slkinsey

It was smokey, sure. But there's smoke when I'm cooking steaks no matter what. What I did was toss in the frozen chunk of duck fat and then almost immediately drop in the steaks. This seems like a good technique to avoid burning the fat. There were no burnt flavors.

The other night I was making dinner for the future Mrs. slkinsey: pan-fried skirt steak, baby carrots glazed with homemade beef glace, scallion mashed potatoes. As is my wont, I slapped a heavy copper skillet on the old Crapmaster 9000 NYC apartment stove, turned it up full blast and left it there for around five to seven minutes to get screaming hot. The idea is to blast a nice crust on the outside of the steaks while keeping the inside nicely rare. Ordinarily I'd drop in a little grapeseed oil, because it has a high smoke point. For some reason, I decided to reach into the vast collection of rendered animal fats I have in the freezer and toss in a chunk of duck fat instead. Holy crap, what a difference! It wasn't so much that the steaks tasted like duck, but rather that they tasted even more beefy and savory somehow. Using duck fat and other rendered animal fats with vegetables is relatively old hat, I know. Roasted potatoes, sauteed greens, even biscuits made with duck fat are familiar uses. But I hadn't thought that using duck fat as the cooking medium for even short-term cooking of meat would make such a dramatic difference. I've since experimented with using duck fat to cook other meats, and so far it has always been a success -- even with fish, which I've tried both in the pan and sous vide with duck fat. Right now I'm long-cooking a beef foast sous vide with nothing in the bag but beef, salt and a tablespoon of duck fat. The result should be interesting. Who else likes cooking with duck fat?

A few points: Kirschwasser is not an acceptable substitute for maraschino Maraschino is a distilled spirit of the whole cherry. Luxardo pits the cherries, distills the pits and fruit separately, combines them later, ages for 2 years in larch wood vats, adds sugar and dilutes to bottle proof. I don't know whether Maraska has a similar or equivalent process. I wouldn't say that the main difference between kirschwasser and maraschino is that one is a distilled spirit and one is a liqueur. They are both distilled spirits. Maraschino is sweetened and diluted, and maraschino also uses the pits. Kirschwasser is dry and high proof, and I'm not aware of any kirschwasser that actively distills the pits as is done for maraschino. Erik, I see where you're going by likening the difference to the difference between scotch and Drambuie, but it's really a different kind of difference. Drambuie starts off with scotch, then it is infused with herbs and sweetened. Maraschino starts off as a completely different spirit (I don't think an unaged, unsweetened maraschino would taste like kirschwasser), and is simply sweetened without the any flavorings being added. Unfortunately for those who can't get it, there really is no acceptable substitute for maraschino liqueur. Fortunately for those of us who can get it, this is because it is such a distinctive and unique product.

1. Sea salts and salt grinder/mill Sea salt can be found most anywhere. Zabar's, Kalustyan's, Citarella, Fairway, etc. Salt mills, I'd check Zabar's. 2. Montasio cheese Fairway, Murray's, Zabar's 3. Chestnut flour I think you can get this at Citarella. Also possibly at Fairway or Zabar's. I'm sure you can get it at Buon Italia in the Chelsea Markets (more on this below). 4. Specialty bakeware Bridge Kitchenware and JB Prince (both aimed at the industry), Zabar's. It's funny that you say this because the last time I was in Buon Italia, I also wondered the same thing. I did find chestnut flour there, but the reason I decided to ask for another source is because I didn't really care for the overall "feel" of the market - it just didn't seem "fresh." I did, however, check the sell-by date on the back of the package to make sure the flour wasn't overdue or near-overdue.I'm not sure I'd buy produce or a perishable cheese at Buon Italia. But in terms of perishable items, I've bought plenty of flour there (both 00 and chestnut) and I've bought plenty of salumi there (guanciale, etc.), and it's always been in good condition. Mostly, however, I use Buon Italia to buy non-perishable items like dry pasta (they have the best deals in the City on artisanal dry pasta) and jarred goods. I avoid the cheese case anyway, because I can do so much better in other shops. It's not a fancy place, but don't let that put you off.

With aluminum you'll eventually get some pitting from the dishwasher. This is largely cosmetic, but will also make the cooking surface more sticky.

I agree it's a very low risk. But why pay all that extra money for the privilege of finding out?

That's my own expanded definition from one of my posts above. I mean, what makes heads and tails "offal"? (I'm actually not sure I think oxtails are offal. Pig tails, yes. But there's plenty of muscle meat on a big oxtail.) Why is the head offal and not the neck? Well, because the head is comprised mostly of connective tissue, skin, sinew, and little bits of meat that can't easily be eaten. If you're eating tête de veau, you're picking at little bits of stuff. On the other hand, if you can pull off a piece of the cheek in one relatively large "steak" you've got a nice big piece of muscle meat, no picking required. It just requires a little flexibility in thinking about what goes into these definitions. In a way, it goes back to the earlier "waste" idea of "offal." The muscle meat was considered the "best part" of the animal that went to the people with money. If you were the owner of the pig or cow, you probably didn't care what happened to the other stuff. Throw it away for all you care. The "secondary products" consisted largely of the organs, but would also include blood, skin, and the portions of muscle meat that were considered unacceptably low in quality because they were full of tendons and cartilage, tough, full of fiddly little bones, had to be picked off of the skull or boiled away and made into a terrine as a way of using every last bit of the animal, etc. To a rich person in those days (and, hey, to a lot of people today in any socioeconomic class) those parts would all be considered "waste." This pretty much accords with the OED definition you quoted above: "parts which are cut off in dressing" being the "greasy picky bits" of the carcass, and entrails and organs being... well, entrails and organs. However, to continue exploring the definition, if the beef cheeks are cut off and reserved separately, they are not "cut off in dressing." I can't imagine that Larousse, if presented with a stew made of beef cheeks and another made of beef chuck would, upon tasting them, proclaim the former "offal" and the later "not offal."

I can't figure out where you're getting that from, in terms of any of the definitions above. The way I read it, OED seems to be saying pretty much what Larousse is saying. Because, when the cheek is prepared part of the whole head, I would call it a "hard to get greasy little bit or otherwise challenging small pieces of muscle meat associated with lots of connective tissue" because that's what the head mostly is made of. Similarly, although veal neck isn't considered offal, if the head was boiled together with part of the neck and presented at the table, I'd consider it to be an offal dish. When it is a cow or large pig it is possible to remove the cheek meat in one relatively large piece. Beef cheeks, in particular, can be quite large and steak-like in aspect (look here for a picture of a beef cheek, and you'll see what I mean). In my opinion, there is nothing offal-like about a braised beef cheek stew, and I wouldn't consider this an offal dish. Braised beef head stew, on the other hand, is offal-like, and I would consider it an offal dish.

The OED says that the oldest meanings had to do with scraps, chips and refuse (as in wood shavings or metal filings). Here's what they have next: One of the earliest reference quotes they give (c. 1420) refers to "tho offal and tho lyver of a swan," supporting their observation that the term originally referred to the intestines (entrails) only. Their modern definition would seem to support my idea that offal equals non-muscle meat and "hard to get greasy little bits" or otherwise challenging small pieces of muscle meat associated with lots of connective tissue. That would mean, for example: Pig cheek as part of a whole boiled pig's head? Offal. Separated and cured/fried or braised pig cheek? Not offal. (I'm not sure I personally agree with their inclusion of the tongue with offal, but accept that it is often considered such.)

I think that if you cooked a beef or pork cheek, or a tongue, and sliced it up for someone... most people would not consider it offal. I think very few would even be able to tell you that it's any different from "regular meat." Some people may not like it or might be squeamish about it, but some people are squeamish about chicken thighs. I mean, if pork cheeks are offal, then what about pork belly? Does turning a pork cheek into guanciale make it no longer offal? Does turning a pork belly into bacon make it no longer offal?

I'm not sure I agree that it changes with the times. Fundamentally you have two parts of the animal: muscle meat and other stuff. The other stuff is offal. So, for example, there was a time when skirt steak wasn't eaten much in America. Then, as America discovered fajitas, and now it's very popular. But it was always meat. An expanded definition of offal might also include "little greasy bits of muscle meat that are hard to get out in one appetizingly large piece." To make a few examples: Tongue? Not offal. Beef and pork cheeks? Not offal. Trotters? Not offal. Marrow? Offal. Sweetbreads? Offal. Liver? Offal. Mousse de foie gras? Offal. Here are some things I've written in other threads that are pertinent to this discussion: <blockquote>I'd say that the easiest definition of offal would be the "fifth quarter" -- which is to say, all the stuff that's left over after the animal is separated into the four primary quarters of muscle meat. This would include the organs and glands, of course, but would also include things like tendons, blood, ears, nervous tissue, etc. -- and, of course, the products made from them, like scrapple, blood sausage, haggis, pate, pölsa, etc.</blockquote> I had originally included feet and head in the above, but I'm not sure I agree with that anymore. The meat that comes from feet and heads is all just meat, and not offal. I wouldn't consider a boiled pig's trotter to be offal. Products made by boiling whole feet or a whole head, known by names like testa, head cheese, souse meat, etc., might be considered offal under the expended definition. <blockquote>The 1828 Webster's dictionary defines offal as: "Waste meat; the parts of an animal butchered which are unfit for use or rejected." The current (10th) edition of Webster's has it as: "1 : the waste or by-product of a process: as a : trimmings of a hide b : the by-products of milling used especially for stock feeds c : the viscera and trimmings of a butchered animal removed in dressing : VARIETY MEAT" The Online Etymology Dictionary gives the word origins as: "1398, "waste parts, refuse," from off + fall; the notion being that which "falls off" the butcher's block; perhaps a translation of M.Du. afval."</blockquote> I think it's entirely possible for a food to be both offal and an expensive luxury ingredient.

The 1828 Webster's dictionary defines offal as: "Waste meat; the parts of an animal butchered which are unfit for use or rejected." The current (10th) edition of Webster's has it as: "1 : the waste or by-product of a process: as a : trimmings of a hide b : the by-products of milling used especially for stock feeds c : the viscera and trimmings of a butchered animal removed in dressing : VARIETY MEAT" The Online Etymology Dictionary gives the word origins as: "1398, "waste parts, refuse," from off + fall; the notion being that which "falls off" the butcher's block; perhaps a translation of M.Du. afval."

Yea, maybe. That's what I'd like to see. We all know that if we leave a glass of wine or bourbon out overnight, it ends up plenty oxygenated. I can definitely see how freezing and re-freezing would result in less dissolved gas than using water that had just come out of the tap (especially one with an aerator). But I'm less certain it will work better than using boiled water, and I'd like to experiment with taking boiling water directly to the freezer.

Vewry cool, Angus! Some observations and questions: It took that guy almost 5 minutes just to make the ice ball, and that's before he started making the drink. How many cusomers does a bar like that serve? Also, how much would he charged for a drink at that bar? Is the ice-ball drink more expensive? I could see something like this working at a very small, expensive bar like Milk & Honey here in Chinatown (indeed, I once had a great Old Fashioned there where the bartender took a big lump of ice and chipped it down to barely fit into the glass). But I can't see how it would work in a bigger place that did any more volume. I suppose you could pre-carve and store the ice balls in the freezer (which would actually make for higher quality ice), but clearly the making of the ice ball is part of what you pay for. Angus: The bartender didn't seem to be going to any particular trouble to make sure the customer could see him working on the ice ball (doing some of it hunched over a bar sink, for example). Isn't this supposed to be part of the show? Hmm. I guess I have a hard time understanding why the water wouldn't simply reabsorb gas once it went back into liquid form. And since cold water can hold more dissolved gas than warm water, this seems almost counterproductive. And yet, I guess people wouldn't do it if it didn't have some effect. I'm going to have to do some experimentation.

Hmm. Yea, spreading tomato pulp out onto a silpat on a halfsheet pan in a low oven might be the way to go.

I don't think they work without the lid on (although others may have better data ant I on that).

Amato Opera, bless them all, would be the equivalent of Fried Dumpling. All the major NYC schools put on full staged operas that are reviewed. Adam Rapp may be a good example. But, still, I have to believe he's getting at least 6 weeks of full day rehearsals, and several days of previews before they open. By the time that's happened, the director and playright will have made most of the necessary adjustments and the performers will have had plenty of practice. In terms of "being ready for a review" I still assert that they're miles ahead of a restaurant. And, of course, there are plenty of other reasons (a limited run being primary) why it makes sense to review the opening performance. Sneakeater: Not sure I agree about contemporary opera. I think if you look you'll see that both the Met and especially City Opera have done plenty of opera composed in the last 20 years.

I've done it before, with a long-cooked Italian-American style tomato sauce. Here's the thing: If you crock-cook the tomato sauce for 12+ hours, the sugars are going to caramelize and the sauce will turn a kind of "brick red/brown" and will take on a distinctive flavor. This is good for that style of sauce, but not something I'd want to have for everyday use. I don't think you'd have much luck making tomato paste out of tomatoes this way, primarily because slow cookers aren't designed to allow for evaporation. Also, commercial tomato paste is made with evaporators and doesn't heat the tomato enough to meaningfully cook it. So even if you were to cook the tomato pulp down to sonething that was as concentrated as tomato paste, it would be completely different.

Agreed as well. But, similarly, we should point out that most theatrical productions do not get a featured review in the New York Times. Nor do most restaurants. So the comparison, I would think, would be between those that do.

I hadn't intended to respond to your earlier counterarguments, because I thought it might draw the conversation off-topic, but I might as well revisit to point out that I disagree and why... I suppose it depends on the level of the professional theatrical production ,and of course the vast majority of professional theatrical productions are not reviewed in the pages of the New York Times. I'd say that a Broadway-level play likely to get a significant Times review (something like, say, "Copenhagen" or "Wicked" or "Frost/Nixon" or "Denial") was very likely workshopped and revised as it was written, possibly pre-run in some other city depending on budget, and had a rehearsal period far more extensive than 3 days of previews with the paint still drying on the set. Fairly commonplace for a staged play would be something like a "short" four to six weeks of rehearsal and perhaps as many as ten previews before exposing the play to the press. Musicals, because they cost so much more, are likely to have a more involved process. Yes, I know. I've done many, many, many performances of comedic works. I've also seen plenty of restaurants go into operating with paying customers. And I can tell you that the adjustments that must be made to account for audience response in a staged comedy are so trifling in comparison as to be hardly worth mention. In a restaurant, the customers are almost like a part of the cast. Ultimately these are all just examples. The larger point is that there are lots of huge differences between what goes into putting together a theatrical performance or art show or whatever, and opening a restaurant. Those things make it more appropriate, and often necessary, to review the theatrical production on opening night, whereas with restaurants there are many factors which argue in favor of waiting. With restaurants it might be ideal to run a brief "early look" shortly after opening and then reserve a full review until 4-6 months down the road.

What you'll be missing is the recirculating part of the deal, which serves to make sure that all the water in the vessel is at the same temperature. Depending on where the heat is coming from, it's possible that there could be fluctuations of several degrees depending on where you place the probe. Also, it's not clear to me that you're saving too terribly much money. How much are you going to spend on the roaster? You say your spent 20 bucks on the roaster, then there's another 45 bucks for the PID controller and probe, assuming those are reasonably accurate prices. For ten more dollars you could buy that Lauda B-1 recirculating heater and use it with a large stock pot you already own (or even a large plastic bus bin or pickle barrel). It's not clear from your earlier post whether you spent as much as $170 refurbishing the roaster. If you did, you're spending more money to have something that at best I think would be not quite as good as using a real recirculating water bath heater. To compare: If you spent, say, 100 bucks on a recirculating water bath heater and 30 bucks on a 16 quart stainless stockpot at Target, you'd have spend less money, you'd have something that works better, and you'd have a kickass stockpot that could be used for many other things. To the best of my knowledge, ths Lauda B-1 recirculating water bath heater controls to within less than 0.5 degrees C. If one is patient, deals on even more recent model recirculating water bath heaters come up on eBay and elsewhere.

Using a metal spoon shouln't make any difference. After, the screen and plunger are made out of metal.

There's some discussion of this here in the Q&A thread to my eGCI class on cookware. My opinion can be summed up in two points: First, it's definitely not worth paying the markup over regular cast iron. Second, nickel isn't something I'd particularly care to ingest in extra amounts.

Andie, I'm not saying that these roasters have no usefulness at all. I am simply saying that they have very limited usefulness for someone who would like to do real sous vide cooking, especially if they want to take advantage of the full range of things that make sous vide and interesting and unique. That's simply a fact. This is, after all, a thread about laboratory water baths for use in sous vide cooking.

Unfortunately, 150F/65C is not particularly useful for extended sous vide cooking, and for shorter cooking times (e.g., for fish) it's unclear that these roasters offer any advantages over simply heating a large stock pot of water to temperature on the stove. It's unclear to me that there is a reasonably unflawed solution for sous vide temperature control that exists between simply heating up a big stockpot of water to temperature and doing short-duration and waiting around for a decent recirculating water bath heater to come up on eBay for around 75 bucks (like this one). The problem with the other solutions is that the temperature regulation is too imprecise, or doesn't offer the desired range of temperatures, or is likely to have some spots hotter than others, or is likely to cycle up and down, etc. For most long duration sous vide cooking, these are all important considerations. For short duration sous vide cooking, a big stockpot and a thermometer will do just as well as anything short of a laboratory recirculating water bath heater.