pbear
-
Posts
621 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by pbear
-
-
FWIW, another couple of data points. As it happens, I have two half-pints of heavy cream in the fridge. One is Berkeley Farms, ultra-pasteurized and has carrageenan. The other is Clover organic, pasteurized but not ultra (with a significantly shorter expiration date, though purchased a few days more recently) and has none. Bear in mnd there are three kinds of carrageenan - kappa, iota and lambda. The latter is the one being used here and is the softest of the three.
ETA: By the way, I'm in San Francisco. These are both popular brands here.
-
Did you remember to use a rack or trivet? Jars resting on the bottom of the cooker would scorch like that.
-
My hunch would be that they tested the recipe with Bob's Red Mill Grits, as they mention the product line in various other recipes. BRM makes several kinds of grits, but the one I most often see are basically coarse yellow polenta, which I would say generally takes an hour to cook conventionally. If that hunch is right, it would explain why they felt 20 minutes was a significant time saving, but wasn't enough for the kind you were cooking.The only MC of MCAH fail I've had thus far has been pressure-cooking grits in a canning jar. With Anson Mills' antebellum coarse white grits, the product is still not tender even after 25 minutes at 15 PSI. I will have to experiment with seeing whether I get a better result by either pre-soaking the grits or longer cooking times. Either way, however, diminishes the utility of using this pressure-cooking method, because I'm not sure what's so great about it other than getting to tender in a significantly shorter timeframe. It's a bit disappointing because I had assumed, probably erroneously, that when the MCAH recipe called for "coarse grits" they were speaking of something like the Anson Mills antebellum coarse grits. Something like Quaker regular grits hardly takes more than 20 minutes without pressure cooking, so surely this can't be what the recipe is designed around. Considering that Anson Mills recommends cooking their antebellum coarse grits 90 minutes (!) if they are not presoaked, I wonder what length of time I should be looking at for MC/MCAH pressure-cooking if I want to cook from dry.
FWIW, I think cooking grits or polenta by pressure in canning jars is probably more trouble than it's worth. (Especially if one doesn't have a team of assistants to do the cleanup.) Rather, I use an adaptation of a method I read about in an article several years ago by Paula Wolfert (though, IIRC, she disclaimed having invented the method). First I combine the grits or polena with cold water, then bring just to a boil stirring constantly, cover and move to a 250F oven. Cooking time depends on coarseness, from 20 minutes for relatively fine ground, to an hour (as I said) for coarse, to 90 minutes (I gather) for the very coarse (have never made those). Only needs to be stirred once or twice while baking, then finish on the stove however one likes. It's a wizard method, IMHO. Not as fast as the pressure cooker, but much less fuss, also eliminates the volcanic eruptions and more easily adjusted on the fly. YMMV.
-
In my understanding, nit'ir qibe is generally made with whole butter, not clarified. See, e.g., Daniel Mesfin, Exotic Ethiopian Cooking (1993) at p.5, Tami Hultman, The Africa News Cookbook (1985) at p.9, and DeWitt, Wilson & Stock, Flavors of Africa Cookbook (1998) at p.37. In other words, the spiced butter is clarified by the end, but that's not the starting point. Like ghee, caramelizing the milk solids is an important element of the flavor profile. Not saying grapeseed oil won't work, but it'll be somewhat different from the traditional product. How important the difference will depend on the dish
-
Sorry, forgot about the mascarpone. I'd say you can break the recipe in either place, but I'd go ahead and prep it through Step 9. It's the Comté that I think won't take being melted and reheated well. As mentioned, there are two ways to do that. Either will work.So I should be OK to refrigerate up until the fold-in-mascarpone step? Thanks
-
Depends on how consistently cold is your fridge. An ordinary one, you should be fine for up to three days. A good one, which consistently stays below 40F, should give you up to a week. (Sorry, can't provide a cite, as the computer with that bookmark just croaked, but I'm not pulling those numbers out of thin air.) One thing. I'd cool the spinach mixture before adding the cheese. Or wait until reheating to add the cheese. Melting and reheating might work, but I wouldn't take the chance. And can see no advantage to even trying.
-
How about using a spinning blade grinder for the spices, then a mortar-and-pestle for the paste?Yeah I forgot to say even though I have a substantial m&p I don't get any pleasure from grinding spices a mano.
-
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?To register, you have to use a tablet or smart phone to scan the QR code and then enter the scratch-off number. If you don't have either device, you might try borrowing someone's (come to think of it, that's a pretty good marketing strategy...now you have to show your friend the book!). It doesn't tie to a phone number or anything like that. It just ties to your account on modernistcuisine.com. -
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).Love the saucepan idea. Totally did not think of that.
-
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.
-
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.Many suggested the blow torch. I have tried it a few time and got a non-pleasant bitter taste. Is there a trick for doing it properly?
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.
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.Finally, the macaroni & cheese recipe was made using homemade sodium citrate. I've had some on order for a month now & have been having trouble with the supplier, and I was committed to making mac & cheese so decided to try making some at home with baking soda & citric acid. Anybody else tried their hand at this? Basically I combined citric acid with water, then very slowly added baking soda, before evaporating off the water. Was this dangerous/dumb/ill-advised?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.
Sous vide – what to buy or ask for, for Christmas?
in Kitchen Consumer
Posted
Frankly, I don't think what has held back sous vide is the equipment reviews. Rather, based on conversations with friends, the problem is that it's generally perceived as one of those complicated techniques that high-end restaurant chefs use (and a few lunatic foodies). Even if they see the advantages - some do, some don't - the game doesn't seem worth the candle to the typical home cook. (The visceral objection to cooking in plastic also plays a role, like it or not.) And, if they perchance take an interest and do some research, they find a lot of disorganized information, conflicting opinions and few clear cut answers.
For example, I respectfully disagree about the recommendation of a PID-controlled slow cooker over the Sous Vide Supreme.. I have both. I use the former more (mainly for long cooks of big pieces of meat), but would recommend the latter to almost anyone interested in jumping in. Yes, it's more expensive. But not unreasonably so, much more versatile and easier to use (subject to the caveat about calibration). I agree about using ziplocs over a Food Saver (a chamber sealer being much too expensive for most people, me included), but many sources argue the contrary. Ditto cooking times, searing techniques, etc. Confronted with this cacophony of voices, most folks (even if they had an interest) throw in the towel and stick to the tried-and-true methods they've been using for years.
Maybe this will change eventually, but I'm beginning to have doubts. Seven years ago, I thought sous vide was going to be the next big thing. Unfortunately, the mainstream media (cooking shows and magazines) haven't embraced it, so it remains an oddity and an outlier. To an extent, this is a chicken-and-egg problem. So long as only a few use sous vide, the mainstream outlets will hesitate to give it much play. So long as it gets little play, sous vide has little chance of entering the mainstream.
What we early adopters can do to advance the cause, ISTM, is mainly to make the case for why we go to the trouble. How to do it, i.e., the equpment issues, should be the tail to the dog.