of the Ziploc are: not as convenient for bagging a lot of items as the vacuum machineZiplocs cost more than vacuum bagsdoesn’t provide some vacuum benefits –fast marination, extended storage, oxygen removal.Dave's summary, which mirrors my experience: "While I love a commercial vacuum machine, about 90% of what a cook wants to accomplish with low temperature cooking can be achieved without a vacuum machine. When Nils was at restaurant Aquavit he did a lot of low-temperature work with a circulator, but didn’t have a vacuum machine. Back then restaurants weren’t required to have a HACCP plan; he didn’t have a commerical vacuum because they cost too much. Today many home cooks use the Food Saver vacuum for low temp. I don’t use my Food Saver any more. I use Ziploc bags, without a vacuum. I find Ziplocs easier than the Food Saver – I don’t have to hunt down the special bags, I can easily bag sauces (a pain with the Food Saver), I can bag hot foods (foods to be vacuumed need to be cold – more on that in the next primer installment). My Food Saver has been relegated to potato-chip-bag-resealed." At cookingissues.com

Preparation with ziploc bags is pretty easy, and in many cases preferable to vacuum sealing. And there's no reason they can't be used for cook/chill. I do it all the time. They're a bit pricey, but some people wash them in the dishwasher and reuse.

He says he just uses a stick blender after cooking the custard. Last he blogged about it (not that long ago) he didn't have a real homogenizer. I had originally misread this; I thought he blended it after aging, which is something I usually do to thin it enough so it can run through a strainer easily. But this probably has no homogenizing effect.

Thanks Ruben. With a little luck Jenni will tell me some more, or maybe point me to some of her sources. Some pastry chefs have the benefit of working directly with guys like Douglas Goff and Cesar Vega, so they get information that we might not be able to find online or in books. In the mean time I think I'll do a taste test of different cook times and temperatures. Part of the issue is that cooked milk flavor is so subjective. Some people want it, some don't. So the real issue might be what milk flavor you personally prefer. I'm not putting the highest priority on the functional properties of the milk proteins, since it's possible to get those elsewhere.

Laiskonis just moved his blog to luckypeach.com/category/columns/opusculum/ (to make it easier to remember?) I've been investigating some of long cooking theories w/r/t protein denaturing and emulsification. Most of what's in the literature doesn't concern ice cream ... it acknowledges that sugar content can push temperatures up considerably, so there are a lot of question marks. Jenni Britton may know the most about this. She details her process on her site. Basically, she separates milk into skim and heavy cream, and then concentrates the skim portion with microfiltration, using no heat. She pasteurizes at 79°C for 2 hours (!) before homogenizing. her goal is like Ruben's ... to use the milk proteins as a stabilizer and emulsifier blend. This is related to what brands like Haagen Dazs do also, although they don't talk about their process. I'm corresponding with Jenni about this. My primary concern is flavor. She believes that the long, slow cooking actually leads to more cooked milk flavor—which in her opinion is good in some circumstances and not in others. I may have to do a more regimented than usual experiment to see what time/temperature combination I like best in terms of flavor. I can deal with the texture through other means. For one, I'm happy to use hydrocolloids. For another, I'm ok with using some egg yolk, as long as I can't taste it. Incidentally, I think you can come closer to Jenni's result by using nonfat dry milk than by reducing the milk with heat. The better nonfat dry milks are evaporated with a low-heat process, so you don't get that caramelized, condensed milk flavor.

Plymouth is pretty nice. I've only tried with a few different gins.

Brine (will firm up the texture and reduce moisture loss) Water 100% ice 20% salt 6% (will be 5% after ice melts) sugar 4.2% (will be 3.5% after ice melts) -disolve sugar and salt into room temperature water in a plastic container -add ice and scallops -cover and hold in refrigerator for 30 minutes -drain and replace brine with plain icewater -soak for 10 minutes Cook -wrap in a cylinder in 2 layers of plastic wrap (to help hold shape)* -cook in 50°C / 122°C water bath (to bring scallops to 49°C / 120°F) 1” diameter: 40 minutes 1.5” diameter: 80 minutes 2” diameter: 120 minutes 2.5” diameter: 40 minutes (don’t roll. bag in ziploc, no vacuum, with space between scallops) -chill in ice water bath (sets a firmer texture) you can hold chilled for several hours -unbag. dry and lightly salt. -sear in neutral oil on hot pan. will go fast—just a few seconds per side (optional, for faster sear: -dust with maillard enhancer (1:1.5 baking soda / glucose) -immediately before searing dust with wondra flour) This is a combination of ideas from Modernist Cuisine, Ideas in Food, Cookingissues, and some original research. *for rolling technique check out cookingissues (near bottom of page)

Something to remember with vinaigrettes is that lots of things work as emulsifiers. If you're using adding anything like shallot or garlic, you've got all the emulsifying power you need right there. So mustard should be seen as a choice based on flavor. I usually add a tenth of a gram or so of xanthan, because it's such a good stabilizer. It lets me make the vinaigrette hours ahead of time and not have to worry about separation. It also slightly improves the ability to cling to the leaves. For proportions, I always eyeball it and then adjust to taste. Different vinegars have different acidity levels. And sometimes I want a more acidic result than others. The vinegar itself seems like the most important ingredient. The subtleties of a high quality raw oil can't stand up to the vinegar flavor, so there's little reason to spend money and attention there.