JHeald

I pronounce it "mas-kar-PO-NE" because that's how it's pronounced. It's not "mas-kar-PON" and it sure as hell ain't "mar-ska-PON." I'm not being a snob, or claiming to be Italian, or co-opting another culture; I'm just trying to say the word. As it's pronounced by the people who invented it (the cheese and the word). Re: the NPR comment, out here in LA we have Adolfo Guzman Lopez, who is the world's champion in speaking in an American accent for a whole story...until he comes to his name. Hilarity always ensues (which must look strange to the others stuck in traffic on the 405, but never mind...). I'm not sure if this is what ScoopKW meant, but I don't mind the proper pronunciation of a word, I find the over-pronunciation of a word rather annoying. There are a couple of ethnic-food-oriented Food Network show hosts who speak flawless, accent free English, but when it comes to a food word that is from a different language, they suddenly have to speak much more slowly, and over-anunciate, as if they don't really know the language and want to ensure they get it right. THAT is what I find annoying; not "maskarpone", but "mas-kar-po-ne" sometimes makes me change the channel. I also find it annoying when people don't properly pronounce very common menu items with foreign words. Case-in-point: "pollo" is pronounced "poy-yo", not "po-lo". It is spanish for "chicken", not a team sport played on horse back...

I had the exact same experience. It was good bread and the loaf went quickly but it wasn't brioche, at least based on the brioche I've had before. This was extremely dense - I'm glad you had the same results! I've actually had a high % of Ideas In Food recipes that didn't work the way I had expected although at the same time I've taken a lot of good tips and techniques out of the book and blog. rg Roygon, I was thinking about the density of this brioche recipe, and decided to compare it to other brioche recipes. What was most enlightening is what I found in The Bread Baker's Apprentice. The BBA lists three different recipes for brioche; one of the biggest difference is the amount of butter in the recipes. The recipe with the least amount of butter, which is closest to the Ideas in Food recipe, has about 50% butter (by bakers percentage). The recipe also has a little side bar, describing the brioche as a good sandwich bread. That comment, and the similar butter proportions, make me think that the Ideas in Food brioche is supposed to be fairly dense. It also got me thinking, "what would happen if I added more butter? maybe substituted extra butter for a few of those 8 egg yolks?". Considering how easy the bread was to make, I might try tackling it this weekend. What do you think?

Has anyone else tried the no-knead brioche? I've never made brioche before, but this recipe looked very interesting, so I decided to try it out. I used a scale and followed the directions, but I found the brioche to be fairly dense. I've never actually had fresh brioche before (and now I realize I need to have some), so I'm not entirely sure what to expect, but from everything I've read and heard about brioche, this was not the light, airy, and buttery bread that I thought would result. It is good bread, but is it good brioche?

I would highly recommend using the legs for confit, and you don't necessarily need a lot of fat (or all duck fat). If you can keep a water bath at a consistent temperature for a long time, you could always cook the legs in a plastic bag (foodsaver or ziplock), which requires considerably less fat. When I made duck confit, I actually used a combination of the rendered duck fat and olive oil: from a google search, I found that some Italian recipes call for using entirely olive oil. Confit legs are definitely worth the time, and the wait! Good luck, and have fun!

Thanks to everyone for the excellent advice! Particular thanks to andiesenji: I'm defiantly going to look into BellaCopper. Thanks again.

Hi eGullet, I was browsing through Chris Amirault's Pressure Cooker topic and after looking at a few Amazon reviews of the Kuhn Rikon pressure cookers, noticed some discussions about "flame tamers". Amazon reviewers described using them to help evenly distribute heat for low-simmering cooking. I was wondering if a "flame tamer" would help improve my general cooking. I primarily use s.s. tri-ply cookware (mostly from pampered chef, and all-clad), but I also have a cast iron skillet and a carbon steel pan from de buyer, all on a gas range that has a variety of burner sizes. I am pretty happy with my stove and cookware, but would a "flame tamer" help improve heat distribution and improve my cooking experience? Thanks for your help.

That's a good point, one that I think still challenges the idea that the sample size was too small. I did notice in the supplemental data that they calculated an Odds Ratio, so they did do some statistics...but again, no p-value anywhere. I think there are plenty of ways a statistician could examine this data. They could have determined whether the higher percentage of contaminated turkey compared to beef was statistically significant, or whether one brand had a statistically significant higher incidence of contamination, or whether packaging materials/methods made a statistically significant difference. I don't think additional analysis was absolutely necessary (the findings of the paper are interesting alone), but it could have added value to the paper. I do really like the cool graphics they used to display multilocus sequencing typing.

How do you know that 136 samples is not enough? You don't: you can not say, based on how the data is presented, whether or not they used enough samples. You might be of the opinion that 136 is not enough, and that 250 or 400 or 1,000 samples would be sufficient, but in reality, it all comes down to statistics. Unfortunately, the paper does not list a single p-value (which represents the chances that the finds are completely coincidence), so you really can't correctly say whether or not 136 is actually enough samples. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you 'point' is more assertive than mere speculation. Although for the record, you're probably right: they probably don't have p-values because they aren't significant, and therefore don't scientifically support their findings. Or they were too lazy or cheap to pay a statistician.

The transglutaminase discussed in this article refers to that which occurs endogenously in the tissues of the respiratory system, and to aberrant patterns arising from mutation, and not to an exogenously derived product: '. . . .tissue transglutaminase (TG2), a multifunctional enzyme critical to several diseases, is constitutively up-regulated in CF airways and drives chronic inflammation.' (SUMOylation of tissue transglutaminase as link between oxidative stress and inflammation., Luciani et al., J Immunol. 2009 Aug 15;183(4):2775-84. Epub 2009 Jul 22) Taking reasonable precautions with culinary transglutaminase makes sense (as others have pointed out, like any particulate matter, it is likely to irritate the lungs if it is inhaled), but it should not be confused with the tissue transglutaminase. I wasn't disputing the fact that inhalation of trangslutaminase would cause pulmonary irritation, but rather the idea that it would "glue" lung tissue together. I was not aware that "culinary transglutaminase" was a bacterial product, although I think that ignoring any data or information on human transglutaminase is rather silly: the enzymes act very similarly and more importantly, it is important to consider the enzymes that counter-act transglutaminase activity.

To be fair to the fake Nazi, he did grab the hot metal in a panic while a building was burning around him, so let's not be too hard on him...

Thanks for the advice: the "well done steak" is a good rule of thumb to keep in mind for next time.

That is a good point on the wet towels as I have hear it not wise to put the empty plates in the MW - plus the moisture perhaps carries the heat more evenly? The moisture in the towels is responsible for the heat: microwaves heat water, so the moisture in the towels is responsible for the hot plates. By placing a towel between each plate, dcarch is ensuring that each plate is in contact with a hot surface (or two). A very good idea indeed!

How much curing salt do you recommend using per pound of belly? If I adjust Rulhman's recipe, I would use ~2.4 teaspoons for a 6 pound belly. Does this sound about right? I used the quantity of syrup that the recipe called for, and I'm pretty sure I rinsed the belly off completely; there really wasn't much to rinse off when the time came. Perhaps I tasted the maple syrup because the sugar content concentrated as the fat began to render...not really sure, but I was just curious. Although "marshmallow flavored bacon" would be rather interesting. Thanks again.

Andrew, Thanks for the awesome response! I forgot to mention that the bacon was not as salty as I would have liked. Does this confirm my suspicions about not using enough cure? I also noticed something about the fat when I cooked it in the oven for eating (at 350 F): a tiny little bit got a little over cooked (it was greyish-brown and crumbly), and it tasted reminiscent of .... marshmallows? Any experience with this? I did include maple syrup in my cure, so maybe it was the sugar that diffused into the fat? It was surprising, but not in a bad way. Thanks again.

Hi eGulleters, I have a quick question, and I'm sorry if this was already answered in another topic (although I looked for a little while and didn't see this). I tried my hand at homemade bacon this last week, using an ~6 pound pork belly and Mr. Ruhlman's basic cure recipe. I don't have a smoker, so I cooked the cured belly in a 200 F oven for about three hours (I was waiting for an internal temp of 150, and it never quite got there...). When I rinse and dried the out-of-the-brine belly, it seemed a little soft to me, but I cooked it anyways (I was excited). I don't think I used enough of the curing mixture (a 5-pound recipe for a 6-pound belly, and some of the cure was left on the cutting board), so I get the feeling that my bacon is under cured. It also doesn't have that nice pink hue in the middle of the belly. The bacon is still pretty good, although not what I was expecting: more porky than bacony. So here is my question: Can I re-cure the belly, or do I have to live with what I've got? Thanks for your help, and sorry again if I'm repeating already-answered questions.

OliverB and everyone else who objects to this question, would you be opposed to this school-provided-lunch mandate if the food was actually healthy? Most schools serve relatively horrible food (poor nutritional value, poor taste, etc.), which always comes up in the objection, but which if they served good food? I don't think I would be opposed to such a rule, if the menu was something I, or maybe Jamie Oliver, would approve of. What do you think? Do you object to the rule for the sake of the rule, or because the rule results in kids eating crappy food?

I don't meant to pick on HungryC, but you brought up two interesting points that I wanted to touch on. I find this entire topic very interesting, although I'm a little ambivalent about it. I too think this policy is a rather terrible one, but I'm not too quick to agree with the argument that "parental choice" should not be questioned. What particularly bothers me about the idea that parents should get to feed their kids whatever they want to, is that the idea that "it doesn't affect anyone else" seems to go hand-in-hand. Let's be clear, the notion that you should be able to do whatever you want, because [you think] it doesn't affect anyone else, is flat out selfish. That's not necessarily a bad thing: I would never fault anyone for buying free-range organic eggs over grocery store eggs, rather than giving the extra money to a charity that feeds starving third-world towns, but I think it is important to acknowledge when a behavior is just plain selfish. As a new parent, I know that I will have to make choices like these, and I can guarantee you that I will make selfish choices, and probably lots of them. But here is the real problem with the idea that feeding your kids crap (cheetos and soda) every day for lunch does NOT affect me. Well it probably does not affect ME, but it probably WILL affect my kid. Think about this for a moment, particularly the USAers in here. Why do your health insurance premiums go up? Health care is getting more expensive, but not [just] because individual treatments are more expensive. Health care in the USA is getting more expensive because 1) we are living for longer periods of time, 2) we are dealing with more chronic illness, and 3) we are living lifestyles that facilitate the development of chronic illnesses (i.e. obesity and diabetes). We do NOT live in a world where our actions only affect us. So when you feed your kids crap, you are teaching them that eating crap is normal. TO BE CLEAR, I am NOT judging anyone: I eat McDonalds on occasion (quintessential "Crap"). Like I said about selfish behavior, I think it is important to acknowledge something for what it is. With regards to the idea that "450 calories is a good meal in some parts of the world"...comparing your actions against the lowest common denominator is not necessarily a good practice. Yes, there are millions of people in the world who would tear through land fills just to find the cheeto crumbs that you didn't eat, but that doesn't mean eating cheetos is a "good" option. Again, not judging, just trying to be reasonable. Peace and good eating to everyone!

It appears as though excess transglutaminase is a culprit in Cystic Fibrosis. From the abstract of the linked article, I would suspect that inhaling a significant amount of powdered transglutaminase would result in pulmonary inflammation, not lung tissue being glues together. It's also important to remember a couple of important things: 1) There are anti-transglutaminase enzymes that will eventually counteract any inhaled enzymes. 2) The inhaled enzymes will only be active for a short period of time, so unless someone is constantly inhaling this stuff, there probably won't be any long term side effects. Contamination sounds like a much bigger issue than inhaling Activa.

The question of banning or removing food dyes from foods because some portion of the population finds the colors repulsive, while others find them critical to the eating experience (e.g. children eating brightly colored cupcakes), seems to be similar to the debate going on in the "foams" thread. Some people don't eat artificially colored foods because it creeps them out. That's perfectly reasonable. Regarding the question of safety of food coloring, I have a hard time putting much stock in the CSPI recommendations, especially if those are based solely on their recent publication, "Food Dyes: A Rainbow of Risk". The vast majority of the review examines the carcinogenicity and genotoxicity of petroleum based dyes; there seems to be very little focus or information of "hyperactivity" in children. Additionally, many of the reviews of animal experiments dismiss negative findings based on trivial or absurd reasons. For example, one (negative) study is partially dismissed because the researchers used 6-week-old mice. This is common practice, and there is no reason to reject a study for this reason. Another (negative) study is dismissed, in part, because the researchers did not treat the mice for their entire lifetime (~2 years). This too is standard practice; housing, feeding, and experimenting on mice is very expensive, and very few studies every treat mice for such a long time. Additionally, for every almost every study confirming the genotoxic effects of food dyes, there are an equal number (and up to 10 times as many) studies that find no genotoxic effects. As BadRabbit pointed out, there seems to be no compelling evidence to support either side of the argument. And while I'm fully in support of organic and natural foods, like dcarch pointed out, organic/natural is not synonymous with "safe". Natural things cause cancer and disease too...

Is it just me, or do most of the visceral rejection of foams seem to be based on a visual objection to things they resemble? Of the negative comments regarding foam (and btw, I don't have a significant opinion on them) most of them seem to reject foams that look gross, or feel gross in the mouth, rather than rejecting based on taste. This makes a lot of sense, and probably explains why so many people seem to find dubious the explanations for rejecting these foams. The rejection of a food based on personal perception or visual appearance of oral texture could be hard to convey, especially when discussing such an impermanent substance. Shouldn't "I just don't like it" be a sufficient answer when talking about food?

Well, not my food, because I do not care very much about that. I do not really want my food to look cool. I want it to look like food. Mainly I care about it tasting good. Food that looks cool is trying too hard to make me like it before I eat it. This is an excellent point. What excites a chef, who looks at plates of food every day and may well be bored by it, is different that what excites a diner who isn't so overexposed. Food ought to look like something I should eat. This is a terrible point. Food at a restaurant should be an expression of the chef that designed it. If I want your asparagus served to you standing straight up, you'll get it standing straight up. If you don't care for artful presentation, that fine, but many more people do. You eat with your eyes first. This seems to me to be a rather silly argument; you three aren't really talking about the same thing. AaronM likes to make his food pretty and cool looking, because he likes to eat pretty and cool looking food, yet he doesn't care if others do not possess this preference. Sounds reasonable. gfweb argues that visual stimulation and appeal may generally vary between chefs and consumers. This is not only a reasonable argument, but an argument supported by dozens of easily conceived examples. Repeated stimulation results in a heightened threshold for pleasure. Again, sounds reasonable. Moopheus doesn't care how pretty or cool looking food is, but rather prefers that food look like "food". While this is a perfectly reasonable opinion, I would ask this; what does "food" look like? Some people think Cheetos look like food, other people look at snakes and scorpions and think "food", while still others hear "food" and think of aspics and terrines. I would agree with AaronM that [almost] everyone eats with their eyes, and with gfweb that what is visually appealing to groups of individuals may differ widely, and with Moopheus that I prefer my food to look like "food"...although that seems to be a matter of perspective.

I would suspect that the indifference to better ovens comes, in combination with economics and fear of the unknown and/or new, is simply knowledge. When a consumer looks at two ovens, they certainly compare features and price. While they certainly understand the price difference, they might not understand the difference in features. "So it's steam injected, how does that help me?". Additionally, marketing and in-store availability probably plays a big role too. Walk into an appliance store, and the large majority (or perhaps all) of the stoves that you see are conventional. The public awareness of quality cookware beyond All-Clad is probably a good analogy to this: I had no idea brands like Sitram and Paderno existed until I read about them here. There is simply no public advertising for them like there is for All-Clad, Calphalon, etc. I would also suspect that many consumers are not aware of how poorly home ovens actually perform: in my first apartment it took me months to realize that my oven was not heating properly, only to find out that it was 50 degrees too cool! And I understood how ovens work. Lastly, I would suspect that, while there is a wonderful trend in updating and building top-of-the-line kitchens, not enough Americans use their kitchen to justify spending even more money on appliances. Brand name and stainless steel are enough for the facade-consumed consumer.

Thanks Jeffery, This is kinda what I thought was going on, albeit by though-experiment rather than experience. Do you have experience with this happening, or is it something you read or heard from someone. Either way it is valuable and valid advice, I'm just curious. I also thought about pulling the next wellington 15-20 degrees sooner, but I don't mind cutting sufficient ventilation, and I didn't want to pull the beef early simply to find it rare when slicing. Thanks again!

Thanks to everyone for the helpful replies. Let me answer some of the questions, and add a bit more information. Chris, I am using a probe thermometer that is a few weeks old, with practically brand new batteries. While the probe is actually very cheap ($15), it is actually pretty accurate: I used it to calibrate my stove by watching the temperature fluctuate up and down for 20 minutes, and then confirmed that it was accurate by comparing that to a bulb-type oven thermometer. I could be wrong, but it seems pretty accurate. WRT the location of the probe tip inside the meat, I'm not entirely sure they were in the exact same spot, considering it was inserted into the top at an angle, but I think they were pretty close. Ashen, I cooked everything in the same cookware and appliances, and rested them in the same place (my kitchen). The temperature both days was pretty similar. Some more information: Both roasts came from the same piece of meat; I bough a whole tenderloin and cut it up myself. I also forgot to mention that I froze the second roast two weeks before cooking it. I wrapped it tight in parchment paper and foil, let it sit in the fridge for a day, then froze it. I pulled it out of the fridge about a week before cooking it, and let it sit in the fridge like the first roast, so I also doubt this played a significant role in the final temperature difference. I'm also pretty sure the two roasts cooked for about the same amount of time. Thanks again to everyone.