pbear

How about using a spinning blade grinder for the spices, then a mortar-and-pestle for the paste?

FWIW, as I read it, the argument is based on bioavailability, not the energy used in chewing. Hard to evaluate the claim without seeing the studies cited. In particular, it would be important to know by how much pureeing increases calorie uptake. A statistically significant result (i.e., not due to chance) could actually be quite small as regards the number of extra calories extracted. And, as others have suggested, to go further and argue the food processor has significantly increased obesity would require an analysis of how much it has increased consumption of pureed foods. Those certainly existed long before the food processor became a common kitchen tool.

In my experience, what a food mill will do that a food processor (or other puree device) will not is separate the pulp from the skins. I assume the cranberries are cooked before being passed through the mill. (It would help if the OP posted or linked the recipe.) Not saying the puree approach won't work, but it'll be more gritty. Whereas straining will capture the juice, but not the pulp. (And if you're going to do that, you might as well just buy the juice, being sure to get juice and not cocktail.) Again, might work, but it'll have less body and flavor. Or, better, go ahead and get the food mill. Not expensive and useful for all sorts of things. A great way, for example, to make mashed potatoes and other vegetable purees.

Merkinz, thanks for the tip, but my laptop (two years old) doesn't have a webcam. I'll probably end up using Judy's suggestion of borrowing a friend's smart phone, but it won't be a "good marketing" moment.

Seriously? Ya'll have created an unreasonable hurdle to registration for those of us without smart phones and can't be bothered to fix the problem. But the silver lining (for ya'll) is that it might be a pretty good marketing strategy. Seriously?

If you go this way, be aware that Emeril has a line of saucepans with pouring spouts. They're not great pans (though okay), but relatively inexpensive and handy for this sort of thing. (I use them mainly for reductions and hot-packing sauces for pressure canning).

FWIW, I agree with jmolinari. The original MC mac-n-cheese recipe, which I know only from the eG thread, always struck me as oddly ad hoc. The MCaH version makes much more sense. Prepare sauce, cook pasta, drain and toss with sauce. Doubtless the original recipe works - as evidenced by many posts on this forum - but I suspect that's simply because it's a forgiving recipe. Meanwhile, the MCaH version has the virtue that one can prepare the sauce all at a go, rather than preparing the emulsified cheese then folding it (grated with some difficulty) into the pasta-with-water. Kudos to the MC team for being able to think outside their own box.

You need to make sure your torch is fully combusting the fuel, or you are essentially spraying your food with fuel. I believe this generally means you should only have a blue flame, not red/orange. Agreed. Also, I find it helps to maintain a decent distance from the meat, about six inches, and to move the flame around a bit. Three passes at distance works better for me than a single intense one very close. What I think is going on is that the former more nearly replicates the Maillard reactions of natural roasting, where the flavor molecules are built up in layers.Further, for dishes that will be reheated, as opposed to taken straight from SV to table, I find a heat gun works better than a torch. This is slower and you need to chill the meat before browning (otherwise it will take on too much heat), but the flavor is better, IMHO. I think that's because this even more closely replicates natural roasting. I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of others on both points.

FWIW, that's the kind I use. (Mine is a Taylor.) For deep frying, it's simple, reliable and easily clipped to the side of the pan.

Just got the book a week ago and haven't ordered my magic powders yet. Meanwhile, saw this and decided to give it a shot. Seemed to work, though I've not had the official version. Bear in mind that, according to Wiki, this procedure produces monosodium citrate, whereas the commercial food additive generally is trisodium citrate. No idea how important that might be, especially in other applications.FWIW, I went about this a little differently. I started with 1 c water; stirred in 1 tbsp citric acic (7.8 g), then stirred in baking soda 1/2 tsp at a time until the fizzing nearly subsided (decided to err on the side of slightly acidic). That ended up being 2 tsp (7.9 g total), but my baking soda is almost two years old (albeit stored in a tight plastic container), so fresh might come in lower. Interestingly, after fizzing out, the cup of water had increased in weight by 10.4 g, which is silly-close to the 11 g specified in the book. Dumb luck, I assure you. Used to prepare a sauce with 1/2 lb sharp cheddar, which then tossed with 1/2 lb dried pasta, cooked and drained. Got the flavor and consistency everyone else describes. Have to say, even in small portions, it might be too rich for me (probably will end up backing off the sauce by about 25%), but the experiment certainly seemed to be a success.

Ah, but one can use regular flour in a slurry without making a roux. You just need to do something to deal with clumping, e.g., using an immersion blender. As between that and xanthan gum, I'd say the former is a much better substitute in sauces. This is based on having done many experiments with xanthan in home made pressure-canned simmer sauces, which is one of my little hobbies. I very much wanted it to work, as I don't like the heaviness of flour in most of those sauces, but concluded the texture of xanthan is unacceptably slimey. Based on a tip I saw somewhere (maybe here on eGullet), I ended up going with modified cornstarch (ClearJel), which is definitely an online-only item. In sauces where flour works, I use Wondra. If I couldn't get that, though, I'd use regular flour, not xanthan. To be clear, this may simply be a matter of personal preference. That is, others may find xanthan a suitable thickener for sauces. I'd encourage those unable to get Wondra to try both solutions and draw their own conclusions.

I respectfully disagree. Wondra is a great product but not a magic powder. It's just a flour that dissolves easily in water. One can get almost exactly the same result wth regular flour and an immerson blender. That would serve, for example, in the creamed spinach recipe mentioned earlier in the thread. Ditto for almost any thickening application. Whereas xanthan gum, although an amazing stabilizer, has a very different mouth feel. That you would consider it the preferred substition for Wondra, as opposed to regular flour, is baffling to me. As for the chicken wing recipe, also mentioned earlier in the thread, obviously xanthan gum won't work there. Whereas, in my experience, regular flour will. Indeed, I've been using a similar marinade-to-breading approach to buffalo chicken nuggets for almost twenty years. (I use chunks of boneless, skinless thighs rather than wings.) Your book has suggested to me that Wonda might work better, but I can testify that regular flour also works. This isn't anything like bread without yeast.

Agreed. bhsimon, I'm guessing from the description that what you found are Quattro Stagioni jars. If so, yes, those are functionally equivalent to mason jars (e.g., those made by Bell). Indeed, if anything, they're even more sturdy. And, for all the recipes I've noticed (only just got the book), the one-piece lids will be fine, as you back them off a quarter turn so the jars won't build pressure. One-piece lids aren't recommended for pressure canning, but you can easily use standard two-piece lids with QS jars (they'll fit) if you want.

Oops, to clarify, that was intended as a response to the OP. As for your question, DianaB, one advantage of both electric burner solutions is that, once you figure out what settings give the results you like, you just use those and don't have to eyeball it each time. As between the two (fwiw, I have both), the induction unit is much faster and more versitile, whereas the standard plate is cheaper and smaller. As for your question, radtek, you can easily test induction compatibility with a common magnet. If it sticks, the pan will work on induction.

Do you care about cost? If so, a Waring Pro Extra Burner (Model #SB30) will be perfectly adequate to your purpose and, being widely available for sixty bucks, much cheaper than an induction unit. Now, if you're going to use the burner for other things and/or don't care about cost, there's no doubt the latter has advantages.

FWIW, pep is right about botox being heat liable. For example, the CDC says, "Despite its extreme potency, botulinum toxin is easily destroyed. Heating to an internal temperature of 85°C for at least 5 minutes will decontaminate affected food or drink." That said, there are so many things that could have gone wrong here that I wouldn't take the chance.

Good points. I'll add another, which occurred to me today as I was thinking over why I like having the smaller cooker as well as the large one. It's simply this. Most of the stews I prepare in that cooker are about 2 qt in volume. (When cooked conventionally, they fit easily in a three quart pot with room to stir.) Preparing them in a large cooker would be nuisance, as I'd have to reach through a lot of empty space to get at the onions I saute at the beginning, for example. Doable, but I'm a right tool for the job sort of cook. So, it makes sense for me to have the smaller cooker. Whether it makes sense for someone else would depend on how often they make dishes of that size.

Hey patrickamory and ElsieD. I have a 4 qt and an 8 qt Presto. As between the two, I use the former probably 90% of the time, as it's plenty large enough for stews with two pounds of boneless meat (even three pounds with bones), plus say a pound of veggies. I use the 8 qt for large meat cuts (e.g., corned beef) and large soups, especially those with beans (for which one needs more headspace). (As Hugh Anderson says, it also would be good for stocks, but I hardly ever make those any more, as I don't have the storage space.) The advantage of a smaller cooker, for recipes where it fits, is that it comes to pressure more quickly, reducing the risk of scorching. How important this is depends on the recipe. Another option, If you want to buy only one cooker, would be a 6 qt. Indeed, that's the size I most often see recommended. This will handle the smaller recipes, obviously, plus most large cuts (e.g., that corned beef I mentioned) and most soups (though not all). It'll come to pressure faster than an 8 qt, but not as quickly as a 4 qt. IOW, it's a compromise, but IMHO a good one.. As for Bjs229's comment, I'll agree that All American is the way to go for canning large quantiies. (My mother has one.) I only can small batches though, usually six 12 oz jelly jars with home made simmer sauces (plus a seventh "blind" jar with water to fill the canner and keep the jars from tipping over), for which the 8 qt Mirro is perfect.

It's interesting see how MC@H has created renewed interest in pressure cooking. FWIW, I first got into pressure cooking and canning about fifteen years ago. I started with Kuhn-Rikons, because that's what all the "cool" sources recommended. I soon discovered, though, that these cookers have a dark side, which is that we are, in effect, the thermostat. To maintain proper pressure, the cookers have to be closely monitored, tinkering with the heat to keep the band at the right setting. With short cook times, say less than twenty minutes, not a big deal. For longer times, though, especially for canning, rather a big deal. Perhaps surprisingly, the solution to this problem is simple. Instead of the cool, new technology, try the old one of weight-regulated cookers (also known as rockers). Unlike spring-regulated cookers, weight-regulated ones can't go over pressure. Any excess heat is dissipated as steam. Yes, they're noisy, but I can deal with that. (For long processing times, I can easily move to another room.) Yes, you have to strike a balance between too much heat and too little, but the error band is wider. Bottom line, I haven't used my K-Rs in ten years. For regular pressure cooking, I use stainless steel Prestos. For canning, I use an 8 qt aluminum Mirro (which has the advantage of a variable weight, supporting 10 lb as well as 15 lb pressure). Oh, and the old technology is cheap. To my mind, win-win. YMMW. As for the engineering issue, rockers don't have the Dalton's Law problem for the simple reason that they vent continously. And, for that matter, they are easily vented before placing the weight. I will say, though, that I'm not convinced this is an important issue. AFAICT, the boiling point of the water bath is a function of total pressure, not vapor pressure, so that issue is tempest in a teapot, so so speak.

Mjx, I'll admit to being surprised to learn that bone is 30% collagen (by weight, I assume). I knew there was some, as I understand bone is a calcified protein matrix. Rocks was a metaphor and I did say basically. But I didn't realize the collagen content is so high. OTOH, how easily that collagen is extracted is another matter. In that regard, my experience (and that's what the OP asked about) is that bones as such don't add much to a stock. I've done this at least three times that I can recall. One was the stock mentioned in Post #11. Another was assisting a coworker make a similar stock with similarly bare veal bones. It was thoroughly disappointing. A third was making scrapple with a Smithfield ham bone, not well trimmed but ham is also low in collagen. The scrapple didn't set up as I'm used to using smoked neck bones, which are high in connective tissue. I'm curious whether you've ever tried making a bare bone stock and what your experience was. As my experience is that it's the stuff attached to the bones, not the bones themselves, which furnishes the overwhelming majority of the gelatin. And, of course, as everyone seems to agree, pretty much all the flavor. The point being that it's one thing to use bones to make stock because we have them. That's economical and, if we do it right (not using bare bones), we'll get a good stock. The question is whether it makes sense to buy bones to make stock. IMHO, we're usually better off (and it'll cost less) if we use a little meat for flavor and something else for the collagen, e.g., skin, tendon or foot. The bones are mostly dead weight. "Everybody knows" one uses bones to make stock. But everyone has been wrong before. The OP is asking whether this is another one of those times.

With respect, I don't think bones contribute gelatin. How could they? They're basically rocks. I'm pretty sure It's the meat and connective tissues attached to the bones which produce gelatin. Years ago, a butcher sold me veal bones for stock. It was a special order and designated as such by the supplier. Unfortunately, the bones were almost completely devoid of meat or connective tissue. Like the OP, I ended up with a very weak stock which even aggressive reduction couldn't save.

The two main reasons to age beef, of course, are tenderness and texture. The former by permitting enzymatic action, the latter by removing excess moisture.. In my experience, though, this only applies to dry roasts and steaks. I've tried aging pot roast a couple times and didn't see any advantage. Even when cooking LTLT, tenderness there comes mainly from collagen conversion. From this, it follows that pork shoulder, which is normally cooked like a pot roast, won't benefit either. But I have aged pork loin, which mainly has the advantage of tightening the texture (it's already tender). Likewise, sausages and ham are aged to evaporate excess moisture (not for tenderness). For that matter, I've aged lamb which I planned to dry roast, but not that which I planned to braise or barbecue.

jrshaul: I'm confused. In Post #8, you accepted my idea of using a temp of about 185ºF. In Post #14, you talk about using 145ºF. Those are very different. I've been assuming we're talking about a mixed meat and veggie sauce, both from the thread title and where you said in Post #8 that you "like the idea of making a meat and vegetarian sauce simultaneously." If so, Shalmanese is right that 145ºF is far too low for the veggies. For that matter, at that temp, four hours would be too little for reducing the collagen in the meat. For that, you'd need at least twelve, preferably eighteen to twenty-four. And the veggies still would be effectively uncooked. So, let's go back to 185ºF, a temp comparable to what you did with a conventional stove-top simmer. Be aware that, if you do this in ziploc (which wasn't my recommendation, but I understand why you want to go that way), you need to vent the bag (e.g., with a stent). Otherwise, steam will build up and vent it anyway. Better a planned venting than an accidental one. Shalmanese: Frankly, I don't understand why you object to using a PID to control a crock-pot. Once one has selected the parameters (I use P = 40 and I & D = 0, which I find reliably settles at one degree below the set point), it takes less than a minute to set up the cooker. Nothing like 53 chinoises. Not so important if the OP were making an all-veggie sauce, but I'm pretty certain he's doing a mixed meat-and-veggie one. For that, I assume you agree not boiling the meat is a valid objective. And, in my experience, a crock-pot, even on low, eventually boils the meat unless interdicted by a PID. slkinsey: I agree that a traditional ragu (mostly meat with little tomato) doesn't have a significant evaporation issue. The OP, though, seems to be doing something different.

Notice I only said to put the probe in a ziploc. The crock-pot still will get dirty. To avoid that, you'd have to use a liner (I don't bother) or move to a sous vide solution. The point about lack of evaporation is a good one and something I overlooked because I'm used to doing that adjustment as a matter of course when cooking in a crock-pot. Here, the best solution probably would be to substitute paste for some of the tomato, but it's hard to be sure whether that will fit without seeing the recipe. I'll be interested to hear how slkinsey handles that issue.

How well "putting the temperature sensor in the middle of [the cooker]" works depends on how precise one needs it to be. Will it hold the temp of the whole pot within a degree of the set point? No. Will it keep the crock-pot from boiling? Yes (at a set point of, say, 185ºF). I don't do this much anymore, as some sort of bain marie set-up in a Sous Vide Supreme (e.g., canning jars) is easier, but before I got that I used to do this fairly often.