KennethT

oh, and here's more interesting info... this source says that salt in the earth doesn't come from the sea - but it's actually the other way around - salt in the sea comes from the earth! http://www.onr.navy.mil/focus/ocean/water/salinity1.htm

This is true - but interestingly, you will even find that different seas/oceans have different salt concentrations - it seems like this is due to many factors, among which are total depth, amount of sunshine/temperature which leads to localized evaporation, rainfall... etc.. Here's an interesting image which shows global salt concentrations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WOA09_sea-surf_SAL_AYool.png

I don't want to take this off topic, but I definitely think there is a difference between sea salts from different regions. Sea water contains lots of different salts, not just sodium chloride... there's also calcium chloride, magnesium sulfate, potassium chloride, and many more. These other salts exist in varying concentrations in different areas, and can change the flavor of the evaporated salt, as well as the process of evaporation and collection affecting the texture. When I look at my carton of Baleine - it doesn't list Sodium chloride as an ingredient, it just lists "sea salt" which could contain any number of different salts. This is not a finishing salt as it is finely milled - I use it as my normal salt. I have other salts that have different flavors and textures that I use for finishing. There have been studies that have linked iodized "table salt" to higher rates of heart disease and blood pressure issues, with some studies actually going so far as to recommend people with salt tolerance related blood pressure problems to switch to sea salt before resorting to medication. Unfortunately, some of these studies are a few years old, and I can't seem to find them right now to link them. I do believe that some unscrupulous companies could be cutting their sea salt with other salts to make more profit. With expensive finishing salts, I think a good rule of thumb is similar to the olive oil conclusion - taste it... you can definitely taste the difference between high quality sea salt and "kosher" salt and even more difference to any iodized salt. Edited for clarity

Celeste - can you repost the link to the chart from Thermoworks... it didn't come through... thanks!

I used to use food saver brand bags (made from the rolls) all the time, even at 80C+ for high temp and never had a problem.. but for pure convenience I now use ziplocks

I would be worried about olive oil solidifying at the temperatures you need for this process.true... didn't think of that....

FeChef - if your smoker is runnign around 200F, I doubt it would take over 4 hours to go from 40F to 140F unless you're smoking a steamship round. In any case, if you're cooking a single piece of meat that has not been punctured, the inside is considered sterile - especially if you have cooked it SV to pasteurize. Once you remove from the bag, you have only contaminated the surface, which should get up to temp quickly. I don't know if cold smoking is the way to go, unless you want a cold smoked flavor - in my mind, they're different and have different purposes... But, and don't quote me on this, I seem to remember reading that the smoke is "anti-bacterial" or somethign to that effect, so even if cold smoking, you can leave it in the smoke longer than you could on the countertop and remain safe. ETA cold smoke stuff

You can, but it creates a different kind of caviar. The alginate kind have a solid shell and contain liquid and will burst when chewed. The agar will be solid and won't burst. The other problem is that agar needs to be heated above 180degF for a few minutes to hydrate which will completely change the flavors of either raw basil or tomato. Some people have had success in hydrating the total amount of agar in a very small amount of water, and then adding that to your basil or tomato liquid so as not to cook out those flavors. Typically, the agar spheres are dropped into a neutral oil, but since your flavors would probably work very well with it, you could use olive oil.

looks a little like chinese broccoli - only without the thick stems...

I would think that cooking something so thin should use a higher temp - at least 375 so that the crust browns while the inside cooks through...

That leg of lamb looks fantastic! I wonder what would happen if you put a pan of potato cubes or something in the bottom of the roaster so that it would still be in the path of the IR, but would catch some of those great drippings?

this is a tough problem... especially if you don't know what he likes to eat... I second rotuts... When I first started cooking for myself, I started with simple things - pan roast chicken breast with sauteed greens or salad, pasta, etc... something not too hard to really mess up and cause discouragement.

All of book 1 is about food safety... All the charts and tables are there... That being said, I'll reiterate that the forums here and Douglas Baldwin's site have just about all the info you'd ever need. I'm another one who joined Egullet because of the original sous vide thread.

Sorry for getting off track... I agree - if I had any outdoor space whatsoever, I would get this in a heartbeat! Seems like a great inexpensive and more convenient tandoor - something that I had considered building - if I only had some outdoor space or at least a kitchen that I owned with a big hood that actually vented outside. I don't know about using it as a wok burner - it seems like its been designed so that most of the IR is directed inside the cooker (like a tandoor). The heat coming out the top is probably not nearly as intense.

That is basically the "Black Body Radiation" theory. What I don't understand (yet) is how the screen can reflect the IR energy, perhaps the screen's perforation size is such that the wave length of the IR ray cannot penetrate, just like the screened door of a microwave oven can prevent leaking of microwave energy. dcarch Right... I wondered the same thing about the screen - I just sort of assumed that it was made from shiny metal so that a percentage of IR energy would be reflected (albeit in random directions).. Sort of the reverse of how shade cloth works in a greenhouse. The screen need not to be shiny. It is very possible to have efficient reflectivity in antenna design with very perforated reflectors, it all has to do with wave length. IR is exactly like microwave and radio wave, except the wave length is shorter. dcarch Microwave antenna http://antennasystems.com/Merchant2/graphics/rfsworld/APL-3T.jpg I don't know if I necessarily agree... what works for microwaves doesn't necessarily work for all EM waves. You can use waveguides to carry microwaves, which won't work for higher frequency spectra.. antennae are used to braodcast microwaves - which won't work for IR... So while it doesn't matter for microwave, your bathroom mirror is shiny for a reason... For all intents and purposes, IR is closer in wavelength magnitude to visible light than visible is to microwaves - let's say IR is 1-2 orders of magnitude away from visible, whereas microwaves are 4 orders of magnitude away from visible.Anyway, since I don't own the product - I'm not sure if the screen is shiny or not- but I have enough experience to say that when I wear a black shirt in the sun I feel warmer than when wearing a white shirt, given the same ambient air temp. and humidity. I feel pretty safe in saying that a matte black screen will absorb IR and allow it to pass through with very little reflected - while a shiny silver screen will reflect and allow to pass through while absorbing very little. ETA - unless the black screen in absorbing the IR and re-radiating it (very possible), which changes the argument completely.

That is basically the "Black Body Radiation" theory. What I don't understand (yet) is how the screen can reflect the IR energy, perhaps the screen's perforation size is such that the wave length of the IR ray cannot penetrate, just like the screened door of a microwave oven can prevent leaking of microwave energy. dcarch Right... I wondered the same thing about the screen - I just sort of assumed that it was made from shiny metal so that a percentage of IR energy would be reflected (albeit in random directions).. Sort of the reverse of how shade cloth works in a greenhouse.

the polymerized cooking spray (or other oil), when darkened, will emit IR more efficiently - so it will work better and be "hotter" over time. From looking at the manual, it doesn't seem like there's a temperature control - but IR doesn't really work that way... they said that if you add teh included top screen, it will get hotter inside since the screen reflects IR - they recommend you run the machine after use for 10-15 min with the screen on to burn off any gunk from cooking - like you might for a barbeque grill.

You can google it to get to CharBroil's website, and download the instruction manual. It is very descriptive. The cooker comes with a screen type lid that reflects IR which intensifies heat inside. They also recommend that the inside be seasoned, like cast iron, and over time, the cooker will get even better as the seasoning will emit IR more effectively as time goes on. So, it is not baking (as baking refers to hot air doing the cooking) but roasting in the traditional sense of cooking with IR. It looks like a great device - if I had any outdoor space whatsoever I would consider getting one... as much as I don't like to follow rules, I think I would follow their constant advice (read warnings) as to not use indoors!

I have seen calamansi at Fairway - probably a couple of months ago... But they were ripe, the rind was bright orange. Typically, they are used green in SE Asia cooking. I have never seen them sold this way in NY.

Right - and as far as stovetop smoking goes - I have the same situation (I actually never use my vent since it just blows air back around - the filters are there to trap grease more than anything but they're not that effective) - I have good results using a Cameron Stovetop smoker - it's inexpensive, works pretty well and doesn't release tons of smoke into the kitchen as it's pretty well sealed. It's good for short smoking jobs - not necessarily long ones though.

Is that shiso with the liver?

Not everything needs to be pasteurized if you are to consume immediately (or within 4 hours). Whole muscle cuts of beef, like steak are fine - as long as you give it a surface sear which will kill all surface bacteria. The theory is that the interior of whole muscle cuts (meat that hasn't been punctured) are considered sterile, but the surface may be contaminated. BTW - while doing this, I would recommend searing before SV - as many times, low temperature baths for rare steak are like incubators for bacteria - so you'd want to kill any surface bacteria before hitting the bath. Some people drop the bagged steak in boiling water for a short time... but personally, I'm a fan of the pre and post sear. Pre for bacteria, post for flavor/color.Other foods, like poultry, should be pasteurized regardless of when you plan on consuming it.I think the rule of thumb with pasteurization would go along with whether you would consider eating the same item raw. So steak, for instance, can be eaten as tartare, so you wouldn't need to pasteurize other than the surface. I don't know anyone who would ever consider eating raw chicken. Just a couple of comments. The Japanese have a number of raw chicken dishes. And more importantly one needs to be aware that steaks are now frequently jaccarded (pierced all over with very fine blades to cut the muscle fibres) prior to sale to tenderise them. This is not always obvious but it suggests that one needs to know the provenance of one's steaks before assuming that they don't require pasteurization. Right - I thought about explicitly mentioning the industrial jaccarding, but didn't - I alluded to it when I mentioned "meat that hasn't been punctured" but I should have been more explicit, so thanks for pointing that out. With regards to the chicken, while I know there are a few cultures that eat raw poultry, I'm not sure if they're doing that at home, or only in restaurants that know exactly when and how the chicken was slaughtered, gutted, etc to minimize the chances of bacterial problems. And I have no idea how popular those dishes are - do people eat them all the time or is it only once in a long while? Just like with sushi - you can't just go to your local market, pick up a piece of salmon fillet or something and assume it is sushi grade and safe for raw consumption. Nothing is impossible, but I have a hard time believing that people are going to their local market, picking up some chicken that may have been sitting there for a few days, and consuming it raw.Regarding the question about pasteurization time - the pasteurization time is a constant for a given core temperature and bacteria type. What varies is the amount of time it takes the core to get to that temperature - which varies primarily by thickness/shape. Douglas Baldwin makes it easy by incorporating pasteurization time into some of the tables - but I think early-on NathanM posted a table of pasteurization times by temperature that you could add to the time it takes to reach core temperature. If you have an iOS device, I would highly recommend downloading the SousVideDash app - designed by an EGullet member and fellow sous vide enthusiast Vengroff. It is not expensive, and it makes the problem of cooking times, pasteurization, etc. a non-issue as the app calculates everything for you. All you need to do is enter in the type of protein, desired core temp, bath temp, food shape and thickness, and you're ready to go. ETA: Yes, shape matters. I don't believe NathanM went into detail about it in the early tables, but if memory serves, it was address in Modernist Cuisine. It is also addressed in the Sous Vide Dash app. The early nathanm tables assumed an infinite plane of a certain thickness (like a slab) - which is the worst case scenario. If you are using the same bath temp as core temp, then this is a good figure to use at will ensure that the core is what you think it is. Other shapes will reduce the need for as long of a cooking time to come to temp. Shape becomes much more critical if you're doing gradient cooking - your core temp is lower than your bath temp. Some people prefer this method for certain foods that they don't want to be 100% even... personally, I do that when I cook fatty fish - like salmon. I use a bath temp of 115F, but shoot for a core temp of 102F - it comes out just how I like it every time, plus it makes the cooking time quite a bit shorter. But that is much trickier to figure without the app. Cooking multiple bags does not affect anything so long as you have decent water flow around each of the bags - they shouldn't be stacked up touching each other. As long as your water can flow around each bag, and your heater can remedy the initial temp drop in a short amount of time it's fine.

Not everything needs to be pasteurized if you are to consume immediately (or within 4 hours). Whole muscle cuts of beef, like steak are fine - as long as you give it a surface sear which will kill all surface bacteria. The theory is that the interior of whole muscle cuts (meat that hasn't been punctured) are considered sterile, but the surface may be contaminated. BTW - while doing this, I would recommend searing before SV - as many times, low temperature baths for rare steak are like incubators for bacteria - so you'd want to kill any surface bacteria before hitting the bath. Some people drop the bagged steak in boiling water for a short time... but personally, I'm a fan of the pre and post sear. Pre for bacteria, post for flavor/color. Other foods, like poultry, should be pasteurized regardless of when you plan on consuming it. I think the rule of thumb with pasteurization would go along with whether you would consider eating the same item raw. So steak, for instance, can be eaten as tartare, so you wouldn't need to pasteurize other than the surface. I don't know anyone who would ever consider eating raw chicken.

Thanks all for the thoughts. I realized after I posted (and left the apt with no access to a computer) that once the pressure is reduced, the pot is no longer sealed. With that in mind, however, it is still a covered system, keeping evaporative cooling to a minimum, so it does cool very slowly, even without any insulation. The shiny metal pot is a poor radiator of heat, and heat losses due to air convection is low also since the airflow in the kitchen is poor unless the vent is on. So, yes, it does take hours to even get to 160 deg F, let alone 130-140 deg F which is still a temp too high for bacteria to multiply. To get an exact figure, I'd have to run cool down tests and check temp every half hour or so. I know it's not completely exact since every time I open the pot, I get evap cooling, but it would give me a more conservative figure.

I had a question about food safety and pressure cookers about this specific situation: I make a stock that sits at full pressure for at least an hour, which is then naturally cooled. For how long can I keep this on the stove-top with the lid undisturbed without having a huge problem? Theoretically, the contents of the pot are basically steralized, and since it's a sealed system, no new bacteria can enter. I wasn't planning on having it sit for days, but I was hoping I could make stock in the morning, then turn off the heat before leaving for the rest of the day and coming back in the evening. Granted, in my pot, it takes over an hour just for the pressure to reduce to atmospheric to open the lid, and it stays probably over 180F for another hour or two... I just don't know how long it would be sitting in the "danger zone", and if the DZ even applies in this case....