http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/blogs/ ChefTalk.com Cooking Forums - Food and Cooking disucssion for the professional and the at home cook. en Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:59:52 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/images/styles/cheftalk/misc/rss.jpg http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/blogs/ http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/blogs/boar_d_laze/532-preparing-turkey.html Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:14:18 GMT Nicko started a thread titled, "How are you preparing your turkey this year?" Yes, I contributed to the thread. But to my shame I avoided the heart of the matter, only mumbling something like "smoking."

The non-answer haunted me. For one thing, my relationship with you is founded on honesty. For another, it's too important to keep dancing around it -- no matter how much we'd all prefer to keep silent about an unpleasant matter.

With maturity comes wisdom, one hopes, and it's time to speak out regarding what we have actually learned over the years in hopes our mistakes can benefit other, younger cooks who may then live their own scripts instead of repeating our tired, old ones.

In the past, we did not prepare our turkeys. Rather, we did our best to shield them. When they inevitably found out the truth, we lied and told them they would participate in a "mock" execution; be spirited away in an "underground, refrigerated truck" to "Las Vegan," a city where everyone is vegetarian; and where they'd have their own Thanksgiving meal consisting of parched corn and a floor show.

The thin tissue of the lie didn't satisfy anyone for long. By the middle of November, hysterics -- to say the least -- ran rampant.

After the embarrassing fiasco of 2007, we decided to be straight with our poultry. We are providing secular psychiatric and non-denominational religious counseling, along with the sad truth. Last year they seem resigned, if not particularly happy. This year, so far so good.

Thanks for asking,
BDL

PS. The other day, I overheard Linda and my daughter Lily on the phone, talking about "a ham for Christmas." This worries me.
___________________

This piece is original with me. If you like it and want to share it with someone else, you have my permission on satisfaction of both of the following conditions: First, your sharing is not for gain; and second, you attribute it to me, Boar D. Laze. I would consider it a kindness if you would also mention my eventually to be finished book, COOK FOOD GOOD: American Cooking and Technique for Beginners and Intermediates. ]]> boar_d_laze http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/blogs/boar_d_laze/532-preparing-turkey.html http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/blogs/boar_d_laze/529-cfg-ix-digression-into-measurements-baking-plus-more-general-principles.html Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:48:02 GMT There's plenty more CFG knife, sharpeining and knife skills maundering to be posted; and I promise to add at least one more entry this week. But this whole baking by scale thing came up, and I thought it was worth an entry if only for the way the subject relates to my outlook in re CFG.

In relevant part this entry is also posted in a thread Dave (dscheidt) started in the Pastries and Baking forum here at CT.

Swimmers up. Take your mark. Bang!

Preface, Speaking of viewpoints:

dscheidt (aka Dave) started this thread (at my suggestion) mostly as a way of expressing his own viewpoint regarding the superiority of measuring by weight in bread baking, and partly as a way of dragging out mine. Although Siduri was eloquent in expressing an opinion I share for the most part, it wouldn't be fair if I didn't participate.

As it happens, I have multiple viewpoints on the subject reflecting (2) How I bake; (3) How I write; (4) How I think beginners should learn to bake, and how advanced beginners and intermediates can improve their baking; (5) Which methods I think are best for home bakers generally; and (1) How I think other people should bake.

This merits inclusion in the darn blog. So, I’ll edit it just a bit after posting to make sense in that context, and put it there too.

1. Other People's Bread Baking:

Let me tackle the last first with the liberal, inclusive, and uninteresting thought that whatever works for you is fine by me. I'm not about to tell you to change.

2. My Own Bread Baking:

"+ 1" with Siduri, in spades.

Not only no scale, sometimes I don't even use official measuring cups and go strictly by eye ("by eye" isn't the same as not measuring). Even though that's sufficiently accurate for good results down the line, in order to get flour out of the flour jar neatly, and without catastrophically huge flour dumps, a scoop is required. Since I know the volume of nearly every glass and cup in my kitchen, using one isn't much different from using a measuring scoop. Anything dry and small gets measured in the palm. When it comes to liquid measurements – same Mark II GI Eyeball, same glasses and cups, and yes I do have glass measuring cups of all sizes.

Unsurprisingly, that mishmash of measuring is how I cook almost everything. And that sort of ad hoc measurement is pretty common with cooks who've [shudder] done it for [sob] money.

If you care about how I cook while not actually standing in my home with a cold beverage in one hand, an hors d’oeuvre in the other, and hunger in your belly – you shouldn't.

3. Writing Bread Recipes:

There are a lot of audiences and a lot of ways to go about writing a bread recipe. One quality they should all share is that of being “perfected” before being made generally available.

“Perfecting a recipe” is actually a term of art for a professional cook. It doesn’t mean tweaking a recipe to make it as good as it can possibly be. What it does mean is making a recipe which can be followed by the intended reader, and from which the reader can produce a good result – similar to that intended by the writer.

No matter how the writer first made the bread (or dish, or whatever), she (or he as in my case) must communicate ingredient amounts, necessary equipment, techniques, sequences, temperatures, etc., in an understandable way. With amounts, that means measurements which are reproducible to a degree of accuracy satisfying the “the reader can produce a good result – similar to that intended by the writer” component.

As a practical matter, perfecting a recipe from the “pinch of this,” a “little more of that” process of creation, involves a significant amount of rounding off. A recipe writer understands that this is not only a function of the amount of leeway allowed by the ingredients in relation to the ultimate loaf, but of what measuring tools the reader is likely to have and is comfortable using.

The result component also takes us back to the “lot of ways” thing. If writing a regular cookbook about bread baking, in order to appeal to the widest possible audience, it would be a VGT (very good thing) to to include all three major forms of measurement – volume, weight and normative metric. Not to mention, good manners. However, when writing a methods and techniques driven cooking course, perhaps it might best serve the writer and his or her readers to select those which are most conducive for the task.

Nice segue, what? (Where’s Nigel Bruce when you need him?) What?

4. Teaching How and How Better Through Better Writing aka“Rubber meet road; road meet rubber”:

NB. Yes, it’s serial repetition, but will nonetheless be repeated serially: I’m not trying to teach how to cook by following a recipe. I’m trying to teach a level of method and technique allowing the reader to follow and/or improvise upon recipes she finds of interest; and to develop her own recipes without undue trial and error.

Let me start this with the thought that I’m increasingly open to including scale driven, weight measurements along with volume measurements in CFG if only for the sake of good manners.

That said, I think using a scale detracts from the most important parts of teaching and learning home bread baking, and of teaching and learning to bake bread better at home. Each and every one of those important things is sensorial, not metric.

At this time, I feel scale-driven recipe quantities, within the context of my intentions, are more harmful than helpful for several reasons. Most of these devolve from the sense that the author’s measurements are so perfected they are fixed and immutable. This is wrong on so many levels. For instance, weight does not accurately reflect humidity. 1,000 gm of humid flour and 1,000 gm of dry flour weigh the same. Yet they will ultimately reflect different levels of hydration. In a larger sense, this goes to the fact that baking is very sensitive to environmental conditions. Almost always, the best way to find the correct flour/liquid ratio is through observation and successive iteration at the mixing and kneading stages, involving sight, touch, and plenty of bench flour.

One aspect of technique driven cooking is learning what is and what is not important. The history of baking is much longer than the use of standardized weights and measures in cooking. People – including home cooks and professional bakers – used idiosyncratic (in the sense of being individualistic) measures, yet still managed to turn out good bread. Did baking get better with the introduction of Pyrex graduated measuring cups? No, at least not that I’m aware of. What about with electronic home scales? Same answer; although to be fair as measuring became increasingly standardized and accurate, recipe driven results have probably become more consistent.

If this sounds critical of scale-driven recipe writing or scale-driven baking, it isn’t meant that way. It’s all about CFG and that’s a very narrow scope indeed.


5. How YOU SHOULD bake:

Refer to “1,” near the beginning of this screed, while holding the following thought: “Like I’m going to tell you.”

The best advice I can give is to pay attention to your eyes, hands, and the dough itself, once everything’s been measured. ]]> boar_d_laze http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/blogs/boar_d_laze/529-cfg-ix-digression-into-measurements-baking-plus-more-general-principles.html http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/blogs/boar_d_laze/524-part-viii-othe-blog-more-knife-stuff.html Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:38:37 GMT *MORE EDGINESS, MORE ANGST, MORE MONEY: MORE CHOOSING A KNIFE* OR, SOME THINGS YOU DON’T THINK ABOUT WHEN IN THE FLUSH OF ACQUISITION LUST, BUT YOU REALLY SHOULD. Thanks in advance for bearing with me as I try and cobble all this stuff together. On the other hand, you knew the job was... MORE EDGINESS, MORE ANGST, MORE MONEY: MORE CHOOSING A KNIFE

OR, SOME THINGS YOU DON’T THINK ABOUT WHEN IN THE FLUSH OF ACQUISITION LUST, BUT YOU REALLY SHOULD.

Thanks in advance for bearing with me as I try and cobble all this stuff together. On the other hand, you knew the job was dangerous when you took it.

For those poor souls reading this in the sort of piecemeal fashion in which it’s presented, and for those who have read me on the topic before, it bears repetition (and a good thing too, because it has and shall be oft repeated), that a good knife choice depends on consideration of the cook’s knife skills (not only now, but including her or his future plans), and sharpening regimen.

Just Scratching the Surface of Sharpening:

Still more repetition: All dull knives are pretty much equal. It doesn’t matter how good it is when it’s sharp – when it’s dull, it’s junk. Don’t spend a lot of money or invest a lot of hope in a knife you won’t sharpen. Keeping a knife sharp DOES NOT INCLUDE sending it out once a year and using a rod hone (aka steel), especially an inappropriate steel, during the interval.

Plan on learning to freehand sharpen, which includes purchasing an adequate stone kit; or getting a good jig and tool sharpener like a rod-guide plus clamp (Lansky and Gatco are both good, but very fussy); or a rod guide plus table (Edge Pro, also fussy but less so; considerably more expensive; and very highly recommended); or a good machine which pretty much means a Chef’s Choice – they’re about as good as machines get, incredibly convenient, but they’re a one (or two) edge profile fits all knives solution which may not suit your knife kit.

Less good (as in you won’t get as good an edge as you would with the previous options) options:

One type of pull through, like a MAC Rollsharp, or a Chef’s Choice; but not a carbide “v” groove pull through. You can actually get a pretty decent edge with the good sort of pull through, but they take forever and are limited in two of the three functions of sharpening. That is, they sharpen OK (but slowly) and are way too slow for repair or profile; and way too coarse to get a decent polish.

With one exception the carbide “v” guides which sharpen adequately also eat knives. So if you like your knife or have any money in it – stay away. The exception is the Meyerco sold by Blackie Collins.

Pretty much everything that can be said about the good pull-throughs, may said as accurately about the good “V” sticks – the best of which are the Spyderco “Sharp Stick,” and the big Idahone; with the Lansky “Crock Stick” and regular size Idahone right behind.

Getting a Grip on Knife Technique, aka Mad Skilz:

“Mad Skilz” at this point is propaganda. It’s a meal in itself, and deserves a thorough discussion which we’ll get to another time. For now I’m only going to touch on it insofar as it bears on knife choice, which it does considerably. As a preliminary to conceptualizing the subject, it’s not a bad idea to reduce all the topic into three parts: The Belgae, the Aquatani and the Celts (whom we call the Gauls). Oops. Wrong three, got carried away for a minute.

To all who got the joke, you’re old, the victim of too much education, or both. But I digress. Where was I?

Oh yes, three parts: grip, offhand, and squaring. For knife choice purposes the grip is most important – but again in the interests of getting the concept and getting preliminaries out of the way.

Don’t look for the word “squaring” in a book on knife skills, just go ahead and blame me. I like it because it unites a bunch of related things, which at first blush seem unrelated. Feel free to ask, “How?”

(1) It’s extremely useful for safety and precision to square the food off (i.e., “block” it), before cutting slices (aka planks, aka leaves) which can either stand alone or precede cutting sticks; which in turn may stand alone or precede cutting dice;
(2) For safety and precision, the food should be held square to the cook;
(3) The knife should be held square to the food; and
(4) Unless cutting on the bias, the knife should be held so its edge is square to the board.

In this list, 3 and 4 both relate to grip; and grip relates to the cook’s comfort with a given knife handle and blade length. A good grip makes the tip an extension of the forearm, so “pointing” the tip is intuitive, safe and accurate; and holds the edge square to the board as a default.

Any grip which works that way is a good one. The one most commonly taught is the “pinch grip.” It is by no means the one and only “best” grip. In fact, the cooks I know with the very best knife skills, either use a variation on it, or a related but different, Japanese-ish version. As a personal aside (please keep it to yourself), I use a very "correct" pinch grip; my own knife skills are good but by no means great.

If you use a naïve grip for chopping, one that orients your knuckles down towards the board (like holding a tennis racket or index finger along the spine by way of examples), you’ll find the act a lot more comfortable if you learn a grip which orients your knuckles out. If you keep your wrist straight with your forearm and the knife tip, the knife will point more accurately. A soft grip is better than a tight one. If you hold your knife very tightly, you’ll find the knife points more accurately, and is ultimately more secure. Because of the elbow joint’s structure, a grip with opposed thumb and forefinger orients the knife so the edge is square to the board during a normal chopping action. Grip is a homo habilis thing – it’s a way of becoming one with simple tools, which is an important part of craftsmanship.

Craftsmanship counts in the kitchen.

(To be continued)
]]> boar_d_laze http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/blogs/boar_d_laze/524-part-viii-othe-blog-more-knife-stuff.html http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/blogs/boar_d_laze/522-part-vii-knife-chat.html Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:39:00 GMT Writing a coherent and reasonably short piece – say, umm, well “chapter length” -- about how to choose knives has stymied me for more than a year. I’ve made dozens of starts but haven’t finished any of them, while over the same period have written tens of thousands of words on all sorts of culinary... Writing a coherent and reasonably short piece – say, umm, well “chapter length” -- about how to choose knives has stymied me for more than a year. I’ve made dozens of starts but haven’t finished any of them, while over the same period have written tens of thousands of words on all sorts of culinary cutlery topics in the form of board posts (on CT and other forums).

The subject of choosing a knife – particularly a chef’s knife (or gyuto, or santoku) – can’t really be separated from the prospective owner’s current and near-future knife skills and sharpening regimen. These inter-dynamic relationships don’t make the subject particularly difficult, but it is complicated. Still one has to start somewhere; and one purpose in starting this blog in the first place was to get over blocks by writing and posting; the material can always (and surely will) be rewritten and reorganized later.

Another complication is simple good manners. It’s not exactly way cool to trash anyone else’s opinion by saying, “Wusthof is overrated. Don’t buy it,” when so many people love their trusty Wusties and rest secure in the thought they bought the very best. Not only is it bad manners, it’s dumb and arrogant. How many great meals have been prepped by good cooks using Wusthof knives? 47 bazillion, maybe?

And who am I to say?

May as well start, though. Experience says procrastination won’t improve the situation.

SOME BASICS

Chris Lehrer posted recently on the topic of an “Anchor knife.” The idea is that there’s a minimal set which covers nearly every knife-prep situation fairly well – and within that set there’s one knife which serves as the “anchor.”

Among those with enough money to afford a decent set and skills (or the ambition to acquire them) the anchor is usually an all-rounder. In other words, a chef’s knife or variant thereof like a santoku, kiritsuke, light Chinese “vegetable” cleaver, etc.

It’s fair to say that a chef’s knife is the best choice for most people who mostly make western style food. Cleavers and kiritsuke have their respective charms, but are an eccentric choice. Santokus are designed in such a way as to make the most of naïve skills, but aren’t nearly as productive as a full size chef’s knife.

Santokus typically run from 6” to 7” in length. The most common choice for a chef’s knife is 8”. A lot of knife “experts,” will disagree with me, but I don’t see that much of a performance difference between a 7” santoku and an 8” chef’s knife. The santoku “scoops” better than the chef’s; while the chef’s can do point work the santoku can’t. But otherwise, they’re short knives.

I don’t want to push you into anything uncomfortable for you – but once you learn a decent grip and how to keep your wrist straight (so the point becomes an extension of your forearm) a 10” knife is as easy to handle as an 8” – and a lot more productive. A chef’s (or gyuto) at around 10” is my first choice for nearly everyone as her or his “anchor.”

It should be acknowledged that the “sharpest” knife in a lot of good cooks’ homes is a steak, bread or some other form of serrated knife. Because they’re the only knives sharp enough to use, they become the anchors. Let’s get something out of the way right now. I’m not denigrating cheap, and/or serrated knives; and certainly not the cooks who use them down. There are better tools for the job – tools which are not only more efficient but allow for more possible types of preparation and which are a heck of a lot more fun. If you don’t want to upgrade, fine; if you do, consider yourself warned.

Not to digress, but terminology time: A “gyuto” is the Japanese word for a chef’s knife. Literally translated, the word means “cow knife,” or “cow sword.” I’m not sure if the term originated to describe knives that were used by beef butchers or to describe knives used by western chefs who prepared a lot more beef than Japanese cooks, or perhaps some other uniquely Japanese concept – like cows with cutlery. Whatever the etymology, nowadays the term is synonymous with chef’s knives.

Chef’s knives come in two basic profiles, German and French. A German knife has a higher choil (the “rise” at the back end of the blade – nearest the handle end, running from spine to edge at the part of the knife nearest the handle); more arc along the edge as it approaches the belly, more belly (the arc from the edge to the tip); and a higher tip.

A French knife has a straighter edge and lower choil. It gives it the appearance of being more of an acute triangle than a German knife. It also has less belly and a tip closer to the midline – nearly a “spear point.”

Because of the differences in geometry a French knife tends to be lighter, more agile, and have a point which is easier to control. German knives are heavier, are more powerful when it comes to heavy tasks like splitting chicken backs or breasts, and are better at “rock chopping,” and a little more convenient for “two hand mincing.”

Japanese gyuto are almost always French profile; sometimes with a slightly straighter edge, and often with a slightly lower tip (which means still less belly). Frequently, Japanese makers start the dip to the top on the spine later than French makers; and almost as frequently round the tip, “kamagata” or “sheep nose” style which gives the knife a distinctly Japanese look but doesn’t make the profile perform any less French.

It’s easy to overrate the differences between the profiles. A good technician will have a favorite, but be able to make the other(s) sing too. Personally, I prefer French/Japanese for their lightness, agility and ease in pointing. (In addition I prefer Japanese chef’s knives over almost all of their western counterparts for a bunch of blade-steel related reasons. We’ll get to those later.

To be continued (soon)... ]]> boar_d_laze http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/blogs/boar_d_laze/522-part-vii-knife-chat.html http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/blogs/boar_d_laze/520-great-cook-great-friend.html Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:02:59 GMT Craig Bodenhorn passed away a couple of days ago. Craig was a close friend, an energetic political activist, and a brilliant chef. I met Craig almost a dozen years ago in an online politics chatroom, he was funny, charming, knowledgeable, all the good things. We shared a similar political... Craig Bodenhorn passed away a couple of days ago. Craig was a close friend, an energetic political activist, and a brilliant chef.

I met Craig almost a dozen years ago in an online politics chatroom, he was funny, charming, knowledgeable, all the good things. We shared a similar political outlook, and had very similar reactions to the other chatters we met in shared rooms. We became virtual friends quickly.

We became real friends when we started talking about food.

For a lot of reasons, most of them related to his deteriorating health, Craig spent a good deal of his last decade online. He had a lot of nicks, and if you ever chatted on MSN you may even have known him as “Blackdog” or “Hollywood Kid.” It’s not easy to be a legendary chatter – but there you go.

Craig culinary start was north-eastern “fine-dining,” in the late sixties. Back in the day, “fine-dining” was pretty much synonymous with “continental,” a cuisine which was ossified even before it became moribund. He got over it pretty quickly though. When I met him, he’d cooked through a lot of influences and was a strong practitioner and exponent of dressed up American regional. It’s fair to say he was at the forefront of “New American Bistro.”

He was early, he was solid and he was creative. Unfortunately for cooking, he wasn’t as influential as he might have been. He never quite made it to “celebrity chef,” he never wrote anything, he didn’t become a chef/owner until just before he fell ill and had to retire, and he was cooking out of Indianapolis.

To heck with everyone else. He changed my cooking for the better. Without him I never would have made sense out of the disaparate influences in my own, poor, bag of tricks.

In fact, the idea of my intended book came out of conversations with Craig. Indeed, it was first intended to be a collaboration, but he was unable to participate as much as either of us would have liked.

Craig became very ill around the turn of the new century; at about the same time he lost all his money through a fraudulent partnership. He moved away from Indiana to Oregon. With the assistance of a few friends who helped him obtain State’s assistance, and the largesse of another, he overcame some of the difficulties imposed by poverty. Unfortunately his illness was not to be denied. In the end, death came as a friend.

He is missed.

To my friends at Chef Talk, you have some big shoes to fill.

Thanks for the shoulder,
BDL ]]> boar_d_laze http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/blogs/boar_d_laze/520-great-cook-great-friend.html http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/blogs/boar_d_laze/515-many-grains-salt-part-vith.html Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:20:22 GMT Long time no blog. Sorry about that, Chief. What can I say? I had a rough year. And last few months – up until early September – Oy! Don’t ask. Speaking of not asking, I’d like to thank everyone who’s encouraged me to start blogging again. One of the reasons I started this blog to begin... Long time no blog. Sorry about that, Chief.

What can I say? I had a rough year. And last few months – up until early September – Oy! Don’t ask. Speaking of not asking, I’d like to thank everyone who’s encouraged me to start blogging again.

One of the reasons I started this blog to begin with was to write about things which were hard to write about for one reason and another. In my case, the most difficult subject is knives. I’ve got a lot of information on the subject – somewhere between a book’s and a chapter’s worth. Editing it down to a useful digest is difficult, because so much of the information is contingent and/or inter-dynamic, and because there are so many different “good” and “right” choices. Worse, I’ve found is that contrary to most writing, the more organized I become the longer it gets.

While it’s something which must be eventually done, a blog entry probably isn’t the best place.

I also thought about doing a piece on sharpening – another thing promised but never quite finished. Unfinished for the same reasons – too much to say, too contingent, too interconnected, too many right ways,

Then I wondered if (barbecue) smokers might not be worth a shot. The subject presents all of the same hurdles from a writing standpoint, but for a lot of reasons, the most important of which is that there actually is a best choice for most beginners or people moving up to their first “good” smoker. Barbecues are just a lot more manageable than knives.

Eventually, a thought penetrated that block of cocobolo I call my head. The importance of making the “right” decision about the “best” piece of equipment is highly overrated. As a sort of parable, I try not to recommend most of the equipment I actually own and use. There are a lot of reasons, really. A partial list: I don’t want to use my recommendation as a validation of my own choices; I bought stuff a long time ago, and there’s better on the market; and I’m not you.

The best advice I can give about equipment purchases is to narrow down the possible options to a set – of all which are good choices. As long as you do this and bear in mind there is no “best,” you can’t go wrong.

Best advice, yes; but you and I both know that the kind of writing you see in airline magazine, which give you a sort of list of the types of choices, each and all of which according to the author are equally good, is not helpful. (That's a lot of dependent clauses, what? What?)

It’s not really fair to leave you hanging on knives, sharpening or barbecues. So let’s see what can be said meaningfully – more in terms of how than what to choose. Over the next few days (or weeks, depending on my work load), I’ll follow this entry up with a few others on those subjects. ]]> boar_d_laze http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/blogs/boar_d_laze/515-many-grains-salt-part-vith.html http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/blogs/boar_d_laze/267-cook-food-good-part-v-organization-revealed.html Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:39:30 GMT *COOK FOOD GOOD* *PART V* In case you haven’t been playing the Home Version along with the show, I promised in some of my Chef Talk posts this installment would discuss how Cook Food Good would be organized around technique, and how the recipes would be integrated. ...

COOK FOOD GOOD

PART V

In case you haven’t been playing the Home Version along with the show, I promised in some of my Chef Talk posts this installment would discuss how Cook Food Good would be organized around technique, and how the recipes would be integrated.

Let me tell you the “how” has been driving me make your forehead bleed by pounding it on the table nuts for some time. There have been lots of great recipe books – some of which have done a good job of building technique. Most of us number a few of these among our favorites. A couple of famous examples are Mastering the Art of French Cooking, by Child, Bertholle and Beck; and American Cookery, by Beard. These books, and many other wonderful books like them include wonderful instructions on how to handle food, but they aren’t ordered in a way which reveals how techniques relate to one another, and how the relationship helps the cook improvise, adapt and create – as well as execute. Too much trees, not enough forest.

Even the best books are organized around food types (“beef,” “pork,” “chicken,” and “fish”); or courses (“salads,” “soups,” “entrees,” and “desserts”). That may be the way we order at a restaurant, but it isn’t the way we make food. We chop, slice, saute, roast, and steam. We prep, we cook, we plate. We don’t lamb and we don’t soup.

You need a reason to set out to do something as stupid and futile as write a cookbook when you aren’t a celebrity chef – or even a celebrity. My impetus came from noticing that people who aren’t already good cooks don’t know when something they’re cooking in a pan is ready to turn. And no one, whether on TV, in a cookbook, or in any other way thinks it’s worth telling them. I dunno, man. Call me crazy, but seems like it might be important.

So, I thought to write a little book on the things every good cook knows but no one teaches. As I talked to more and more people who were learning to cook outside of cooking school, it became apparent they learned to cook dishes, rather than learning how to cook. Eventually, they learned enough from cooking the dishes to figure out how to cook. Nice. But gotta be a better way, right?

As far as I’m concerned, no one’s ever done a good job of writing a book that made learning the pieces part of integrating them into a rational whole – at least not in a way that made sense. Not that some very talented people haven’t tried. The best was La Technique by Jacques Pepin. The guy can cook, he can talk, he can teach ... and the best he could do was a series of disconnected instructions on trussing a chicken, breaking a lobster and a bunch of other jumbled together stuff.

So, how? Better men have failed. Who do I think I am? Rachel Ray? Then it hit me. Escoffier. No. I don’t think I’m Escoffier. Escoffier was a hotel chef who came up with the way to organize cuisine and technique when he created the modern kitchen and its brigade around the end of the nineteenth century. I’m usually someone else. Anyway, Escoffier divided the kitchen into stations and each station had a responsibility for a type of cooking, or certain types of foods which required particular techniques. You know. The wheel I told you I was trying to reinvent with a forehead slam.

So, that’s how the technique sections of Cook Food Good is going to be organized – the way a pro kitchen is still organized around stations. In no particular order: Pantry and Cold, Sauces and Sautes; Roasts and Grills; Pastry, Baking and Sweets; Soups; Vegetables;and a right-handed reliever to be named later. Everything starts to make sense. I can put the outdoor Barbecue (smoker) and Grill sections with Roasts and Grills. The Knife section goes with pantry – each section gets its recipes. Each section has a prose spine with some general instruction, a few stories, and what not, plus a few beginner’s recipes spaced through the spine, following detailed descriptions of the required fundamentals.

What about the rest of the recipes? Who would cook them in a big restaurant kitchen? Which station? That’s where they go.

Speaking of “the rest of the recipes:” The list is growing like topsy. I’ve written a few since the last blog installment, about half of which have made it onto Chef Talk. Of the last two, one of them, “Truffled Polenta with Mariscos” is very high-end, eclectic and original. While the other, “Joe’s Special,” is hash, San Francisco as all get out, and simple as can be. In the book, both will go to the saute station with Joe’s near the beginning and the polenta at the end. If you can cook a Joe’s you’re about 75% of the way to executing Truffled Polenta. (Chances are, if you’re reading this, you can make both of them in your sleep.)

It all makes sense. So much so, I slapped my forehead. Ouch.

Hold me darling, I’m frightened.

Your comments are not optional – they are non-negotiable demands,
BDL ]]> boar_d_laze http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/blogs/boar_d_laze/267-cook-food-good-part-v-organization-revealed.html http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/blogs/boar_d_laze/222-cook-food-good-bdls-book-blog-first-entry-parts-iii-iv.html Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:25:54 GMT III. What’s up Doc? For the first installment of the blog, I thought it might be interesting for you to follow the recipe development and writing process. It’s a good illustration of the premise – building with common, fundamental techniques. So... My wife, Linda, loves artisanal... III. What’s up Doc?

For the first installment of the blog, I thought it might be interesting for you to follow the recipe development and writing process. It’s a good illustration of the premise – building with common, fundamental techniques.

So... My wife, Linda, loves artisanal olive bread. Hey. Who doesn’t?

In truth, I’ve never been a particularly good or prolific bread baker (they’re usually the same thing). There were a few breads I did fairly well, and were enough for my purposes. But, when I thought about the book, I knew I wanted to include some breads. When I began to participate actively in Chef’s Talk I found there were a lot of people who didn’t understand “the basics” of bread making.

Yes. The pesky basics again. How long to let bread rise? It’s not a time it’s a volume. How do I measure, weight or volume? It’s not that important, you’re making dough with a particular “feel,” and not a Chem 116 quant. analysis (not a pleasant memory for me either); the bread you’re asking about should feel like ... So forth and so on. That level of knowledge at least, I had and could share.

Renewed interest in baking combined with a need to develop recipes, and I started fooling around. Two “first drafts” of the book’s recipes are already posted in the “Baking” section of Chef’s Talk. Search for the Pumpernickel Sour Rye and Onion-Dill Bread – Scandinavian Style threads. (A note about these recipes: The writing is first draft, the recipes themselves are pretty well set. If you’ve any interest at all in intermediate breads which are “simple enough for a beginner,” give them a try.)

izbnso, a Chef’s Talk contributor (and one of the people to whom I owe much thanks) wrote to me about the Onion-Dill bread not long after the recipe was posted. One thing led to another, and she asked if I thought the cheese technique which gave the Onion-Dill bread such a nice, open structure would translate to an olive bread. As soon as I read “olive bread,” I knew I’d give it a shot. For Linda, or else. It’s a good idea to take her seriously.

I had my doubts about using cheese though, especially the cottage-cheese from the O-D. But I live in the San Gabriel Valley of Southern California where there are many Mexican markets. A common Mexican cheese is a type of ricotta called requesón, and I’ve been meaning to fool around with it on general principles. So, why not?

The intention to bake a “new” bread is formed. There’s no recipe to mildly tweak, and nothing really close in my experience. So, what do I know going in? Quite a lot, actually. I know the basic flour, liquid, yeast, salt ratio for nearly ALL bread. That’s a heck of a starting point. I know curd cheeses release a lot of water as they’re kneaded, and that they lighten the loaf. I know requesón is saltier and drier than ricotta, and how to make one work like another – at least outside of bread. I know how bread dough should feel generally. I know which times and temperatures make which kind of crusts.

My imaginary palate told me the bread would need something extra to give it some sourness or it would be salty or, worse, bland. And, I know a few other things. Not many, but a few. In other words, the “basics” we’re all getting tired of being lectured about. Can I get an amen and a hallelujah? (One for the basics, the other for the bored.) Thank you brothers and sisters!

Creating recipes is as much about balance as anything else. You play with the taste bud receptors salt, sweet, hot, sour and “savory,” and the olfactory nerves which form the palate’s taste/aroma receptors on the roof of your mouth. And of course you work with the other senses as well. Particularly sight and touch.

Olive bread is all well and good for the bread. What about the olives? What goes well with olives? I thought I’d enhance the bread with pimentos, garlic, oregano, thyme, rosemary. The combination isn’t reinventing the wheel, but bread is essentially a comfort food. Besides these are common with olives, because they work. “Tastes good” is important. Since I was using requesón, I decided to add a little tang with cotija (the Mexican version of Parmesan) – since I knew I’d have to add Parmesan to ricotta because ricotta is so bland compared to requesón. Whether or not all that makes sense to you, it does to me.

The fact that I already have an Italian style garlic/herb bread in my quiver was a help – even if that one is built around a biga instead of cheese. I wanted a little less chew than the garlic/herb bread, but didn’t want to go as soft as the Onion-Dill bread where the cheese makes for a very tender bread. The proposed answer? Ciabatta. The large surface would make the bread bake in such a way as to impart some chewiness. Also: I wanted a hand-formed loaf after all the loaf pan breads I’d been doing; ciabatta’s an easy shape for beginners; and the texture I envisioned is typical of a Tuscan/Umbrian bread (a little finer and softer than a ciabatta from further south.) It all fit in my imagination. Taste, aroma, texture, new and familiar at the same time. Certainly good enough to take into the kitchen.

I baked off two ciabattas on Friday. How did it work? Fantastic, right? More like “Fantastic BUT.” The making went easily and Linda loved it. By her, it’s fantastic. So much for the big two.

BUT: Not enough and the wrong kind of olives (half a jar of salad olives). I don’t want to change the taste but have to quit fooling around and make a recipe adjusted for ricotta and Parmesan. The nicest part for me was getting the right amount of herbs on the first try, I’m constantly fighting a tendency to over season. The worst part was accidentally turning off the oven when I was fiddling with the timer, just as the bread went in. Overall, I’m lucky it worked this well, it doesn’t always.

That’s how a recipe gets made: A little knowledge of the subject, fundamental techniques, plus never growing out of the mud-pie stage, plus a little imagination. Can you do it? Of course. Don’t care? Just want the recipe? The Chef Talk version should be ready next weekend. I’d very much like it if you tried it. http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/pastr...ive-bread.html

IV. Is that all there is?

Next installment – two to three weeks.

Thank you (in advance) for the feedback I am about to receive.

BDL ]]> boar_d_laze http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/blogs/boar_d_laze/222-cook-food-good-bdls-book-blog-first-entry-parts-iii-iv.html http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/blogs/boar_d_laze/221-cook-food-good-bdls-book-blog-first-entry-parts-i-ii.html Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:24:54 GMT COOK FOOD GOOD – The Blog I. Introduction As many of you know, I’m working on a cookbook. The information seems to have reached the important people, and I was asked by Chef’s Talk to blog the process. (H/T Nicko). It’s a good idea for several reasons. Chef’s Talk thinks it will be... COOK FOOD GOOD – The Blog

I. Introduction

As many of you know, I’m working on a cookbook. The information seems to have reached the important people, and I was asked by Chef’s Talk to blog the process. (H/T Nicko).

It’s a good idea for several reasons. Chef’s Talk thinks it will be interesting – as much for the writing and publishing aspects as the cooking components. Sure. Interesting. Okay for you. But, what about me?

I’m hoping the discipline of posting on a regular schedule will help me discipline the book writing process which has been giving me fits. I’m also hoping to use the blog to try some things out in terms of teaching, organizing and recipes and get some feedback on them; so they can be tweaked to work as well in reality as in my imagination (where they work great!). If there is any way to include the enthusiasm for learning that pervades this site, that will be lightning in a bottle.

We each have a role. Me blog. You feedback. Every two to three weeks, expect a new installment plus progress report. Meanwhile, I’ll sit here waiting for your responses. Alone. In the dark.

II. Book? What book?

The working title is, COOK FOOD GOOD: American Cooking and Technique for Beginners and Intermediates. Let’s call it CFG for blogging purposes.

CFG’s rationale is to present a modular approach to cooking and share some interesting recipes ranging from easy to challenging. By “modular” I mean that cooking is based on a finite number of techniques (“the basics”) which can be transferred to a variety of recipes and cuisines. Control enough of these and you can cook pretty much anything. This isn’t particularly controversial. Unfortunately organizing a cookbook by techniques rather than by particular types of foods is difficult – at least I’m finding it so.

When I first started this I was thinking about those few hundred things that every good cook knows, but for whatever reason never make it into cookbooks or Food TV. Things like: Tapping a piece of food on the side to get it to release before going under it with a spatula. How to hold a knife. How to preheat a pan. Those sorts of things. There are a lot of them and they’re sort of random. That got me to thinking about a better way of presenting them, which led me to the idea of quit fooling around, teach cooking, and be done with it.

CFG’s target audience is people who want to cook better. Just for now, let’s call the target audience, “you.” It’s catchy and suits you well. I’d like to get you to where you can cook a good meal every time; enjoy yourself doing it; and walk away from the kitchen knowing that you are a good cook. People get this look on their faces when they taste something that’s delicious. Their eyes narrow, their mouth relaxes into a half smile. It’s a wonderful thing to see. Cooking is a craft that occasionally approaches art. And as an art form, it has a unique advantage. The little flaws get eaten. It’s about satisfaction, fun and love – all of which you should have. Also, you should have a nice meal yourself now and then.

Sometimes cooking is hard work. That’s not so bad. Sometimes it gets a little tense, though. You feel the pressure. Get rid of the fear of failure and the flop sweat. The worst that can happen is you throw out a bunch of expensive food you were cooking for people you care about, say some bad words, send out for some pizza, go for a beverage run, and beat the pizza man home. That’s the worst. The absolute worst. The worst is not so bad. Don’t sweat it.

And, oh yes. It should be a decent read, too. Maybe not summer on the beach, but there’s no law which says a cookbook should be boring.

All of that cheerleading, and technique in a book. With recipes yet. A tall order which takes us back to fear of failure and flop sweat – only this time mine. There are quite a few contributors to Chef’s Talk that are making a big difference in my confidence and determination in seeing CFG through. You know whom you are. Thank you.

Enough with the introductions and the mushy stuff. ]]> boar_d_laze http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/blogs/boar_d_laze/221-cook-food-good-bdls-book-blog-first-entry-parts-i-ii.html