Dave the Cook

You won't catch me defending thespruceeats.com very often, but in this case I think you're saying something other than what the author has written. She says that dry sherry is a better substitution for Shaoxing than mirin. That's not the same thing as saying that dry sherry is objectively close to Shaoxing, or even that it's a great choice. It's just (I think it's fair to say that it's her opinion) better than mirin.

I was going to ask about Zhenjiang vinegar, but decided I probably knew what the general tone of the answer would be. (I was right.) And it was off-topic. Not to prolong the discussion needlessly, but I don't recall anyone saying that dry sherry was "close" to Shaoxing. All I remember is writers saying it was an acceptable substitute. Perhaps it's splitting hairs, but I don't think those ideas mean the same thing.

It depends on whether you're talking about Chinese-Chinese or American Chinese. If it's the former, it entails a two hour schlep to get ingredients (where I can find a number of Shaoxing wines to pick from). If it's the latter, the toughest thing to obtain (besides Shaoxing wine) is Sichuan peppercorns, which are easily found on the internets (can't get wine that way where I live). But mainly, it was intellectual curiosity on my part. I wondered if the blithe advice was accurate or not. I suppose that the reason the substitution is widely accepted is because the results, even if not authentic, are still tasty.

In this part of the world (in the US for sure, but I'm guessing a good bit of the planet that's not east Asia), often in cookbooks or recipes, dry sherry is often suggested as a reasonable substitute if Shaoxing wine is not available. So, the question I can't believe no one has asked yet: is it?

@weinoo, I don't think it was a butcher, it was someone working for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, who, using money raised by their check-off program, financed the University of Nebraska's undertaking of the Bovine Myology project, which identified not only the Sierra, but the flatiron, the chuck-eye, the petite tender, and a few other "new" cuts. I beg you, stop. There are cuts that are just as good for burger meat, but few that can equal the succulence of a chuck-eye.

I had never heard of the Sierra steak (or seen a watch like that). It looks tasty (the steak, not the watch).

I stumbled across this video (sponsored by the Certified Angus Beef folks) the other day. It's as clear an explanation of the difference between a chuck roll and a chuck-eye roll as I've ever seen. Although it demonstrates a breakdown of an entire chuck roll, it has particular relevance to this topic, as it pretty clearly shows how chuck-eye steaks are fabricated. How to Break Down a Chuck Roll Almost as interesting, partly because it shows how to extract the spinalis (ribeye cap, or sometimes deckle, much beloved by @TicTac) steak from the 109 rib primal, is this video (same source): How to Break Down a Ribeye Roll. There's also a slightly less compelling but still interesting video on breaking down a whole sirloin.

All of that is correct. "Delmonico" is affixed to a number of different cuts, the chuck-eye being one of them.

But that's not what spruceeats said. Rather than ". . . less than the 6th rib area . . . ," they said ". . . from the fifth rib . . ." Your description is correct, mostly because anything from the fifth/sixth rib demarcation forward to the head and above the foreshank/brisket is the definition of chuck. The spruceeats description, striving for greater exactitude, is incorrect. (Sometimes, the fifth rib is used to fabricate a tomahawk chop.) spruceeats is also incorrect in saying that there are only two chuck-eye steaks per steer. Depending on the size of the steer and how it is butchered, there are six to eight 3/4" to 1" chuck-eye steaks, cut from the rib end of the chuck-eye roll. I'm glad Jeff C. got his rib issue straightened out.

That's not at all what I posted. I've been vocal and public in my praise of chuck-eyes for several years, including an article in the late lamented Daily Gullet. All I said was that the writer of the thespruce article was mistaken (personally, I'd never use thespruce as a solitary reference). Further research, however, turned up the Denver steaks @Margaret Pilgrim posted about. They come from the side of the chuck roll opposite the chuck-eye roll (you can find them on page 8 of this document). I cannot fathom how they command $25/lb. As for the OP's original query, I have no idea, except that I think @Paul Bacino might be on to something -- an oddly (poorly?) butchered steak, or a steak cut off a poorly butchered prime rib.

I don't know where this person gets their information, but it's incorrect. Please consult the acknowledged American authority, NAMP (National Association of Meat Processors), which is not spruceeats.com. Chuck Eye Roll. I'll also quote myself from an earlier topic on this issue: I also don't know what those cuts are -- they could be a number of things -- but I do know that they are not chuck eye steaks.

With respect to the two types of skirt steak, this is worth reading. Regarding how to cook it the way we're talking about it, read this.

Gelatin can act like flour -- if you just dump a bunch of it into a hot liquid, the outer granules in the clump may absorb liquid first and swell, sealing the surface and preventing the granules inside from ever getting moisture. The point of blooming is to ensure that the gelatin is fully hydrated, thus making proper dispersion of the gelatin easier. (This process works a little better at cooler temperatures.) But as long as you're making sure that you're not allowing the gelatin to clump up, it doesn't really matter.

Pretty!

I hope this isn't too late,@Kim Shook, but between my partner and our cooking classes, we've cooked well upwards of 100 beef filets (2-1/4" thick, so a little over 1 lb each). Our experience taught us that 1) 136°F (quite a bit higher than expected) yields a nice filet that is appealingly red on the inside, but pretty homely gray on the outside; 2) the most fun way to get a crusty exterior without overcooking the interior is to deep-fry the filets. (As I said, most fun.) We also found that a grill pan or a really hot cast-iron skillet will work, as will 1/4" to 1/2" of oil (perhaps fortified with buttter. All of these techniques require you to flip every 30 seconds until an appealing crust develops, so as not to overheat the interior.

There's no carryover at all. In the traditional cooking model, carryover happens because the surface temperature of the food is higher than the interior (e.g. a roast that is 125°F at its center, but got there because it was in a 425°F oven). It takes a while for the overall temperature to equalize. During this time the temp at the surface will decline, as the center temp rises. Since the whole point of S-V is attaining and maintaining the same temperature throughout the food -- surface to center -- carryover is a non-event.

Fascinating.

Based on the photo, it appears that you smashed more than I do. However, typical gold/yellow potatoes are lower in protein/higher in starch than reds, and that might have helped you avoid hell. Best part:

To start, there is not one damn thing wrong with potatoes, cheese and cream. I believe you have oversmashed. The recipe in Janet's book is based on a dish I invented for a blog back in 2005. The recipe there says to "crush the potatoes slightly" (RecipeGullet version here). They looked like this: Contrast that with yours: I suspect the additional smashing is responsible for the gluiness. It could be starch, as Janet suggests, or protein, which is more abundant in waxy potatoes. (All I know for sure is that it's not gluten, which potatoes don't have.) Although we've never smashed the potatoes as much as you did, we definitely smash them more these days than the original blog photograph shows. So I also think there might be a small case of what I call "Ten Half-Steps to Hell" going on here. We've been making that dish for so long, and possibly smashing the potatoes a little smaller each time (also, Janet usually makes it, and it's kind of become "her" dish. She smashes more than I do. Just sayin'.) Meanwhile, the potatoes were getting more and more gluey, but we got used to it, deciding that this was just the way the dish was. We didn't notice because the change happened a little bit at a time -- by ten half-steps, as it were.

Nope. We often add spinach or other dark, leafy greens to dishes to balance spiciness or boost vegetable content. Just tonight, we added dressed arugula to an Italian sausage sandwich. It turned an okay plate into a winner. Me neither. Maybe that's why I don't remember being subjected to taste-testing this one. The best dedication I've read that was written by someone I know was Steven Shaw's (@Fat Guy)'s dedication from his first book, Turning the Tables (eG-friendly Amazon.com link): to Ellen, who drives me If you spent an afternoon with them in NYC, you'd know how true that was. Back to the topic.

Good answers to the second question. As for the first question, I'm pretty sure it has to do with increasing the aggregated surface area of the target food, so more of the food is exposed to the cooking medium. At the same time, you've decreased the distance from the outer surface to the center of the target food, so heat can reach the center of the food more quickly.

Not any kind of pressure cooker? Because for all intents and purposes, this book treats the IP mostly as a pressure cooker.

You can, because the InstantPot gets hot enough to set the custard (you can do cheesecake, too). But you need to keep in mind that any quiche made in a pressure cooker is going to be crustless. Even if you blind-baked a crust, it's not going to stay crisp.

So close, @rotuts! The mock tender is the supraspinatus muscle, and is on the same side as the blade roast, but on the other side of the flange that creates the "7" in "7-bone." Here's a great illustration from the folks at Texas A&M (and a site I think everyone interested in meat should bookmark, https://meat.tamu.edu/ansc-307/ Beef Chuck 7-Bone Steak Muscles 1. M. triceps brachii 2. M. infraspinatus 3. M. supraspinatus 4. M. subscapularis 5. M. serratus ventralis thoracis 6. M. rhomboideus thoracis 7. M. semispinalis thoracis To understand part of why it's called a mock tender, it helps to think three dimensionally. If you can imagine several 7-bones stacked into a single primal cut, the supraspinatus is revealed as a more-or-less conical chunk of meat about 15 inches long. It runs from the shoulder blade to the front leg; on humans, it comprises part of the rotator cuff.

Totes. Four ounces in the base recipe (p240).