Dave the Cook

Sort of. Both should contribute to rise -- they both leaven by creating CO2, which gets trapped in the batter. But there's something else going on. Soda raises the pH in the mixture by reacting with any acid that is present (baking powder supplies its own acid). Raising pH also raises the setting temperature of the cookie. Since the batter will have more time in the oven before it sets, it will spread more. The result in the first recipe, because of the added milk, is a thinner, therefore crispier cookie -- that's what he's trying to achieve. In the third recipe (the chewy), I admit I don't quite understand the point, but I can guess. Since he removes an egg white from the recipe (to reduce dryness), it's clear he's after a moister, denser cookie, so soda makes some sense in this respect (acidity usually contributes to a lighter crumb, and the soda reduces acidity). The spreading effect created in the first recipe is going to be less pronounced because of the structure created by the bread flour. Also, the lower acid would to some extent mitigate the effect of gluten structure -- a control factor of sorts? Corriher might help here.

Alton Brown covers much the same territory as Corriher in one of his shows. I recommend both; while there is lot of overlap, the differing presentation styles can help make the stuff more intelligible. Click here to go to the Good Eats Fan Page, and look for the transcript of Three Chips for Sister Martha. And welcome, twist.

I was about to suggest KA or Thermador (which is a little pricier, but maybe worth looking at because they have a different design aesthethic). Like KA, no one will look down their nose at Thermador. Also, to elaborate on FG's note about gas ovens and pastry: I'm not sure it's the accuracy problem (the thermal mass of a decent oven would mitigate much of this) so much as the fact that a byproduct of natural gas combustion is water vapor. This presents obvious problems in baking.

Things could be a lot worse, after all...

You might try Sears, too. They carry a lot of Weber products under the Craftsman name, or at least they used to. These days they might have come clean as to the branding.

I have an acquaintance who raises a few grass-fed cattle, and once in a while we go to his place for a cook-out, where steaks from his farm are featured. In a word, I find the taste simpler. It lacks a bass note, if I can indulge in a bit of musical metaphor. This is not due to aging, or not entirely; he has the meat dry-aged for 21 days. There is a grassy or vegetal note to it as well, but I'm not certain that I'm not projecting. He sells quarters, and one year we took him up on it. Except for short-loin cuts that use high-heat methods, I was disappointed. Braises and burgers just didn't have the depth that I like. But an occasional grass-fed steak is a nice change, kind of like roasting a turkey once in a while instead of a chicken. I like it, truth be told, but it's not going to replace grain-fed beef in my menu rotation.

...which we'd all love to hear. How about using your story to start a "Grilling Disasters" thread over in the Adventures in Eating forum?

There are "a lot" of variables, though, including portion size. Most people don't drink 20-ounce servings of coffee, whereas that's pretty standard for iced tea. And how long you steep it, the type of tea, etc., all affect caffeine levels as well. I was getting to the notion that many people believe (go ahead, take a poll) that tea has more caffeine than coffee -- and it does, by weight. But since it takes much less tea (by weight) than coffee to make a cup, the amount of caffeine is much smaller. According to the list above, about 2-1/2 times less. A 20-ounce serving of iced tea is actually about 10 ounces of tea and 10 ounces of ice. Snapple teas are usually diluted with fruit juice. And no, most people don't consume coffee in 20-ounce portions. They consume it in 4 five-ounce portions -- I'm on my thrid right now. I don't have any ax to grind here, except maybe that people often don't know what they're consuming and rely on hearsay and folk wisdom that has little resemblance to the truth. Another one is that espresso is loaded with caffeine -- which it's not, because the water spends very little time in contact with the coffee.

"A lot" is a relative term, anyway. In terms of a brewed cup, tea has far less caffeine than coffee.

Sure, a class can sustain a small percentage of hobbyists without interfering substantially with the educational mission -- with the quality of the product being sold by the for-profit organization. But there's a limit, and as a paying student with professional aspirations I would consider my own investment to be devalued by the presence of a large contingent of hobbyists. I don't understand how anything would be devalued if the hobbyists have to endure the same courses and meet the same standards to achieve the end result of a diploma. If you have a class of 100% hobbyists and they don't cut the muster, then they fail. Plain and simple. Just like any other degree. They get the same opportunity. If they choose to screw around, then that's their problem. One of the things that gets devalued is the reputation of the school as a serious educational institution. This in turn jeopardizes its placement rate -- the percentage of graduates who go on to work in the field. To someone who wants to be a cook this is a big factor in the decision to attend a particular school. So it's placement rate suffers, and it attracts fewer would-be professionals. Eventually, the school will have to decide whether it is going to be a school for hobbyists or professionals, and market itself accordingly. Edit to add: among some educational accreditation boards, placement rate figures significantly in the equation for accreditation itself. Without accreditation, a school cannot offer a recognized degree, and its students are ineligible for most forms of student aid.

In the distant days when I actually had a job....watermelon and green apple Jolly Ranchers were the two items I always had in the bottom drawer... Me, too, until I discovered Chupa-Chups. The lollipops? With cows on the label? The world's best lollipop. No cows. In fact (pay attention, Lily, my Art History-major friend), their logo, a stylized clover, was designed by none other than Salvadore Dali. Chupa Chups web site -- worth a look. (Men especially will want to check out the illustration that accompanies the "creamy" flavor selections.)

In the distant days when I actually had a job....watermelon and green apple Jolly Ranchers were the two items I always had in the bottom drawer... Me, too, until I discovered Chupa-Chups.

My old boss kept a fifth of Crown Royal in his desk drawer. One of my former office-mates was a home-brewer. That made for some interesting lapses in productivity. I used to work for a guy from Grenoble. He kept a bottle of Armagnac in his drawer. Occasionally he would share.

Sorry, Dave, but even using the word croquembouche takes you out of white trash territory. Depends on how you pronounce it.

How about a Moon Pie croquembouche?

Thanks, slkinsey. The advantages you see are the same ones I see. It took me a while to realize that my conclusions actually addressed the original reason for qualolote's post -- he was short of duck fat, a problem I confronted myself not too long ago. (Props to Inventolux for suggesting it.) I think this technique would work, even in ziplock bags, though I'd feel more secure with a FoodSaver. One of those is not my my budget, however. The plastic wrap is over the top, prep-wise. I can't imagine doing twelve of those packages for a dinner party. However, the idea of just snatching a single envelope of confit for a solo dinner or an impromptu lunch is charming. And then I recalled that I've seen this before -- is this how D'Artagnian ships confit? I know I've seen it somewhere. But frankly, I have no problem with adding chicken fat or evoo (or goose, as JasonCampbell suggests, if I had it -- I'm jealous of anyone who does) to confit duck -- I'm a big fan of mixing lipids (I would try evoo and chicken fat with lamb shanks, for instance, and the potatoes in the last photo were done in duck fat, butter and peanut oil). Here's the thing: I believe Inventolux knows what he's doing. But there's a breakdown somewhere; I'd like to get to the bottom of it. And I'd like to apologize to qualolote for temporarily hijacking his thread. (Sorry, Dean.)

More precisely, smoke flavoring ceases when the surface temperature of the meat reaches 140F. Therefore, you can boost the smoke flavor (although you increase overall cooking time) by putting your butt on the grate directly from the icebox. (Thanks to CathyL, Goddess, for the tip.) All good advice, so far. And you've got a nice unit there. (I have one, too, as does the Colonel.)

Yes. Why do you ask?

I cooked Inventolux's chicken last night, using four boneless breasts. Two were prepared according to Invento's techinique; two others were prepared according to slkinsey's allusion to ziplock bags - one was tied, one was not: I used a 12-inch saute pan for poaching, and attached a probe thermometer to monitor the temperature of the water: The breasts were poached for 35 minutes at about 145 F. I didn't have a flame tamer (for some reason, they've become scarce), so 140 was the lowest stable temperature I could manage. I let the temperature rise to about 150 before putting the chicken in the pan. The temperature dropped to about 130, then rebounded to 145 within a few minutes. Despite careful preparation, enough air remained in the packages to make them slightly buoyant, so I used a steamer basket to keep them submerged: The packages were massaged briefly and rotated every seven minutes. At the 35-minute mark, I removed the packages: I quickly inserted a digital themometer into one each of the wrapped and bagged breasts. The wrapped breast had an internal temperature of 125F; the bagged breast was 139F. I let them rest for five minutes, then opened all the packages. I cut one each of the wrapped and bagged breasts in half (wrapped on left, bagged on right): I finished off the wrapped breasts in an already-hot pan: It took about three minutes to bring them to an acceptable point. Comments and observations: 135F is not very hot. (As a basis for comparison, my tap water is at 113F.) I was able to massage and turn the packages with my bare hands without lingering discomfort. Thirty-five minutes is not sufficient, at this temperature, to cook the chicken to an aesthetically acceptable point. Unfortunately, my camera did not focus on the meat in the photo above (it seems to have captured the tongs perfectly instead). But even in this flawed depiction, the glistening, uncooked flesh is apparent. I am not sure if 135F (which eventually the meat would have achieved in a 135F-water scenario, after perhaps 50 or 60 minutes) would be acceptable or not; the meat in the 139F breast was what I would consider just barely done. The flesh had just solidified; any less done and I wouldn't have dared serve it to unadventurous types (of which I had three last night). Even then, I was blessed by subdued lighting. Given the wrapping and the tying, it is impossible to determine doneness with any accuracy. Indications of doneness (opacity and flexibility of meat) can only be guessed at -- it would be an educated guess, but a guess nevertheless. Continued experience with this technique would probably help. The added flavor components (buttermilk, aromatics, lemon zest, etc.) adhered to the wrapped breasts very well. The bagged-tied showed a little of this phenomenon; the bagged only breasts did not at all. However, there was little discernable difference in taste of the meat. When finishing the meat off in the skillet, I did not remove the adhering components; this made for a fragile but tasty crust, mildly reminiscent of a tandoori-preparation. No packages leaked. Whatever pressure might be developed inside a "sealed" container (I am now convinced that it is minimal) is not sufficient to rupture the closure of a ziplock bag (this was a "freezer-style" construction, which comprises slightly heavier plastic than the standard bag). Comparing the finished temperature of the chicken packaged in different ways convinces me that proximity to heat source (the hot water) is far more significant than any pressure that might develop inside the package. The wrapping (five layers of commercial-quality plastic) provided significant insulation. I don't doubt that addtional cooking time would have brought them to a condition similar to the bagged breasts. At 145F, anyway, I would call this a successful method, at least on techincal grounds. The appeal of this technique for boneless chicken breasts eludes me. The result is (or could be, I am sure) a perfectly tender, perfectly cooked piece of chicken (with an interesting moist coating). But the preparation is a pain in the ass, and I already know how to cook this meat to this state with far less trouble. If I had a FoodSaver, I might soften this judgment somewhat. However (and maybe we can turn this thread back to its original intent), I can see how much sense it makes for confit, especially if you have a FoodSaver, or some other way to create minimally-sized, liquid-tight pouches. Although I am still dubious of the temperature (for safety reasons), I don't see why this wouldn't be an acceptable, possibly superior, way to confit duck legs with a minimum of fat, at say 160F. But then, maybe we already knew that?

How strange! Though the order is different, this is my reading list for the last two weeks as well! Finished Bobby Gold last night (didn't cry; possibly -- possibly -- some minor welling); started Death of a Doxy following a respectful interval.

Thanks for that. In other words, it's not significant, especially once you take the expansion of the plastic into account.

OK, I'm going to try this tonight. inventolux, could you be a little more specific about the chicken? Bone-in whole breast? Boneless half breast? When you say "tie...like a roast" do you mean roll the breast into a cylindrical shape as well? Do the other ingredients get piled on top, wrapped inside, or distributed as evenly as possible? Any tips on maintaining such a low temperature for half an hour? Double boiler?

I agree. I am not absolutely conviced that the technique doesn't work, though I have my doubts. I know that Sandor Zombori uses this techique for rack of lamb, but lamb at 135F is quite different from chicken at 135F. But if it does work, I am sure that we don't have a good explanation of why.

What if the chicken breast is 1/8 th of an inch thick? What temperature would you cook that to? If you go to a 165f internal? If so, then you will have one dry as a bone bird. Typically I cook chicken breast to 155, unless it's been brined. In that case,you can go a littlle higher. But again, you're not answering my question.

inventolux: Have you ever checked the internal temperature of the chicken breast during or immediately after cooking? If it ever gets higher than 135F, 1) I'd be very surprised; 2) it would go a long way towrds convincing us skeptics. That would prove that you are obtaining elevated pressure. I don't have McGee with me, but if memory serves, I think the coagulation temp is about 150 -- but you would need several minutes at that temperature to effect full coagulation. Below that, I'm with Sam -- ewww. edit: for clarity