project

My current, favorite tomato sauce was described at the beginning of http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showto...dpost&p=1354886

I buy long grain white rice. For decades I bought the house brand of US grocery store chains and liked it, but now I buy at Sam's Club, Riceland, 25 pounds per bag. The Riceland grains are smaller and harder and take more cooking, but I use the same amount of water. <br><br> I cook on (darn) a generic electric stove. I use (hooray!) Farberware classic pots. <br><br> For rice, my usual is 1 C of rice and 2 C of water, in a 2 quart Farberware pot. Then, over high heat, uncovered, bring to a simmer or slow boil, immediately turn heat to quite low (nearly the lowest setting on the stove), add lid, set timer for 25 minutes, and do something else. The grocery store rice only took 20 minutes. <br><br> To be more clear, I measure the rice, dump it into the pot, measure the water, and dump it into the pot. I do not assume that 1 C of rice and 2 C of water combined would have volume 3 C. <br><br> To new cooks: During the initial period with high heat, it is really easy for the rice to boil, foam, boil over, and make a really big mess! So, during this initial period, have to watch the pot very carefully or at least, from experience, know about how long the high heat period will take and set a timer and <b>listen</b> for it! <br><br> While the rice is cooking, no, I don't look at it or stir it. There was a TV ad, "I simmered it and stirred it and <b>still</b> it came out all gooey." -- of <b>course</b> it did! <br><br> After the 25 minutes, it can be helpful to let the pot rest, off heat, still covered for 10 minutes or so to further equalize the concentration of water and let any rice on the bottom of the pot get a little softer. <br><br> If some rice does stick to the bottom, then, to ease cleaning the pot, let the pot soak overnight with some water in it. <br><br> Before the cooking, I don't rinse or soak the rice; I just use it as I buy it. After the cooking, I don't drain it or rinse it; I just use it as it is in the pot from the cooking. <br><br> I don't know a lot about how this technique scales, but I've done it successfully with 3 cups of rice and six cups of water in a 3 quart Farberware pot. <br><br> It works for me. <br><br> Now, given drumsticks from three large chickens, how can I do a good Chinese stir-fry with a lot of good sauce to go with the rice?

Phatj, Thanks! Why not just include the skin in the stock? When you rendered the fat from the skin, was there some browning? What did you do with the crackling? For the legs, did you debone them before the confit and include the bones and scraps in the stock? Thanks for the roasting idea! Did you lightly brown the meat before starting the roasting?

Suppose in a US grocery store I buy a chicken or two or three, weight from, say, 3 pounds to 8 pounds each. Yes, I am assuming that we might want to treat the different weights differently. Now what? <br><br> Yes, there are some good recipes, instructions, and discussions on eG, at America's Test Kitchen, etc. for cooking a whole chicken. Here I want to set those aside and concentrate, instead, on how to work separately with the pieces where, especially, get some good chicken stock from, say, the back, neck, heart, gizzard, and scraps. That is, with a whole chicken, there are lots of different pieces, and I am assuming that we want <b>both</b> to treat the pieces in different ways and to use all the pieces for something worthwhile. <br><br> So, here I am trying to work about one half level above individual recipes and make progress on the <i>flows,</i> organization, or <i>logistics</i> of all we do with all the pieces of the <b>whole</b> chicken. In particular, for individual recipes, while I am eager for all details, with this question URLs are more appropriate than usual! <br><br> For the chicken stock, there is a lot already on eG. Let's assume that we know how to make chicken stock, white or brown, French or Chinese, from the back, wingtips, scraps, etc. <br><br> So, I do not want to <i>waste</i> the breast or thigh meat on making stock but want to do something else with them, e.g., get them for a meat course main dish. And that main dish may make use of stock made from the rest of the chicken! And, we may go oriental, for both the stock and the rest of the chicken! <br><br> So, two broad questions: <UL> <LI> <b>Favorite Uses.</b> Given breasts, thighs, drumsticks, and wings, what are your favorite treatments for them? Uh, maybe the wings just go into the stock pot? <br><br> E.g., maybe for the breasts, contribute skin and bones to the stock pot. Flour the rest, gently saute in virgin olive oil, remove, and discard oil. Add some more oil and saute some aromatic vegetables -- usual suspects garlic, onions, shallots, bell peppers, celery, carrots. Remove. Deglaze with some white wine and reduce. Add some stock, reduce if flavor is weak, and add heavy cream. Add vegetables and the chicken. Simmer covered until done. Maybe. Haven't done that one yet; want to try it; if it's good will report details with measurements! <LI> <b>Timing.</b> If make the stock quickly, then can be fully done, complete with removing fat and straining, in 1-2 hours, and this time is short enough that the rest of the fresh chicken pieces can rest in the refrigerator waiting for the stock to be done. One issue may be how to handle the thigh or drumsticks after they have been deboned and the bones, scraps, and possibly skin have been added to the stock pot; that is, these pieces, once deboned, will likely get <i>less fresh</i> more quickly. Also, if want to take longer to make the stock, say, from longer simmering or letting the stock settle and separate overnight, then there is some question about keeping the other chicken pieces fully fresh. <br><br> There are various alternatives, e.g., freeze the parts for stock, make the stock later, and use the other pieces in ways that do not need stock or just use stock made earlier from other chicken pieces, etc. </UL> Maybe one compromise solution would be to use all of the chicken in the stock making but remove the better pieces of meat when they are just done and use them in some dish that can start with poached chicken. <br><br> If the chicken is heavy, say, over six pounds, then the breast meat can be so thick that old recipes do not really apply and some special treatment is called for. What "special treatment" is good? <br><br> What do you recommend? <br><br> Thanks!

How I make pizza in a home oven is in http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showto...dpost&p=1087260

For to get "a reliable formula for water", may I suggest that in your next trials, record the (1) weight of the beans and (2) the volume of the water. Then, for all trials that in the end had the right amount of water, report the ratios. Adding water to "an inch and a half above the beans" will let both the weight of the beans and the pot diameter affect the ratio of water to beans.

Here is some food TV I would like to see: <br><br> Tomatoes. I would like to know more about tomatoes. Could do shows on <blockquote> <OL> <LI> <b>Seeds and Varieties.</b> So, start with the botany, university researchers, and seed companies and explain the history of tomatoes and what we have now. Emphasize current accomplishments, opportunities, and challenges. <LI> <b>Home Growers.</b> How people can and do grow tomatoes at home. Cover backyard gardens, window box efforts, and greenhouse efforts, north, south, east, and west. Emphasize varieties, dates, temperatures, growing conditions, handling diseases, insects, and predators, rates of growth, and results in texture, flavor, sugar content, acid content, color, etc. <LI> <b>Farm Growers.</b> Cover how tomatoes are grown on farms for sale. Emphasize locations, economics, varieties, dates, temperatures, growing conditions, handling diseases and insects, rates of growth, harvesting, distribution, and results in texture, flavor, sugar content, acid content, color, etc. Cover fresh and processed. <LI> <b>Processed Tomatoes.</b> Cover canned peeled tomatoes, peeled and crushed, sauces, paste, sun dried, etc. Emphasize varieties, growing, harvesting, processing, and results. <LI> <b>Using, Fresh.</b> Cover how to use fresh tomatoes, home raised and farm raised. Include recipes with good details with times, temperatures, weights, volumes, of ingredients, results with flavor and appearance. <LI> <b>Using, Processed.</b> Cover how to use processed tomatoes. Include recipes with good details with times, temperatures, weights, volumes, brand names of ingredients, results with flavor and appearance. </UL> </blockquote> So, that's six shows just on tomatoes. If include quite a lot of detail, then the shows can be packed and fast moving. <br><br> In each show, be sure to include both <br> <UL> <LI> General information to provide overview and set context. <LI> Specific information the audience would like to know and possibly could use. </UL> That's just tomatoes. Could do something similar for essentially all of the top 200 ingredients. Now we are up to 1200 shows. <br><br> For more, do desserts: <UL> <LI> American Home Standards. <LI> Classics from Vienna. <LI> Classics from France. <LI> Classics from Italy. <LI> Classics from Germany, the Baltic, and Hungary. </UL> As for desserts, could also do sausages, stews, roasts, braises, stocks and sauces. <br><br> So far have just mentioned some obvious basics about food and cooking. List the rest and get many more shows. Could dust off 10,000 shows this way. <br><br> But, what is just <b>crucial</b> is not the list of topics but what the shows <b>really do</b> for the viewers. The views just <b>must</b> come away from each show with something they would value in their own lives, enough to return for the next show and the next. <br><br> Then, what is crucial is the <b>content</b> of each of the shows. The rock solid foundation of such content is solid information people can trust, want to know, and can use. <br><br> This content is definitely not the usual TV entertainment or drama. Since TV, "the great wasteland", has essentially just different versions of drama and essentially no content, it really does appear that the old TV crowd has had no contact with content, doesn't understand it, doesn't want it, can't evaluate it, can't generate it, and, net, can't make a success out of the proposal here. That old TV crowd would take a program on desserts from Vienna and say "It's been done before, many times and was boring." It hasn't been done before with significant <b>content.</b> If that TV crowd did such a program anyway, then they would just try to have drama in Vienna, and the results would not compete with other drama in Vienna, e.g., the movie <i>The Third Man.</i> <br><br> Other areas of our society, however, from universities to government and industry, and, in particular, the food industry, are just awash in people who understand content very well. Thus, there are plenty of people both to generate such shows and to watch them.

Thanks for your comments. Sure, go ahead and re-post it.

Once again on eG we are trying to change what Food TV does. <br><br> In a sense, some changes are promising: There are remarks from their executives that they do not have all the answers and keep trying new things. <br><br> We need to agree: Their financial support is from advertising. Really, the <b>business</b> they are in is advertising. So, they need to attract an audience that will do well for their advertisers. <br><br> There is a big problem with TV advertising: For a program with an audience as narrow as is common on Food TV, an advertiser really does not have very good data on what good their advertising expenditure does. Or, the situation is likely as it has long been: The advertisers know that 50% of their ad budget is wasted; they just don't know which 50%. <br><br> Google gets nearly all of their revenue from advertising and, thus, is also in the advertising business. Advantages of Google include (a) better ad targeting than TV and (b) better information on what ads did for the companies paying the money. That's part of why, financially, Google is doing so well and some old advertiser media efforts are declining. <br><br> But, I claim that the situation on Food TV should be much better than it is now, that Food TV is making some big mistakes. <br><br> I claim that US TV has a <i>narrow culture</i> and, thus, has content that is much more narrow than it should be. That is, in US TV, there is a relatively small group of people who, as executives, producers, and directors, control the content. Further, these people have nearly all had their careers in the same <i>system</i> and, thus, adopted essentially the same ideas. <br><br> This narrow culture has a very narrow foundation in very traditional TV and movies based essentially only on the techniques of formula fiction. The main goal is to grab the audience by the heart, the gut, or lower still, always below the shoulders, never between the ears, mostly by creating for the audience a <i>vicarious escapist fantasy emotional experience</i> (VEFEE), hopefully with passion, pathos, and poignancy, and the main technique for doing so is just drama. <br><br> Or, if the only tool a person has is a hammer, then they tend to see every problem as a nail. The narrow culture sees all the potential of TV only as different versions of VEFEE drama. <br><br> The influence of this narrow culture is so strong that, in practice, nearly anything that passes through a motion picture camera must be under the control of this narrow culture. Here is a telling example: Sometimes on late night PBS TV, I saw some programs on high school mathematics and physical science being broadcast so that teachers could record the material and play it in class. I have a solid background in mathematics and physical science, watched these programs, and was just horrified. No high school student trying to learn should ever watch those programs. The programs were mostly filled with fluff intended to be entertaining; for the actual content, it was far too often just wrong, incompetent. The content was just what one would expect from some movie people who had forgotten everything about mathematics and physical science above the fourth grade -- literally. <br><br> There was no reason at all to put movie people in charge of educational programming for high school students, but, since the programs did have to pass through motion picture cameras, and since the influence of the narrow culture was so strong, all the high school students got was worse on mathematics and physical science than <i>I Love Lucy</i> since at least <i>Lucy</i> didn't actually mislead anyone on mathematics or physical science. <br><br> Right: Intended to teach high school students mathematics and physical science but, in fact, worse than <i>I Love Lucy</i> -- literally. A serious source of rot in US culture. <br><br> Since the narrow culture controls even programs on mathematics and physical science for high school students, there is little hope for food and cooking. <br><br> Net, so far, in practice, in the US, if it passes through a motion picture camera, then nearly always it has to be from the <i>I Love Lucy</i> crowd. Yes, in <i>Jurassic Park,</i> Spielberg got the DNA science okay, but he is a rare exception. <br><br> News? The same. Food? The same. Sports? The same. <i>Science</i>? The same. That crowd has only a hammer and sees nearly everything as a nail. E.g., science programs are nearly never about the science but all about the <b>drama</b> that can be contrived -- geology becomes the violence of volcanoes, the weather becomes the threat of hurricanes, tornadoes, and global warming, ecology and nature become the rape of nature by evil humans, planetary motion becomes the risk of a "global killer" asteroid, rocket engineering becomes "Will they all be killed in a big explosion?", etc. <br><br> Endless, pointless, useless, worthless, <blockquote> dra ra ra ra ra ra-ra ra ra-ra ma ma ma ma-ma ma-ma ma-ma </blockquote> Sickening. <br><br> This situation of this narrow culture is unique in all the world. No other field is so consistently ignorant, oblivious, and incompetent in its content. If airplanes were designed like TV, then they would never get off the ground, but, if such airplanes ever did get off the ground, then that would be a very bad thing. If medical doctors were trained with content like on TV, then no one would go to a hospital no matter how bad the pain. If bridges were designed as on TV, then no one would risk driving across. Highways would fall into canyons; electrical systems would go snap, crackle, and pop; bad food would kill millions of people a year; cars would rarely start, rarely reach their destinations, and fall to pieces spontaneously within a few months; on and on throughout our civilization. <br><br> For the US educational system, TV drops out somewhere in the fifth grade and gives up on anything more advanced, except for mathematics at the second grade or lower except for sex usually somewhere in high school. <br><br> In particular, the assumption of the narrow culture that the audience is all below the fifth grade level is just that narrow culture looking at themselves and in wildly strong contradiction to the simple fact that nearly everyone else functioning in our society is far above the fourth grade. <br><br> Yes, TV wants an audience that dribbles, drools, and drips, has throbbing heart, boiling gut, pulsating groin, and a hard vacuum between the ears, sucks up silly products like a giant street vacuum cleaner, and is awash in money and eager to spend it. Hmm .... <br><br> For those TV programs on high school mathematics, there was one exception: I got into the middle, of a program on plane geometry, quickly noticed some rare excellence, eagerly watched to the end to see the credits. I did notice a lion by his paw: The main contributor was A. Gleason, long in mathematics at Harvard, with some help from T. Apostol, long in mathematics at Cal Tech. Any high school student interested in plane geometry should rush to see that program and watch it several times. It was excellent, even beautiful, elegant, polished, both simple and powerful, good fun, kept me right on the front of my chair. A crown jewel of civilization. Wonder what Gleason had to do with the TV narrow culture to keep them from ruining his program! <br><br> What passes through a motion picture camera really can be terrific stuff. Expensive? Not necessarily. One necessary condition is to make absolutely positively totally certain that no one from the narrow culture of old US TV and movies has any role at all in the effort -- maybe an exception for Spielberg. <br><br> Actually, there is some science programming from England that is okay. Curiously, the world center of drama is better at good content on science than the US which ruins science programming with low grade drama. <br><br> The problem with US TV, then, is just that narrow culture that somehow has a stranglehold on everything that passes through a motion picture camera. <br><br> My guess for the reason is intellectual laziness: It takes a little thought to see clearly (A) what is wrong with the old narrow culture and (B) in particular cases, something better. So, in practice, it is just so much easier to pass projects to that narrow culture and forget about it than to buck that system and create a new path. Easy, yes, but it also promises to be increasingly costly; it cannot last. <br><br> So, TV slowly goes downhill. Eventually, when parts of TV reach bottom, maybe there will start to be some changes, some real content instead of just more brain-dead, below fifth grade, <i>I Love Lucy</i>, VEFEE, formula fiction drama. <br><br> For food, maybe eventually Food TV will start to consider that it is possible to have programs that are mostly about food. <br><br> But, at the Web site of Food TV, we can see <blockquote> Food Network (www.foodnetwork.com) is a unique lifestyle network and website that strives to surprise and engage its viewers with likable hosts, personalities, and the variety of things they do with food. </blockquote> While I am interested in food and many things, I have no idea why I would ever want to watch anything like what is described here. I don't care about lifestyle, I don't really want to be surprised or engaged, I have no interest in the "hosts" being "likable" or "personalities". Absurd. Worthless. Nonsense. For me, totally irrelevant, useless, waste of time. <br><br> I don't get anything from it; it's a half hour or an hour of my time, and I leave with nothing to show for that time. I learn nothing useful, and instead of entertaining it's infuriating. Advertisers, take note. <br><br> So, I shouldn't watch it. And mostly I don't. Occasionally I can watch some of Alton Brown, look past all the weird camera angles and efforts at novelty and humor and concentrate on the information he has. Sometimes he does have some okay information although too often when he covers something I do know about his information is a bit weak. <br><br> Food TV has some awesomely good expertise in cooking, but the narrow culture wins out and makes sure that essentially all the value of the expertise is ruined. <br><br> Apparently the narrow culture is so brain-dead that they are unable in their own minds to see the value in anything except their VEFEE drama and much of anything beyond the fourth grade. So, that narrow culture is just oblivious to everything else that might be on TV. They are like deaf people at an orchestra concert, blind people at an art gallery, or some naughty fourth grade boy in a high school course. Except for variations on their old VEFEE drama, they just don't get it. <br><br> There is a really good reason US TV was called "the great wasteland". <br><br> For what Food TV should do? First, they should do the same thing nearly all the rest of TV should do: Kick out the old, brain-dead, narrow culture. Next they should wake up, look around, and see the rest of civilization and notice that there is enormous variety and content there. <br><br> In particular, and totally beyond the understanding of the brain-dead, narrow culture, there is a very long list of reasons people would want to watch something on TV; some of these reasons are above the fourth grade and above the shoulders. <br><br> For me, in food, near the top of the list is instructional material so that I can be a better cook, with my hands, in my kitchen, for my table. To me, this is a big thing. Getting VEFEE drama instead of such instruction is sickening, something I deeply, profoundly, bitterly, resent, hate, and despise, something I very much wish I never see again; I feel used, insulted, deceived, lied to, manipulated -- advertisers, take note. I'm not pleased or entertained; I am <b>TORQUED</b>. <br><br> Yes, the narrow culture will roll their incompetent eyes, believing that anything at all instructional has to be boring, tendentious, pedantic, insulting, pompous, pretentious, offensive, etc. Well, to the brain-dead narrow culture and how little they know, such will have to be their conclusions. But, these conclusions are all totally false. And, the solution is not rock bands, fast-cut video editing, haw-haw, he-he, beauty queens, cleavages, or more from <i>I Love Lucy</i>. There is nothing, nothing at all, wrong with learning something, especially something one could use. Sure, too many producers, in the VEFEE they wanted to create, wanted to use pretense, pomposity, etc., but that garbage was just more sick, useless, worthless, pointless VEFEE. <br><br> I do complain to my cable TV company and at each opportunity tell them that their Internet service is terrific, their telephone service is okay, but nearly all the content on their cable TV is just <b>awful</b>. When video on the Internet gets a little better, I will drop cable TV service -- I'm looking forward to it. TV really is a "great wasteland", and I hate it. Advertisers take note. <br><br> E.g., for the most recent Super Bowl, I watched one play. They wouldn't let me see the details of the pass defense at which time I concluded that their coverage was worthless and clicked away and never returned. But, on the Internet, I did watch all the ads. They were much better than the game. <br><br> I kid you not: I <b>HATE</b> nearly all of TV, yes, including Food TV. And I watch very little of it. Advertisers take note: You are nearly always paying for junk, and I <b>HATE</b> it. <br><br> I'm not against all of drama; while nearly always I would prefer something informative, a little drama occasionally is okay. But, there is a lot of drama already recorded. Actually, it does appear that the movies made between about 1935 and 1955, from only 21 years and including several years of the Depression and several years of WWII, still are about the best drama anyone knows how to do. Turner Classic Movies (TCM) transmits some of the best 24 hours a day. I have a personal collection of old movies, e.g., all the old Rathbone-Bruce <i>Holmes.</i> I've got plenty of drama. <br><br> My guess is that nothing will change Food TV, the rest of TV, the narrow culture, or their stranglehold on TV. Typically that is what happens with ossified cultures; they don't change; instead, they just die off. Eventually from some other quite different sources there will be some good content of much greater variety on video, and the old narrow culture and their stranglehold and work will just be set aside. Maybe we can get them jobs dusting camera lenses or mopping the floor from food spills -- finally something somewhat useful. <br><br> My guess is that the Internet will be the big change. Generally, the Internet is putting some severe financial pressures on old media. <br><br> In particular, anyone with a digital video camera, personal computer with some video editing software, a good Internet connection, and some good ideas for video content can develop such content and upload it to some video hosting sites that will pay based on number of views. When enough people notice that there is some money to be made here, then we will get a river of new content, some of which will be quite good, and very little of which will be from the old narrow culture. <br><br> And we will get some means to find the content we like (working on it!). <br><br> In the meanwhile, I can watch some <i>America's Test Kitchen,</i> Rick Steves, Burt Wolfe, BBC science programs, old Rathbone-Bruce <i>Holmes,</i> or, better yet, get some videos of lectures from Princeton, Xerox PARC, Kavli, etc. The lectures on asymptotic freedom and the strong force were terrific. Given that Intel is promising processors with 80 cores each, it was good to see what Microsoft is doing about concurrency. It was good to see what Google's P. Norvig is doing in machine processing of English. So far, for cooking, the situation is poor. <br><br> I'm interested in food but am rarely willing to watch anything on it at all on Food TV.

To get ready, make a tomato sauce: <blockquote> 1 pound diced yellow globe onion <br> 1/2 C virgin olive oil <br> 1 C dry red wine, e.g., Chilian Cabernet-Merlot <br> 1/4 C minced fresh garlic <br> 1/2 C dry parsley <br> 2 T dry oregano <br> 2 T dry basil <br> 50 twists of pepper mill <br> 4 cans, 28 ounces per can, crushed tomatoes, e.g., Tuttorosso (Sam's Club) <br> 6 ounce can of tomato paste, e.g., Contradina </blockquote> Cook onion and olive oil until onions softened, translucent, and somewhat reduced. Add garlic and heat through. Add wine and reduce until nearly all wine gone. Add one can of the tomatoes and mix. Add spices and mix. Add tomato paste and mix. Add rest of tomatoes and mix. Heat to simmer. Let cool uncovered to room temperature. Refrigerate uncovered and, when chilled, cover. <br><br> It's good. The wine does help, a little. <br><br> Next, fry some hamburger: <blockquote> about 6 pounds of 80% lean ground beef <br> 2/3 C virgin olive oil <br> 1 pound of diced yellow globe onion <br> 1/4 C fresh minced garlic <br> 50 twists on pepper mill with black pepper </blockquote> In the olive oil, saute the onions until soft. Add the garlic and mix. Add the beef, saute, and break into small pieces. Cook the beef until lightly brown. Drain and let cool to room temperature. Likely do the above in two batches with half the quantites in each batch. Freeze loosely. <br><br> In 2 quart Pyrex casserole dish, add <blockquote> 1 C 80% lean ground beef, as above <br> 1 C frozen shredded part skim Mozzarella cheese <br> 1 C of the tomato sauce above <br> 2 cans, 15 ounces per can, of canned ravioli, e.g., Chef Boyardee Beef Ravioli </blockquote> Shake dish, cover, heat in microwave oven at 100% power for 15 minutes, rotate 180 degrees, and heat at 100% power for 10 minutes. Top with about three ounces of freshly grated Pecorino-Romano cheese. <br><br> It's good. Also good with the red wine!

Russ, Many thanks for the data from on the ground in Parma!

Reefpimp: "There is a HUGE difference between 'waste water' and a manure lagoon. And if you haven't smelled a turkey lot or a feedlot as you've viewed it, all I can say is that either you were standing well upwind or you have no sense of smell." Sure. My friend's kill and cut facility killed the hogs about quickly as they were received and didn't need a manure lagoon. The place didn't smell like roses, but it wasn't anything like a manure lagoon. I was often on my father in law's farm in Indiana where he raised chickens, turkeys, and hogs, and there was no objectionable smell in the main dwelling or most places on the farm. Also, the other farms in the area didn't smell. Next farm to the north raised cattle, and it didn't smell. Near where I am in Upstate New York, 70 miles north of Wall Street, there is a farm with a herd of cattle, sometimes with the cattle near the road, and there is no smell. My father in law had no manure lagoon. For manure, it was sufficient to use a tractor to get the straw, etc. out of the long, low, wide buildings and spread it on the land for the row crops. For the animals that didn't make it, just have a trench, toss them in, and cover it over. The row crops were plenty clean: Actually, field corn, if get it when nicely young and cook it within minutes of picking it, is really sweet, good eating, and we did eat some of the field corn this way. No doubt the big difference was just 'density', number of animals per acre. So, some facility with a very high density and a manure lagoon could smell just awful, bad enough to raise health concerns for both the humans and the animals. For your "I dunno; it just seems to me that anyplace that smells that bad can't possibly be turning out a superior product." I fully agree. That's why I'm no longer buying fresh picnic pork shoulder. In astoundingly high contrast, in Spain some hogs are very carefully raised on nuts. In Italy, some hogs are very carefully raised on whey from making cheese; one result is Prosciutto, which is raw but cured pork. In both cases, the flavor of the pork is regarded as just excellent. I can't believe that the farms with the animals smell bad. The US got 'large scale industrialization' before it got traditions of good food. The food is sold as a commodity based just on price. The USDA keeps down really serious food safety problems, but nearly everything else, including flavor, is set aside. Part of the solution is better information, better than the news media puts out, and here eG and the rest of the Internet is helping. I'm not buying the the smelly stuff and am making it clear that I'm not. Mallet: I was brief and not clear: I used Google Earth some weeks ago after seeing whatever similar article I did see and before I saw your thread and didn't try again with your URL. The places with manure lagoons need some new local zoning laws. Dairy cattle raise an interesting point: The taste of milk is very sensitive to what the cows eat. If they eat something that tastes bad, then the milk might taste bad. So, for good tasting milk, I have to believe that the cows are not raised in stinking conditions. Then there is another interesting point: Meat from dairy cattle should have superior flavor to meat from beef cattle that spent a lot of time in stinking feed lots. So, where would one get meat from 'retired' dairy cattle? Well, I discovered that a large fraction of the retired dairy cattle in NY go to a certain packing house in PA, and they told me that a lot of the meat goes into coarsely ground hamburger sold to fast food and grocery stores who regrind to something finer at the last minute. Indeed, some of the hamburger I've gotten recently did have an especially good aroma, e.g., in great contrast to the last bottom round roasts I got. Stinking cattle are likely mostly from feed lots that feed the cattle a lot of corn to add fat in the muscle. But, the idea that this fat is really necessary is fading, and grass fed cattle are starting to catch on. They might taste better! Also, the price of corn may rise due to demand for ethanol, and one result might be still more grass fed cattle.

I saw the 'Rolling Stone' story or something similar and did use Google Earth to try to see the hog farms -- couldn't find anything. I don't know what's wrong with the citizens in the area reported by the article: I have a friend who used to kill and cut 5000 hogs a day, put the cuts into boxes, load them onto refrigerated trucks, and drive to New York City for delivery. So, yes, they had some 'waste water' running from the plant. But, they had to treat the water very carefully. What actually ran into the local stream was really harmless -- the only remaining question was from chemists analyzing the 'basic oxygen demand' making sure it was not too high for the stream. The water quality was watched very carefully by the state environmental quality agency. For the farms, I've seen some that raise chickens, turkeys, hogs, etc., and I've never seen or smelled anything like the descriptions in the 'Rolling Stone' story. However, I have been concerned about the quality of the last samples I got of fresh picnic pork shoulder: The meat tasted like hog manure. Until I can find some pork shoulder from hogs raised in reasonably clean conditions, I'm avoiding such pork.

For <blockquote> I'd like to do a book about ratios -- a sort of anti-recipe cookbook. </blockquote> A <i>ratio</i> may not be fully meaningful because, say, the number of egg yolks per quart of cream might be a little different for one cup of cream and one gallon of cream. But, when a ratio is meaningful, then presumably any good recipe really does provide the data needed for the ratios. <br><br> For <blockquote> And then it became even harder once our editor asked us to include metric measurements as well, because they don't translate directly, and it's a real pain in the ass. </blockquote> tell your editor that of <b>course</b> they "translate directly". Let's see: 16 ounces of weight is one pound is 1/2.2 kilograms is 1000/2.2 grams so that one ounce is <blockquote> 1000/(2.2*16) = 28.41 </blockquote> grams. So, if a recipe calls for a weight of one ounce, then in metric the recipe calls for 28.41 grams. That's all there is to it. It's just fine. Give something else, then must be at least a little wrong. No sense in being wrong. <br><br> For <blockquote> Plus, salt is a critical component in so much of this cooking, and different types of salt weigh differently. </blockquote> Of course not; all "types" of salt "weigh" just the same. If in freshman chemistry or physics I had been willing to believe that one gram of NaCl as rock salt had a different amount of NaCl than one gram of NaCl as finely crushed salt, then I would not have made the As I did. <br><br> Clearly, since the size of salt grains can vary, in recipes salt should be measured by weight. Not complicated. To find the density of some particular "type" of salt, just weigh, say, one quart of it. Then that is 64 tablespoons. Divide by 64 and get the weight of a tablespoon of that "type" of salt. Simple enough. <br><br> This is fifth grade stuff and one reason we spend so much money on education.

So, Steve was brought a salad and a bottle oil and one of vinegar. Hmm .... When this happens to me, I request an empty water glass and the mustard. Some oil goes into the water glass along with about 1/3 of the oil volume as vinegar, about 1 T of mustard, whatever they have, even yellow, some salt, a lot of pepper (take the top off the pepper shaker and dump). Then I whip with a fork, dump it over the salad, and do at least a little tossing, folding, mixing, or whatever. Works well. Since I don't ask for Dijon mustard, crushed fresh garlic, chopped anchovies, a slightly boiled egg, and Worcestershire sauce, I conclude that I'm not being too demanding as a customer!

I remember Indiana and Indiana University at Bloomington. In Bloomington, I taught calculus and got started on violin. On a map at Google, I see Richmond: It is just south of I-70 between Dayton and Indianapolis. I remember Dayton for the air show, the B-70, the first F-15, the Enola Gay -- lots of really warm fuzzy memories (Maggie: This is an example of being facetious!). I remember much more about Indiana further north at Fort Wayne, about 30 miles west at Warsaw, and about 15 miles south at Claypool. On the south side of Claypool is a cemetery, and in the north-west corner is a tombstone facing north for a graduate of Indiana University at Bloomington, Phi Beta Kappa, 'Summa Cum Laude', Woodrow Wilson, and Valedictorian of the high school that was there in Claypool. I met her in Bloomington; she was my wife. <br> <br> There is a lot of potential in Indiana. E.g., Charlie Trotter was correct in going to Indiana for some special produce, e.g., small potatoes. There is no end of the special beef, pork, lamb, poultry, vegetables, that could be grown in Indiana and supplied to cities near and far. <br> <br> Generally restaurant food in Indiana has a lot of room for improvement. Good food is easy enough to like; plenty of people in Indiana can like it. E.g., much like Indiana is Cincinnati, and at one time it had the restaurant in the US with the longest record of five stars from Mobil Travel Guide.

Now you have 'let the cat out of the bag' and explained that can get good, or great, wines from France, Italy, and Spain for less than $20 a bottle and don't have to buy inferior imitations for several times more from CA, etc. Right! In my facetious response, with parody and irony, I intended humor and regret for your telling the 'secrets'! But, there can be more detail. When I started with wines, I concentrated on [1] French white Burgundy, i.e., Pouilly this and that, Meusault, Macon Blanc, [2] French red Burgundy, i.e., the Cote d'Or from a little south of Beaune to a little south of Dijon, and [3] the red Bordeaux wines, e.g., from the Haut-Medoc. Each bottle varied, but for each of [1]-[3], right away I said "That is French" [1]-[3] as was the case. White Burgundy, red Burgundy, Haut-Medoc (or at least Bordeaux!) -- no question. However, when I tried wines from CA, the Chardonnay was nothing like [1], the Pinot Noir was nothing like [2], and the Cabernet Sauvignon was nothing like [3]. E.g., I saw French white Burgundy as crisp (some acid), dry (low sugar), and clean (nice delicate flavors, nicely balanced, no off flavors) and great for a dinner first course, but I saw CA Chardonnay as flat (low acid), sweet (high sugar), and a mess (strong flavors from every fruit in botany and more, wildly out of balance). Question: What the heck is going on here? Are the differences between the CA wines and the French wines I mentioned from the same grapes [A] deliberate efforts by the CA vintners, really about the best approximation of the French versions it is possible to do with those three grape varieties in CA, or [C] something else? In particular, there is too much uniformity: For something analogous, once for a musician friend I played a few seconds of a record and right away he said with high contempt "Hollywood movie music". He was correct! Well, I believe my experience was, for these wines, France or CA right away, no question. For the sugar in the CA Chardonnay, I have to guess that the main reason is just that the CA vintners are CONVINCED that the US wine buyers like Coke, Pepsi, and Welch's grape juice so much that they will insist on sweet wine no matter what. But what about the other differences? E.g, for the French reds I mentioned, after 20 minutes exposed to oxygen, the aromas commonly become something astounding. I got some similar reactions from many reds from northern Italy. But I didn't get such reactions from the CA Pinot Noir and Cabernet Sauvignon wines. What's wrong? Is the problem that the US Davis program doesn't know how to make wines like the French versions or just that the vintners use the freedom they have to make something different? One point: At times I have bought Chardonnay from Chile. It's not the same as the French versions, but it's closer than the CA versions! For another question, since you are now growing wine in Oregon, are you starting with Chardonnay, Pinot Noir, or Cabernet Sauvignon and doing well approximating the French versions [1], [2], or [3]? If not, why not? If so, how?

Craig, I wish you'd keep your opinions to yourself! Or, just explain to people why CA wines are the best in the world, the best tasting, the best values, just the BEST! Or, just point out that La Tache may be okay, but anything from France for less than $1300 a bottle is made with inferior techniques and not worth its cork. Yup, I just CRAVE those CA whites with low acid, high sugar, and flavor, oh, the flavors! "The elegance, the finesse, the balance, the complexity, the delicacy, the subtlety, the flavors of cherry, pineapple, peach, pear, apple, is it, could it be, the one, the only, Del Monte fruit cocktail? 'No' you say? Almost as good, CA Chardonnay!"

Caesar!

Sam's Club has been selling 'Haricot Vert' from Guatemala. <br><br> Bought a box. <br><br> Blanched. Took a nice handful, about 1/3 of the box, rinsed and drained three times, dropped into 2 quarts of boiling salted water, brought to simmer, simmered 2 minutes, dumped into colander, dumped into bowl of water and back into colander, dumped into bowl of ice water and left them there. <br><br> Took about 6 large white button mushrooms, washed, dried, sliced thinly, and sauteed in a cast iron skillet with peanut oil and S&P until well shrunken and slightly brown -- about 30 minutes at medium heat. Removed and drained. <br><br> Removed and discarded oil in skillet. To the skillet, still warm, added 1/2 stick of butter, S&P, about 1/3 C minced garlic, set off heat to let butter melt and the garlic warm; stirred occasionally to get the garlic coated with the butter. <br><br> When the charcoal broiled steak was ready and the baked potatoes were ready (from microwave -- works well), drained the beans, dumped into the skillet with the butter and garlic, added the drained mushrooms and more S&P, warmed through with lots of 'folding' to get the beans coated with the good stuff, arranged in an oval serving dish, dumped over the top the rest of the skillet contents, and feasted! <br><br> They were good! <br><br> For more, white wine, chicken stock, bacon?

BBQ beans, beer, chocolate 'ice box' pie.

Why BBQ? <br><br> Here's an answer: The book <blockquote> Gray Kunz and Peter Kaminsky, <i>The Elements of Taste,</i> ISBN 0-316-60874-2, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 2001. </blockquote> explains that, quite generally, the most important "elements" are (1) salt, (2) (black) pepper, (3) sugar, (4) acid (e.g., vinegar), (5) hot pepper, (6) browning, (7) smoke, (8) mushrooms, (9) wine, and a few more. <br><br> <i>BBQ</i>-- e.g., Memphis chopped pork shoulder BBQ -- hits hard as a sledgehammer on each of the first seven of these. <br><br> In addition there is fat to help carry the flavors. <br><br> And there is a <b>lot</b> of tender juicy meat. <br><br> Any questions left?

I'm learning! I'm learning! eG rocks again! <br><br> Why am I using baby peas instead of green beans, snap peas, etc.? Well, one of my first encounters with French cooking was some decades ago at the restaurant the Rive Gauche on the SW corner of Wisconsin and M Streets in Washington, DC. At the time it was a good candidate for the best restaurant in DC. We went frequently and got good tables, often with less than one hour notice. Had a lot of good wine from between Beaune and Dijon. <br><br> Well, one of the dishes they served was baby peas fixed up with bacon, onion, etc. Maybe it was supposed to be <i>provincial</i> and in the style of the South of France or some such. It had a <b>lot</b> of flavor and (would have!) passed the KFC FLG test! <br><br> For sweetness, tenderness, and flavor, I might be happier with Le Sueur brand. And, Le Sueur or not, the suggestion just to add some sugar sounds like a good idea. <br><br> Why frozen? They are more convenient, and I wouldn't have a clue about where to get good fresh baby peas. <br><br> But, <b>ludja</b> and <b>russ parsons</b> are no doubt correct that moving away from frozen baby peas could give a better dish, especially in the hands of someone who, unlike me, at least knows what a <i>snap pea</i> looks like! I'm trying to learn! I'm trying; I'm trying! <br><br> <b>Shalmanese</b> is convincing: I really <b>should</b> salt as I go along. One reason is just to get the salt <b>incorporated;</b> just sprinkling on at the end and stirring isn't enough. As I keep eating the dish, I'm concluding this! I <b>am</b> learning! And the observation of <b>Shalmanese</b> about salt helping to draw out the water from the mushrooms and onions is another good reason. <br><br> The salt arithmetic I did above concluded that from the stock and bacon the dish had at most 2.172 t of (Morton) table salt. So, maybe 1 T more might be okay. Then, maybe measure out 1 T at the beginning of the cooking and during the cooking draw from this 1 T. Then, get to salt all along and, still, at the end know how much salt actually did use. <br><br> The idea that using beef stock promises to give flavors that are too dark, strong, or something is well taken. From a lot of trials, reading some P. Franey instructions over and over, etc., I actually <b>have</b> learned know how to make decently good chicken stock. So, I should make up some good chicken stock and use it instead of beef stock. And if the chicken stock has relatively a lot of vegetable flavor, then the result would be closer to the <b>ludja</b> suggestion of just vegetable stock. It is, after all, a <i>vegetable</i> dish! <br><br> Actually I did a trial with wine but no stock. I concluded that stock was needed. So, in strength of flavor, that was the lower end estimate -- no stock! Then I grabbed the Campbell's beef consomme. That was the higher end estimate and too high. Of course, good eG contributors knew these things without trying the recipe! eG rocks! <br><br> Okay: Next estimate cut in the middle and use a good chicken stock, especially one with a lot of vegetable flavor. <br><br> There was one small reason for beef stock: I have used this vegetable side dish with charcoal broiled sirloin! <br><br> The <b>ludja</b> parsley suggestion sounds good: Just started an herb garden with flat leaf parsley, thyme, rosemary, and basil! <br><br> I'm surprised at the bacon: As I remember bacon from years ago (don't eat bacon very often!), so far the flavor is not very smoky or strong. <br><br> <b>Shalmanese</b> and <b>ludja</b> noticed right away that the flavors I tried are a bit strong (even though the bacon flavor is weaker than I expected). Actually in an earlier trial I did use shallots instead of yellow globe onions. I find shallots to be terrific in sauces for seafood, in some cases of <i>vinaigrette,</i> etc. With the recipe for these baby peas I have so far, even 1 C of onion is not too much! So, backing down to shallots would be making a much more delicately flavored dish! I concede that the highest quality dish, once perfected, would likely be based on shallots instead of yellow globe onions. With so much delicacy, I might have to try to get peas from some Alice Waters vendor! <br><br> My taste buds tell me that most peas have a lot of <i>starch</i> flavor and that baby peas have much less starch flavor but still have some. Then, one objective is to (using a Charlie Trotter word) <i>cut,</i> e.g., overwhelm, the starch flavor. Net, these little peas can use a staggering amount of flavor and ask for more. Actually, it might even be possible to take all that sauce goo and bacon and use it with just 10 ounces of peas instead of 20 ounces. Staggering. <br><br> <b>ludja</b> and <b>russ parsons</b> both noticed right away that the chunky goo from the saute pan ends up making a <i>sauce</i> that <i>coats</i> the peas. I'm shocked at how strong the effect of the <i>coating</i> is: In the final dish as served or the leftovers the next day, there just isn't much liquid sauce flowing around; essentially all the sauce goo makes just a coating. So, actually, that 1/2 C of water also ends of getting absorbed, into the peas, mushrooms, bacon, sauce goo, or whatever. <br><br> <b>russ parsons</b> is right about the "sauce base": The chunky goo in skillet is done on the side fully independent of the peas, e.g., can be finished and ready to use while the peas are still frozen! Actually that chunky sauce goo looks a little like a mushroom sauce for steak! In the last trial, the goo was even glossy. <br><br> In terms of the main ingredient categories in <blockquote> Gray Kunz and Peter Kaminsky, <i>The Elements of Taste,</i> ISBN 0-316-60874-2, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 2001. </blockquote> so far this dish hits hard on salt, (black) pepper, browning, mushrooms, and wine. The three categories still missing are sugar, acid, and hot pepper. The third is likely not appropriate, and right away eG contributors mentioned the first two. Sounds like this recipe needs sugar and acid. <br><br> <b>Anna N,</b> I have changed my mind about Campbell's many times. After my last trials trying to make beef stock, I ended with more respect for Campbell's. But, in failing to detect "a distinctive non-food flavour" my advantage is no talent! Seeing why I like measurements so much? <br><br> I do have to suspect that any good eG contributor could drive into my driveway, hesitate a second, and say, "Yup. Peas 'n Campbell's". <br><br> For "math", I can't do arithmetic: I have a little software that does the arithmetic for me. Further, I didn't even get the arithmetic results right; I said "22 ounces" when clearly I should have said "20 ounces"! Such mistakes are most of why I can't do arithmetic. <br><br> <b>mrbigjas:</b> <br><br> "you're the best, project." <br><br> No way! I do believe that sometimes a little arithmetic can shed some light. I was surprised that the bacon and stock didn't give enough salt, had been afraid that they would give way too much. But, with the arithmetic, the bacon and stock gave at most 2.172 t of salt, and that helps make things more clear. The arithmetic can be useful. <br><br> Thanks guys! <b>Terrific</b> responses, easy to recognize the lions by their paws. I've been learning! Others may be learning, too. As I make progress, I will keep reporting!

with a pound of bacon and a whole can of campbell's beef consomme* you're not sure it's salty enough? * (810 mg sodium per 1/2 cup serving; the cans are 14 oz, right? let's just say 1600 mg for argument's sake, but there's probably more than a cup in a can) ← mrbigjas: <br><br> On salt, without adding salt, the flavor was <i>flat.</i> Just from the taste, the dish clearly needed salt. So, whatever the reason, the bacon and stock didn't bring in enough salt. <br><br> But you are correct: We should try to calculate the amount of salt. <br><br> For the salt from the stock, can start with the label on the can. You are right about the 810 mg: The label says that one serving has 810 mg of sodium and the can has about 2.5 servings. So, the can has about <blockquote> 810*2.5 = 2,025 </blockquote> mg of sodium. I will take them at their word and assume that they are talking about just sodium. <br><br> How much table salt is this? Well, maybe we are supposed to conclude that all this sodium will be in the form of table salt, sodium chloride, and none as sodium bicarbonate, etc. With this assumption, we will be finding the <b>maximum</b> amount of salt there could have been. <br><br> Looking at a standard periodic table of the chemical elements, the atomic mass of sodium is <blockquote> 22.98977 </blockquote> and that of chlorine is <blockquote> 35.4527. </blockquote> So, table salt (chemical formula NaCl) with <blockquote> 810*2.5 = 2,025 </blockquote> mg of sodium should weigh <blockquote> ((35.4527 + 22.98977) / 22.98977) * 810*2.5 = 5,148 </blockquote> mg or about 5.1 grams. <br><br> My box of Morton Table Salt says that 1/4 t of their salt weighs 1.5 g. So, as table salt, the salt in the stock would be <blockquote> ((1/4)/(1.5))*(1/1000)*((35.4527 + 22.98977) / 22.98977) * 810*2.5 = 0.858 </blockquote> teaspoons. <br><br> From this arithmetic we should take the opportunity to extract a number of somewhat general usefulness: One gram (1000 mg) of sodium all as table salt weighs <blockquote> ((35.4527 + 22.98977) / 22.98977) = 2.542 </blockquote> grams and (in the form of Morton Table Salt) has volume <blockquote> ((1/4)/(1.5))*((35.4527 + 22.98977) / 22.98977) = 0.424 </blockquote> teaspoons. <br><br> For the amount of salt from the bacon, I used Hormel Black Label Original, and the package says that one serving has 310 mg of sodium and the one pound package has 10 servings (I used all the 1 pound package). So, as (Morton) table salt, the maximum volume of the salt from the bacon was <blockquote> (10*310/1000)* 0.424 = 1.314 </blockquote> teaspoons. <br><br> So, in total, from both the stock and the bacon, we have at most <blockquote> 0.858 + 1.314 = 2.172 </blockquote> teaspoons of (Morton) table salt. <br><br> That's not a lot of salt for 22 ounces of peas! <br><br> This was good arithmetic to do.

Goal here is a vegetable side dish with a lot of good flavor. <br><br> Tried to develop a recipe. Here are the results so far. Others can benefit from what I did, and I seek comments on what might help make more progress. <br><br> So far the dish does have a lot of flavor with a decently good balance of flavors. But it could be better. <br><br> Broadly the idea is to flavor baby peas with bacon, mushrooms, onion, garlic, beef stock, and white wine. In a little more detail, the idea is to fry some bacon, make a essentially a <i>pan sauce,</i> combine with the peas, and simmer. <br><br> Certainly the work is partly <i>stealing</i> from other ideas in cooking! <br><br> <b>Ingredients</b> <blockquote> 20 ounces frozen baby peas. E.g, 2 frozen packages of Birds Eye Baby Peas, 10 ounces net weight per package. Or try Le Sueur brand, which is a Green Giant brand. <br><br> 1 pound of favorite US-style sliced bacon. <br><br> 1 pound (as purchased) medium sized white button mushrooms, washed, dried, sliced coarsely, maybe just four pieces per mushroom. <br><br> 1 C diced yellow globe onion. <br><br> 3 T minced garlic. <br><br> 1 can, 10 1/2 ounces net weight, Campbell's Beef Consomme. <br><br> 1 C dry white wine, e.g., Chardonnay. <br><br> medium sized skillet, e.g., 9 1/2" internal diameter measured at top of skillet. <br><br> 2 quart heavy pot, e.g., Farberware <i>classic,</i> with cover. </blockquote> <b>Steps</b> <br><br> Place bacon in skillet and cook slowly separating slices. Cook until nearly all the fat is rendered. But cook slowly enough not to burn the bacon. Remove the bacon and drain. Pour out the fat to suitable container, e.g., a stainless steel mixing bowl or a 300 ml Pyrex glass custard dish. <br><br> Add the mushroom slices to the skillet and add enough of the bacon fat to saute the mushrooms. For the bacon fat, start with, say, 4 T. Cook at high enough power level to let the liquid water released by the cooking mushrooms evaporate. Cook until mushrooms have given up nearly all the water they are readily willing to give and until some browning of the mushrooms has started. Result should be some lightly browned well shrunken mushrooms in some bacon fat with no visible liquid water. <blockquote> Note that how much shrinking and browning of the mushrooms is done here is an important part of the flavors in the final dish. Also this step will add to the <i>fond</i> on the skillet, and that fond stands to be a major contributor to the final flavor. So far I have used a Teflon skillet, but for better fond development in future trials will likely use my well seasoned classic cast iron skillet. <br><br> This saute work with the skillet throws off a lot of steam with bacon fat. Thus, may want to do this saute outdoors, say, over a propane burner with maybe 12,000 BTUs/hour. If do this saute indoors, when done will certainly have to clean the stove top and may have to mop the floor. </blockquote> With the mushrooms still in the skillet, add the diced onions and saute until onions are soft and any liquid water has evaporated. Add more bacon fat if necessary for the saute. <br><br> Add the minced garlic, stir, and heat through. <br><br> Add the contents of the can of beef consomme (just pour directly from the can, and do not dilute this <i>condensed</i> soup with water). Add the white wine. <br><br> Dissolve the fond. The mushrooms will absorb some of this wine and stock and start to expand and soften again, which is likely okay. Reduce until the liquid is a light syrup. <br><br> Off heat, add salt and pepper to taste. <br><br> Place peas in the 2 quart pot. <br><br> Chop the bacon coarsely and add to the peas. <br><br> Add the skillet contents to the peas. Mix. <br><br> Do need some liquid water to help cook (i.e., steam) the peas. If the liquid in the skillet is too thick, then add maybe 1/2 C of water to the skillet, dissolve the syrup stuck to the skillet, and add the result to the peas. For well concentrated flavors, want minimal water in the peas. But with a good covered pot, can cook the peas with remarkably little water, maybe as little at 2 T. <br><br> Bring the contents of the pot to a simmer, cover, and simmer about 5 minutes. Mix. Again add salt and pepper to taste. <br><br> Done. <br><br> <b>Remarks</b> <br><br> There is a <b>lot</b> of flavor, but notice how much in bacon, mushrooms, onion, wine, and stock get added to that poor little 20 ounces of peas! <br><br> Salt perks up the flavor a <b>lot.</b> Cannot assume that there will be enough salt in the dish just from the bacon and stock. <br><br> It's easy to get in so much bacon fat, via the saute, that the final dish gets a mouth feel less good than could want. So, try to keep down the amount of bacon fat used in the saute. <br><br> Actually, I am concluding that for mouth feel in the final dish, bacon fat is not very desirable. Chicken fat, duck fat, or (virgin) olive oil might be better. Might attempt to have nearly the only bacon fat in the dish that from the bacon itself. So, might cook the bacon a little less and might use, say, olive oil when doing the mushroom, onion, and garlic saute. <br><br> In the final dish the onion is hardly noticeable at all. So, might be able to use more onion, say, 1 1/2 C instead of 1 C. <br><br> At the end, 1 T of red wine vinegar might help. <br><br> So far there are no herbs. Some herbs might help. <br><br> Instead of bacon might use some other meat, e.g., some sausage or confit. <br><br> Comments, reactions, thoughts, ideas?