paulraphael

I appreciate the dilemma this kind of thing poses for a company. They can’t say it’s ok to circulate anything. Gasoline, sulfuric acid, raw sewage, nitroglycerine: not ok. There’s no way they could come up with an exhaustive list of what not to put in there. But that’s not the same as saying nothing’s ok besides water. BTW, I personally don’t have any need to circulate other stuff. I’m not about to do a bionic turkey. I’m just curious about why they’re so restrictive after seeing how easily cleaned the unit is.

This one probably belongs in the No Duh file, but I decided to buy some chicken thighs that were already shrikwrapped and just throw them in the bath. I didn’t consider that the package was designed to be easily openable (most packages seem designed to violently resist opening, IME). Anyway, the predictable happened, and I had some chicken soup circulating for about 20 minutes. The good news is that the chicken didn’t suffer noticeably, and the circulator was almost effortless to clean. Kudos to Anova such a smart design. Which brings me the question, why do you think they’re so insistent that you only circulate water? People circulate all kinds of stuff with the PolyScience lab units, including oil. I’m thinking it’s either 1) liability paranoia or 2) the patented low-water indicator could freak out in non water-based solutions. If it’s not one of these two, it’s hard to imagine what it could be. The Anova’s actually an easier unit to clean … there’s no closed-off pump unit.

The vita prep will probably pulverize the vanilla seeds and disperse them invisibly. interesting, but not required. Otherwise, I think a whisk or immersion blender will work fine. I doubt that you’d incorporate less air with a vita prep. A whisk should be fine for anything that doesn’t require extreme shear forces to dissolve. Some gums need a blender, and some are probably helped by a really fast one. But creme anglaise is pretty low maintenance.

I think the more significant issue raised by the paper involves cooking time. At the same temperature, increased time seems to reduce juiciness as it increases tenderness. I'm not 100% convinced of the universality of this, or at least of it universally happening to a significant degree. I wish they'd used a lower temperature range. And I'd like to see the experiment repeated with some different cuts. I made two chuck steaks a few days ago, at 55C. I pulled one at 24 hours and the other at 48. I thought the 48 hour one was as juicy, and (predictably) more tender. Granted, this was a long shot from scientific, but it raises some questions for me.

Has anyone seen this discussion, on a paper that concludes tenderness and juiciness are somewhat mutually exclusive? The paper is unfortunately expensive to view without subscription. And was performed at higher temperature ranges than what most of us would probably prefer.

See above ... it's actually disolved salt. Undisolved salt can't do anything to metal.

MC also covers making jus, or maybe more accurately an embelished/extended jus-like liquid. Basic method is to cut aged chuck into 1" cubes, and cook sv. for 4 hours at 53C. Optionally add some bromelaine to the mix to increase yield. Juice by pressing against a fine seive. Then they suggest centrifuging (thankfully this is optional), and mixing with an equal quantity of water slightly thickened with guar and xanthan. Seasoned with salt and MSG. This is from vol. 5; there's another (similar) method elsewhere if I recall.

Interesting. You get the same flavor / effects on final sauce as with pan drippings?

I haven't seen much conversation about using the bag drippings in a sauce. I'm a bit mystified by the chemistry here ... I don't know why what comes out doesn't more resemble jus, and why there's so much myoglobin that coagulates, and which seems to contribute to a mess that doesn't taste good. I've seen some recommendations to filter the juices and then reduce. But nothing I've seen resembles the great stuff that drips from a roast or braise. How do you like to deal with this? I hate to throw away all that potential flavor. Are there different approaches in dishes that are essentially braises vs. dishes that will be finished and served dry (steak)?

That's really close. I'll have to see how much room there is to thin the foam.

I'm thinking all you'd need is an inexpensive case or bag that's about the right size for the foam insert. $50 is more than I'd like to spend (maybe not unreasonable if you travelled with it a lot, which I don't anticipate). But if we found something for $20 or $25?

No interest in a travel case? The foam insert is about 16" x 9" x 4". After a quick search I found this. But I think some simple, soft luggage-style bag would be better.

I'm just responding to your repeated mention of sodium content as a factor. This is forum where people come to learn, and if something like that gets repeated enough people may start thinking it's true.

She showed up tonight, went straight from the box into the water. Cooked some skate at 48C (I liked it, my gf wanted more cook). Some chuck steaks are in the tanke now at 55, Purring away in a lexan container covered with a blanket, until I can be like the cool kids and properly mod a cooler. Not sure exaclty what part of the chuck they're from, so unclear if they'll be ready tomorrow or Saturday. Here's a thought: the packaging foam is high quality and nicely designed, as others have noticed. If someone could find a decent, reasonably priced piece of soft luggage that's the right size, we'd have an instant travel case.

Where are you getting this? All salt has the same sodium content. And it all tastes the same once it's disolved in water. If you're seeing differences in nutrient values on a package, it will be because they're measuring by volume and the salts vary in grain size/density. If they measured by weight the numbers would be the same. It's one reason you should consider using weight. If you figure out your recipe by volume, you'll be dependent on that brand of salt. If you measure by weight, you'll be able to use any salt with any grain size, if you run out, or if availabilty changes.

Yes. Measuring by weight will remove all guesswork. The choice of salt is much less significant.

is the question is about flavor subtleties? To make a pretty lazy generalization, the difference between chocolates could be summed up as the cocoa percentage (which does not always correlate with official cocoa solids number), the cocoa butter percentage, the sugar percentage, and finally the subtle flavor and aroma differences. The first three factors are structural and will make a difference in practically everything, although these differences can usually be compensated for if you understand them (use more or less chocolate, add cocoa butter or other fat, add or subtract sugar, etc.). The final factor, the subtle flavors, cannot really be compensated for. But its importance varies a lot from recipe to recipe. If you are adding other strong flavors, I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference. You'd have to have more sensitive palate than mine. I use the best chocolates when it's is the main event and there are no other strong flavors present. If I were adding liqueur or cinnamon, I don't think I could tell the difference between callebaut and michel cluizel. Even in brownies (a recipe I take seriously!) I usually use callebaut, because the difference with higher end chocolates seem minor. But when I make a ganache or a chocolate marquise, I use the best stuff I can afford, and the stuff with the flavor profile I want for the recipe.

FWIW, All salt has the same sodium content. Sea salt contains other trace elements (insignificant quantities), and anything sold as table salt can have up to 2% in additives (anti clumping stuff, iodide, etc... but I believe these have to be on the label).

I'd love to see some experimental evidence on foods cooked to pasteurization in ziplock freezer bags and stored at a range of standard fridge temperatures. Not really a home experiment. You'd want lots of samples, a few different types of food, and a range of fridge temperatures. Real life fridges add a lot of variables with their temperature swings. And you'd need a biology lab, and some agreed-upon standards.

Cool! Have you had these? (apologies if I've turned this into a wussiest chile thread)

A guy I worked with grew Habaneros in his garden. I don't know if he overwatered them or what, but they ended up with very little heat. You could eat them whole ... they were like pepperoncini. And they were delicious. Just incredible flavor. The idea of mild habaneros is probably sacrilege to the keepers of the faith, but I think it's worth exploring. I think it's also a reason my favorite hot sauces are habanero based.

I'm afraid of anything that spins nearly a thousand times as many RPMs as its price in dollars.

I don't know, but it seems like every year some newly-bred monster becomes pain champion. How much hotter must a pepper get?

Yeah, I'm way too squeamish to use a grinder on heat treated steel. I'm sure it can be done with great care. I was happy to pay Dave. He uses a belt sander on European knives ... fast, but not the kind of heat you get from a grinder. I did this when the knife needed other repairs. It's the only time I've hired a professional sharpener, although i've been tempted to send someone like him a high end knife just to see how much better he is than me.

Isn't a week as long as you'd ever do cook-chill?