Dave the Cook

What time should I be there?

As someone who, not all that long ago, had to explain that in the South we not only had indoor plumbing, but that many of us had cell phones and cable TV, I am reluctant to defend those benighted souls whose refuge is stereotype. But in fact, the juxtaposition of disparate elements can be played out all over the country, if not the world. Since it can't be avoided, Southerners, as the keepers of America's richest culinary heritage, should be working to correct this sort of thinking. For instance: How many restaurants in Seattle can serve grits properly? Is there a place in Chicago to get good Frogmore Stew? What will it take to get better than mediocre barbecue in New York City? Just to start.

I don't think this will work at all. I'll bet Varmint doesn't even know your Mum, let alone the dogs.

Replacements: probe me. Ten bucks.

Mark's right about that seam, and about the possible cure. If it gets wet, it'll usually dry our all right. But if you get oil down in there, you might as well write it off. I've resigned myself to keeping a couple of extra probes around, and testing them in ice- or boiling water before putting them to work. For the most part, they're interchangable among brands.

I think the directive to heat the oil until smoking simply gives the cook a clear signal that the oil is ready -- or close enough, anyway. This is similar to the directive to boil water when making coffee. 212 F is not really the best temperature for brewing, but boiling provides a baseline that is close enough to get a satisfactory result -- an unmistakable signal that conditions are right, without having to resort to a thermometer. I think an experienced cook would able able to recognize the signs of imminent smoking (such as the shimmering effect heated oil exhibits), and avoid whatever risks there might be altogether. This has been on my mind since picking up Pomiane's books folowing maggiethecat's article. He always, even when deep frying, tells the reader to heat the oil until smoking. Rarely will a recent recipe suggest this. Partly this must be because of the different smoke point of various fats, but also because oil heated to the smoke point breaks down much more quickly than oil that has not. This is especially true of the most common frying oils -- peanut, safflower, cottonseed, etc., because they are less stable, chemically speaking, than saturated fats like butter or shortening. MatthewB's summary is pretty much how I understand the situation, but only (2) is really applicable to what we're talking about here. Even then, 400 degrees is pretty hot -- close to or beyond the smoke point of many oils -- and I don't think eGulleters need be cautioned about the dangers of overcooking meat. The consequences are actually worse than cancer; you might waste a nice hunk of meat, which is a Sin.

I did a calculation: a half-sized sheet pan is 13" x 18" x 1". Skipping a lot of arithmetic that I won't post unless you really want me to, that is a volume of approximately two quarts. If you assume that filling it more than halfway is an invitation to sloshing, you can still deglaze with as much as two cups of liquid. Typically, I'll use 8 to 12 ounces, degaze and reduce, then transfer everything to a saucepan, anyway. I find two drawbacks to the sheet pan: 1) sometimes there is a tendency to scorch at high roasting temperatures. But the pans nest, and you can double them up to create an insulating air cushion; 2) adsorption (expained on the thread linked above), which means that eventually the will pans discolor. This doesn't affect taste as far as I can tell. When it gets too yucky, I transfer it to another duty, or toss it and get a new one. As for Yummy Crusty Bits, well, I wouldn't use sheet pans if I were deprived of those. It's a prime reason for roasting in the first place, isn't it? No savings is worth giving up YCBs. Sheet pans come in three basic sizes: 18" x 26", 13" x 18" and 9" x 13". You can get them with flat racks, too, for roasting, cooling, holding prep work and flash freezing, just for starters -- I'm always finding new uses for them. I have four or five of each of the two smaller sizes hanging around (for less than half the cost of a nice roaster). For my money, they are among the most efficient cooking purchase I've ever made. They rank right up there with bench scrapers and cast-iron pans.

Cook's Illustrated reviewed roasting pans a while back, and I think you can probably find a link on their site, though it might be for members only. They rated the All-Clad highest, but suggested that "occasional roasters" would probably be happy with a $20 Granite Ware. I have to say that I agree with CI that $200 is a lot to spend on something I use once or twice a year. I roast once or twice a week, but more often than not, I use a sheet pan with a V-rack. The air circulation around the item being cooked is better, and it cost eight bucks. Can somebody tell me why a dedicated roasting pan is really necessary?

Franey and Claiborne's recipe from The New York Times Cookbook calls for sirloin pounded thin, cooked in butter, flamed with cognac and finished with sherry, butter and chives. No mustard, which, along with flaming cognac, is what I always think of when someone mentions Diane.

Yeah, a lot of sugar will do that to you.

Oh Goddess, I was very careful with my new toy. I had learned my lesson about probe vulnerabilty the previous year, when the same BIL dunked a probed turkey in a couple of gallons of 390 F peanut oil. I agree regarding analog v. digital, but Katherine is correct: even digital instrumentation exhibits non-linearity.

Thanks for the link Matthew. I don't want to cast aspersions on the Maverick unfairly, which is why I'm interested in your experience. What happened to me follows. I'm relying on a five-month old memory. I received the thermometer as a Christmas present, and I was using it for the first time on a prime rib. I secured the probe when I put the roast in the oven. It was the first time I had tried searing the roast first, so I was uncertain as to how long the cooking time would be. This was an 11-pound hunk of beef, so I was probably estimating on the order of two to two-and-a-half hours, minimum. But the probe said it hit 118 in about 80 minutes. I didn't believe it, so I poked in a few places around the meat, and got similar readings. I was still dubious, so before actually cutting into it, I tried an instant-read. It said low 90s. So I tried the Polder, which said around 95. I crossed my fingers and put the roast back in the oven, with the Polder and the Maverick still inserted. Here's the problem*: I don't remember what the Maverick read when the Polder said 118. *Actually that's a lie. Here's the real problem: we were conducting a tasting of sparkling reds, and my brother-in-law started pouring before the food came out. So it's possible the information was never deposited in the ol' memory bank.

I've looked at the Flukes, actually. They don't seem to have audible alarms, otherwise they'd be in serious consideration, even though the cheapest costs more than my grill. I have the Williams-Sonoma model of that Maverick. (Somewhere on eG there's a brief discussion about them, as well as the simpler Polder-style probes.) When I first got it, I was appalled at its accuracy. but last Saturday, it tracked the Polder dual degree-for-degree when measuring the grill temperature.Since this is higher than typical internal meat temps, I'm wondering about it's accuracy from say, 100 to 150F. I look forward to your report. The other problem I have with it is that I've lost the manual, and I can't figure out how to set the alarm temperature for anything other than the pre-programmed Beef/Pork/Chicken temps. The result was the damn thing went off every three minutes for about six hours. So in addition to your review, maybe you could include a few, um, tips? Otherwise, I'll have to give it to my ten-year old and get him to explain it.

These work pretty well. But I still want a low-temp alarm. And I want it all, plus a timer function, in a single radio transmitter package. Is that too much to ask?

Thanks for bringing this up, Matthew. I also owe a debt. I did a chicken myself on Saturday. In fact, the grill was going continuously from about 11:00 a.m. to midnight, with various things on and off -- the chicken, some shrimp, asparagus, several heads of garlic, corn, portobello mushrooms, romaine, crab and yes, some pork (country ribs). What I've learned from these guys about temperature control of both the food and the fire made it simply a series of routine tasks -- nothing like the circus that grilling and smoking were just a few months ago.

Lotta memories there. But they forgot Boone's Farm.

tommy: so how were the wings, dude? stone: They were great, man. Really, um, brown.

Real men only eat tiramisu to please their ladies. What they really want is maggiethecat's Boston Cream Pie.

Buffalo Wings Sauce 4 parts butter 2 parts pepper sauce 1 part red wine vinegar This is the basis for almost all wing sauces and glazes, dating back to the Anchor in Buffalo. You will often see vegetable oil substituted for butter, other acids for the vinegar and somtimes a form of sugar or gum to help the glaze stick. Keywords: Sauce ( RG380 )

If he doesn't show up soon, PM Ron Johnson. Louisville is his house, and he'll be glad to help out, I'm sure.

. . . plus four, Lily: Two by Pomiane, plus an Elizabeth Terry and a Rick Bayless.

I believe the word you're looking for is neonatal (before birth). regards, trillium ps thanks for the edit...but I hope all this newfound power doesn't go to your head... Um... Neonatal means newly born. Natal means having to do with birth. Prenatal is prior to birth. signed, Dave the Language Pedant

I don't have any recipes right to hand, but I've seen juniper used a lot with pork, lamb and game, especially birds. I'd bet Wilfrid knows a few dishes.

I'm sure they do. The flavor profile of almost everything is altered by temperature. But room temperature is not the way gin is normally consumed, Obi-Wan's habits notwithstanding. It's hard to take the NYT results seriously, since all the contestants probably taste differently under normal (i.e., chilled) conditions. I am reminded of several Lawrence Sanders novels that had characters drinking not gin and water, but vodka and water.

You can bet that the Royal Indian Army wasnt drinking their Gin and Tonics with ice cubes... But that was for medicinal purposes (malaria), and medicine is supposed to taste bad.