Dave the Cook

I think a lot of bivalves are traced -- as you note, at the wholesale level. For all we know, scallops are. Perhaps mussels retain this information all the way to the retail store because -- maybe someone can confirm this, too -- they're retail-wrapped at the harvest site, so it's easy. This also, to my way of thinking, has a lot to do with the rocketing sales of mussels, and gives them something of a competitive advantage: if you've never bought live shellfish, and you have a choice between those loose, ugly, hard-to-open oysters, and atttractively wrapped, date-stamped, smooth-shelled, blue-black mussels, which would you pick?

I can see, based on how you define "diver" scallop, how a shell might be some reassurance. Seems to me, though, that the presence of the shell is no more than that -- "Look, it's still in its shell!" There's no reason a scallop couldn't be dragged in in the usual way and simply left in the shell. And that's not a diver scallop by anybody's definition. Real traceability would probably require a tamperproof tag or food-grade stamp, on which would be inscribed the date and location of harvest, and the scallop would have to be still attached to the shell (needless to say, I suppose). The only seafood I know of that reaches the consumer level with this sort of record is farmed mussels. fifi: I thought it might be the skate thing, but as you say, the difference is obvious when the muscle meets the mouth. Regardless, you gotta love lawyers, don't you? I did have what I assume were true diver scallops (mantel, roe, adductor, shell) at Mark's in Miami Beach (of all places). You might try calling them to see if they will disclose their source.

Dick, I don't understand how shells provide traceability. Could you explain, please?

I lean towards the notions of Dean and my other brother Dean -- my guests consider themselves lucky if I remove the price tag from the bottle before unscrewing the cap. OTOH, when I've catered, Sam's question has come up, and I'd be interested in knowing how it's supposed to be handled.

This assumes, of course, that Asimov even wants the job. He has a pretty good gig going with "$25 and under." And does it well, I think. (Of course this is the opinion of someone who hasn't been to a NYC restaurant since before Asimov was born.)

Limoncello for everybody!

Your timing is fine -- there's no reason why this method would take appreciably longer than the stovetop, once you've reached a simmer. And there's nothing magic about a boil, either; it just makes a handy milestone. So yes, put it on high to start. When it comes to a good simmer, turn it down, and the pot will stay at around 180F, which is perfect. You'll probably want to put the lid on overnight, because the wide surface of the crock is going to promote faster-than-normal evaporation. Don't forget to skim during the first couple of hours. My only concern is yield -- it's possible you might have to do this twice, depending on how much you need. (And not to bring up your homework again, but have you read the eGCI unit on stocks?)

I think slow cookers are great for stock, as long as you have the time; they take quite a while to come up to temperature. The upside is that you get a very clear stock, since you can easily avoid vigorous boiling. At Varmint's Pig Pickin', we made about two gallons of poultry-rabbit stock in a battery of four crock pots (one drawback is capacity -- once you have the bones in there, you don't have a lot of room for water!)

Thanks, Lily -- but I was hoping you'd help out on the PHR question!

I'm pretty sure the answer's yes, but I'd be more comfortable if we had a baking person chiming in here.

I would go through the recipe, mashing and all, leaving the consistency just a bit on the thick side. Then I'd transfer them to a glass bowl, film with milk, cream or even metlted butter, wrap tightly and refrigerate. To serve, reheat them slowly, either on a low microwave setting or in a double-boiler arrangement -- you can just set the bowl over a pot of simmering water. Beat in the film as the potatoes warm up -- you might find that you need to add a little more (warm) liquid to get the proper consistency. Even better if you can apply a whisk or a hand mixer often, to fluff them up. I know this is considered heresy in some circles, but seven out of ten people won't know the difference, the eighth won't care once the gravy is applied, and the ninth will see it as a reasonable compromise on a very busy day. You can't satisfy that tenth one no matter what, because you proabably used the wrong type of potato, or you used a food mill instead of a ricer. Seat this person at the children's table. I vote for Parker House rolls. On Thanksgiving, traditon trumps, as you've already discovered. I also know that these do freeze well. (Full diclosure: in my first hospitality job, I worked for the guy who was GM at the Parker House through most of the 70s, so I have a soft spot for the place.)

Hmmm . . . with all those tasting notes mentioning dominant berry flavors, using the BN actually puts you in the flavor range of Jack's Cumberland Sauce! Off the heat, stirring in a little mustard is not a bad idea. Green beans: even with a bright sauce, I think you're short of acid on the menu. If you don't go the vinaigrette route, how about a bit of shallot and some tomatoes, plus an earthy seasoning like oregano or cumin? Good canned tomatoes would work fine. Once the beans are cooked throught, remove them from the pan, saute the shallot, stir in the seasoning for a minute, then add the tomatoes and cook down just enough to evaporate the free liquid. Toss in your beans to warm them back up.

If you follow Suzanne's advice on the stock, you can use some of it to moisten the stuffing -- it compensates somewhat for not having cooked it inside the bird. I've been using Jack's method for reheating mashed potatoes for years, with great success. Given the other distractions at the table, and the fact that you're going to have an excellent gravy, your mashers will be well-received. I'm not a bread guy (just ask my family about the loaf I made yesterday), but much of the literature says making the rolls ahead and freezing works fine. I think you need to allow time for thawing and a final rise, so they probably need to come out of the freezer first thing on Thursday.

What G said. I'd add some fresh tarragon and a healthy dose of white (or black, if you don't have white peppercorns for grinding), too. You might consider dressing up the beans as well.

Nick, I'm sure you know more about it than I do, and that's why I posted the source -- so that someone else could verify what I had found. As far as I know, there is no legal definition for "diver scallop." Is that right?

For purposes of answering Sinbad's question, I think the more appropriate legislation is this: Source here.

I often substitute equal parts clam juice and chicken stock (unreduced) for fish stock. But Rochelle's right, if you've got the fish bits, hardly anything is easier.

I gotta echo Chad. I'm a hair under six feet, and just looking at that picture makes my back hurt. (Also echoing on the "I will not clean the kitchen" thing.)

I think Nick's got it. I've noticed that scallops, just before they start to turn (but before they go bad, just to reassure you, Roz), do develop a flavor that I would describe as aggressively neutral, but some might call bitter. The most common preservative, sodium tripolyphosphate (STP), has sort of a watery saline taste, with an edge of chemical sweetness. I don't know about bleach. STP does make scallops whiter, which can be a helpful clue at the fish guy's counter.

I favor the other dish, but will follow the crowd.

Mussels -- but as I recall, Billi-bi requires leftover mussels, doesn't it? I'll post on the duck when I have a little more time.

I would not trust either 20/20 or the Environmental Working Group as as source for comprehensive, impartial scientific analysis. One is driven by popularity, the other by politics. Having said that, I would not go out on a limb and declare (or assume) that PTFE is perfectly safe. But two things occur to me. First, it is entirely possible for an outbreak of birth defects to occur in a single locality with no other discernable correlation. This happens often; cancer "clusters" are sometimes found to have nothing in common other than geography. In fact, from a statistical standpoint, this is exactly what we should expect to happen. Second, the Dupont spokesperson is correct: there's all kinds of stuff floating around in your bloodstream that has no apparent deleterious effects. To home in on C-8 and blame it for something that could have been caused by any number of other things is, at best, premature. It seems reasonable to wait for the EPA report -- and then read it very carefully, since the EPA is not above political influence, either. A third thing: at 554 F, many, many things will shed "ultrafine" particles. This doesn't mean that they cause birth defects. A fourth: anyone frying bacon at 554 degrees ought to be shot.

I would also be very interested in this report.

Sorry, fendel, I wish I'd seen this sooner. I kind of like these steaks, but I have to remind myself to keep my expectations in line with my budget. no, they're not ribeyes, but they have a good beefy flavor, and they're about half (or less) the price. My Mom used to buy these all the time, and grill them rare, so they wouldn't get tough. As fendel notes, they can be chewy. A few months ago, Cook's Illustrated did an article on tri-tips, which come from the other end of the cow, but are also a cheaper cut with some texture issues. I have since adapted their technique for the various chuck steaks: mock tender, chuck eye, top blade and flatiron. Make a brine/marinade with a soya base. Add brown sugar and some acid in the form of citrus juice, and some oil for lubrication (I'm considering leaving the oil out on my next round). Finally, chile powder helps bind everything together. Since it takes quite a bit, I use a mild chile like ancho or New Mexico. Mix all this into a loose paste, and put it in a ziplock bag with the steaks. Let them soak for an hour or two, then wipe some, but not all, of the paste off the meat before grilling. Although I usually cook steaks to medium rare, I like these closer to medium; rare just doesn't let their flavor develop full potential. Over a two-level fire, I mark them for four minutes (two minutes, then rotate 90 degrees and go another two) on each side, then pull them to the lower coals for another four to six minutes total. I usually serve then with a wedge of whatever citrus I used in the marinade.

Thanks for the reports, guys. I wondered about the skin, but decided 1) Jacques wouldn't steer us wrong; 2) leaving the pieces skin side down would keep them from getting soggy, since they would always be in fat, and the steam wouldn't get to the skin. Would it make sense to put the pieces on a sheet pan and run them under the broiler for a couple of minutes while I deglaze the plan? Regarding the lack of deglazing material: would a bigger pan have helped? I'm thinking that contact with the pan bottom is essential. What size pans did you guys use, and did the shallots and parsnips sit on the bottom, or on top of the meat? Non-stick or conventional interior? The recipe notes a preference for non-stick, but it's an aluminum or steel pan in the photo. Hmm. I would hang onto the fat, but you're right, it has limited usefulness. It's not just the flavoring (which I wouldn't necessarily mind, but does compromise the purity of the fat and shorten its life), but the fact that it spent an hour at something around 350 degrees or more. That's going to lower its smoke point quite a bit. Still, it would work for skillet-browned potatoes, where you parboil them and then toss for just ten minutes or so over medium heat. Good 'snip tip, Chad. Done like a true parsnipianian. I can't imagine that you're getting bad ducks, G. Sorry, it must be you. Edit: cross-posted with Chad on the 'tater thing. Great minds, etc. . .