Another November is here, and you all know what that means - Turkey Day approaches. In fact, I'm already enjoying an extended Thanksgiving break (for which, I might add, I am indeed very thankful).
I do love me a good Thanksgiving dinner. Lots of food, family, and (forgive the overuse of alliteration) fun. Unfortunately, there seems to be this nasty little habit of serving a turkey that's about as dry as last year's spackle. Sure you can toss some gravy over it, but why not go for something that's good and delicious on its own?
Here are a few tips to get you a nice juicy bird...
First of all, you want a good slow roast. Especially on a large bird (or large anything for that matter) too high heat will result in a black outside and a raw inside. Also, higher heat causes more contraction and shrinkage. A slow roast will leave you with more once you're finished.
Now actual cooking temp and time will depend on just how big of a bird you've got. The bigger you go, the longer it will take. If this takes you below 300 degrees, be warned - sugars don't caramelize unless the temperature is 300 or higher. No worries, though, if you're roasting at 275, just kick on the broiler for a few minutes at the end to crisp things up a bit.
It's worth talking about temperature, too. Internal temperature, that is. Most people have heard that poultry needs to hit 165 F to be safe. Alright, that's fine by me. But know this - food doesn't stop cooking right when you pull it out of the oven/pan/fryer/coals/other-cooking-method-of-choice. There's an old saying, "an egg done in the pan is overdone on the plate". The larger the item in question, the more heat it's holding, and the more it will continue to cook. With an individual steak, you may be looking at a degree or two. With a big turkey (or other large roast) you could be looking at a solid 10 degrees of continued cooking.
So let's say you pull the turkey out at 165 (and really, who ever catches it right on the dot like that?). After it sits on the counter waiting to be carved (and I'll explain why it's not already sliced in just a minute) it's up to, say, 175. Maybe even 180. Why is this a bad thing? Well, proteins fully coagulate at 185 F. And to fully explain why that's not the greatest thing in the world, I need to talk about that rest from before.
Why should you always (and I do mean always) let meat rest after it's cooked? It's all in the juice. You can imagine protein strands as kind of like a spring. As they cook they tighten, stretching out and squeezing out liquid. When you hit 185 and they're fully coagulated, they've pretty much squeezed out every last drop of juice that they once held, and that's a sad thing indeed. Now, let's say that we haven't cooked every last glimmer of hope out of that piece of meat. What happens when you give it a minute to relax and cool back down just a tad? The proteins recurl (at least a bit) and reabsorb some of that juice. Some will drip off (which should by all means be saved for some sort of sauce, be it jus, gravy, or just a quality hot beverage), but the proteins will soak back up plenty. This means juicy, flavorful meat. Cook that meat into oblivion, and the juices are going to go that way too. Also, if you cut into the meat before it's had a proper resting time, all of those juices are going to spill out (they're just sort of hanging out in the space between the cells and all that). Sure that gives you more to make a sauce out of, but the meat itself will be dry, and no one wants that.
One last thing, but definitely not least. There's a right way (and as such, lots of wrong ways) to take the temperature of that turkey. The idea is pretty simple, really. You need to get into the thick of the meat. There are two good spots to do this - the breast, and the joint between the thigh and the body. Of these, the joint is probably your best bet. You can't go straight down into the bird from the breast or you risk hitting the cavity (at which point you're measuring the internal temperature of the oven moreso than the temperature of the meat). You have to go sideways into the breast. The only downside to this is that juices can start to leak from the hole. It's not going to make or break your dinner, but hey, I'll do whatever I can to keep things as juicy as possible. So dig into that joint - just make sure you're getting the temperature of meat, not of bone.
And one more last thing. I have two thermometers, one digital and one dial-style, both instant-read. The only thing I want to mention is that the spot on the probe where temperature-taking starts is different. On the digital version, the temperature is taken basically from the tip. On the other, though, it doesn't start reading until nearly two inches up (it's marked by some divets on the probe). Make sure to take a note when you buy yours (and yes, it is absolutely a requirement that you have a good thermometer for this, in case you haven't picked that up by now) so that you know how to make the best use of it. However, if you've long since thrown away the package, there is still hope. The easiest way I know to calibrate your thermometer is to fill a glass with ice, then cold water. Let it sit for a minute to get good and cold. Then stick in the thermometer and make sure that it's reading 32 degrees. Now, if the thermometer starts reading from the tip, you'll get a different reading if the probe is touching the bottom of the glass as opposed to being suspended in the icewater.
It's really not too difficult to get a nice juicy turkey for dinner. Just keep an eye on the temp and plan for residual heat to carry you through. Here's hoping you a happy Thanksgiving, and a good turkey.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
A belated introduction to plate design
I thought that it may be a good idea to take a minute to talk about the powers that be behind putting together a good plate. According to my FFP lecture there are five areas that you have to take into account, and I feel like these pretty much cover the bases of it myself.
First up to bat is color. This one is pretty obvious, and I would imagine would be one of the first things that someone off the street would mention if they were asked what goes into a fancified plate. Having a variety of colors on the plate does more than look good (go ahead, imagine a plate of poached fish, mashed potatoes, and cauliflower... pretty nasty, yeah?), it's a good indicator that you're getting a variety of nutrients, too. Set that albino plate next to something else, say, seared pork rib chop (with a nice pan sauce, of course) with mashed sweet potatoes and haricot verts. You've got a rather nice orange, a vibrant green, and a kind of pinky browny porkish color. Overall a nice variety.
Next up is texture. No one wants to look down and see a plate full of mush. It's boring, and in the case of "mush" particularly disturbing. Salmon tartar, creamed cauliflower, and carrot puree might offer a range of colors on a plate, but it all has the same sort of mouthfeel. It's all more or less a smooth puree. Take that same tartar and pair it with some good pommes frites (light and fluffy inside, wonderfully crispy skin) and a small bed of nice crunchy greens and you've got yourself a winner.
Shape is our next consideration. Some good meatballs beside whole roasted red potatoes and creamed pearl onions would go quite well together, I think, in terms of flavor, but you've just got one huge pile of circles. Why not stir things up a bit. All it takes is reforming the meat into another shape (ground beef is pretty easy to work with in that respect), and cutting up the potatoes pre-roast. Now you have a bit of variety on the plate.
Height is another fun thing to play with. Sure you can just throw everything onto the plate and send it out, but what's the fun in that? There are plenty of ways to give something a bit of height. Items can be stacked into one central tower, or gently laid over one another for a more supple approach, or even topped with an extra little garnish to add that extra oomph.
And speaking of garnish, we come to our final item of note. A good garnish doesn't need to be some hugely elaborate piece of whatever that takes up half of the plate. Food can look good enough on its own without adding anything else. Those clean grill marks? That bone sticking up above the rest of the plate? That is the garnish, and boy does it look good. Not that I'm going to say to never add anything. Just don't go overboard. As a rule a garnish should be edible, and furthermore something that works with the rest of the plate flavorwise (usually something already used in the dish). Of course, grill marks are also cheaper than adding another item to the plate, which is especially nice if you're serving 400 people for lunch.
It's said that people eat with their eyes first. If you really want to get down to it, I'd wager that at least sometimes it's smell that wins that race... but that's getting picky. The point is that taste actually comes fairly late to the game. The plate has to capture the attention before the fork is even in hand. If something looks bad, it's just not going to have the same effect (even if it does taste great).
Sure you may not dress up everything that you eat, but it can be fun to do it sometimes. And at least knowing more about it helps you to appreciate the time and effort that goes into designing all of those plates that you see coming out of the kitchen.
First up to bat is color. This one is pretty obvious, and I would imagine would be one of the first things that someone off the street would mention if they were asked what goes into a fancified plate. Having a variety of colors on the plate does more than look good (go ahead, imagine a plate of poached fish, mashed potatoes, and cauliflower... pretty nasty, yeah?), it's a good indicator that you're getting a variety of nutrients, too. Set that albino plate next to something else, say, seared pork rib chop (with a nice pan sauce, of course) with mashed sweet potatoes and haricot verts. You've got a rather nice orange, a vibrant green, and a kind of pinky browny porkish color. Overall a nice variety.
Next up is texture. No one wants to look down and see a plate full of mush. It's boring, and in the case of "mush" particularly disturbing. Salmon tartar, creamed cauliflower, and carrot puree might offer a range of colors on a plate, but it all has the same sort of mouthfeel. It's all more or less a smooth puree. Take that same tartar and pair it with some good pommes frites (light and fluffy inside, wonderfully crispy skin) and a small bed of nice crunchy greens and you've got yourself a winner.
Shape is our next consideration. Some good meatballs beside whole roasted red potatoes and creamed pearl onions would go quite well together, I think, in terms of flavor, but you've just got one huge pile of circles. Why not stir things up a bit. All it takes is reforming the meat into another shape (ground beef is pretty easy to work with in that respect), and cutting up the potatoes pre-roast. Now you have a bit of variety on the plate.
Height is another fun thing to play with. Sure you can just throw everything onto the plate and send it out, but what's the fun in that? There are plenty of ways to give something a bit of height. Items can be stacked into one central tower, or gently laid over one another for a more supple approach, or even topped with an extra little garnish to add that extra oomph.
And speaking of garnish, we come to our final item of note. A good garnish doesn't need to be some hugely elaborate piece of whatever that takes up half of the plate. Food can look good enough on its own without adding anything else. Those clean grill marks? That bone sticking up above the rest of the plate? That is the garnish, and boy does it look good. Not that I'm going to say to never add anything. Just don't go overboard. As a rule a garnish should be edible, and furthermore something that works with the rest of the plate flavorwise (usually something already used in the dish). Of course, grill marks are also cheaper than adding another item to the plate, which is especially nice if you're serving 400 people for lunch.
It's said that people eat with their eyes first. If you really want to get down to it, I'd wager that at least sometimes it's smell that wins that race... but that's getting picky. The point is that taste actually comes fairly late to the game. The plate has to capture the attention before the fork is even in hand. If something looks bad, it's just not going to have the same effect (even if it does taste great).
Sure you may not dress up everything that you eat, but it can be fun to do it sometimes. And at least knowing more about it helps you to appreciate the time and effort that goes into designing all of those plates that you see coming out of the kitchen.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Gone but not forgotten: The missing plate
So I finally got some pictures of that third plate presentation, and it's high time I finished this little series. Just as a refresher, this was the third plate, done after the salmon filet dish. Let's get right to it then.
This time around I went with a pork tenderloin with a honey mustard jus (basically flavored drippings/thin sauce... this was essentially kicked-up chicken stock), mashed potatoes and grilled zucchini.
This time around I went with a pork tenderloin with a honey mustard jus (basically flavored drippings/thin sauce... this was essentially kicked-up chicken stock), mashed potatoes and grilled zucchini.
I had planned to use a single cut, in the neighborhood of one to one-and-a-half inches thick, but unfortunately by the time I got to the meat it had all been sliced. Thankfully even my limited time in the business has taught me to be quick with a plan B. So I took two of the smaller cuts and layered them on top, as shown.
There are a few things that I like about this dish, and a few that I'd like to change if done again. I like the general look of the plate, and would want to keep the same basic design going. I'd probably go for a thicker sauce next time around (even just a little bit of reduction would be nice), and the plate cries out for more color. Maybe instead of the zucchini, which get a bit squashed between the potatoes and pork, a layer of dark greens, or even red cabbage. Something to really stand out and add some of that proverbial eye candy. I wasn't fully satisfied with the height on this one, but I didn't want to use the same fried shallots that I had the day before (I think it'd do the job and taste good along with everything else, but I didn't want to fall into a rut). I think that, if said greens (or reds, depending on how you look at it) formed a layer about a half inch thick, that it would be good. Barring that, something on top would be nice. I'd rather start with the upgraded veg and see where that takes me, though. Granted, the more I look at it the more I want to put something on top. To me it just begs to be finished. Again, those shallots would look great, I just don't want to become a broken record.
Something to think about, though. I'll let you know if I come up with any good toppers.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Once more, with feeling: the final round
Today we had our last go at designing plates. Tomorrow marks the end of class, the end of the term, and the start of a much needed vacation.
This one, while maintaining the same basic principle, was not at all what I had planned out. As such, there are a number of changes that I would make. We'll start with a reference point.
.JPG)
.JPG)
So what was running around in my head in the first place? Well, I had intended to use three lamb chops, arranged around a central mound of the rice. Between these three chops were supposed to be fanned-out snap peas (or green beans, or whatever was green, long-ish, and in the refrigerator at the time). Sadly calling dibs on the three pieces early in the day wasn't enough, and most was taken so that people could practice for the final. Blast you education system.
This one, while maintaining the same basic principle, was not at all what I had planned out. As such, there are a number of changes that I would make. We'll start with a reference point.
.JPG)
.JPG)
So what was running around in my head in the first place? Well, I had intended to use three lamb chops, arranged around a central mound of the rice. Between these three chops were supposed to be fanned-out snap peas (or green beans, or whatever was green, long-ish, and in the refrigerator at the time). Sadly calling dibs on the three pieces early in the day wasn't enough, and most was taken so that people could practice for the final. Blast you education system.
So what would I change? Like I said, the idea is there. I like the bone-up presentation, and the sauce under the mini-steak (although it could be a bit cleaner). I'd swap out the green beans for haricot vert in a heartbeat (aka, baby green beans). They're more uniform, skinnier, and overall just a tad fancier. The rice bores me. It was supposed to be surrounded by beautifully seared lamb, but the way it turned out it's a bit of an eyesore. If I were to keep it, maybe some tomato concasse on top would be nice, or really about anything to give some color. Switching the rice out for a quenelle of mashed potatoes (garlic chive... mmm...) would provide a more stable platform for the lamb, offers its own garnish, and all sorts of good times.
Lastly the plate itself. Since the original concept was circular, a round plate would have been great. For this I'd much rather have a longer, rectangular plate, and stretch the whole thing out in a straight line. I don't much care for the angle on this, and it's an awkward balance trying to get the lamb in the center without pushing everything else out of sync.
I just want to say that I love bones. They look awesome. And not just that, but they add amazing flavor, especially if you take the time to roast whatever it is that you're working with.
A fun class overall (granted I say this before the written final and practical take place). I definitely like having the chance to practice playing with my food. I'm not going to say that this sort of work is something that I'll be doing every day for myself, but it can be fun to mess around a bit here and there to get a few "ooh's" and "aah's" from the crowd.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Plate three the second
I learned a valuable lesson yesterday in class. It's very hard to take pictures when you forget to bring your camera with you.
I will hopefully be getting some copies in the near future, but to ease your voracious appetites I'll show you my plate from today. I took a step back from the entree work and decided to go with a small appetizer plate. This worked out fairly well considering we moved to sauteing today (way more fun than "baking") so we were crunched for time.
It's really simple, and it could be some tasty stuff if done right (remember that bit about how they don't actually have to taste good, or even be edible? I may have taken a shortcut or two with this dish). Enough talk, time for those photos.
I give you stuffed roasted mushroom caps on a bed of dressed spinach leaves.
The chef made a note that it'd be nice to have maybe a sauce (balsamic reduction?) along with this, and that could be nice. I'd originally planned for a bit of parmesan cheese over the top, and a nice bit of fresh chive to garnish... but even things that were on the requisition list were already used up. Lovely.
One thing to perhaps try would be to pipe in the filling. I wanted to try more of a freeform thing, just to see how it would look. I don't hate it, but I'd like to compare it to the piped version at least. A star-tip may be a bit froo-froo for what I'm going for, but a nice round tip just to keep it clean might work.
Maybe some different greens, too. I don't want to turn it into a salad, but maybe some frisee or even just a spring mix to add a little fluff and variation might not be a bad idea.
A bit of a work in progress, but a decent start.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Presentation Extravaganza: Round 2
Back again with the second of my plates for FFP. This time around I went with a more standard dinner service entree. This one turned out a bit differently than I had originally intended, so I'll just start with some pictures.
So what are we looking at exactly? A pan seared filet of salmon with mashed potatoes and grilled zucchini, served with a lemon beurre blanc. The niblets on top are a bit of fried shallot, added at the end because I wanted a bit more height.
Now, how did this change from the original idea? Originally I had been wanting to go for a skin-on filet, but there were some technical difficulties (read: sticking), so I scrapped that idea, removed the (remaining) skin, and went for a fresh sear on the filet. Turned out alright, although there's a speck or two of black on there.
I also had originally planned on a triangular stack of zucchini strips (and higher), but this way is a lot more... let's say realistic. For one, it takes a lot less product, and two in a restaurant setting you don't want someone to take five minutes to build a log cabin of vegetable. Four strips makes a nice base, lifts it off the sauce, and gives a decent serving. I was trying to decide where to put the potatoes... either in the middle of said stack or around the outside. Changing the stack to something more manageable allowed for the potatoes to just go on top and act as a further socle (fancy-speak for "food that lifts other food higher").
Now I'm not about to say it's perfect, but I'm pretty pleased with it, and the chef was too. The sauce is a bit heavy (granted this is after a good 2 hours of seeping over the plate), the grill marks on the zucchini are a little weak (if I were to do it again I'd just go for a single set of lines and make sure they're solid), and again the sear on the fish didn't happen as planned. It did, however, take second place (did I mention that they get judged at the end of class? Usually by a group vote, but Friday we were short on time and the chef picked the ones he liked best out).
Back to the drawing board for me, though... with Monday comes plate #3.
Friday, November 14, 2008
A note on naan
Just a quick note.
About a week ago I wrote about, among other things, the difference between naan and pita, and how a certain educational facility had tried to pass off one as the other.
Well... sometimes my foot has a nasty habit of inserting itself into my own mouth. Naan and pita really are pretty much the same thing.
In the interest of keeping the world at large well informed, I'm here to admit my lapse in judgment.
Ah well, the best of us have our moments.
About a week ago I wrote about, among other things, the difference between naan and pita, and how a certain educational facility had tried to pass off one as the other.
Well... sometimes my foot has a nasty habit of inserting itself into my own mouth. Naan and pita really are pretty much the same thing.
In the interest of keeping the world at large well informed, I'm here to admit my lapse in judgment.
Ah well, the best of us have our moments.
Time for a little arts and crafts
I have spent the past 5 days in Fundamentals of Food Service Production (aka FFP). First off let me say that I am way too used to having three-day weekends, especially when I'm looking at a career path that features 70-80 hour weeks as a relative norm. Bad habit or no (but it definitely is, trust me) getting up at 6:00 on a Friday is not what I consider a good start.
Be that as it may, the class is pretty nice. The general idea is to focus on good techniques and basic knife skills and the like. It's very "cooking 101", but even if you've had more experience it's good to get the practice. And speaking of practice, one of the things that we do (on a now daily basis, as of yesterday) is to practice plate presentations. The rules are simple:
1) You don't tell anyone about Fight Club.
Wait, wrong set of rules. Good movie, though.
1) It's all about the looks. It need not be edible, fully cooked, or much of anything other than pretty. Case in point, using a scoop of shortening in place of ice cream.
2) You have 30 minutes out of the day to prepare your plate.
3) You can bring things from home (the selection is a tad lacking in this room), pre-cooked if you so choose.
That's really about it. It can be breakfast, lunch, dessert, appetizer, or anything else. Saute, fried, seared, take your pick.
I figured that I'd do a bit of a series on my plate designs. Give you a chance to get a feel for the ideas bouncing around in my head, and give me a good reason to not slack off... I mean, of course I'd never give anything less than 110% for a class... never...
On to day one.
I thought that I'd start simple, especially given the choice of ingredients to work with. Such was born a delightful bowl of tomato cream soup. And just for the record, no, these aren't exactly magazing-quality pictures... but I don't exactly have a food stylist on staff and a thousand dollar camera to work with.
Overall I'm pretty happy with the way it turned out. Well, with what I had to work with, that is. I'd prefer to have more than four roma tomatoes to use (I'd like a bit more tomato and a little less "cream"). I had to bulk out with chicken stock, which did taste great (oh yeah, this one was completely edible and delicious, if I may say so myself), but I'd prefer to use veggy broth just to keep it animal-friendly. Maybe a chiffonade on the parsley instead of a mince.
In case you're curious (which you should be about all things cheese related), those are gruyere shavings floating on top (a bit melted at this point... pictures happen about 2 hours after the fact). It's a very parmesan-esque cheese, with a bit of swiss influence when it comes to flavor. Still very much a hard cheese, and I'd love to have a nice fresh bit on top here, but that's what happens when food sits untouched for hours.
Also, were there a scrap of bread in that room other than Texas Toast, you can bet about anything you like that there'd be some crouton action, or maybe a piece of bruschetta floating on top.
So there you go, dish number one from my mind to your table.
Be that as it may, the class is pretty nice. The general idea is to focus on good techniques and basic knife skills and the like. It's very "cooking 101", but even if you've had more experience it's good to get the practice. And speaking of practice, one of the things that we do (on a now daily basis, as of yesterday) is to practice plate presentations. The rules are simple:
1) You don't tell anyone about Fight Club.
Wait, wrong set of rules. Good movie, though.
1) It's all about the looks. It need not be edible, fully cooked, or much of anything other than pretty. Case in point, using a scoop of shortening in place of ice cream.
2) You have 30 minutes out of the day to prepare your plate.
3) You can bring things from home (the selection is a tad lacking in this room), pre-cooked if you so choose.
That's really about it. It can be breakfast, lunch, dessert, appetizer, or anything else. Saute, fried, seared, take your pick.
I figured that I'd do a bit of a series on my plate designs. Give you a chance to get a feel for the ideas bouncing around in my head, and give me a good reason to not slack off... I mean, of course I'd never give anything less than 110% for a class... never...
On to day one.
I thought that I'd start simple, especially given the choice of ingredients to work with. Such was born a delightful bowl of tomato cream soup. And just for the record, no, these aren't exactly magazing-quality pictures... but I don't exactly have a food stylist on staff and a thousand dollar camera to work with.
Overall I'm pretty happy with the way it turned out. Well, with what I had to work with, that is. I'd prefer to have more than four roma tomatoes to use (I'd like a bit more tomato and a little less "cream"). I had to bulk out with chicken stock, which did taste great (oh yeah, this one was completely edible and delicious, if I may say so myself), but I'd prefer to use veggy broth just to keep it animal-friendly. Maybe a chiffonade on the parsley instead of a mince.
In case you're curious (which you should be about all things cheese related), those are gruyere shavings floating on top (a bit melted at this point... pictures happen about 2 hours after the fact). It's a very parmesan-esque cheese, with a bit of swiss influence when it comes to flavor. Still very much a hard cheese, and I'd love to have a nice fresh bit on top here, but that's what happens when food sits untouched for hours.
Also, were there a scrap of bread in that room other than Texas Toast, you can bet about anything you like that there'd be some crouton action, or maybe a piece of bruschetta floating on top.
So there you go, dish number one from my mind to your table.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Which came first, the chicken or...
I can't answer the age old question, nor can I answer who's bright idea it was to try eating that weird little thing that the chicken left behind. Nevertheless, the world is greatful.
You'd be hard pressed to come up with an ingredient that's more versatile. Off the top of my head, we have...
Scrambled
French Omelete
"Normal" Omelete
Frittata
Sunny-side up
Over light/easy/medium/hard
Quiche
Hard/Soft/Medium Boiled
Coddled
... and that is just a short list of ways that eggs alone can be cooked. Add in a few other ingredients and you have one of the greatest things ever made - custard. But that's a story of its own. Baked goods wouldn't be the same without eggs, and without it's emulsifying power mayonaisse (the real stuff, now) wouldn't ... well... exist.
So what is an egg, really? There are a suprising amount of layers to something that to many is just a quick breakfast. The key is to remember that, given fertilization, it's going to grow into a chicken. This explains why there's so much protection going on.
If you get a fresh egg (and I mean right out of the chicken fresh) there will be an outer membrane coating the shell. This is removed for commercial sale. The shell itself is actually really durable. I've heard that it's impossible to break an egg by squeezing it in your hand (before you try this at home, this doesn't work if you squeeze against the sides... it only takes the pressure if applied against the top and bottom). Now I have seen first hand that it takes something like 25 lbs (in the form of bench press weights) to crush an egg (again, with the egg standing up). The shell is porous enough to allow air in, but will keep out bacteria. Yes, this means that salmonella is at least originally found on the outside of eggs. Washing them before use can help you there, but so can proper cracking (keep going).
Inside is an air pocket, which happens to be a good way to tell how old an egg is. Young eggs have a smaller air pocket. On some older eggs you can hear the insides rattling around if you shake the egg (plenty of spare room). Also, older eggs can sometimes float in water if the air pocket is big enough (you know, because air is lighter than water and all that).
Just on the inside of the shell is another membrane. You've probably seen this before. A lot of times a piece of the shell will break off and the membrane will tear free, leaving you with a limp, dangly, membrane-y thing hanging off. More protection for the little chicky-to-be (well, in theory) inside.
Next up we have the albumen, more commonly called the white. There are actually two parts, the thick and thin albumen. You'll need a fresh egg to tell the difference (AA being the freshest, which will degrade to the next stage, A, in about a week... next up is B, and it'll stay like that for much longer than you should feasibly have the same carton of eggs in your refrigerator). The thick albumen is closer to the yolk and will stand up a bit more than the thin albumen, leaving you with a discernible separation between the two. On older eggs these simply run together (and hardcore egg cooks may be wanting to tell you that at that point, they're only good for scrambling).
The albumen is the good-for-you part when it comes to eating. Lots of good proteins, no fat... it's great. All-white egg applications, however, will dry out and overcook easily, so if you're going that route be sure to watch the heat and your eggs carefully.
There's a special part of the albumen (two parts, actually) called the chalazae. These are those little strandlike parts that hold the yolk in place (especially easy to pick out of the egg is scrambled, since they won't break up with the rest).
Next up is the yolk (which is surrounded by its own membrane). All the fat and cholesterol that a growing chicken needs. Yum. All the cholesterol that a growing (or grown) human needs... well, close. Two egg yolks will give you more than your recommended daily allotment of cholestrol (remember, we make enough on our own).
So that's an egg in a nutshell... or may an eggshell... or maybe I'll just stop with the bad puns. Either way, now that you've got the gist of what makes an egg, let's get to a few tips on how to use them.
Time to get cracking... literally. Sorry, I'm really done this time.
There is a right way and a wrong way to crack an egg. Unfortunately it seems that lots of people learn the wrong way and pass it on.
The wrong way is to crack the egg against the edge of the bowl, or any sort of corner or corner-like thing. This causes a jagged break which often drives bits of shell inward along with the side of the bowl. This is bad for a number of reasons.
Like I said before, salmonella starts on the outside. Ground beef is the most dangerous because meat is the same way - bacteria and such sits on the exterior. With a steak, you sear the outside and it's all killed. With ground beef, what used to be the outside (and in truth, the outside of about 100 or so different animals) is now all mixed in.
Nasty foodborne illness aside, no one likes bits of shell in their egg (at least no one that I've ever met). Save yourself the time of scraping all of those little pieces out. Plus, good old fashioned dirt and grime can get inside too, not just foodborne illnesses.
Another bad thing - all of those membranes keeping the egg together are pretty easy to break. Bits of shell, or even just the edge of that bowl, can jab through and break the yolk open. Not fun when you're trying to fry an egg with a nice round yolk in the middle.
So enough about that, what's the right way? Crack it on a nice clean flat surface. If you're lucky, one or two quick taps will give you a clean crack all the way around and the egg will practially fall out on its own. If not, rotate the egg a bit and give it another go. It'll separate easily enough. This method gives you a nice clean break. No bits of shell going everywhere, no broken membranes. Just a nice, beautiful egg falling into the pan.
As for actual cooking, there are a few things to keep in mind.
First off, as with anything, residual heat is going to continue cooking even once the egg is out of the pan. If it looks done in the pan, it's going to be overcooked by the time you eat it (especially true if said cook is waiting on a server to pick it up and bring it to you). You want it to be a bit underdone, a tad juicy in the pan. It'll finish up on its own.
You don't need much fat in the pan. Just a tad to keep it from sticking (and given that the only good use for a non-stick pan is egg cookery, you should be using one of those too). Properly high heat will help with this as well. Especially for omeletes, heat will help the egg release from the pan for a good clean flip.
There's a bit on eggs... and I do mean just a bit. There is a ridiculous amount of ways that eggs can be prepared and still be considered a true egg dish. This is before you get into the rest of its culinary applications. I'll have to save that for later, though. As it is, you've got something to think about the next time you crack open an egg.
You'd be hard pressed to come up with an ingredient that's more versatile. Off the top of my head, we have...
Scrambled
French Omelete
"Normal" Omelete
Frittata
Sunny-side up
Over light/easy/medium/hard
Quiche
Hard/Soft/Medium Boiled
Coddled
... and that is just a short list of ways that eggs alone can be cooked. Add in a few other ingredients and you have one of the greatest things ever made - custard. But that's a story of its own. Baked goods wouldn't be the same without eggs, and without it's emulsifying power mayonaisse (the real stuff, now) wouldn't ... well... exist.
So what is an egg, really? There are a suprising amount of layers to something that to many is just a quick breakfast. The key is to remember that, given fertilization, it's going to grow into a chicken. This explains why there's so much protection going on.
If you get a fresh egg (and I mean right out of the chicken fresh) there will be an outer membrane coating the shell. This is removed for commercial sale. The shell itself is actually really durable. I've heard that it's impossible to break an egg by squeezing it in your hand (before you try this at home, this doesn't work if you squeeze against the sides... it only takes the pressure if applied against the top and bottom). Now I have seen first hand that it takes something like 25 lbs (in the form of bench press weights) to crush an egg (again, with the egg standing up). The shell is porous enough to allow air in, but will keep out bacteria. Yes, this means that salmonella is at least originally found on the outside of eggs. Washing them before use can help you there, but so can proper cracking (keep going).
Inside is an air pocket, which happens to be a good way to tell how old an egg is. Young eggs have a smaller air pocket. On some older eggs you can hear the insides rattling around if you shake the egg (plenty of spare room). Also, older eggs can sometimes float in water if the air pocket is big enough (you know, because air is lighter than water and all that).
Just on the inside of the shell is another membrane. You've probably seen this before. A lot of times a piece of the shell will break off and the membrane will tear free, leaving you with a limp, dangly, membrane-y thing hanging off. More protection for the little chicky-to-be (well, in theory) inside.
Next up we have the albumen, more commonly called the white. There are actually two parts, the thick and thin albumen. You'll need a fresh egg to tell the difference (AA being the freshest, which will degrade to the next stage, A, in about a week... next up is B, and it'll stay like that for much longer than you should feasibly have the same carton of eggs in your refrigerator). The thick albumen is closer to the yolk and will stand up a bit more than the thin albumen, leaving you with a discernible separation between the two. On older eggs these simply run together (and hardcore egg cooks may be wanting to tell you that at that point, they're only good for scrambling).
The albumen is the good-for-you part when it comes to eating. Lots of good proteins, no fat... it's great. All-white egg applications, however, will dry out and overcook easily, so if you're going that route be sure to watch the heat and your eggs carefully.
There's a special part of the albumen (two parts, actually) called the chalazae. These are those little strandlike parts that hold the yolk in place (especially easy to pick out of the egg is scrambled, since they won't break up with the rest).
Next up is the yolk (which is surrounded by its own membrane). All the fat and cholesterol that a growing chicken needs. Yum. All the cholesterol that a growing (or grown) human needs... well, close. Two egg yolks will give you more than your recommended daily allotment of cholestrol (remember, we make enough on our own).
So that's an egg in a nutshell... or may an eggshell... or maybe I'll just stop with the bad puns. Either way, now that you've got the gist of what makes an egg, let's get to a few tips on how to use them.
Time to get cracking... literally. Sorry, I'm really done this time.
There is a right way and a wrong way to crack an egg. Unfortunately it seems that lots of people learn the wrong way and pass it on.
The wrong way is to crack the egg against the edge of the bowl, or any sort of corner or corner-like thing. This causes a jagged break which often drives bits of shell inward along with the side of the bowl. This is bad for a number of reasons.
Like I said before, salmonella starts on the outside. Ground beef is the most dangerous because meat is the same way - bacteria and such sits on the exterior. With a steak, you sear the outside and it's all killed. With ground beef, what used to be the outside (and in truth, the outside of about 100 or so different animals) is now all mixed in.
Nasty foodborne illness aside, no one likes bits of shell in their egg (at least no one that I've ever met). Save yourself the time of scraping all of those little pieces out. Plus, good old fashioned dirt and grime can get inside too, not just foodborne illnesses.
Another bad thing - all of those membranes keeping the egg together are pretty easy to break. Bits of shell, or even just the edge of that bowl, can jab through and break the yolk open. Not fun when you're trying to fry an egg with a nice round yolk in the middle.
So enough about that, what's the right way? Crack it on a nice clean flat surface. If you're lucky, one or two quick taps will give you a clean crack all the way around and the egg will practially fall out on its own. If not, rotate the egg a bit and give it another go. It'll separate easily enough. This method gives you a nice clean break. No bits of shell going everywhere, no broken membranes. Just a nice, beautiful egg falling into the pan.
As for actual cooking, there are a few things to keep in mind.
First off, as with anything, residual heat is going to continue cooking even once the egg is out of the pan. If it looks done in the pan, it's going to be overcooked by the time you eat it (especially true if said cook is waiting on a server to pick it up and bring it to you). You want it to be a bit underdone, a tad juicy in the pan. It'll finish up on its own.
You don't need much fat in the pan. Just a tad to keep it from sticking (and given that the only good use for a non-stick pan is egg cookery, you should be using one of those too). Properly high heat will help with this as well. Especially for omeletes, heat will help the egg release from the pan for a good clean flip.
There's a bit on eggs... and I do mean just a bit. There is a ridiculous amount of ways that eggs can be prepared and still be considered a true egg dish. This is before you get into the rest of its culinary applications. I'll have to save that for later, though. As it is, you've got something to think about the next time you crack open an egg.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Quick and good? The possibilities are endless...
As much as possible I encourage people to take time with their food, to put effort into it, to do things the way they're meant to be done. However, I do understand that people get busy and don't always have a spare hour to spend over the stove every night. Even so, I hate to see people abandon all hope of having a home cooked meal and instead just go for chinese take-out for the 4th time that week.
Today's effort is to put out some ideas for a nice, quick, easy meal that will keep you eating well when you're in a bit of a time crunch.
Let's start with a baked potato. Sure, it takes a while for it to cook, but does it really get any easier than putting something in the oven and walking away? Okay, so this one's more for when you do have time, but are too worn out to put too much effort into anything (we all have lazy days). Of course, if I were just here to say "put a potato in a hot oven", I wouldn't be doing a very good job of getting you to expand your horizons now would I? So what can we do? We can bake it twice.
Twice-baked potatoes are simple, easy way to really amp up your average spud. They taste great and are a fun way to really impress your friends.
For this application, I suggest the good ol' russet potato (or Idaho, or baker, or whatever other name you care to call it).
Start off the same way you would with a standard baked potato. Pre-heat the oven to 400, then give the potato a nice rinse and a little scrub to get the outside nice and clean. This can be done ahead of time if you really want to, but know that even scrubbing can be enough to break the skin to let in oxygen. Potatoes will oxidize in the same way that fruit does, and you'll be left with nasty brown spots. With fruit, some citrus juice will keep this from happening (the acid counters it). I don't particularly want my potatoes to taste like lemon, so instead of citrus just put them in a tub of water. Make sure they're fully covered and they'll stay for hours.
Next up is the coating. So many people ignore the potato skin and just eat the insides. Considering that the skin has most of the nutrients (same as with about any fruit or vegetable) your body's not going to be giving you any props for leaving that behind. The easy way to take care of this is to make the skin tasty too. Pour just a tad bit of oil onto the potato and give it a nice rub down. You don't want it to be dripping, but you want a decent coat. The oil will keep the skin nice and soft, so you're not spending half an hour trying to chew through it. Next, toss on some salt. It'll stick nicely to the oil, and you'll have a tasty skin to go along with the rest of your potato. Though you may be tempted to keep adding other seasonings, be warned. This is going into a very hot oven. Salt is a rock, and it's not going to burn. Pepper on the other hand? It'll just be a flavorless little black speck by the time you pull that potato out, so wait until it's out of the oven.
Once your oven is heated properly, toss in the spuds. It'll take somewhere around an hour to be done properly, depending on size. If you've got a smaller one, it may only take 45 minutes. A really small one may even take 30. Just give it a poke with a fork - if you don't meet any resistance all the way through to the middle, you're good to go. A mealy mess of delicious is waiting for you inside. If it's a bit hard near the middle (or anywhere else for that matter) leave it in.
Once you've got your potatoes all baked and ready, it's time to transform them into the twice-baked variant. The easiest way to look at this is that you're making mashed potatoes out of the insides, and re-stuffing them back in.
First, cut the potatoes in half lengthwise. Using a spoon, scoop out the inside. I suggest leaving a bit of a rim, maybe 1/2", so that it's not just skin. Get all of the potato-guts into a mixing bowl. From here, make mashed potatoes however you care to. I'm a fan of just some milk, butter, salt and pepper. A bit of mozzarella cheese is good, as is garlic or maybe chives. There are a lot of possibilities when you're looking at mashed potatoes.
If you want an idea, though, here you go. For each cup of potato you have in the bowl, try about 2 tablespoons each of butter and milk. Next add one clove of minced garlic, 1/2 tablespoon of fresh chives (snipped with shears or chopped with a very sharp knife), and 1/2 tablespoon of fresh parmesan cheese. Whip this up good - you want to incorporate some air and make it light and fluffy. Incorporating air also increases volume, and this means that you'll have a nice mound of whipped potatoes on the inside of your baked potato rather than just a re-filled potato.
After re-stuffing, it's time for another quick shot in the oven. This is just to reheat, and give a bit of brown to any cheese that you may have put on top as a garnish. A little bit of chive looks nice too, but don't send fresh herbs through high heat unless you want shriveled twigs in the end.
Nice and easy, and incredibly versatile. Baked potatoes make a nice accompaniament to quite a few dishes, and can be a meal in their own right. Twice-baked potatoes keep this versatility while jumping off of the plate a little more in terms of appeal. Serve as-is, or if you care to beside a nice bowl of soup or maybe a sandwich.
On to plate #2. I do love a good pasta dish, and they can be really easy to pull off. For now I'm going to suggest something that you may not have tried, but trust me, it's delicious.
When people hear the word pasta, they almost always jump to sauce as well. There's nothing wrong with a good alfredo (or marinara, or a lot of other things), but today I want you to look at anti-sauce. Anti-sauce is just a fancy word for "stuff". It's quick, it's easy, and it's whatever you have on hand. You can put pretty much anything you want in with noodles. Here are a couple of suggestions, and the best part is that all of the prep can be done while the water is coming to a boil.
So first, let's get that water going. Fill a stock pot with water and put it on high. The first plate is going to be a nice Spaghetti Caprese (feel free to substitute another pasta if you feel like it). Now the most classic caprese that you can make is simply fresh mozzarella, tomatoes, and basil. Maybe season a bit with salt and pepper. I'd be happy with that, but I'd be happy with a little minced garlic and finely diced onion, too. The amount of any given ingredient here is strictly up to your own personal tastes. I personally would probably start with one clove of garlic and about a quarter of a medium onion diced fine per serving (also note that my serving is about two of the label's servings, but that's just me). If you have fresh garden tomatoes, good for you. If not, there are some options. You can go for a roma (I'd cut each half into about 12 pieces), or even grab some grape or cherry tomatoes to use whole or cut in half. If you can get your hands on balls of fresh mozzarella, they're about perfect for this. However, if you get a log and cut some of it into bit-sized pieces, I won't tell on you. A bit of fresh basil chiffonade (ie, cut into thin strips... just stack the leaves, roll them up, and slice thinly with a very sharp knife) and you're good to go.
Note that you can give the garlic and onion some time in a skillet (say, while the pasta's cooking) to bring out the natural sugars and enhance the flavors.
So now you've got your tomatoes cut, garlic and onions cooked, pasta's freshly out of the pot, and your stomach is grumbling at you to hurry up. No worries, this'll be done in just a minute (really, it takes no time at all).
Put the pasta into a mixing bowl, or even back into the stock pot (just be careful not to burn anything - yourself included - on the residual heat). Drizzle a bit of extra virgin olive oil over the pasta and toss to coat. Next, a bit of salt and pepper (freshly ground, of course) to taste. Again, mix to coat evenly. Then we add all of our ingredients. Tomatoes, basil, cheese, garlic and onions all go in. Just toss it around, mix it up, and throw on a plate. Dinner is served. Well, maybe with a piece of garlic bread.
The next version is similar in practice, just with a different anti-sauce. This time around we're basing our anti-sauce on eggplant.
First of all, if you're using eggplant (or zucchini, or another really wet squash) be sure to pull some moisture out of it first... unless you like mushy food, that is. It's easy to do - just salt either side of your slice, lay between paper towels, and weigh it down (I usually put the slices between dinner plates and put something heavy on top). The salt will pull out excess moisture, and the paper towels will absorb it. The weight just helps things along. This can be done well in advance (just keep it all in the refrigerator) or could probably be done along with everything else if you do this first, and check it when the water starts to boil (ie, allow 10-15 minutes to pull the moisture out).
On to the fun part, though. This version is going to have a few of the same things. Garlic and onion, salt and pepper, and the same extra virgin olive oil to coat the noodles. However we're going to add in the eggplant, parmesan cheese, and some olives (kalamata would be great, but black would also work in a pinch).
So let's start from the beginning.
The water is on and the eggplant slices are prepping themselves (you can slice into rounds or lengthways, just think of how you want to use the rest of the eggplant. I'd use about three 1/2" rounds for my own serving). While that's going you can mince the garlic and dice the onion. Once the water comes to a rolling boil, throw in the pasta and start the garlic and onions in a pan. Go ahead and pull out the eggplant to let it start coming back to room temp. The eggplant can cook in the same pan as the garlic and onion, just push them of to the side of the pan and put the eggplant down in the middle. I'd say give it about 2 minutes on either side. You just want a nice sear and even heating.
When the eggplant is done, remove it from the pan and cut into strips (about 1/2" wide). They'll be small enough to be manageable, but will give you a nice focus in the dish. If necessary you can throw the strips back into the pan to keep them warm while the pasta finishes.
After that it's the same story. Coat the pasta with the olive oil, season with salt and pepper to taste, and mix in the olives, eggplant, garlic, and onion. Just mix and serve. Done in the time it takes to cook pasta.
So there you have a few ideas, at least. As you can tell, you can really put anything into an anti-sauce pasta dish that sounds good to you. A little olive oil for flavor and to make the ingredients stick, and you've got dinner. Plus, with just a little work some old classics can be an exciting meal of their own.
So here's to putting down that take-out menu. Do it quick, but do it right.
Today's effort is to put out some ideas for a nice, quick, easy meal that will keep you eating well when you're in a bit of a time crunch.
Let's start with a baked potato. Sure, it takes a while for it to cook, but does it really get any easier than putting something in the oven and walking away? Okay, so this one's more for when you do have time, but are too worn out to put too much effort into anything (we all have lazy days). Of course, if I were just here to say "put a potato in a hot oven", I wouldn't be doing a very good job of getting you to expand your horizons now would I? So what can we do? We can bake it twice.
Twice-baked potatoes are simple, easy way to really amp up your average spud. They taste great and are a fun way to really impress your friends.
For this application, I suggest the good ol' russet potato (or Idaho, or baker, or whatever other name you care to call it).
Start off the same way you would with a standard baked potato. Pre-heat the oven to 400, then give the potato a nice rinse and a little scrub to get the outside nice and clean. This can be done ahead of time if you really want to, but know that even scrubbing can be enough to break the skin to let in oxygen. Potatoes will oxidize in the same way that fruit does, and you'll be left with nasty brown spots. With fruit, some citrus juice will keep this from happening (the acid counters it). I don't particularly want my potatoes to taste like lemon, so instead of citrus just put them in a tub of water. Make sure they're fully covered and they'll stay for hours.
Next up is the coating. So many people ignore the potato skin and just eat the insides. Considering that the skin has most of the nutrients (same as with about any fruit or vegetable) your body's not going to be giving you any props for leaving that behind. The easy way to take care of this is to make the skin tasty too. Pour just a tad bit of oil onto the potato and give it a nice rub down. You don't want it to be dripping, but you want a decent coat. The oil will keep the skin nice and soft, so you're not spending half an hour trying to chew through it. Next, toss on some salt. It'll stick nicely to the oil, and you'll have a tasty skin to go along with the rest of your potato. Though you may be tempted to keep adding other seasonings, be warned. This is going into a very hot oven. Salt is a rock, and it's not going to burn. Pepper on the other hand? It'll just be a flavorless little black speck by the time you pull that potato out, so wait until it's out of the oven.
Once your oven is heated properly, toss in the spuds. It'll take somewhere around an hour to be done properly, depending on size. If you've got a smaller one, it may only take 45 minutes. A really small one may even take 30. Just give it a poke with a fork - if you don't meet any resistance all the way through to the middle, you're good to go. A mealy mess of delicious is waiting for you inside. If it's a bit hard near the middle (or anywhere else for that matter) leave it in.
Once you've got your potatoes all baked and ready, it's time to transform them into the twice-baked variant. The easiest way to look at this is that you're making mashed potatoes out of the insides, and re-stuffing them back in.
First, cut the potatoes in half lengthwise. Using a spoon, scoop out the inside. I suggest leaving a bit of a rim, maybe 1/2", so that it's not just skin. Get all of the potato-guts into a mixing bowl. From here, make mashed potatoes however you care to. I'm a fan of just some milk, butter, salt and pepper. A bit of mozzarella cheese is good, as is garlic or maybe chives. There are a lot of possibilities when you're looking at mashed potatoes.
If you want an idea, though, here you go. For each cup of potato you have in the bowl, try about 2 tablespoons each of butter and milk. Next add one clove of minced garlic, 1/2 tablespoon of fresh chives (snipped with shears or chopped with a very sharp knife), and 1/2 tablespoon of fresh parmesan cheese. Whip this up good - you want to incorporate some air and make it light and fluffy. Incorporating air also increases volume, and this means that you'll have a nice mound of whipped potatoes on the inside of your baked potato rather than just a re-filled potato.
After re-stuffing, it's time for another quick shot in the oven. This is just to reheat, and give a bit of brown to any cheese that you may have put on top as a garnish. A little bit of chive looks nice too, but don't send fresh herbs through high heat unless you want shriveled twigs in the end.
Nice and easy, and incredibly versatile. Baked potatoes make a nice accompaniament to quite a few dishes, and can be a meal in their own right. Twice-baked potatoes keep this versatility while jumping off of the plate a little more in terms of appeal. Serve as-is, or if you care to beside a nice bowl of soup or maybe a sandwich.
On to plate #2. I do love a good pasta dish, and they can be really easy to pull off. For now I'm going to suggest something that you may not have tried, but trust me, it's delicious.
When people hear the word pasta, they almost always jump to sauce as well. There's nothing wrong with a good alfredo (or marinara, or a lot of other things), but today I want you to look at anti-sauce. Anti-sauce is just a fancy word for "stuff". It's quick, it's easy, and it's whatever you have on hand. You can put pretty much anything you want in with noodles. Here are a couple of suggestions, and the best part is that all of the prep can be done while the water is coming to a boil.
So first, let's get that water going. Fill a stock pot with water and put it on high. The first plate is going to be a nice Spaghetti Caprese (feel free to substitute another pasta if you feel like it). Now the most classic caprese that you can make is simply fresh mozzarella, tomatoes, and basil. Maybe season a bit with salt and pepper. I'd be happy with that, but I'd be happy with a little minced garlic and finely diced onion, too. The amount of any given ingredient here is strictly up to your own personal tastes. I personally would probably start with one clove of garlic and about a quarter of a medium onion diced fine per serving (also note that my serving is about two of the label's servings, but that's just me). If you have fresh garden tomatoes, good for you. If not, there are some options. You can go for a roma (I'd cut each half into about 12 pieces), or even grab some grape or cherry tomatoes to use whole or cut in half. If you can get your hands on balls of fresh mozzarella, they're about perfect for this. However, if you get a log and cut some of it into bit-sized pieces, I won't tell on you. A bit of fresh basil chiffonade (ie, cut into thin strips... just stack the leaves, roll them up, and slice thinly with a very sharp knife) and you're good to go.
Note that you can give the garlic and onion some time in a skillet (say, while the pasta's cooking) to bring out the natural sugars and enhance the flavors.
So now you've got your tomatoes cut, garlic and onions cooked, pasta's freshly out of the pot, and your stomach is grumbling at you to hurry up. No worries, this'll be done in just a minute (really, it takes no time at all).
Put the pasta into a mixing bowl, or even back into the stock pot (just be careful not to burn anything - yourself included - on the residual heat). Drizzle a bit of extra virgin olive oil over the pasta and toss to coat. Next, a bit of salt and pepper (freshly ground, of course) to taste. Again, mix to coat evenly. Then we add all of our ingredients. Tomatoes, basil, cheese, garlic and onions all go in. Just toss it around, mix it up, and throw on a plate. Dinner is served. Well, maybe with a piece of garlic bread.
The next version is similar in practice, just with a different anti-sauce. This time around we're basing our anti-sauce on eggplant.
First of all, if you're using eggplant (or zucchini, or another really wet squash) be sure to pull some moisture out of it first... unless you like mushy food, that is. It's easy to do - just salt either side of your slice, lay between paper towels, and weigh it down (I usually put the slices between dinner plates and put something heavy on top). The salt will pull out excess moisture, and the paper towels will absorb it. The weight just helps things along. This can be done well in advance (just keep it all in the refrigerator) or could probably be done along with everything else if you do this first, and check it when the water starts to boil (ie, allow 10-15 minutes to pull the moisture out).
On to the fun part, though. This version is going to have a few of the same things. Garlic and onion, salt and pepper, and the same extra virgin olive oil to coat the noodles. However we're going to add in the eggplant, parmesan cheese, and some olives (kalamata would be great, but black would also work in a pinch).
So let's start from the beginning.
The water is on and the eggplant slices are prepping themselves (you can slice into rounds or lengthways, just think of how you want to use the rest of the eggplant. I'd use about three 1/2" rounds for my own serving). While that's going you can mince the garlic and dice the onion. Once the water comes to a rolling boil, throw in the pasta and start the garlic and onions in a pan. Go ahead and pull out the eggplant to let it start coming back to room temp. The eggplant can cook in the same pan as the garlic and onion, just push them of to the side of the pan and put the eggplant down in the middle. I'd say give it about 2 minutes on either side. You just want a nice sear and even heating.
When the eggplant is done, remove it from the pan and cut into strips (about 1/2" wide). They'll be small enough to be manageable, but will give you a nice focus in the dish. If necessary you can throw the strips back into the pan to keep them warm while the pasta finishes.
After that it's the same story. Coat the pasta with the olive oil, season with salt and pepper to taste, and mix in the olives, eggplant, garlic, and onion. Just mix and serve. Done in the time it takes to cook pasta.
So there you have a few ideas, at least. As you can tell, you can really put anything into an anti-sauce pasta dish that sounds good to you. A little olive oil for flavor and to make the ingredients stick, and you've got dinner. Plus, with just a little work some old classics can be an exciting meal of their own.
So here's to putting down that take-out menu. Do it quick, but do it right.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Oats and groats and other such things
Most classes here at JWU require some sort of outside project, often a small research paper. The latest of these that I did had a subject that many people probably wouldn't consider for academic study. My subject was oats. More specifically, rolled oats, quick oats, and kasha groats.
Largely oats are thought of as kind of a boring food. You'd be hard pressed to find a person who can suffer through a bowl of oatmeal without dumping half a bag of brown sugar into it first. In fact, the vast majority of oats in our country are used for livestock feed.
That said, our fast and furious food culture is somewhat to blame for our upturned noses. While the difference between rolled and quick oats is really very little, there's going to be a definite difference in taste and texture. First, let me explain the difference.
Rolled oats are just that. The groat (ie, the edible grain) is rolled and we have 'oat flakes'. With quick oats (think Quaker brand) the groats are cut up a bit (if you stop production there you have steel-cut groats, which are more popular in Ireland and Scotland) and then rolled (often thinner, too). In essense, quick oats are just smaller than rolled oats. Both are often steamed to par-cook. Rolled oats will have something like a 15 minute cook time, whereas quick oats are done only a few short minutes after being put into boiling water.
I'm not going to try to convince anyone to wake up 15 minutes early to make old-fashioned oatmeal for breakfast, but it's definitely something to try if you've got a few spare minutes. The rolled oats have more flavor (and given that oats are often said to be rather bland, this is a good thing), and also will have more of a texture (in any application, but especially oatmeal). Oats are very starchy, kind of like rice, which is why oatmeal is so creamy. Starch likes to absorb water, and with enough heat (and after absorbing enough liquid) they blow up. Those tiny little bits of starch are what thicken the oatmeal and give you that nice creamy consistency. The main difference in texture here is that, rather simply, the smaller quick oat grains are pretty easy to miss when they're prepared like this. Yeah, you know they're there, but that's about it. Rolled oats, on the other hand, are a bit thicker, and just overall larger, so it gives you more of something to sink your teeth into.
But let's not forget the third subject of research, the kasha. Take some buckwheat groats, roast them, and you've got kasha. Contrary to what you might think, buckwheat is not a wheat. It's not even related to wheat. Actually, it's not even a grain at all. It's a little berry. So what do kasha and oats have in common? That's a good question.
It really comes down to culinary use. Kasha is a big staple in the Middle East and Russia, and sneaks into other cuisines (such as being one of the main ingredients in soba noodles, a nice little noodle from Japan). They can be eaten raw (where they're a bit crunchy and have a slightly nutty flavor), or cooked in water to give a nice fluffy texture.
Now oats and kasha aren't fully interchangeable. I'd throw some kasha in a nice green salad to add a bit of crunch (or even use kasha as a main ingredient in a salad, maybe with orzo), but I wouldn't do the same with oats. They do have some similar uses, though.
Both can be ground into flour and used to add both nutrition and flavor to... well, just about anything you'd put flour in. Note that since it's not wheat you won't have enough gluten to really make a good bread (or rather, a well leavened bread... you'd have a small, very dense loaf), but you can use some of either along with a high protein wheat flour if you want.
Overall a fairly interesting project, if only for the fact that it got me to look at an ingredient that doesn't get a lot of attention.
Largely oats are thought of as kind of a boring food. You'd be hard pressed to find a person who can suffer through a bowl of oatmeal without dumping half a bag of brown sugar into it first. In fact, the vast majority of oats in our country are used for livestock feed.
That said, our fast and furious food culture is somewhat to blame for our upturned noses. While the difference between rolled and quick oats is really very little, there's going to be a definite difference in taste and texture. First, let me explain the difference.
Rolled oats are just that. The groat (ie, the edible grain) is rolled and we have 'oat flakes'. With quick oats (think Quaker brand) the groats are cut up a bit (if you stop production there you have steel-cut groats, which are more popular in Ireland and Scotland) and then rolled (often thinner, too). In essense, quick oats are just smaller than rolled oats. Both are often steamed to par-cook. Rolled oats will have something like a 15 minute cook time, whereas quick oats are done only a few short minutes after being put into boiling water.
I'm not going to try to convince anyone to wake up 15 minutes early to make old-fashioned oatmeal for breakfast, but it's definitely something to try if you've got a few spare minutes. The rolled oats have more flavor (and given that oats are often said to be rather bland, this is a good thing), and also will have more of a texture (in any application, but especially oatmeal). Oats are very starchy, kind of like rice, which is why oatmeal is so creamy. Starch likes to absorb water, and with enough heat (and after absorbing enough liquid) they blow up. Those tiny little bits of starch are what thicken the oatmeal and give you that nice creamy consistency. The main difference in texture here is that, rather simply, the smaller quick oat grains are pretty easy to miss when they're prepared like this. Yeah, you know they're there, but that's about it. Rolled oats, on the other hand, are a bit thicker, and just overall larger, so it gives you more of something to sink your teeth into.
But let's not forget the third subject of research, the kasha. Take some buckwheat groats, roast them, and you've got kasha. Contrary to what you might think, buckwheat is not a wheat. It's not even related to wheat. Actually, it's not even a grain at all. It's a little berry. So what do kasha and oats have in common? That's a good question.
It really comes down to culinary use. Kasha is a big staple in the Middle East and Russia, and sneaks into other cuisines (such as being one of the main ingredients in soba noodles, a nice little noodle from Japan). They can be eaten raw (where they're a bit crunchy and have a slightly nutty flavor), or cooked in water to give a nice fluffy texture.
Now oats and kasha aren't fully interchangeable. I'd throw some kasha in a nice green salad to add a bit of crunch (or even use kasha as a main ingredient in a salad, maybe with orzo), but I wouldn't do the same with oats. They do have some similar uses, though.
Both can be ground into flour and used to add both nutrition and flavor to... well, just about anything you'd put flour in. Note that since it's not wheat you won't have enough gluten to really make a good bread (or rather, a well leavened bread... you'd have a small, very dense loaf), but you can use some of either along with a high protein wheat flour if you want.
Overall a fairly interesting project, if only for the fact that it got me to look at an ingredient that doesn't get a lot of attention.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Allow me to elaborate
I feel the need to explain my last post here.
I've said before that one of my biggest pet peeves is calling vegetable broth vegetable stock. It's a simple matter of misinformation.
While that particular example sticks out, the general idea of telling people the wrong thing is just irksome.
I've come across this problem in a few different ways.
Sometimes people just don't know any better. If you've never been told the difference between stock and broth, it's understandable that you might confuse the two.
Sometimes it's a marketing gimmick. This one is, as far as I'm concerned, a bit of a dirty trick. To say, for example, that a certain vegetable is cholesterol free is essentially implying that others aren't. This is probably worse when it's done with a product (like a certain type of peanut butter), where consumers might buy that brand for that reason. It's taking advantage of ignorance.
Sometimes it's straight up lieing to make more money. Saying that the spread on a bagel is neufchatel sounds a bit nicer than calling it cream cheese. There is extremely little difference between the two (in fact today I tasted them side by side and was hard pressed to notice much of anything). But they're not the same thing. I've also seen this happen with people calling sour cream creme fraiche. Again, these are two very similar products, however you'd probably be able to tell a difference when eating them side by side (and those more acquainted may know the difference anyway). There's nothing wrong with sour cream, and calling it something else just so that you can charge more is plain wrong.
So much of the time people do this because "They don't know the difference". This is, unfortunately, true. But that is also the absolute worst reason to do it. Instead of using someone's lack of knowledge to slide something past them, you should educate them so that they can tell the difference, or at the very least so that they know a difference exists.
This is why seeing that bit about cholesterol-free veggies in a culinary textbook set me off. This is an educational facility. And they're pawning off misleading information. And I'm paying for it.
It's not the first time, either. When the culinary students are in a lab that's not an actual kitchen lab (such as the beverage service class, or meat cutting) we'll eat in one of the dining rooms. If I remember correctly the appetizer was naan with a tomato cucumber salad and baba ghanoush. That's what it said, anyway. Rather than naan, a thin, almost wafer-like bread, I was given pita. Now I will say that this particular dish was one of, if not the best dishes that I have had in either that dining room or the advanced dining room (with an equally advanced class cooking the food).
But it wasn't naan.
Incredible as it was, they lied to me. Now I know what naan is, but not everyone who ordered that is going to. So what happens now? You have culinary students who are taught that naan and pita are the same thing.
Editor's Note - Okay, so I may have gotten ahead of myself on the naan thing... and by "may" I mean "completely". Naan and pita are, by and large, the same product. Naan is Indian in origin and pita is Mediterranean. Pita can be made to rise more, but not always. But hey, that's why I'm in school. In any case, the point stands (which, in part, is why I'm taking the time to correct myself).
People who accept the responsibility of teaching, regardless of subject, have to present viable material.
I've said before that one of my biggest pet peeves is calling vegetable broth vegetable stock. It's a simple matter of misinformation.
While that particular example sticks out, the general idea of telling people the wrong thing is just irksome.
I've come across this problem in a few different ways.
Sometimes people just don't know any better. If you've never been told the difference between stock and broth, it's understandable that you might confuse the two.
Sometimes it's a marketing gimmick. This one is, as far as I'm concerned, a bit of a dirty trick. To say, for example, that a certain vegetable is cholesterol free is essentially implying that others aren't. This is probably worse when it's done with a product (like a certain type of peanut butter), where consumers might buy that brand for that reason. It's taking advantage of ignorance.
Sometimes it's straight up lieing to make more money. Saying that the spread on a bagel is neufchatel sounds a bit nicer than calling it cream cheese. There is extremely little difference between the two (in fact today I tasted them side by side and was hard pressed to notice much of anything). But they're not the same thing. I've also seen this happen with people calling sour cream creme fraiche. Again, these are two very similar products, however you'd probably be able to tell a difference when eating them side by side (and those more acquainted may know the difference anyway). There's nothing wrong with sour cream, and calling it something else just so that you can charge more is plain wrong.
So much of the time people do this because "They don't know the difference". This is, unfortunately, true. But that is also the absolute worst reason to do it. Instead of using someone's lack of knowledge to slide something past them, you should educate them so that they can tell the difference, or at the very least so that they know a difference exists.
This is why seeing that bit about cholesterol-free veggies in a culinary textbook set me off. This is an educational facility. And they're pawning off misleading information. And I'm paying for it.
It's not the first time, either. When the culinary students are in a lab that's not an actual kitchen lab (such as the beverage service class, or meat cutting) we'll eat in one of the dining rooms. If I remember correctly the appetizer was naan with a tomato cucumber salad and baba ghanoush. That's what it said, anyway. Rather than naan, a thin, almost wafer-like bread, I was given pita. Now I will say that this particular dish was one of, if not the best dishes that I have had in either that dining room or the advanced dining room (with an equally advanced class cooking the food).
But it wasn't naan.
Incredible as it was, they lied to me. Now I know what naan is, but not everyone who ordered that is going to. So what happens now? You have culinary students who are taught that naan and pita are the same thing.
Editor's Note - Okay, so I may have gotten ahead of myself on the naan thing... and by "may" I mean "completely". Naan and pita are, by and large, the same product. Naan is Indian in origin and pita is Mediterranean. Pita can be made to rise more, but not always. But hey, that's why I'm in school. In any case, the point stands (which, in part, is why I'm taking the time to correct myself).
People who accept the responsibility of teaching, regardless of subject, have to present viable material.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
And I paid how much for this book??
This is going to be short, and it's going to be very much a rant.
You have been warned.
I decided to take a look over my assigned reading for tomorrow, figuring that it might be a good idea that I at least know what I was supposed to have read for class.
Vegetables, it seems. 20 pages, plus some other stuff. Glad I saved that precious time, for facebook sleeps for no man.
One of the vegetables mentioned is rutabaga.
Under 'nutritional advantage', it is listed as being cholesterol free.
Really? A vegetable is cholesterol free? Cholesterol free? You mean, that substance that is found only in animals and animal products, because it is only produced naturally by animals, is not found in rutabagas?
Oh my! The world is saved! Rutabaga's won't increase you're cholestrol levels!
I feel so confident in my education. My $30,000 education. That is teaching me that rutabagas, a completely non-animal item, contain no cholesterol, which is manufactured naturally only in animals.
I can't wait for class tomorrow.
You have been warned.
I decided to take a look over my assigned reading for tomorrow, figuring that it might be a good idea that I at least know what I was supposed to have read for class.
Vegetables, it seems. 20 pages, plus some other stuff. Glad I saved that precious time, for facebook sleeps for no man.
One of the vegetables mentioned is rutabaga.
Under 'nutritional advantage', it is listed as being cholesterol free.
Really? A vegetable is cholesterol free? Cholesterol free? You mean, that substance that is found only in animals and animal products, because it is only produced naturally by animals, is not found in rutabagas?
Oh my! The world is saved! Rutabaga's won't increase you're cholestrol levels!
I feel so confident in my education. My $30,000 education. That is teaching me that rutabagas, a completely non-animal item, contain no cholesterol, which is manufactured naturally only in animals.
I can't wait for class tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)