Dave the Cook

I think pulling at 115-120 would be best. Maybe get 3-5 more degrees during the rest. Prudhomme's method sounds delicious! I'll look up the spice mixture when I get home and post it. Varmint, it's not too late to catch a plane!

I think you can use the kettle. I guess there's nothing wrong with splitting it, except for the aesthetics -- but you can't really discount those, can you? I like 215. Pull it at 120 - 125 F ? What do you expect carryover to be? Or: Paul Prudhomme cooks it to about 115 and lets it rest fully. Then he slices it an inch thick, gives it a generous Cajun rub and sears it -- maybe a minute on each side -- and plates it. It's awesome.

That WSM recipe seems to be more roasting than smoking. Even though it's over wood, the surface temperature is going to rise awfully fast, and limit the amount of smoke penetration. This recipe is kind of fussy, what with the veggies and all, and I'm definitely against using a roasting pan for the meat, but it's more of a traditional low-temp smoke.

If the kettle grill is the 22-1/2" model, I'm not so sure you couldn't do the whole roast on that. I know Klink has smoked some pretty big turkeys on a kettle. The little bit of reading I've done indicates that a full rib takes about six hours at 225, which is less than I thought. Dividing it in half won't make much difference in cooking time. Apparently, very little prep is required -- a decent rub is about it. I would rub it, then let it sit uncovered on a rack in the fridge until you're ready to put it on the grill.

I'm thinking about doing my own prime rib in parallel. So: how are you gonna to smoke that sucker? Have you done this before? If not, let's decide quick before Klink arrives and tells us we don't have the slightest idea of what we're doing.

In my house, this is often followed by, "Good Heavens, Ms Sakamoto! You're beautiful!"

What I've seen of this technique/theory came via Herve This, of Molecular gastronomy fame. I was a bit sketchy on the specifics, as I was reading from the original French. johan, could you lay out the specifics of your experiments? I haven't read This, so perhaps I will repeat something you already know. And maybe This has figured out something beyond what I can contribute here, but: - Microwave ovens cannot work their magic if there are no "loose" molecules to agitate. As a result, it's very tedious to melt ice in a microwave oven, because its molecules are locked into the matrix of the ice. The only reason it works at all is because the ice begins to melt simply from exposure to ambient temperature. This frees up a few molecules which can then be agitated. Their movement accelerates the melting of the remaining molecules, and so on. - Microwaves have a difficult time penetrating more than about an inch into food, depending on the density of the food being cooked. - A microwave is about 12 centimeters. Working with even dividends of this length (i.e., 6, 3 and 1.5 cm) creates the potential for stronger concentration of radiation. Conversely, uneven dividends will (potentially) result in somewhat weaker zones. Without giving it a whole lot more thought (it's late and I've had one too many glasses of wine), it seems that you could create something using the following characteristics: An outer shell that freezes very hard. This could be ice cream at somewhere around -20F, or something with a higher freezing point at a less extreme temperature. a roughly spherical shape of about 10 cm. the shape would be hollow, with walls 2 cm thick. The hollow could be filled with something that had an even lower freezing temperature than the shell -- it would not be as completely frozen as the shell, giving you a head start. To further leverage the difference in melting characteristics between the shell and the filling, you could insert a 1.5 cm metal pin into the filling. Put the thing in the oven and turn on the power. The pin will serve as an antenna, increasing the microwave effect in its near vicinity. Consequently, whatever is in the center would begin to melt much more rapidly than the shell. But eventually, mere contact with the melting center would begin to melt the shell, too. Is this in any way helpful?

Small eggplants, crammed with chopped zucchini, encased in delicata squash.

I picked up one of these sandwiches in Easley, SC, on the way to Varmint's last week. Based on other reports on this thread, it must have been some sort of mistake, but the "baguette" I got was nice and crusty on the outside. It was still sort of wetly cottonish beneath, but the outside was quite different than anything I've previously been served at BK -- an improvement, I think, especially when compared with standard fast food buns. Alas, it seems to be a localized phenomenon. As for the chicken, I didn't look closely, since I was hurtling towards Raleigh at 85 mph, but I believe it was a chopped-and-formed affair. There was no discernable grain in the meat, and none of the shredding that characterizes a natural chicken breast. It just sort of mingled itself with the rest of the ingredients upon contact with saliva. This makes it sound worse than it was. I didn't think it was a terrible fast-food sandwich. In fact, with the exception of the Whopper Junior and BK onion rings (and now the friedclam/FG method Whopper), it was easily the best thing I've gotten at BK in years. OK, that's not saying much. Still, it's hardly the work of the devil. If I were in a hurry, and BK was my only fast-food choice, it's probably what I'd order.

I know what will make us feel better! Heather, Scott, Rochelle, Erin! Sing along: I've been leaving on my things So in the morning when the morning bird sings There's still dinner On my dinner jacket When the dinner bell rings Boy, now Dean's gonna really wish we were there.

snif

Jack: thanks for all the hard work, especially in consolidating a lot of diverse material into a cohesive, coherent unit. Some follow-up questions: You mention the importance of temperture control in making beurre blanc. Do you find that the same 100 to 130F guideline applies when mounting the butter for a pan sauce? Regarding cornstarch/cornflour thickened sauces: are there time and temperature considerations here as well? I find that they separate if held too long at a simmer, or allowed to boil vigorously for even a couple of minutes. Is it me or the cornstarch? Maybe you could talk a bit about flour slurries? At the Pig Pickin', we used a recipe (it was red-eye gravy, come to think of it) that called for cornstarch as a thickener. We couldn't find any, so we made a slurry of flour and tomato juice, which, along with the coffee, was the other liquid component in the sauce. Though I've read about the technique often, I'd never tried it before. I was quite pleased with the results, though it simmered for two hours, eliminating the possibility of any raw flour taste. What are your thoughts? Thanks again.

The problem I have is that Shaw seems to invoke faith more than fact. Had he simply said what you said above, and included that he had discussed these precautions with Zagat, I would have found his "belief" a lot more credible, and he wouldn't have had to give away any secrets. This is not to slam the article, which I thought was pretty good.

I have a fifth of leftover Pig Pickin' limoncello in my freezer now. BWAHAHAHAHA!

And as I recall, they're not really bell peppers, are they? They're more of a slinky Italian model.

I can't believe you prefer Durkee's to French's. edit: oops. Just found out they're the same thing! The History of French-Fried onions

So Varmint should Fedex them to MatthewB's, right?

Grrrrrr. The only damn place I didn't look!..Hope they're still edible. But Maggie, we did look. Remember how we took Varmint's keys and left them where he couldn't find them?

Big time.

It takes some between-the-lines reading, but it's apparent to me that this is a response to the growing scholastic hegemony of The eGullet Culinary Institute.

There are Houston's at: 153 E. 53rd 378 Park Avenue South Roosevelt Field Shopping Center, Garden City One Riverside Square, Hackensack

I'm pretty sure they use 100% cane sugar for the Passover Coke runs, but I don't know for sure about any other brands. And I agree with you that it probably wouldn't matter. I've never investigated this at the level you did in your Daily Gullet piece, "Crystal Unclear," but I've certainly never been able to tell the difference between beet and cane sugar when used in baking, etc. -- most of the time I'm not even sure which I'm buying. Is there even a chemical difference at all between the two in their ultra-refined forms? Sucrose is sucrose. There's a potential 0.05% difference between beet and cane in retail packaging, but in practice it's much less. I have never seen scientific evidence that there is any difference in flavor. And as careful as Coke is about its flavor profile, I'm sure it would refine those few little bits away if it thought they made any difference. (Thanks for the plug.)

The sugar geek speaks: Do we know for sure that the Passover versions of the big American brands are in fact made with cane sugar? They might be made with beet sugar, which, as far as this goy knows, is perfectly Kosher, and often cheaper. Mostly I'm curious: while I believe there to be taste and subtle texture differences between HFCS- and sugar-based Coke, I seriously doubt anyone could tell the difference between cane and beet sugar, even if there weren't a bunch of other flavor components for the taste buds to contend with. Coke does not handle Kosher certification at the corporate level. It's relegated to the bottlers, so availability will be localized. Certainly it's available in NYC, and some sections of Atlanta, but not every bottler will bother.

Maybe, maybe not. Check out what Randall Grahm is up to.

I'm open to any and all suggestions. I seem to have misplaced my copy of CT (probably at my brother-in-law's), so I'll have to find it or replace it before I can offer suggestions -- except to point out that baking on weekdays is going to be difficult.