Dave the Cook

May I suggest that we include comparisons of cookbook recipes vs. show recipes (and vs. restaurants, from those that have been there)? I suspect that not enough people have the opportunity to visit restaurants run by TV chefs (and a number of them--Sara Moulton and Alton Brown, to name two) don't even have restaurants. A general example: though I consider myself an accomplished cook, I often find Emeril's book recipes disappointing. When I have an opportunity to compare the written version to the show version, I invariably find he has omitted ingredients or (more often) neglected to explain technique. I can't imagine what an inexperienced cook would do about some of these errors, and I am offended on their behalf. On the other hand, Mario's recipes work more often than not, although I'm still trying to figure out how to properly smoke pork jowls.

I agree that simmer, simmer, simmer will do the job--eventually. But if I can make stock in less time, I'm more likely to make it often. Lately I've been working with the recipe from the Cook's Illustrated book The Best Recipe. If I remember correctly, it calls for about three pounds of chicken legs and backs hacked in pieces, one onion, one teaspoon of salt and two quarts of water. The result is a great stock--balanced flavor with a good gelatinous texture. It takes a little over an hour, hacking to straining. I'm getting excellent chicken stock in just a little more time than it takes to make a fumet. It has also made me notice how little all the other things we dump into the stock pot really matter. I don't miss them, and like salt, I can always add it later. The important thing is to get the essence of the meat. I'm pretty sure the salt is speeding things up (especially the gelatin extraction), for the same reason that salting a steak will promote crust formation by bringing water-soluble proteins to the surface of the meat. It's not a Maillard reaction, but it must be related. And no, Bux, I'm not a pro, though I was about three careers ago. The name was caused by a sudden loss of imagination when I joined the site. I guess I just use a lot of stock. There are worse sins, right? How does Fat Guy feel about being compared to Emma Peel rather than John Steed? Lovely woman, but perhaps not the best role model, eh?

I agree low salt is essential for canned shortcuts. But I'm surprised that you don't use any salt when making your own. Salt helps break down the proteins in your stockpot ingredients, and facilitates thorough extraction of flavor. (I'm beginning to sound like a smug scientific bastard--hey, maybe I've found a signature). I would consider some (not necessarily enough to break the taste threshhold) salt essential. And what's this about making stock every six months? Maybe beef or veal stock, but I find myself making chicken stock (in gallon batches) about every eight weeks. Am I blowing the curve? Dave

I was lucky enough to eat at Emeril's right after it opened--must be ten years ago. He had just left Commander's Palace and was only locally famous. It was terrific then, but I haven't been post-BAM. For my money the best in New Orleans these days is still Upperline, out in the Garden District. If you're staying in the Quarter, take the street car back for a great end to the evening. Dave

Chemistry and marketing lead me to conclude that freezing probably isn't good for coffee. My chemistry argument goes like this: 1. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, a lot of the good stuff in coffee is based in "oils and aromatics." 2. These oils are rich in alcohols. After water, there is probably no more universal solvent on the planet than alcohol. (This alone would account for a lot of the rapid decline in coffee quality after roasting, since alcohols also tend to have low evaporation points. No doubt some flavor components are literally vanishing into thin air.) 3. Some alcohols and volatile flavor components are also light sensitive, which is why wines often come in dark bottles--to prevent the flavor components from parting with the alcoholic carrier. 3. Moisture in coffee beans is probably in solution with some or all of these alcohols. When you put it in the freezer, the water freezes before the alcohol, thus pushing the the alcohols out on their own, leaving them free to bond with just about anything--which, given alcohol's molecular promiscuity, they will. (And if you don't think there's some pretty funky stuff in your freezer, just give your icemaker a good sniff.) Even in a sealed package, these solvents are free agents. When you open the package, they're gone with the wind. Careful packaging (with minimum air) and defrosting might mitigate some of this problem, but since freezers are designed for temperature cycling (at least frost-free designs are), the longer it stays in the freezer, the worse it's going to get. The water will refreeze and lock out the alcohols. 4. Freezing ground coffee would be even worse, since the increased surface area would make the whole process that much easier. The marketing argument goes like this: if freezing coffee were a viable route to a quality product, why hasn't anyone (General Foods, P&G, Starbuck's, etc.) brought one to market? Dessert category excepted, the only frozen coffee products I've ever seen have been brewed before freezing. It's a competitive market. If a practical freezing method were available, someone would promote it for profit. Cycnic though I usually am, I can't really fault a roasting company for the laws of physics. And in the end, they must understand that the total market for coffee is relatively inflexible. Over say, a year's time, I would not buy less coffee if I couldn't freeze it. Neither would I buy more if I were certain it would keep indefinitely in the freezer. Therefore, it is neither for nor against a roaster's interests to tell people how to best handle the product. All of this points toward a storage protocol akin to foods with similar properties (volatile oils/alcohols, low-temperature effects). The best analogues I can think of are wine and chocolate. That means low (but not cold), stable temperature, in a dark place (or an opaque container), with minimum airspace. Having thought all this through, I don't think I'll be freezing coffee anymore. If this doesn't make sense, please tell me where I went wrong. Dave Hmmm...small, opaque containers with flexible volumes--condoms would work!

Yes , the HD 7610 is the correct model. I didn't look it up before purchase because I didn't know Philips was in the caffeemaker business. The filter basket is easily removed for cleaning--and it's dishwasher safe. If anyone else tries the Philips, I'd be interested in hearing about the experience. I'm very happy with it, but I have been known to engage in self-delusion. Dave

In addition to bean and water quality, water temperature and extraction time also play a huge role in making good coffee. At 200 degrees (the optimum temperature for extraction), a pot of coffee (about 50 oz.) should brew in a little less than six minutes. The problem is that very few auto-drips have the power to heat the water fast enough. You need more than 1300 watts! I had to replace our coffee maker recently. Despite what you might think from the esoterica above, I was trying very hard not to become a coffee snob--can't afford it, and I'm a snob about more than my share of things already. However, I did want consistently decent coffee with minimum of fuss. That meant auto-drip (and yes, cringe if you must, it meant a programmable timer). I hit a lot of web sites and came up short. Many manufacturers don't post this sort of info. For those that did, 1200 watts was the most I could find. I resigned myself to a long search and headed to the local Target, which I expected to be the first of several investigatory stops. Lo and behold, there on the red-and-white shelf, a Philips unit with a honking 1400 watts! Thirty bucks! But shouldn't I spend two or three times that for a good coffeemaker? Uh oh...look at the "flavor control" knob...those things aren't for serious cooks, are they? Can I trust a machine with--with doodads? Never mind--1400 watts! Sold! On the "full pot/wimp--I mean light" setting, it brews a pot in six minutes and ten seconds, at about 195 degrees. When it's fresh, it's some of the best coffee I've ever had. (I've since invested in a thermal carafe.) Another victory for food science! On weeknights, I set the thing up with coffee that has been ground no more than two weeks before and stored in an opaque, airtight container. I fill the reservoir with cold, bottled water. The coldness helps the water absorb more oxygen, and it needs it, since I let the rig sit overnight (remember, I am not a snob). This means that five days a week, I don't get the best I could out of it. But it's pretty darn good considering the minimal effort I put into it. On weekends, I set it up with the good stuff, and it's great. This may be the best 30 dollars I've ever spent on kitchen equipment. And believe me, I've spent a lot.