KennethT

I did the retrograded potato puree last night. I've done this in similar ways before (as posted on other threads) but I've always had problems, and, it's always been a real pain in the neck. Doing it the MC way was really convenient and easy, and it was probably the best potato puree I've had yet... I didn't even knock myself out to do it the "upgraded" way with the potato flakes or ultrasperse... just potatoes and butter, but still great potato flavor. What I liked is that previously, I had been told to cook the potatoes in their skin, and then, once cooked, peel them while still hot - which is a real PITA... MC recommends peeling first, but reserving the peels and putting them in the retrograde water/cooking water to save their flavor... and much easier! Also, I always thought you had to retrograde the potatoes dry with no water - just in the vacuum bag... but MC recommends retrograding in 400% water, which also made things easier. It was a little unclear what to do with the retrograde water once you drained the potatoes to cool them. I saved the retrograde water, and after the potatoes were cool, put the water in a pot and brought to a boil, and cooked the potatoes in the retrograde water... whether that was proper or not I don't know - but it worked... I did have to add a bit of water halfway through the 15-20 min. cook time though to replace evaporation. After cooking, I saved that water again - to dilute the puree as needed later on... but as it aged for the afternoon, it turned brownish, so when I added it back, the potatoes went from white, to slightly gray... Still very very tasty, but I think I have to find a way to store the water without the browning... maybe I'll rebag it to keep the excess air out of it.. but I don't know if the browning is oxidative or enzymatic - something tells me it's not enzymatic, since it was boiling for 20 minutes - that should have killed all the enzymes... next time I'll add a little vit. C powder to it to see if that stops the browning...

I find 83C way too hot for asparagus... In the old SV thread I posted my asparagus time/temp - it was something like 155F for 8-10 min. I think... I'll have to recheck... I also checked out Modernist Cuisine which recommended something similar to my results... I'll have to check it when I get home though... ETA: OK - just checked the old post (the index is great!!!) - it was 150F for 8 min. Here's the link

It would be helpful if that posting was either a sticky or was the first entry in one or more of the "Modernist Cuisine" threads. Right - I did that with another error I found - the word "check" was used for what I think should have been "cheek" as in "beef check".... I just feel bad if lots of people are finding the same errors and PMing Nathan with them leaves him innundated with similar messages, wasting a lot of his time. I also think we should have an error/typo/correction page that way all the errors can be found in one place to eliminate the possible redundancy. That way, the authors just have to check one page once in a while to see if anything has been added, and can respond with any necessary clarification if they wish.

I'm a little confused over something - maybe someone can help clarify... In 3-99, there's a parametric poultry sous vide table... it says that to cook pheasant breast to medium rare, cook to 133F core temp and hold for 35 min. to pasteurize. However, it recommends (as their preference) to cook to medium, cook to 129F core temp, and hold 2h17m to pasteurize. Am I missing something? Also, all other temps in that table increase from medium rare to medium (as expected) except for the pheasant breast... Is this a typo? To further complicate the issue, in 5-137, there's a recipe for SV guinea hen that in step 6 recommends cooking the breasts to 129F core, then hold 12min. for pasteurization, as opposed to 2h17m as recommended in the table on 3-99. Plus, we know from the sous vide thread that it takes much longer to pasteurize at 129F than 12 minutes!

Wow - that's awesome!!! Thanks so much! That'll be much stronger than the flat pieces I was looking at! And the price is great. Lexan is a great choice also because it is not affected by alcohol (important when vacuum infusing fruits with liquors)... other plastics will haze in the alcohol vapor eventually.

Looking forward to it. I had occasion to drag out the ShopVac the other day. When I turned it on I was impressed by the power of the vacuum. Of course, this immediately made me ponder the ways in which it might be employed in the culinary arts. Today I discovered GLAD Press'n Seal plastic wrap. I'm pretty sure a marriage is possible here, but a preliminary FoodSaver powered test revealed that some development of technique will be required. Well it won't be THAT ghetto with a shopvac - Idon't think that can pull nearly enough vacuum, but haven't researched it. I was thinking for along the lines of a pump used by refrigeration/HVAC repairs to remove refrigerant from cooling lines - like this one. There are cheaper ones also that pull the same vacuum but will just take a little longer.

Chris, about how thick is the plastic cover? I'm in the process of designing GhettoVac5000 using either a large heavy stockpot as the chamber or reinforced hotel pan (pan with buttresses welded to the sides to increase strength). The lid was originally going to be a very thick piece of clear plastic - I'm still investigating properties of different plastics - many like lexan have high impact resistance, but are pretty flexible which I don't think I'd want - but it can be stiffened with the crossbeams like in the 112... but maybe I can get away with a thinner piece depending on the design of the crosspieces. That would certainly decrease the cost even more as the thick piece of lexan is probably the most expensive part of the whole thing!

Still in process of designing/rigging Ghetto Vac 5000.... coming soon.... hopefully!

I think I recall Nathan saying he liked the beef cheek pastrami best.

There was actually a NYTimes article the other week about the recent popularity of Coconut Oil - and there was a thread about it (I think it was an old thread re-visited). From what I remember, the upswing was to use the virgin coconut oil, but different brands taste differently. The 'unvirgin' oil has stuff in it that makes it supposedly bad for you, saturated fat/transfats or something... I didn't have that much time to read it in detail, but just got the main bullet points... But I think Whole Foods carries it for a while now...

I also like to separate the cream from the coconut milk. I learned to do Thai cooking from a woman in Chiang Mai, adn I arranged to have a private lesson (well, me and my wife) all day so I could ask lots of questions, and arrange the dishes we made so that I could do many different techniques... so anyway, her method was to start with thick coconut milk (her coconut milk was fresh, not canned, but her thick milk was the viscosity of our cream). Way back, after returning from the trip, I did a comparison between the different brands of canned coconut milk, and I like the Chaokaoh (sp?) brand best - when you leave it undisturbed, it separates quite nicely - in fact, if you let it sit long enough, the top inch or two becomes thick like sour cream works great for stir frying the curry paste before adding the rest of the coconut milk. So I buy a bunch of cans at a time in Chinatown where they're really cheap, and then just keep rotating the stock, letting the cans sit. When I start running low I'll get some more, so I'm never out of "old cans". You can also buy coconut cream in cans (the cream is the green can, adn teh brown can is the milk). That's really good for drizzling in at the end, or if you have a lot of curry to make then you don't have to worry about getting separated cans.

I get one gallon containers of peanut oil in chinatown - try Kam Man on Canal or the SE Asian place (I forget the name) on Mulberry a few blocks south of Canal.

I have always smelled aromas through the bag when cooking SV post smoking. I can't think of too many other aromas that I always get it with. I remember a long time ago, when Nick mentioned that he smells clove through the bag... I have an interesting experiment going on right now - I'm doing a wagyu flank steak for 24 hours that has been smoked with oak/mesquite. I took some of the wagyu chunks of fat (a "gift" from the butcher with my purchase of the flank steak) and put them in a hot pan to render/brown, and put the results of that in the bag with the steak. It's a ziplock freezer bag with double seal btw.... so, my experiment is that I am keeping the seal of the ziplock bag out of the water, so it is impossible to leak. Even still, the water smells smoky, and you can smell smoke when you lift the cover off the pot... So I have to assume that the odor is getting through the plastic.

I've done lots of long-time cooking in foodsaver bags and never had the bag leak, per se... so I don't see the need in double bagging.... double sealing, now that's different! Seals can definitely leak, whether you're cooking for 1 hour or 48 hours, so I usually double seal on anything other than something that was dry before going in the bag. Any type of liquid or oil gets the double seal. I've also used ziplocks for a 36 hour flank steak with no leakage, btw... The funny thing with ziplocks, and to a smaller extent with the foodsaver bags, is that the plastic is slightly permeable to certain odors... So, for instance, I'll smoke a piece of pork shoulder in the stovetop smoker for 20 minutes prior to cooking for 30 hours in the bath (at say 150F - just off the top of my head). After several hours, you can smell the smoke smell in the waterbath water, and then later, it permeates the entire kitchen! The seals have not leaked as the waterbath water is clear, and the juices are held in the bag with no leakage, but the odor molecules definitely get through the bag. When the meat comes out, it is still has the smoky flavor, but it is less intense than after only a few hours. I gather the thicker plastics of commercial vacuum bags don't have this problem.

Just checked out The William's website - it seems like this is not a production item, but just a concept. In theory, the concept is great - it turns a household range into "french top" style range... but in practice, if the whole top had access to full power, it would draw a ridiculous amount of energy - I have no idea how you'd wire it up as a household appliance...

Do you know the brand of this range? I'd love to see more information about it. Also, is the cooktop an actual heating element, or is it induction therefore only heating the pot itself?

I'd go one step further and say that many of us are the ideal readers for this project, and as such it feels like a dream come true. It is certainly appropriate to imagine other readers who, for perfectly legitimate reasons, don't feel the same way. I’ve been following the modernist cuisine threads on-and-off and do find it all pretty fascinating. And such a thrill to have the author on line and engaged in discussion with us. But at the risk of coming off as a little old lady shaking her cane in the air at newfangled methods, I’ll admit to having some reservations about the whole concept of manipulating food so extensively. I realize that many of the ingredients and techniques we think of as part of traditional gourmet cooking are ingredients that have been already highly manipulated and processed to produce something revelatory. Like bread, wine and cheese, among other things. So I get the argument that modernist cuisine is just taking that same philosophy and applying it in new and unique ways. And yeah, it looks really cool, the techniques are astoundingly interesting and I know some of it is downright delicious, delighting the eye as well as the palate. However, I work as a product developer for a major food company, and something about it all just rubs me the wrong way. Don’t get me wrong, I know mass-produced, cost-reduced factory-made food for the masses is in an entirely different league than genius chefs turning out brilliant creations for high end restaurants. But they’re using the same tools. For instance, I have, at my disposal, hundreds of flavors from flavor scientists who are world-renown experts in their field; some of these would knock your socks off in intensity and quality. Although I’m tempted to sneak a few of the more outstanding examples home to add to my own cooking (Trust me, I’d be a rock star in the eyes of my family if served a Thanksgiving gravy that had a cleverly concocted blend of a great caramelized onion flavor, the most perfectly intense roasted top note, a savory enhancer perhaps.), I couldn’t do it. To me, that’s not cooking. And then I realize that these flavors are tools that, with the right equipment, the highly skilled modernist cook could possibly create in their own home (or restaurant). In fact, the picture of the modernist’s kitchen looks horrifyingly similar to our pilot plant here at work! So it feels right to use these tools as long as I invest in the equipment, learn the science and techniques and produce them myself. But not right if I take what’s already out there in the food industry, add a splash or two, and use them to elevate my own cooking to a higher level? In other words, where is the line drawn? Maybe it shouldn’t be? And what’s next? The virtual meal that has the ability to far surpass the real life experience? I don’t want foie gras that looks like a cherry. Or olive oil gummy worms. Yeah, they’re really interesting and I can appreciate the skill it took in their creation, but it all just seems too gimmicky for me. Not to mention that many of the ingredients referenced in the book are things we’ve been using for years here at work that consumers balk at on our labels. The world is being turned upside down! These are just some nagging thoughts regarding the intersection of technology and art and not necessarily a criticism. A good analogy might be hand painted art vs photo shopped pictures. Both use the creative process and both might be equally pleasing to the eye. And even traditional oil painting utilizes some chemistry in the manufacture of the oil-based pigments. But I tend to have a greater appreciation for the cruder, more soulful, old-fashioned methods and the product they create. Which is ironic given my food science background. Or maybe it’s my background that has me stubbornly insist on drawing that arbitrary line that separates the culinary arts from food technology. That makes a lot of sense and is a subject worth talking about and discussing. I certainly do not want virtual meals or my whole days nutrition in the form of a sheet of paper. I think the "line" needs to be drawn on a personal level and everyone will decide foro themselves. For example, I seriously doubt that cooking in my clay pots and pans actually makes that MUCH of a difference, but I love to use them and enjoy doing so. So, I am not about to chuck them all out just because MC tells me that it's all BS. Going back to MC, it's point is to actually provide the cook/chef with all the possible information and scientific proof to make that "where to draw the line" decision. At least I hope it does. If adding meat glue to fried chicken is your "line", then skip it and just follow the rest of that technique and so on. I've been avoiding jumping in on this topic - partly because I've been living it in real life as my friends learn that I have been a proud owner for the past few days. I actually get a bit of ribbing from some people who bought it for me as a gift! From the little experience I have so far with the book - I've literally just scratched the surface - it seems that many of the recipes are examples to prove a theory, or illustrate a point. Like the hamburger that's been referenced quite a few times. A friend forwarded the NY Post article to me, which made me a little sick. Obviously, the writer of that article has not read the entire book, or even the small amount that I or anyone who's been active on this and the cooking with forum have... It seems to me that the point of the hamburger is to show a variety of possible techniques in relation to a "humble", relatable product - as opposed to a "frou frou" plated dish. To me, using the hamburger as an example is brilliant because it makes it that much more accessible and tangible. One of the things many of us have found so far with the book is its remarkable ability to clarify a rather complicated topic and make it tangible/understandable to those without PhDs.... Plus, the book makes no opinion that you must do all of the techniques to do the recipe. Rather, it is showing the extent of how far is possible - but surely not necessary. While vertically grinding the beef may make it as juicy as possible, I'm sure it'd be just fine without using that technique - maybe 95% as juicy? But isn't it great to know how to make it EVEN better???? Whatever... the point is there's nothing wrong with showing all the possibilities of technology - people can decide for themselves how much they want to use for their end result. But you can't make the best decision without all the facts, which is what this book is all about - giving us all the facts from a very well thought out/researched perspective.

Also, after the cooling step, did you cook in boiling water? If so, for how long? I've also found that with the retrograde potatoes, there are some small granules that seem to never cook through, so I always run the puree through a tamis to weed out the grains....

Chris - everything looked great! Does the book go into the reasons behind the vodka brine? What's the purpose of it?

Agreed... anyone who has done duck confit knows that the liquid in the bag gels like crazy when cooled... I wonder if what's most important is the cut of meat being used to create the juice. As paulpegg stated above, the juices from the tenderloin did not gel (there's very little connective tissue in tenderloin), but the juices from the picnic shoulder (lots of connective tissue) did gel. Both are full of flavor (both being osmazome), but one had connective tissue as part of the meat mix, which turns to gelatin, the other did not. As to the discussion of vinegar/salt - it's an interesting concept. But when I make chicken stock (granted, not SV, but in the pressure cooker - see the pressure cooked stocks thread), there is no salt added at all, and I can cut the resulting stock into cubes the next day after being in the refrigerator.

Anyone have any experience with Le Petit Nice (Gerald Passedat) recently? Thanks...

For the basic inline filters you don't need to drill a hole in your sink. The filter goes onto the cold water line under the sink and you can take it out and take it with you when you move. In my office, we had a reverse osmosis filter under the sink in the lab and when we moved to a new office we took it with us and put the original line back as it was. Such an installation is not considered a "permanent" fixture. Wow! I looked at the installation instructions of the basic model of the link you provided, and it seemed like they were intending you to permanently install the included spigot. Maybe, instead of the spigot, I could use a hose/valve that I could stash under the sink when not in use? Is that what you're talking about? Otherwise, did the RO filter connect in between the cold water line/regular faucet full time?

Andie, I completely agree... unfortunately, I'm in a rental apartment, and while I'm not averse to doing some "renovating", I think installing an in-line system is not really in the cards for me. I've drilled holes in my poured-concrete ceiling to mount a pot rack, and other easily concealable things (necessary when we eventually move out), but I think there's really no way to hide a 1/2" hole drilled into my sink or countertop... So, for the forseeable future, I'm stuck with the expensive faucet mount version....

The Brita faucet system is definitely cheaper than the PUR. My Brita was $20 at the home depot for the faucet kit including 1 filter. The equivalent PUR system was almost double the price. As for replacement filters, the Brita has a 2 pack for $30, and the PUR was like $40 if memory serves correctly... But I don't know if the PUR works better (ie more throughput, not removal of substances) or lasts longer before needing replacement. The Brita filter is rated for 100 gallons, but mine lasted about half that amount when the throughput reduced to almost a trickle. And that's Manhattan tap water that I had previously thought was clean! Indeed, when I check my normal tap water with a TDS (total dissolved solids) tester, I read roughly 20ppm which is really good for any non-RO water. But I wanted to get rid of the chlorine - most of my Brita water is used for my hydroponic tomatoes, leafy veg. garden and lime tree which like chlorine less than us people do...

I haven't done it, but from all that I've read, you usually want the liquid to be spherified to have some body to it - so a lot of recipes tend to thicken thin liquids with xanthan or the like before spherifying. Some of these additives react negatively with alcohol... have you checked out the Khymos set of recipes? There's tons of information in there...