Chris Hennes

Right, this is something I struggle with. I know that I am never going to replace my bottle of Cointreau for those drinks where TS is a key flavor. But I get the feeling that a lot of cocktails that call for it are really just looking for an orange-flavored sweetener. Maybe this is not the case, but when I look at those big crates of oranges at my produce market, it gets the wheels turning... "hey, that homemade Falernum was pretty good. I wonder if I could make a Triple Sec..."

Clearly I'm no expert on the filming of reality TV (or any other kind of TV)—this could easily be true. Assuming that it is, however, they would still have had quite a few episodes to work with, so I believe my point stands. Hosea was not a compelling winner, and to me this is a failure of the editors. They must have had hundreds of hours to work with, and all they give us is his whiney angst about Stefan.

Just to clarify, you are using the juice in other recipes, but NOT in the making of the "Triple Sec," right?

This is what gets me: the Bravo editors knew who won before the first episode aired: they had months to tweak the editing to ensure that the winner was a surprise, but a pleasant one. And instead, what they ended up creating was some random schmuck that no one really cared about. Stefan was the "clear favorite," Carla the "Dark Horse," and, oh yeah, there was some other guy, too. What was his name? Of course I agree that within the context of the last episode it seems clear that Hosea deserved the win: the others simply screwed themselves with bad decisions. That doesn't explain to me how Bravo could have assembled and edited the season so poorly: I don't think anyone is "angry" about this choice, like many were when Ilan won; it's clear Hosea won fair and square here. The question is, why didn't they make him a more compelling winner?

I'll second that. The finale was... dull. I feel bad about Carla blowing it, but I can't blame her sous chef. I think it gives Sous Vide an undeserved bad name, but oh well. I just can't understand how the season's editing was supposed to lead up to Hosea winning. I had him pegged as middle-of-the-pack the whole way through, even up to the end. I also felt that the finale was too short: there was almost no cooking content. Bleh. Next year I'll know better: if the contestant field looks this weak, I'll just stay away.

I'd like to revisit this topic since my current Triple Sec supply is waning. To my mind, it seems like it should not be that difficult to at least surpass the flavor of the cheap crap I've got on my shelf right now with something a little simpler than a still. I'm thinking more along the lines of a sweetened orange zest extract. Maybe include some juice along with it? What other flavors might be added to try to come up with a pseudo-triple sec that doesn't require any distillation? Suggestions?

I wonder how low they will take it: it's a precarious balance between trying to make a profit off the brand, and driving the brand to worthlessness as consumers realize the quality's not there anymore. That said, at least as of a few months ago (the last time I had anything from NR), both their beef and pork are still head-and-shoulders better than anything I can get at most markets where I live. So even if quality is declining, at the moment I think they've still got a decent value proposition. You could take the next step up the quality chain, to something like Lobel's, but you're going to pay for it.

Niman Ranch, a popular source for high-quality, humanely-raised and slaughtered, antibiotic-free beef, pork and lamb, seems to be having some more growing pains. From the article: As usual, there seem to be several sides to this story, and of course we don't know all the details. It seems that Niman Ranch was bleeding money for it's entire existence, and got bailed out of bankruptcy last year by being acquired. The new CEO sold off the company-owned feedlot and contracted out the finishing: according to him, they are being held to the same standards as the original feedlot, but Bill Niman isn't convinced. Niman also objects to the use of anti-microbials (antibiotics are still banned from NR products, but now anti-microbials are not), and to the newly-increased shipping distances. Niman's original business model was clearly unsustainable, and all the original investors lost scads of money on it. Something had to give: the new CEO argues that standards have not been compromised, things are just being done more efficiently. Niman disagrees, and thinks that the increased shipping distances, use of anti-microbials, and lack of control of the commercial feedlots have destroyed the quality of the product. I think this raises some interesting questions. First, has the actual quality/taste of the beef diminished recently? Second, has the welfare of the animals decreased (setting aside whether you think that is important or not)? What's the deal with anti-microbials as opposed to antibiotics? Can you really go from losing $10k per month to making $7k per month without sacrificing anything? Would it have been better to just shutter NR if it couldn't meet its original goals?

The simple answer is that normal baker's yeast multiplies the fastest at around 100°F: lower or higher and it slows down. Too high and you kill it (like when you bake it), too low and it just goes dormant (with a little die-off). Whether "multiplies the fastest" is the same as "optimal" is up for debate: many bread recipes call for "retarding" the dough; that is, deliberately cooling it down to make it rise slower, giving the various enzymes time to work their magic and improve the flavor of the bread. There are a lot of factors at work here: how much yeast are you using, what kind of yeast is it, are you sure it's still good, etc. For reference, I frequently rise dough overnight using standard recipes by putting the dough in the refrigerator at 40°F: I really hope your kitchen is not quite that cold! But since your recipe is already designed for an overnight rise, I'm guessing it uses less yeast that those I use. When your room temp is cold, you might consider just bumping up the quantity of yeast that you start with. I'd also double-check to make sure your yeast is still alive and kicking.

Last week I made one of their recent incarnations of Bolognese (the one from the March 2008 issue): I was not impressed. From the blurb at the top: "In this country meat sauce usually means a hastily made dish with rubbery ground beef and no flavor." What their recipe makes instead is a "slowly made dish with mushy ground beef and no flavor." Where's the red wine? Where are the porcinis? Button mushrooms? Please. And their obsession with making the meat "tender"? No thanks. I wonder if what they describe as "rubbery" I would describe (somewhat more complimentarily) as "toothsome." I mean, you're going to put it on a plate of al dente pasta: it needs a little texture. Making this was really not that much faster than going with a more authentic variation, and it requires more babysitting. Has anyone else tried this one? Am I off-base here?

Is there another name for this? I typically think of "head cheese" as a specific product, more of a terrine. I saw a video this past summer of Chris Cosentino doing something more like this, a roll formed from the meat off the head, but I can't for the life of me remember what he called it (probably something Italian...). Anyone know?

I'm smack dab in middle America here in Norman, Oklahoma (just south of OKC, about three hours north of Dallas). Despite OKC being a relatively large city, there is no "food culture" to speak of here, so many of these ingredients are difficult to find. I think I can actually identify sources for all of them, but certainly your bookstore cookbook shopper is going to have a rough go of it: --Pomegranate molasses - No --Sumac - No --Aleppo pepper - No --creme fraiche - No --Mexican crema - Yes --Spanish smoked paprika - Does McCormick count? That's a "no." --miso paste - No --sherry vinegar - Yes --duck (fresh or frozen) - Yes --duck fat - No --pancetta - No --less common pig parts - Some (trotters) Alas, your average eGullet member does not exactly fit into this category: it's not surprising that no one here is particularly intimidated by that list. But I bet if I polled my neighbors not one of them would consider buying ANYTHING on it.

I generally use your standard chuck roast, nothing special. I prefer it well trimmed, which takes some patience, but the result is worth it, and it's usually pretty cheap.

I agree, but Thorne seems to be saying that there is a fundamental dichotomy here: that there are only two types of people, knife people and pot people. Regardless of the setup, that fundamental distinction is simply not true, in my opinion. It may well be true for "some people," but it's certainly not true for everyone, and I'm not even convinced it's true for the majority of cooks, or even the majority of eGullet cooks. I'm sure there are people who are indeed personally connected to a knife or to a pan, but there must be other people out there who, like me, like nice tools and would prefer to use them, but feel no deep commitment or attachment to them. I'm not a "knife person" or a "pot person," I'm a "food person."

I don't think anyone is arguing that they are easy, regardless of how simple they are. Not much is simpler than a roasted chicken, but it's by no means easy to do properly! I am mostly just relating my pie-in-the-sky belief that a show that purports to be looking for a "top chef" should start with a set of contestants who can all bang out "the classics" and are ready to take things to the next level. Sure, some skill challenges are fun early on, but by this point in the competition I would have hoped that everyone left had already surpassed that level and we were ready to really hammer away on their ability to be creative and still make great food, instead of "just" replicating stuff that has been around for hundreds of years.

I do not scoff at roast chicken, I love it, and agree that it is challenging to execute correctly. Nor do I scoff at an omelet as a test of a COOK. But being a CHEF is about more than being able to bang out perfect execution. That's the absolute minimum skill set that should be required to even be in the running. Every single contestant should be able to do that. Now, show me what you've got! Let's see creativity. Let's see out-of-the-box thinking. Let's see uniqueness. The fact that what the judges appear to be looking for is perfect execution of simple dishes is exactly my point: I think it's a BS criterion for choosing a top chef. They had all damned well better be at that level. So stop constructing challenges that can be won by perfect execution without thought given to any level of creativity. I think it makes for a boring contest: no one is pushing themselves flavor-wise, so we get a lot of tasty roast chicken and overcooked salmon. What about taking risks? Of course they have no incentive to do so, they risk failing, and there is no upside! The prizes for the winner are by and large garbage, at least compared to the possibility of getting kicked off. I think to encourage risk-taking, you need to find some way of convincing the chefs it is worth it to go for the win, and not just compete to not lose.

For what it's worth, brussels sprouts appear in three recipes from Under Pressure, and in all three they are blanched and sauteed, never cooked sous vide.

Really? All the creative dishes were shot down in the quick fire. ← I don't follow... I think we agree, but I'm not sure! Any time one of them tries something creative, they lose to someone doing a damned roast chicken. Being able to make a good roast chicken does not mean you are a good chef, it means you're a good cook. Whereas, being able to successfully invent a new/unique/interesting dish seems much more applicable, at least to me. Alas, none of them seem to be able to do it. Where are this year's Richard and Stephanie? Absent, IMO. All we have is a room full of decent cooks. Not a chef among them.

Pot cooking is only about patience if you have the heat set too low!!

I still wish is was Jamie instead of Hosea, but at least Stefan will have a chance to show his chops. More and more, however, this show feels like "Top Cook"—the dishes that keep winning are never really creative, never go out on a limb, never show any chef-like qualities. They are simple food well prepared. Great. I'm happy for you, you can roast a chicken. Make something interesting!!!

I suggest having a look at the Au Pied do Cochon topic for inspiration. Their whole menu is cooked before your eyes in a crazy-hot wood-fired oven, and there is some truly incredible food there. Also, I think I read someplace that the very old school method for making Cassoulet is to cook it overnight in the cooling oven. Sounds like fun, even if it doesn't turn out to be true!

Is the question really, do you personally identify more with pots or with knives? Because to be honest, I don't feel a personal attachment to any of it. Not the knives, not the pots. To be sure, I like my chef's knife, and I use it every day, and keep is razor sharp to the best of my meager abilities. And I like my dutch oven, and my one good skillet. But I really don't feel an attachment to any of them. In a fire I'd be more likely to grab whatever was curing in the meat fridge, if that's the set up you want to go with. But I don't think that's the point; this isn't the desert island test. It seems to me that what Thorne's saying is that the two types of cooks are those who identify most with their knives or with their pots. And I still disagree with the premise that those are the only two options. I'm in it for the food. Period. The tools are... just tools.

I disagree with the basic premise. All of my knives and all of my cookware is perfectly replaceable. I'd grab another armful of books.

I'd have to stretch my memory a bit to evaluate the claim of "creamy texture, tender skins," but I do recall that they were just about perfect. Mine were huge so I had to cook them a bit longer than CI suggests, but I found that the technique worked well. It does, of course, require some advance prep... They did their usual batch of tests to evaluate the various bean-cookery advice out there, and had some science to back up their results, so brining the beans is my new method. Though, note they they use 4 quarts of water, not 4 cups, to 2 cups beans and 3 tbs salt. It's a lot of water, but you want to make sure the salt concentration is right!

An ice water bath provides a great low-tech solution to cooling things quickly. It's especially good for cooling of posts of stock, etc. Give the stock a stir every few minutes and it will be cool very quickly (if you have enough ice water).