pbear

On reflection, it seems to me this discussion is somewhat afield from the main topic of the thread, which is the Anova circulator. So I'm going to let it go. If you or anyone else wants to open a separate thread or take up the subject in the general sous vide thread, I'll do my best to participate

Ryan, with respect, I think you're overstating your case. I say this not as an expert - that would be you - but rather as a well-informed consumer of scientific information. Is thawing in the fridge best? Of course. One can even hasten the process by using a cold water bath, as you mentioned in Post #229. But it's not faster (as you originally claimed) than using warm or hot water. The issues are whether whether speed thawing is safe and whether it adversely affects texture. The funny thing is that I don't actually have a dog in this fight, as I rarely cook from frozen and never by speed thawing. Still, whenever I hear an expert criticizing something as outside best practice, I'm inclined to ask how serious the risk of second best. Bear in mind, as I'm sure you know, there are plenty of food scientists (used to be more) who won't have anything to do with sous vide because it isn't best practice. In particular, they fret over the fact that doing it safely requires careful attention and accurate instruments. Speed thawing is the same, as far as I can tell. The multiple "ifs" you mention in Post #248 aren't all that daunting. Not best method doesn't equal unsafe. As for texture. a very different issue, I tend to agree (which is why I rarely cook from frozen and never by speed thawing), but surely that's a matter as to which individual cooks may draw their own conclusions. By the way, beating up on McGee because his degree is in English (just a bachelor's, as I recall, not a Ph.D) rather misses the point. He's been reading and writing on food science for over thirty years now. That's no different from how you keep your knowledge up to date. Not saying he's infallible, but he's not just some schlob who somehow got a gig writing articles for the NYT. And, in my observation, McGee tends to be somewhat conservative on food safety issues (e.g., he's the one who called out Ruhlman for claiming reheating stock stored at room temp is sufficient to make it safe).

After four years of experimenting, this is the year I've decided to bring low temp - sous vide to earth in my recipe file. Not of any significance to anyone else, but a major advance for me in my own little world. And, text-wise, a huge challenge.

Welcome, sir, to the forum. I will respectfully disagree with you on one point. Boiling during vacuum packing bears no resemblance to boiling in the ordinary sense. The latter implicates protein contraction, where the former does not.

Another vote for roasting low temp. If you've not already bought the meat, I'd suggest you experiment with cross-rib, which is a lot cheaper but makes a pretty good roast beef. Once you've got the technique down, then trade up to tenderloin. And, yeah, monitor temp with a thermometer. Timing guidelines should be used for planning purposes only, imho.

New on me. Notice that only the SE model can handle liquids. See also here and here. Can find no reviews of that particular model. Reviews on Amazon of the basic model, though, are mostly positive. The main caveat seems to be that the sealer is a bit fiddly, so there's a learning curve involved. My $0.02's worth. If you're thinking about getting this mostly for sous vide, it doesn't seem to me an improvement over zip-top bags using the immersion technique (for which liquids in the bag is actually an advantage and easily handled). OTOH, if you're thinking about getting this mostly for freezer storage, it might be a good and cost-effective solution (subject to the caveat about learning curve).

Glad it went well.

Not to my knowledge, but perhaps a commercial countertop convection oven will suit your needs. Cadco makes several, including the Roberta and the Lisa, which take 1/4 and 1/2 pans, respectively. The former runs about $600, the latter about $900. (Links for illustrative purposes only; if you pursue this, you should of course shop around.) Or, if you're looking for something priced more like the Breville, Webstaurant offers Adcraft 1/4 sheet and 1/2 sheet ovens for $280 and $499, respectively. No idea about the quality, though, whereas I've known several folks who used and loved their Cadcos. And weinoo's oven looks really awesome. Just be aware it costs more than $15,000.

BTW, to amplify slightly on my prior comment, what I mean by precision is this. My basic bread recipe uses one pound of bread flour (1 lb, exactly). In my observation (using a scale), that works out to about 3 c plus 3 tbsp by the stir-and-scoop method. As everyone here recognizes, though, if one relies solely on the volume method, it's generally not going to hit 1 lb exactly. It's gonna be a bit high or a bit low. I'm saying this variance, while real, affects the final product very little (assuming one is doing stir-and-scoop correctly). That opinion is based on having done bread by volume for many years, before switching to a scale.

Come, now. Of about two dozen variables affecting production of a good loaf of home made bread, precision in measuring the flour is about number twenty-three.

Lynn, the reason you're running into this problem, I think, is that most cookies have a fair amount of moisture. When frozen, that moisture of course turns into ice. IMHO, baking the cookies less will make the problem worse, not better. What I've used very successfully for ice cream sandwiches are pizzelles, but maybe that's more of an investment than you want to make for a one-off baby shower. Thought I throw it out there, though, in case the idea appeals. If you try this, freeze the pizzelles before forming the sandwiches. Otherwise, they'll be too fragile.

Unfortunately, just about all the bread recipes I have use cups, not weight, and I'd hate to toss them all out just because they don't use weight. These are recipes I've been collecting since 1967, when I got my very first recipe from a little café in Durango, Colorado. Important to know. If you're using recipes based on volume, you generally have no way of knowing how much flour by weight the person writing the recipe was using. This, as you mention yourself, would depend on how they handled the flour when measuring. The only reason to convert such recipes to by-weight is that you find it more convenient to work by weight. It's not going to add any precision. Rather, the converstion charts are intended for going the other direction, i.e., to convert a recipe by weight to one by volume because one doesn't have a scale. As for the chart linked in the OP, I will mention that I find a cup of bread flour and a cup of all purpose both weigh about 5 oz. That's using the stir-and-scoop method, which is actually pretty consistent. The chart says AP weighs half-an-ounce less per cup, which isn't my experience. I do bread by weight now, but did a lot of tests when converting my old tried-and-true recipes using volume. Of which speaking, the main reason I switched to a scale is that I got tired of counting errors. It's easier and more consistent, but not essential IMHO.

Agreed. As discussed upthread, Karlos, it's the pressure reading which counts, not the timer. From the picture, it appears you have the manual. (Which, indeed, was the main thing I was searching for and couldn't find online.) From there, it should be fairly straight forward to make the adjustment sculptor suggests.

ISTM, Pfeiffer is doing a conventional proof under the layer of flour. So, no, the flour shouldn't be stirred in. Can't see an advantage, though, except maybe that it's a one bowl solution. Or maybe he's saying that he doesn't agree with the no proof camp. Frankly, I'd say that if a conventional proof of liquid, yeast and a little sugar is working for you, as it does for most of us, don't worry about it.

I've done the mac n' cheese with gruyere. As have many others, IIRC. So I'm pretty sure that's not the problem. What you might try is this. I use a different protocol than the published recipe. (Always have.) Rather than blending in the cheese gradually at the end, I combine the liquid and sodium citrate, stir in the cheese and heat everything at the same time, stirring constantly. When the cheese has mostly melted, generally about 150F, I hit it with the immersion blender. Works for me. Easier too, which is the main reason I do it. But I think it might also have the advantage of more gently transitioning the cheese into emulsion. If you give this a try, do please report your results.

Interesting. A little googling turns up two different Chinese companies claiming the product: Hualian (here, here and here) and Dajiang (here and here). Of the two, the first seems more credible to me, though it's also possible the two companies are related. Meanwhile, it seems to be distiributed in the U.S. under the tradename DMC. In Oz, it's credited by one dealer to 3Monkeez. In Indonesia, it's claimed by PowerPack. And so on. Where are you located, by the way? And, if you don't mind explaining, how did you come by the machine?

Correct. That's plenty for sous vide, which as dcarch mentions, is mainly about good contact with the water bath. Stronger vacuums are mainly for compression, e.g., of fruits like watermelon. BTW, which machine are you using?

Whereas my reaction on reading Modernist Cuisine at Home, which has many recipes that call for pushing stuff through a sieve was, "Haven't these folks ever heard of a food mill?" That said, I agree the OP should think about whether s/he actually needs or would benefit from one.

Me, by a long shot, but I think it's mostly a generational thing. My parents and grandparents came of age in a time when food tastes were much simpler. If one had aspirations, the big thing was baking (i.e., sweets). At which my mother was, in fact, very good. (Still is, but doesn't do it much any more.)

FWIW, I think DDF was making a different point, i.e., that his friends who are always hunting for a deal would save even more money if they made a simple stock rather then throwing away their bones. He's not saying one need bones, and certainly not cleaned ones, to make stock. In fact, as DDF mentioned upthread, the best way to do this cheaply is to use whole legs cut into pieces. That said, supermarket chickens don't make very good stock IMHO (they're too mild) and I'm prettey sure that's why your various attempts were disappointing. Since canned is working for you, don't worry about it. And since you don't have bones you're throwing away, DDF's comment doesn't apply to you.

First, an apology. I misread the post to which I was responding and thought you had said "I apologize if ...", a form of apology I find particularly maddening, when in fact you said no such thing. My mistake, no excuses. Second, I'm envious you can get good chickens at such low prices. (I assume these are the same ones you mentioned upthread as being $0.69/lb for legs and $0.99/lb for whole birds.) You do appreciate, I hope, that most of us don't have access to this sort of thing. Back when I was making my own stock (had a big freezer then), sourcing chickens worth the effort was the most difficult part of the exercise, and they were a good deal more expensive. Third, coming back to the topic, I would suggest you're explaining why you go to the trouble of making chicken stock when most of us just buy it. That's fine and I do similar things. For example, I make my own dijon mustard, because it's not hard and a heck of a lot better IMHO than commercial brands. But I don't have any trouble understanding why most people don't bother. I respectfully submit you should take the same view on canned chicken stock.

I have a Rösle food mill, which I like a lot, but it's almost three times as expensive as the OXO. I got it because I was uniformly dissatified with the cheaper ones I tried. (No experience, though, with the OXO.) In particular, the Rösle has a very good clamping mechanism.for holding the pusher in place, pusher instability being the main complaint I had with the others. Another thing I like about the Rösle is that discs are available in a wider range of hole sizes than any other I've seen. As for whether a food processor will serve as well, about the only application I can think of where this is true is mashed potatoes and other root veggie purees, where one can use the grating blade for the puree without the glueyness the knife blade produces. Otherwise, I mostly use it to remove seeds and skins, which a food processor doesn't do. Hope that helps.

This thread is about opinion. I'm sorry I insulted your pre-made store-bought stock/broth!!! Enjoy!!!! The funny thing is that I don't actually use canned chicken stock much. But I don't have any trouble understanding why many people do. Meanwhile, your ten minute stock is no such thng. Also, mass market chickens make feeble stock. If one wants usable meat, the stock produced will be even more feeble. A home made stock without defatting isn't worth having. A home made stock without aromatics (including carrots and celery) isn't worth having. And, as I noted earlier, there's the storage issue. Sorry if I've insulted your frugal home made stock. Enjoy!!

FWIW, @Home (p.317) says the perfectly melting cheese slices can be held up to 10 days in the refrigerator or 2 months in the freezer. This recipe is a little different from the MC one, as it includes no iota carrageenan, so the latter might actually hold longer (less available water), but I think you can take the @Home recommendation as a safe minimum. Especially as I generally find the storage notes in the book to be quite conservative.

DDF, of course you're entitled to your opinion. Others, of course, are entitled to disagree. Discussion of such is the point of the forum. IMHO, for the reasons mentioned, by me and others, canned stock is a rather poor example of the sort of products to which the thread was directed.