A boiling point...

[ghost]

The largest sauce pan I have is 3.5 quarts. Even with nearly 3 & 1/4 quarts of heavily salted water at a rapid boil, a few broccoli florettes stops the boiling for a good 30-45 seconds, I don't like this. How much water do you think is necessary so that adding a few servings of veggies won't stop the boiling. Are we talking 6 quarts? 8 quarts? Anyone have any ideas?

[polly]

I have no idea how much water you would need, but is it really necessary?

The water may stop boiling for a few seconds when you add the broccoli but it will still be very hot and won't negatively affect the cooking of the broccoli.

I may be missing a point here, but it doesn't seem like too much of a problem.

[srhcb]

Remember, the food begins cooking at room temperature, and will slowly remove heat from the water faster than your range can replace it for a little while no matter what.

Maybe you could shorten this time by using a very heavy pan that fits the burner exactly?

There is nothing magical about 212 degrees. If the water comes back to a boil in 30 seconds I don't think the food could be negatively impacted.

SB

[Shalmanese]

IMHO, Thomas Keller is a very good chef but his ideas about blanching are pretty wrong and have influenced a whole generation of chefs after him to be excessively finicky about blanching. The amount of water has not much to do with recovery time. Your still sucking the same amount of heat out of the water that you need to put back in. Instead, the problem lies with a wimpy burner.

What more water does is that minimises the temperature drop. As long as the temperature stays above 70C or so, your vegtables should be fine so theres no need to worry if the water is merely not boiling. If you are really worried, keep a probe thermometer in the water but I doubt a few florets are going to do anything much.

However, if you want something easier, microwave steaming, to me, tends to produce just as flavourful vegtables for much less hassle. Just put 2 tsp of water with the vegetables in an airtight container and heat until tender.

[ghost]

Remember, the food begins cooking at room temperature, and will slowly remove heat from the water faster than your range can replace it for a little while no matter what.

Maybe you could shorten this time by using a very heavy pan that fits the burner exactly?

There is nothing magical about 212 degrees.  If the water comes back to a boil in 30 seconds I don't think the food could be negatively impacted. 

SB 

←

Heh, you know... I feel like an idiot. There is nothing scientifically special about 212 other than lots of bubbles. I usually step back and look at things objectively, but alas here I have failed to do that.

Thanks for bringing me back to reality! :-D

Mike

[srhcb]

Remember, the food begins cooking at room temperature, and will slowly remove heat from the water faster than your range can replace it for a little while no matter what.

Maybe you could shorten this time by using a very heavy pan that fits the burner exactly?

There is nothing magical about 212 degrees.  If the water comes back to a boil in 30 seconds I don't think the food could be negatively impacted. 

SB 

←

Heh, you know... I feel like an idiot. There is nothing scientifically special about 212 other than lots of bubbles. I usually step back and look at things objectively, but alas here I have failed to do that.

Thanks for bringing me back to reality! :-D

Mike

←

We all know the feeling.

Remember the old adage, "a watched pot never boils"? Well some times it can sure seem like it!

SB (has actually cursed a watched pot for taking so long to boil)

[Toliver]

If this really bothers you, you could always do what Julia Child did, on occasion. When adding veggies or what have you to a pot of boiling water, at the same time she would thrust into the pot a red hot metal "wand" that she had heated separately. The water would continue to boil furiously and there was no lull in the boil. I believe I've seen Jacques Pepin do the same thing once or twice.

Not sure where one would find a "boiling wand" like that...

[jefferyc]

Thomas Keller is not the only one. Just about every book I have from Beard to Peterson expresses this.

IMHO, Thomas Keller is a very good chef but his ideas about blanching are pretty wrong and have influenced a whole generation of chefs after him to be excessively finicky about blanching. The amount of water has not much to do with recovery time. Your still sucking the same amount of heat out of the water that you need to put back in. Instead, the problem lies with a wimpy burner.

What more water does is that minimises the temperature drop. As long as the temperature stays above 70C or so, your vegtables should be fine so theres no need to worry if the water is merely not boiling. If you are really worried, keep a probe thermometer in the water but I doubt a few florets are going to do anything much.

However, if you want something easier, microwave steaming, to me, tends to produce just as flavourful vegtables for much less hassle. Just put 2 tsp of water with the vegetables in an airtight container and heat until tender.

←

[culinary bear]

The amount of water has not much to do with recovery time. Your still sucking the same amount of heat out of the water that you need to put back in. Instead, the problem lies with a wimpy burner.

No, that's wrong. The thermal energy loss is the same, yes, but the reservoir of heat (the body of water) is much larger when you use a bigger pot, and it is the amount of water you use which determines the initial amount of heat loss when you add your vegetables; the burner is a factor only in getting the temperature back up to the boiling point.

What more water does is that minimises the temperature drop. As long as the temperature stays above 70C or so, your vegtables should be fine so theres no need to worry if the water is merely not boiling. If you are really worried, keep a probe thermometer in the water but I doubt a few florets are going to do anything much.

Blanching anywhere near 80C, never mind 70C, is going to give you limp, colourless, dull and lifeless vegetables.

Salt your water, more than you think you'll need to. It should taste as salty as seawater. This, as well as seasoning the vegetables, helps reduce colour loss and is especially important when blanching green vegetables.

Keller may be anally retentive, but he happens to be right.

[jefferyc]

The biggest issue is that you want the veg to be in water with a large reserve of energy for the shortest time possible. (I almost said hottest but as we all know 212 at sea level is as far as you go). I just blanch to set the color, they're still crispy when they come out of the boil. Then chill. Then finish up sauted in butter w/garlic or anchovies ar any thing else that comes to mind.

[russ parsons]

i'm a big-pot blancher. and pasta maker. in fact, my big pot is the one thing that never leaves my stove top. i think it's a basic piece of cooking equipment that everyone should have. that said, there's absolutely no sense (IMHO) in going out and springing for a fancy all-clad or (gasp) copper one. this will almost entirely be used for boiling water and the heat transfer just isn't that big a deal if, as someone pointed out, you have enough of a thermal sink from the water. Get an 8-quart with a pasta insert and a steamer. you can also use it for making stock. i'm willing to bet you'll find that you'll use it more often than almost any pot or pan you own.

edit: just remembered: in one of his cookbooks, the great edouard de pomiane began a cooking instruction by saying: "when you go into the kitchen, put a large pot of water on to boil. I'm not sure what you'll use it for, but you will use it." (paraphrased, probably badly)

Edited February 24, 2006 by russ parsons (log)

[Shalmanese]

Thomas Keller is not the only one.  Just about every book I have from Beard to Peterson expresses this.

←

Keller specifically believes that the pot should never, ever, lose a boil, otherwise the vegtables are irreparable ruined and must be discarded. As if the bubbles had some magical quality. I highly doubt that they do and can't really imagine any mechanism apart from physical agitation that could cause it. If you put a single pea in a 100L pot of boiling water and another single pea in a sous vide machine set to 99C, I wager $100 that one would be unable to tell the difference in a double blind test. It's temperature thats important, not bubbles.

No, that's wrong. The thermal energy loss is the same, yes, but the reservoir of heat (the body of water) is much larger when you use a bigger pot, and it is the amount of water you use which determines the initial amount of heat loss when you add your vegetables; the burner is a factor only in getting the temperature back up to the boiling point.

What? The heat loss is exactly the same (assuming no significant conductive loss, using the same pan blah blah). If you have 1Kg of vegtables with a thermal capacity close to water at 20C, then you need ~80 KCalories of heat to bring it up to 100C. It doesnt matter if you have 1L of water or 1000L, you still need a way to push in 80 KCals of heat and the only way is with the burner.

Personally, I'm surprised nobody has invented a pressure blancher yet. The way I envision it's like a system of 2 airlocks. You put the water into one chamber an bring it up to pressure. Then you put the vegtables in the other chamber, close the outside hatch and turn the thing upside down and open the inside hatch. SUperheated water falls onto the vegtables and blanches them. After a set period of time, you turn the thing upside down again, let all the water drain out and close the inside hatch. Open the outside hatch and you get vegtables blanched at super-heated temps which should, in theory, lead to even crisper, greener vegtables w/ far less water waste.

[hwilson41]

Is there any reason why you couldn't just put a steam basket in 2" or so of water, bring the temp up to steaming, put the veggies in and then take them out when they've steamed to your satisfaction? Seems a lot simpler than a system of air locks, super heated water, etc. Am I missing something?

[Shalmanese]

Well, steaming and blanching are two similar but different methods of cooking. For one thing, blanching allows you to season and cook at the same time.

I'm just commenting that for all the effort people go to keep the water at almost 100C, it might just be easier to pressure blanch at far above 100C.

[Hest88]

Are we talking about blanching or boiling? Because I've blanched with tiny amounts (inches) of water just by throwing in the veggies, flipping them over once, and then chilling. They've been bright and crisp. Granted, I've also cooked veggies that way as well, by throwing them all in slightly more boiling water. Although of course the water stops boiling, all the veggies benefit from the initial blast of heat and when the water comes back up to boil the veggies appear to have cooked the same as if I'd thrown them in a big pot of boiling water.

[culinary bear]

What? The heat loss is exactly the same (assuming no significant conductive loss, using the same pan blah blah). If you have 1Kg of vegtables with a thermal capacity close to water at 20C, then you need ~80 KCalories of heat to bring it up to 100C. It doesnt matter if you have 1L of water or 1000L, you still need a way to push in 80 KCals of heat and the only way is with the burner.

I should have phrased that better.

The amount of heat lost is, of course, the same. The temperature drop is significantly reduced by having a larger amount of water, because that same 80 kCal of energy lost is dissipated through a larger volume of (already boiling) water.

[ghost]

What? The heat loss is exactly the same (assuming no significant conductive loss, using the same pan blah blah). If you have 1Kg of vegtables with a thermal capacity close to water at 20C, then you need ~80 KCalories of heat to bring it up to 100C. It doesnt matter if you have 1L of water or 1000L, you still need a way to push in 80 KCals of heat and the only way is with the burner.

I should have phrased that better.

The amount of heat lost is, of course, the same. The temperature drop is significantly reduced by having a larger amount of water, because that same 80 kCal of energy lost is dissipated through a larger volume of (already boiling) water.

←

Or simply think of extreme cases, then the middle ground must be true...

Adding a 10 pound ice cube to 1/4 cup of boiling water will make the water drop temperature VERY fast. Now imagine adding a single piece of shaved ice to a 20 qt stock pot of boiling water.... nothing woud happen really. So the amount of water does help you maintain a more even temperature. :-)

[jsolomon]

There is nothing magical about 212 degrees. 

←

Yes there is. Water boils! And, steam is a very energetic material.

But, the steam is not the cooking medium in boiling water. The water is.

So, don't worry about your temperature drop too much. In a 3.5 quart saucepan, it will take a fair amount of vegetation to create a meaninful temperature drop, anyway.

[Patrick S]

There is nothing magical about 212 degrees. 

←

Yes there is. Water boils! And, steam is a very energetic material.

←

Of course, if srhcb wanted to be a smartass, he could point out that 212F is only magical at sea level, where atmospheric pressure=1 atmosphere. On the summit of Mt. Everest, the magical temperature is going to be closer to 160F.

[ghost]

There is nothing magical about 212 degrees. 

←

Yes there is. Water boils! And, steam is a very energetic material.

←

Of course, if srhcb wanted to be a smartass, he could point out that 212F is only magical at sea level, where atmospheric pressure=1 atmosphere. On the summit of Mt. Everest, the magical temperature is going to be closer to 160F.

←

On the otherhand... we could all move to death valley... throw out our pressure cookers and enjoy a few more degrees of water before boiling. YAY!