Dave the Cook

I suspect you guys are talking about burr grinders, since most blade grinders don't have a removable cup. I've resisted getting a burr grinder, as I am (so far) successfully avoiding becoming a coffee geek. But I do have two blade grinders -- one for coffee and one for spices (take that, Peter!) For cleaning them, I picked up a tip from Martha Stewart. She suggests tearing a few pieces of white bread and whizzing it for a few seconds, then whisking out the crumbs with a pastry brush. The bread thing is usually a kludge, but the brush works very well. I do use the bread in the spice grinder when I've done something particularly, um, persistent, in aroma or oiliness.

Thanks for the kind words, everybody. Suvir, I can't post it (copyright, you know). I used the recipe straight out of Family Circle. It's in the January 14 issue, which is still on the newsstand. I can't even provide a link, since FC has not posted it. Yes, it works, and I believe even Lodge recommends it. But for Anna, and anybody else who needs to know, here's a link to another thread, where Fat Guy taught Wilfrid how to hand-strip seasoning: Cast iron pan problem -- can’t get it clean Here are some other C-I-related links: Best cookware in general -- separate from the best non-stick thread French steel / black metal / carbon steel - - underrated, virtually unknown cookware And, for Suzanne: Stovetop grilling -- what pans out? Because, Suzanne, you got me started on this by recommending a cast-iron grill pan. Since Amazon had it on sale ($15), I bought the Logic version rather than the raw version. However, as Anna points out, grill pans have a specific problem -- cleaning. Otherwise, the article would have been about the grill pan instead. I decided it wasn't fair to Lodge to hang my lackadaisical dishwashers (aka sullen teenagers) on them. Overall, I'm not nearly as pleased with the grill pan as I am with the skillets (or with the flat two-burner version [the same one that Anna mentions] I've had for several years, but it's not practical to use on the range I have now -- a ceramic-top electric). As an additional reference, I also bought a raw 12-inch skillet at the same time as the Logic Chicken Fryer. I've seasoned the skillet and used it ten or twelve times, but it still hasn't caught up to the Logic pan, which has now been used only three times and is black as night. Sorry, Suzanne. As for HWOE: Jin, as usual you are right. If one pays attention, a cast-iron pan is almost organic. Over time, you teach it and it teaches you. That's why, if I have sufficient advanced warning, I like to give seasoned pans as housewarming and even wedding presents.

This sounds terrific, Jin. And makes me feel better about my theory: Plus, if you can roast and make it sound like you're torturing squirrels at the same time, you're really cooking. Um...I admit to owning an electric knife, too. I'm just not sure where it is.

I have to admit that, when it comes to cooking technique, any time I get Nick Gatti on my side, I am tempted to shut up and bask. However... AB claims a weight loss of 12.7%, which to me is significant (and surprisingly large). This isn't quite what I meant, but you're right. Salt will draw out proteins at almost any temperature. What I was after was the reason for reversing the common practice of "sear it and bung it in the oven™". I reread the transcript, and he never really says. He just claims that more juice will be lost, without further explanation--a lapse in his usual routine. I guess you can only cram so many words in 22 minutes. So, I went to Cookwise, Shirley Corriher's book, since she and AB are so buddy-buddy. She supports my theory: During roasting, juices containing proteins and sugars have come to the surface and evaporated. So when I brown the meat at the end...there is considerably greater concentration of surface sugars and proteins. With elevated temperatures, browning occurs rapidly. This is so close to what I wrote earlier that I have to insist that I didn't intentionally crib it. I'll also ungratefully point out that, two pages later, she cites Pam Anderson and says to sear the roast, then cook it at 200 until it reaches 110 internally. No, he didn't, I'm guessing because he wanted everybody concentrating on temperature. Neither does Corriher. IMHO, this is a correct but irritating approach. Timing is important. The closest I could find was in good old Joy of Cooking, where they suggest cooking at 250 for 15 to 30 minutes per pound. Nothing like a 100% margin. Estimating for the lower temperature, let's say 12 to 20 minutes per pound, giving you an hour and a half to three hours to get to 118. If you know your oven is accurate, your best estimate is right down the middle--two to two-and-a-half hours. It's not very helpful, but it's a starting point. All I remember from doing it last year (I really need to start taking notes) is that it went faster than I expected it to. Pay attention to Nick's warning about tipping points--if it's not literally true, it's an accurate figurative description. All correct. Nevertheless, three-four days in a home reefer (mine's about 20 ft) does result in significant moisture loss. No matter how humid the surrounding air is, it's less humid than the meat. Ergo, evaporation. I wouldn't go longer than four days, and I admit to nervousness after three--too many meat-unfriendly bugs in a refrigerator. I also moved anything that was likely to release moisture (mainly veggies) to the drawers. Aging is actually controlled rotting, anyway. If I hadn't seen him do it before on something else, I would have been. I think sometimes he does things differently just to be different. But he's got a point. A rib roast is a big hunk o' meat. Less experienced cooks, who pull out a carving knife once a year, will have better control with the electric. You don't want to spend all that money, and work that hard, then spoil the effect by serving roast wedges and slivers.

My opinion is that the "aging," such as it is, adds more to the flavor than the roasting method. But I also think that a less watery roast will cook more evenly, which is a plus. I don't know how much weight is lost in home aging compared to traditional dry aging (where the answer is a scientific "quite a bit"). If you start with the primal cut and follow it all the way to the table, a rib roast (especially beef) is an incredible model of waste: big hunks of fat and bone come off at the processing plant; moisture is lost through aging; more moisture and fat is rendered through cooking (up to 40% compared to the trimmed, aged product); then there's the ribs themselves, which, while satisfyingly gnawable (ought to be a word), are in and of themselves dead weight. To me, the idea of searing first, then cooking slow, is counter-intuitive when it comes to large items to be cooked with dry heat. There's also this notion I have that the bigger the hunk of meat, the less risky any cooking method is, and the less difference any particular technique will have. In the end, the heat and muscle work it out on their own. If you were to sear a big roast, then stick it in an oven for 3-1/2 hours, what would you expect to have happened to the effects of searing? Would it not have gotten brown and crusted on the outside anyway? Do you really think you would be limiting juice loss in any significant way? This doesn't even consider what an awkward proposition searing a four-rib roast would be. For a big, rounded hunk of meat, searing, a technique that requires mostly flat sides to work, seems much less controllable than an oven at 550. The ideal roast has no well-done parts--it's a brown crust surrounding evenly rare or medium rare meat, with no surrounding gray strata. Brown. Pink. That's all. I think what Brown addresses (though if he said it explicitly I missed it) is that by slow-roasting first, you coax soluble proteins and sugars to the surface in the process. Then you blast it with heat to brown the proteins quickly, and you're done. If you go high-heat to start, it takes much longer to brown, and the roast gets overcooked near the surface much more easily--fewer protein chains and sugars means longer browning time, plus you get carryover from searing or a high-temp oven. Not to mention that you'll render away part of the fat, which I think serves a protective function. All of the above is theory on my part. When I was in the resturant biz, we just stuck 'em in the oven after an oil/salt/pepper massage, roasted at 275 or 300? (can't remember exactly, but it was on the low side), and they came out beautifully every time--crusty exterior, med-rare to rare centers, and chewy, beefy-tasting end cuts. Of course, they had been aged 120 days! The problem is that I don't have the budget to do a comparison. Unless, that is, I can convince my dining companions that we should have it both for Christmas and New Year's...

We gave a standing rib the Good Eats treatment last New Year's. Thumbs up. We're doing it again next Wednesday.

Reminding us all that you get what you pay for.

No need for refrigeration. The smoke and salt content makes it an unlikely target for microbial or insect attack. An uncooked Smithfield ham will keep for at least a year, if stored in the proverbial "cool, dry place." According to the first post, Jim's had his for two years, so I guess we'll keep our fingers crossed.

I agree, Jaymes. It also seems to me that dried corn was a likely ingredient, and also that wheat flour was as probable a thickener as masa. Leftover coffee sounds reasonable; chiles, aromatics and herbs were probably wild and picked along the trail. Although I include a little tomato in my chili, I doubt its authenticity, along with chocolate and beer (both of which I also use).

Please explain "arch punch."

Oh not that old biscuit again. BD, do me a favor. Never disuade a yank from that opinion. It means more great scallops for the rest of us. In 25 years, I have never EVER seen this happen. One of those urban legends. Nick I've never seen it either, in 40 years of scallop gluttony. I believe the story was lent considerable veracity by the book (not the movie) Jaws, in which the scam is described.

So what do I do with this here bacon?

In addition to Nick's visual checklist, I would add (as Jin pointed out earlier) that properly treated sea scallops will not be snow-white. They should be off-white to light ivory. Very slightly off-topic: if you go for bay scallops, watch out for those dark-ivory to light brown little guys (they actually look like they've already been cooked), which are calico scallops but often sold as bays. Real bay scallops can be very good. I wouldn't even give calicos to my cat.

A recent short but excellent article by the inestimable Robert Wolke. Includes lucid tri-poly explanation. here Washington Post; may require free registration (I can't remember).

Not if you're from Smithfield. However, I think the preparation method is the same: salt-cured (though it varies somewhat by producer; some also use pepper, and sugar amy be allowed), then cold-smoked and aged. Genuine Smithfield hams must be processed in a certain area in Virginia (the protection is similar to that enjoyed by Vidalia onions), and the hogs must be fed a particular diet (used to be peanuts, but I think they've loosened this restriction). Note that the originating hog doesn't have to be a resident of Virginia. I wouldn't serve it as a main course, but as, or as part of, an hors d'oeuvre, amuse or side, it's stellar. Also, as you recommend, as part of a healthy breakfast.

And fucking, well, that's like, dessert.

This is a delicacy with which I am not familiar. I have so many questions.

Sounds fabulous, Nick. Peekytoe and Jonah crab are the same thing?

Some of us don't need that kind of help.

Nick: When you wanted to eat our shrimp, we not only let you, we encouraged you. We told you where to get it. We gave you tips--secret information--things known only to us and our Southern brethren, because we considered you one of us--and it was our pleasure. We said, in effect, "bon appetit--enjoy!" We did not say, "This is not for you. People from the North should not have this. They are too cold to be able to truly appreciate it." No, no, no--we have a bounty, and we are glad to share with our dear friends from the frozen North. Do you think we don't get cold? When the temperature dips, though even only into the high 20s, with not a chance in hell that it will snow in the next two years, do you think we feel not the sharp bite of winter's teeth? When chilled, do we not freeze? Now, please do what your conscience must surely tell you is fair.

OK, kids. Clue me in. I eschew split pea (it's the color, not the texture), but I like black bean and navy bean soup, and they both seem to have a certain graininess that I assumed was part of it, like the bits of corn between your teeth when you eat it off the cob. No? I thought split pea cooked relatively quickly, along the lines of lentils. Four hours seems like a long time. And though I've never had it, Suzanne! Wienies? Seems like a big meaty hambone would be de rigeur.

Yes: "Strangely, I haven't had fur for a fortnight." (btw, you made me spit on my keyboard). Right. Not necessarily the best recipes, not the prettiest, not the most gracefully written or illustrated. Just the most used. I'm about to get my third copy. Shall we discuss the relative merits of the different editions? Or has that been done already?

Well, this will teach me to think before writing. First, let me say that if you made me choose between Paula Prentiss and Katherine Ross, I'd probably melt down. Second, I have no problem with the politics of the movie The Stepford Wives, such as they are. Second, part B: I have a passel of feminist credentials, which I will be glad to detail for you upon request. Third (and final, you'll be glad to hear), I don't think Levin wanted a political movie; he's a Storyteller. Politics is just another tool in the box for him. The screenwriter, William Goldman, is the best. So I guess it's the direction. I can't remember who it was; I only remember the factoid that he also directed one of my favorite British farces, The Wrong Box. Or maybe it was the times, which were ripe for the spin that got put on the movie, which should have been a creepy, cautionary tale rather than a polemic, and not a very well done one at that. It's what happens when story and character get put at the kids table so the Big Ideas can hold forth in the dining room. For whatever reason, the women are actually more appealing after their 'conversion.' Before they've been Stepforded, they're really, well, whiny. I kind of wanted something bad to happen to them. Fourth (fooled ya): I haven't seen the movie in at least 20 years, so I may be full of it, as I often am. If so, blame it on poor memory.

Jin: As someone with your level of gourmetude(sp.?) I understand your feelings about "Joy." It can seem very 50's ish and, as you call it, bland. But I feel that, for a BEGINNER, it is an unintimidating and broad source text. And it ain't 50's "add a cup of mushroom soup" cooking...thank God! Just plain cooking. I still refer to it for, say, biscuits. And I ain't no Stepford doll. (Tho' sometimes it looks pretty good! ) And, of course, anything by St. Jacques. Quel homme! Quel chef! Well put, Maggie. Joy is still the go-to guide in my kitchen. I of course have a slightly different take on Stepfordism.

I crave fish and chips every day. (Wait--does this belong in the Off-Topic Thoughts thread?)