pbear

Interesting. For others, here's a link to Post #52. I notice Unpopular Poet avoided most of the tricky issues of low temp by cooking two hours at 140ºF. A complete protocol for other times, temps and proteins would be rather more complex. In which regard, has anyone had success operating the CSO with a remote probe thermometer? That would be the easiest and most reliable way to do this, but I'm worried about the gasket.

Matt, I have a VP112. Unfortunately, it seems to me you have a defective unit. As a double check, I just did a run with a substantially empty chamber - normally I use fillers to reduce the amount of dead air - just a very small book (3-1/2 oz, i.e., 100 g) in an 8-by-10" bag. The unit had no problem pulling a full vacuum (as full as mine ever gets)* in 30 seconds. I suggest you write Ary (the manufacturer). Sounds like this is a new unit, so you should still be covered by warranty. * My pulls always come in at 0.9 bar according to the gauge. Several sources report that the VP112's gauge isn't obsessively accurate, though, which is why they use a timer. What worries me isn't the reading you're getting, but rather the fact that your bags float. Mine don't. (Well, proteins don't; veggies, of course, are a different problem.) Heck, I just reran the test with 7 oz cooked meatballs - the only protein I have in the house at the moment - and even those sink. Again, just a 30 second draw.

Over in the Palate Smart Grill thread, rotuts mentions using the CSO for low temp cooking (sous vide without the bag, if you will), which would indeed be a wizard application. Has anyone tried it?

rotuts, I don't find the thin band hard to believe, given that the steak is pulled from the grill while being brought to high heat. See Post #14. As for browning the sides, isn't that the obvious thing to do as you're finishing? I mean, you have a hot grill, right there. I have several reservations about the grill, but the basic tech isn't one of them.

That was my reaction too, upon reading the recipes above. Indeed, when I gave it a whirl (hand grated cheese and home made mayo), I found the combination unpleasantly unctuous. FWIW, to anyone else who feels the same way, what I have found experimenting the past few days is that a combination of two parts cheddar plus one part each cream cheese and nonfat fromage blanc works very nicely. (So, for example, 8 oz cheddar and 4 oz each of the other two.) Mash the cream cheese and fromage blanc together (or puree in a mini food processor then transfer to a bowl); stir in the pimentos and other flavorings as desired; then stir in the cheese. Not the same as the Southern version, obviously. But arguably this is just as valid an adaptation of the original, which it should be noticed did not have mayo. See the Serious Eats article linked by heidih upthread.

Frankly, I think the ceramic surface will be the Achilles heel of this project. What I've found, as have others, is that the stuff starts out well but doesn't hold up in the long run, meaning more than two years of moderate use. And I've long since given up on using it for high heat applications. Maybe you can get around this by offering replacement plates at modest cost, but I can see this blowing up on you down the road, much as anodized aluminum blew up on Calphalon. At the time (circa 2002), it was their flagship product, but they had already diversified the product line sufficiently to make it through. Whereas you folks, ISTM, have no where else to hide. Also, I have to point out that your enthusiastic promotion of the gadget as a point-and-shoot solution (my paraphrase) isn't quite accurate. It doesn't plan. It doesn't shop. It doesn't prepare sauces. It doesn't prepare side dishes. It's not going to be the panacea for non-cooks you seem to think. Whether there's a market among experienced cooks who are interested in low temp but haven't bought into sous vide (largely, I'll agree, for the reasons you mention) remains to be seen. In any event, that's going to be a pretty slim market.

Well, yes, that's how one calculates the strength of a brine. But to calculate the cure, i.e., how much will be taken up by the protein, its weight has to be taken into account. This isn't important for strong, quick brines, but it's essential for equilibrium brines, which is what you're doing here. In fact, for something like this, you could eliminate the brine altogether, simply rubbing the chicken with the amount of cure you want it to absorb. That's particularly handy if you're going to cook by SV/LT, as you can cure in the bag.

My guess would be that you're thinking of turmeric. It's not actually a dominant spice in Indian cooking, but it does have a characteristic flavor not much used in Western cooking, so it stands out for some folks.

As you doubtless realize, that works out to a 2% cure. You can only ascertain whether this suits your palate by cooking the chicken.

What's the weight of the chicken? That plus the water is what will determine how far the cure goes, i.e., the final salinity of the meat.

And spinach. Another solution to this problem is a food dehydrator. It's a scalable process, so one can evaporate the surface moisture without actually dehydrating the herbs (use a shorter time). For the OP's purposes, I'd dry before chopping. For storage, after chopping (in which event, fine-mesh screens are highly advisable). Obviously one wouldn't get a dehydrator just for this, but it has several other uses (e.g., making glace fruit) which, taken together, have earned it a space in my small kitchen.

Another way to do the egg - and the easiest IMHO if making only one - is by microwave. Indeed, I have a 3-1/2 inch (9 cm) ceramic tart dish for just this purpose. Melt 1/2 tsp butter in dish (20 second in my machine); tilt to coat sides and entire bottom. Crack in egg, pierce yolk with shell and spread out a bit. Cover (a folded paper towel will do) and nuke 3 minutes at 30% power. Let stand 1 minute before assembling sandwich. (Generally I toast the muffin before cooking the egg and nuke the canadian bacon during the egg rest.)

My theory long has been that the main reason so many folks find bone-in tastier is that bones slow them down, so they pay more attention to what they're eating. Can't think of a reasonably valid way to test the theory, though. Conversely, there are ways to focus on one's food besides cutting around bones.

Fair enough. FWIW, my way of avoiding the decimal point problem is always to use a leading zero, e.g., 0.8 qt. That's something I do in all writing, not just here.

Personally, I wouldn't have much use for two 8 qt pots, but maybe you do. (Multiple small saucepans is another matter.) OTOH, there's certainly an advantage to having a full range of sizes. So, in case it's not clear, what I'm suggesting is that you would be well served by getting both 3 qt and 4 qt flares, without bothering with conventional saucepans in either size. And, yes, a 6.4 qt or similar size would be quite useful, whether flared or straight (mine in this niche is 5.5 qt, flared). Returning to the OP, I should like to emphasize that I don't think flares generally have a utilitarian advantage in the sense of being better suited for making certain dishes. (Although they do, as you mention, work a little better for reductions.)* Rather, I prefer flares because I find them easier to stir and easier to scrape down with a silicone spatula. If you're more comfortable with straight sides because that's what you're used to, that's a perfectly good reason to go the other way. * The other big exception for me, but this is very much "off label," is that flares are great for baking bread in boules by the covered pot method.

I'd phrase the question the opposite direction: Why do you want to get conventional saucepans in any of those sizes? Tall saucepans I understand (and perhaps that's what you mean), as those are handy when you want deep-for-volume, e.g., when deep-frying or anticipate pureeing with a stick blender. As between conventional and saucier, though, I always take the latter because they're easier to work with.

I'm pretty sure the strongest herb flavor in bottled "Italian" dressing is oregano (dried, of course).

I agree CatPoet's suggestion is a good one. In addition to doing a test run, be sure your in-laws' oven can go down to 170ºF. In my experience, most American home ovens don't and that's a critical feature of the recipe. If this is a problem and/or you want to serve warm, the gas grill is your best option. As a back-up, in case of rain, you could roast the meat in the oven the day of the party, timing things so the oven is free when others arrive. From there, you can either serve at room temp or use the hold-in-a-cooler strategy mentioned by Chris Taylor in Post #5..

IMHO, this isn't a good plan. On account of its thickness, reheating a roast beef takes nearly as long as cooking it in the first place. So, if a BBQ is available (by which I assume you mean a gas or charcoal grill), cook the roast that way (by indirect heat) on the day of the dinner party. Another option would be to use a crock-pot with a rack as a slow oven, monitoring temp of the meat with a probe thermometer. A third option would be to do another beef dish, e.g., short ribs, which isn't so dependent on precise timing.

Another question is how much you care about national slant. For example, the Time-Life Good Cook Series was brilliant and designed for just this purpose, but very much directed at an American audience.

That's probably why HB can get away with selling one that cost three times as much.

To clarify, when I said can't vouch for "them" I meant the juicers. I've had plenty of good experiences with Webstaurant.

Can't vouch for them, but my go-to for stuff like this is Webstaurant, which lists four manual juicers, including the HB 932 (their "secret" price for which is $164). The funnel-type juicer, for $60, looks like it might suit your needs.

One that bugs me is the common mislabeling of poblanos as pasillas. They aren't. They're fresh (usually unripe) anchos. Pasillas, meanwhile, are dried chilacas. See Cook's Thesaurus, comparing fresh and dried chiles. FWIW, Cook's Thesaurus plunks for cilantro as the preferred name for the herb.

Finally got around to trying this. To recap, the idea is to sear a frozen steak, then bake in a slow oven until it reaches target internal temp. I made a few tweaks - using a slightly lower oven temp (250ºF) and pulling a few degrees early to allow for equalization - but basically ran the recipe as presented. Figuring out when to insert the thermometer (probe on wire) was probably the trickiest thing of the whole exercise (@ 20 minutes worked for me). Bottom line, the recipe delivers as advertised, but it's not a method I'll be adding to my repertoire. That is, yes, the interior was pink almost all the way to the surface. And, yes, the surface looked pretty. But the steak simply didn't taste as good as I get by conventional methods (generally pan-frying, flipping several times). FWIW, I have the same objection to SV/LT steak, so I'm not picking on CI. Conversely, anyone who likes SV/LT steak probably will like this also.