Seafood poaching

boiling or poaching? I'm a little confused.



Cooking is not a mathematical equation, although some may argue otherwise. If you get it after 20-30 tries your doin good. Just like life, there are no shortcuts or substitutes for experience.

Poaching is from 160 to 185 degrees, simmering is beyond 185, and boiling is when you obviously achieve a full boil. These temperature differences are not arbitrary and have significant ramifications for the food to be cooked. The hotter the fluid, the more destructive it’s force, not only from the higher temperature but the increased turbulence as well. You would never put a fragile piece of fish into boiling water. The heat and agitation would disintegrate it. Therefore, the temperature of the poaching liquid should be checked during cooking with an instant read thermometer.

There is a qualifyer that MUST first be mentioned. AT SEA LEVEL. When you live in the mountains at 10,000 feet, cooking has a whole different meaning in terms of temps and times. (also, barrometric preasure plays a roll too)

http://www.biggreenegg.com/boilingPoint.htm

and a handy chart on yhis page too.


The only way to know is to do it, and do it, and do it, till you just know. And when you go to the rockies, expect that what you know will no longer apply, and that you will need to spend some time and get the feel for it all over again.

whats the old saying? You give 10 cooks the same recipe and you'll end up with 10 different dishes...

Just because i "know" what a Standard vinaigrette "ratio" is 3-1, does this apply to every vinaigrette in every application with every oil and acid?

In response to your question, cook until done to your liking. Any less is underdone, any more is overcooked.

Dude, your question has been answered as well as it will be without your going to university for a 4 year honours batchalors, 2 years honours masters, and 1 year doctoral degree. And the people that do are the ones that make the box lables that read "microwave on HI for 5 to 6 1/2 minutes, rotate and check for doneness halfway through, and let stand for 2 minutes, all cook times approxamite, microwave ovens vary, based on a standard microwave oven of 443 watts"

EDIT: Here is a site of recipies for foie gras, no two agree on times, or temps. http://www.theworldwidegourmet.com/m...s/foiegras.htm

Read this (the link is MUCH longer that the quote):

http://www.iseek.org/sv/13000.jsp?id=100324

Career: Food Scientists

Overview

Food scientists conduct research to develop food products that are healthy, safe, and appealing.

Food scientists work in the food processing industry. They also work for universities and the federal government. They help meet consumer demand for food products that are healthy, tasty, and convenient. To do this, they conduct research using their knowledge of chemistry and other sciences.

The work of food scientists varies depending on their specialty area. Some food scientists engage in basic research to discover new food sources and products. They analyze food content to determine levels of vitamins, fat, sugar, or protein. They search for substitutes for harmful additives such as nitrites. Food scientists also study methods to improve the quality of foods. For example, they might look for ways to improve flavor, color, texture, or nutritional content. In addition, food scientists develop methods to process, preserve, package, or store food. New methods must meet government rules and industry standards.

Food scientists who work in product development apply the findings of food science research. For example, they test new products in test kitchens. They also confer with specialists to resolve problems with products. For example, they might consult flavor experts or process engineers. In government jobs, food scientists develop food quality standards and safety and health regulations. Some food scientists enforce government regulations by inspecting food processing areas.

All food scientists keep records of their research and write reports of their findings."

latest rage, butter poaching. Buerre monte ~180f. Immerse your ___size shrimp or ___size lobster for____minutes.

You fill in the size("big ones" for lobster tail doesn't count), i'll fill in the time.

Do i get a cut of the cookbook?

Some people have different styles of cooking, learning, walking, eating, reading the paper. Maybe this method works for Shahar. It might not work for you guys but maybe he's had a lot of success with it.

Remember the old guidelines for fish? 10 minutes per inch?

guess i hit a nerve....Good luck chef.

I've been cooking for years, and sometimes I burn stuff, but that's what timers are for. Other than that, I can guarantee you that everything I make on the hot line, even desserts which require leavening, can be made without a recipe. Once I developed a feel for things, I've never burnt a caramel, broken an emulsion, or boiled a creme. Feel free to disagree.

OTOH, please don't take it personally if someone disagrees with your point of view. You started the topic, perhaps some people have a different take on the subject. I've requested that others be tolerant and open themselves to the fact that your contribution is valuable. I respectfully ask that you do the same.

I was curious about this topic and so I seached numerous sites and recipes for poaching, boiling, fish or shellfish. I haven't found one yet that references temperature of the liquid. The terms "boil", "simmer" and the time of cooking are used to indicate doneness. Example: bring stock to a boil, add shrimp, lower to simmer and cook for 2 mins. - is typical of the instructions for cooking in liquids. I quess this is because there's so much variation with the kind of liquids used, the seafood, and the boiling points of different liquids that it's become more a function of state of liquid and time.

BTW,
I thought it was a great question. Really got me thinking and researching. And that's good even if you don't always get the answer you want or expect. ;)

Okay, kids, play nicely. :rolleyes:

I have only been cooking "professionally" for 10 years -- but from what I've seen (including at a four-star restaurant in NYC and for a chef who got 3 stars), everyone here is right. Timing, temperatures, and science should make for consistent food. Unfortunately, though, the food itself works against that science. One cook making the same dish 10 times will end up with 10 dishes, too, because the food has its own variations that cannot be offset completely by timing and temperature.

It's great to quantify, but there will always be natural variations in the ingredients (even in the water, for goodness sake!). So you're all right. Now, please, no more !@#$%^&* at each other.

Well let's put it this way. It can be done, but you have to control for a lot of things. Like the temperature of the fish when you put it in the liquid for example. You gotta make sure your lobsters aren't running a fever. If they are, you gotta cut down the cooking time. ;)

The only time I've seen people use stopwatches for cooking is in competition and in practicing for competition. Even then, the final call is made via touchy-feely methods. But then everything else is very tightly controlled. I've seen teams bring their own bottled water for their aspics.

Anyway, in the end you always test the product, that applies to everything. Not just cooking. It's like being a doctor. You treat the patient, not the test results.

Your question has been preying on my mind, so I went back and looked at what you actually posted to start the thread:My reaction is the same as when I first read that: Seems like a reasonably detailed recipe to me:
- temperature: boiling
- quantity: as much as you need to cook
- timing: 10 seconds from the time you add the calamari to the water, or else from the time the water returns to a boil (okay, I'll grant you a bit of uncertainty here, but this is where it only takes 2 tries to come up with an answer)
- cooling: in an ice-water bath.

Anything more is understood, as far as I'm concerned:
- starting temperature of the water: doesn't matter; it will be at 212F/100C when you add the calamari (yes, assuming sea level ;) )
- starting temperature of the calamari: less than or equal to 40F/4C, because that's the SAFE temperature; if it had been assumed that the calamari were still frozen, wouldn't it say so? And if it should be thawed -- which it should, for even cooking -- then it will be at or below the same 40F/4C
- knowing when it is done: AHA! that's where your skill as a cook comes in: you have to take a piece out and test it. If it feels done, it is done. No timers and thermometers can tell you that; you have to know what to look, feel, smell, etc. for. Specifically because some factor will always be different (as you seem to have acknowledged)
- why to cool as instructed, in an ice-bath: again, for safety and to stop the calamari from cooking. Keep it in the boiling water, and carryover will keep it cooking far too long for its own (and your customers') good, turning it to rubber bands. Let it take too long to cool down, and it could be unsafe.

Surely you know all that. So again, what is the problem you have?

So THAT's it! You want to impose science on a bunch of artistes! What you need, my friend (and I do feel you are my friend :D ) is not physical science, but social science! And the science of being a good leader and a good teacher. Have you not taught your cooks their recipes, by *****stration, coaching, and then by monitoring how they make them? If you have taught them properly, they be less likely to have those wide swings. (Although yogurt and yeast are living organisms, as willful as any child, and sometimes what made them behave one time only brings disaster the next.)

My point is: the fault, dear Brutus, is not in your recipes, nor necessarily in your underlings; look at how you lead, and you might find the answers you're looking for.

Sharhar, I totally understand where you are coming from. It seems only natural to want to be able to objectively quantify a recipe. That way there is no room for error. Unfortunately, the kitchen is not a lab. There are way too many variables that we have to account for everyday. Just to use poaching a fish, since that is what we are talking about, as an example, here are just a number of the variables that make complete quantification (is that a word) impossible:
-temp of poaching liquid (yes even the temp of boiling water can change depending on what you put into and how long it has reduced-think sugar water)
-temp of fish when placing in poaching liquid
-density of fish (even same kind of fish can have different densities depending on where the fillet was cut, what time of year the fish was caught and where it was caught
-the BTU's of your burners - it will affect how quickly your liquid comes back to temp.
-the exact thickness of the fish - never seen a piece of fish, or meat, exactly 1, 1 1/2, or 2 inches thick and most recipes tell you to poach (cook) for X minutes per inch of thickness so unless all your cooks keep a set of calipers and a calculator around you won't discover the exact timing, just by that variable alone.

I agree, there has to be some sort of guidelines, but you can't allow these guidelines to rule you. Allowing them to do so is almost as bad as not using any guidelines at all. I hope this helps to shed some light on the subject.

Well, you are certainly right there! Checking one of my favorite textbooks, On Cooking by Sarah Labensky and Alan Hause, I found:

The Professional Chef -- the CIA's text -- says:
(it should be obvious why this one is NOT my favorite. :p

Wayne Gisslen, in Professional Cooking -- the text I had to use in school -- says:
So what is it between 180 and 185 (Labensky and Gisslen), and between 205 and 212 (Labensky and Gisslen) and 200 and 212 (CIA)?

And if these "authorities" can't agree, why do you hope to find the one right way?

Don't forget about sea level and elevation :D

Shahar,

Do you own Mcgee ?

Sorry,

Thought maybe you were familiar.

Harold McGee's book On food and cooking.

I think you would enjoy it.

Harold McGee's On Food and Cooking, Revised and Updated Edition on Amazon. And if you scroll down, you'll also find a link to Shirley Corriher's Cookwise, another excellent book on the science of cooking. These a great books to explain the whys of cooking as it is conventially done.

And one more set of books, but I don't have a single link to them: Ferran Adria, of El Bulli in Spain, has several volumes out of his work there. He's one of the best known proponents of what is now referred to as "molecular gastronomy" -- along with Heston Blumenthal in England, Herve This in France, and Grant Achatz here in the U.S. (Grant just opened Alinea, in Chicago, which was written up in the NY Times yesterday). These folks all look at the science of cooking and try to turn it on its ear. You'd probably be interested in the kinds of things they try. So you're not at all alone in trying to find out the science and using it to your advantage.