KennethT

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...

I use the Brita faucet mount and it works well - although I agree that the filters don't last as long as they say they do before the flow rate goes down to a trickle. According to the very official looking info included with the filter (inside the package, not advertising on the outside), it removes 99% of chlorine and a bunch of other stuff, but leaves the fluoride unfiltered.

I don't know that much about it, but I know you can use a sequestrant and use the regular spherification... check out the primer on cookingissues.com. Sequestrants are commonly used if you have hard water and get pre-gelation before hitting the calcium bath.

hmmm... 156F is pretty hot - what subprimal are you thinking of using? One with lots of connective tissue I assume? The other thing to keep in mind is the pump and other hot tub stuff - usually, hot tubs only go up to about 110F right? Somewhere over that is considered scalding... I don't know what would happen to the pumps/hoses at the elevated temp for a long period of time. I wouldn't worry about the bubbles as long as there is good circulation - the bubbles will be constantly clinging/blown off by the circulation so that's not an issue in my mind. As others have brought up, the thickness is important. Check out Douglas Baldwin's info for how to calculate internal temp with regards to various shapes (cylinders, slab, etc)... I guess, technically, the interior of the muslce is considered sterile, unless it was jaccarded at the packaging plant, which is becoming more and more common, and almost impossible to detect. If so, the interior is not sterile, and depending on how long it'll take to get up to pasteurization temps, might be dangerous.

Most circulators are about 1000W, and will heat a stockpot from tap temp to 140F in roughly 15 minutes... rice cookers or slow cookers may be less.. i'm not sure...

Usually when applying smoke to SV stuff, I smoke first, then bag and cook... I've never smoked foie, but I would imagine it to be really good.... the smoke-oil is a good idea - but another possibility may be to season the foie with smoked salt.

I haven't read this specific recipe, but usually, agar doesn't hydrate until you boil it for a few minutes...

Are goose legs/thighs more similar to duck than turkey? If so, you can do a duck leg style confit. It renders the fat nicely and the meat is still moist... I used to do 185F for duck confit, then 176, but I think the last time I did it at 155 for 24 hours and it came out best... I'm sure others can chime in as well since there is lots of duck confit experience here... If the goose breast is similar to duck, you can remove the skin/fat layer prior to cooking, then cook the meat at 131 or 132 for medium-rare (do you eat goose this way?). Or, if the meat is not as red, and leaner than duck (more similar to turkey), maybe the more chicken/turkey approach of 140F would be better. You can prick the fat layer/skin with a jaccard or dog brush, then bag and cook SV at like 185 for a few hours to render the fat and break down the connective tissue... then you can crisp on the sheetpans between a silpat and it'll get really crispy.

I keep the skin on for all manners of confit - the connective tissue in the skin really breaks down well, which makes for REALLY crispy skin afterwards with a post SV fry or high temp baking between sheet pans.

You can always cut the raw meat off the leg and put the chunks in a bag in your SV setup... Usually the turkey confit is pulled from the bone anway once it's done (like pulled pork) - so if it won't fit, you might as well debone it first.

I used to do it quite a bit - until I got out of my potato puree phase.... I think I wrote about it about 40 pages ago... haha... I sliced the potatoes about 3/8" thick, bagged, and into the bath - I think I let mine go for about an hour, then cooled. I did the second cook in barely simmering water. The results came out pretty good - but there were always a few granules that never cooked through, so I always had to run the puree through a tamis to get rid of the grittyness. The basic procedure was: 1) retrograde starches/cool 2) simmer until cooked through 3) run through ricer 4) dry potatoes in skillet over low heat 5) add butter 6) run through tamis 7) add starchy potato water to adjust consistency 8) season

A great way to reheat without the microwave would be to put the remainder of the pork loin in a new bag and reheat in the waterbath. You can even slice it first, then put the slices in a bag in a single layer so that it will reheat much faster, with no fear of overcooking. Another option, if you didn't want to eat the remainder of your pork loin so soon would be to put it in a new bag and recook to pasteurization. Chill fast in ice as dougal said, and if your refrigerator is cold enough, you can leave it there for a few weeks if you keep the bag sealed.

I'm not sure - it always has just been called "fondant" and since they're european, I've assumed they meant the european fondant which I've seen in european food science texts as being 1000g sugar, 300g water, 100g glucose, brought to softball, cooled to roughly 86F, then agitated (kneaded) to form small crystals - then let rest to ripen for 12 hours. For example that is.... Plus, I can't imagine why they would use superfine sugar if you're just going to melt it anyway....

Right - but, wouldn't the fondant lose its structure once you remelt/boil/bring to hard crack?