or Connect
ChefTalk.com › ChefTalk Cooking Forums › Cooking Discussions › Food & Cooking › Fast and Easy (5 ingredients or Less) Recipes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fast and Easy (5 ingredients or Less) Recipes - Page 2

post #31 of 55

Cut out the backbone, crack the breastbone, and flatten the chicken. It cooks quite quickly at high heat. Poulet grille au diable means "chicken grilled Devil-style," so it's probably exceedingly similar to Pollo alla diavolo, though I don't actually know. The "au diable" just means the mustard and crumb crust, really.

post #32 of 55

ah, interesting chris.  I think in italy it's got hot pepper flakes sprinkled on it.  No mustard here, generally.  They sell them already opened here - though generally they;re very small - already regular chickens are pretty small, but these are usually even smaller. 

"Siduri said, 'Gilgamesh, where are you roaming? You will never find the eternal life that you seek...Savour your food, make each of your days a delight, ... let music and dancing fill your house, love the child who holds you by the hand and give your wife pleasure in your embrace.'"
Reply
"Siduri said, 'Gilgamesh, where are you roaming? You will never find the eternal life that you seek...Savour your food, make each of your days a delight, ... let music and dancing fill your house, love the child who holds you by the hand and give your wife pleasure in your embrace.'"
Reply
post #33 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisLehrer View Post

Cut out the backbone, crack the breastbone, and flatten the chicken. It cooks quite quickly at high heat. Poulet grille au diable means "chicken grilled Devil-style," so it's probably exceedingly similar to Pollo alla diavolo, though I don't actually know. The "au diable" just means the mustard and crumb crust, really.


This is funny, in France we call this "Poulet à l'americaine" (for "American style chicken"), but it does not have mustard or bread crumbs. It is seved with "Sauce Diable", which is veal stock with a bit of tomato paste, shallots, black pepper, white wine and vinegar, montée au beurre.

post #34 of 55

Oops, my mistake, Chris, you were right on the mustard/crumb part: I just pulled up an old French reference cooking book, and it does indeed indicate to slather the grilled chicken with mustard, sprinkle bread crumbs and finish in the oven. I didn't know that!

 

As for the sauce au diable, the recipe is the same as I just wrote, except they use chicken stock instead of veal stock.

post #35 of 55

You're so right, Siduri. It's a great word, easy to have fun with.

 

It's also one of those terms that everybody thinks they understand, but don't. We've had discussions about it before.

 

Some people say "spatchcock" and "butterfly" are synonyms (one source even goes so far as to claim that "spatchcock" is British, and "butterfly" American).

 

Some, and I subscribe to this view, say there is a difference. For me, if you remove the backbone; score the keel if necessary, and flatten the bird, that's butterflying. If you actually remove all the bones (other than those in the legs), then it's spatchcocking.

 

Because the heat actually penetrates the flesh faster, both butterflying and spatchcocking will, indeed, help roast a bird more quickly---butterflying faster than a whole bird, and spatchcocking even faster than that.

 

When grilling, a spatchcocked bird does not have to be turned. The advantage to that is not only speed of cooking, but it allows you to sauce the bird while it cooks, without the sugars carmelizing too quickly.

 

The downside to spatchcocking is that you lose the flavors imparted by the bones.

They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
post #36 of 55

Spatchcock is basically what many might know as butterfly.  You take your good, solid kitchen shears in one hand, the whole chicken in the other.  Cut from the tail to the neck along one side of the backbone.  The rib bones aren't that tough.  Repeat on the other side.  If I had a video camera and a chicken handy, I'd demonstrate.  It really isn't that difficult.  But just removing the backbone, which is saved for stock making later, will not get the chicken to lay flat.  Close, and often good enough for many recipes.  To get it even flatter you have to deal with the keel bone, that familiar piece between the breasts.

 

Now that I am thinking about it, I do believe that Alton Brown demonstrated the technique on Good Eats at one time.  I may poke around and see if I can find that episode.

 

mjb.

 

Food nourishes my body.  Cooking nourishes my soul.
Reply
Food nourishes my body.  Cooking nourishes my soul.
Reply
post #37 of 55

See what I mean. For Teamfat, spatchcock and butterfly are synonyms. And many sources treat it that way.

 

But most sources I checked include partially deboning, so that the keel, breastbones, and ribs are removed. Thus:

 

"A spatchcocked chicken, like a butterflied chicken, is a chicken that has had the back and breastbones removed so it can be opened up and flattened out like a book. This way, it cooks faster and more even all around."

 

And:

 

"A spatchcock is a poussin or game bird that is prepared for roasting or grilling or a bird that has been cooked after being prepared in this way. The method of preparing the bird involves removing the backbone and sternum of the bird and flattening it out before cooking[1]."

Although not everyone agrees, the most likely derivation is from "dispatch the cock," and is probably originally Irish.

 

But just removing the backbone, which is saved for stock making later, will not get the chicken to lay flat. 

 

Depends on the size and age of the bird. Young chickens and most gamebirds can be butterflyed and made to lay flat without scoring the keelbone. Older chickens usually need that extra help.

 

The real test is your ability to break the wishbone without help from cutlery. Open the bird like a book, with the flesh side up. Hit it sharply with your fist or the flat of a cleaver. More times than not, that's all it takes. If not, turn it back over, score the keelbone, and repeat the above.

 

Frankly, the larger the bird the easier it is to actually spatchcock (i.e., remove the bones). But I hate to think about how many quail I've treated that way. What a pain! But faster to cook, and a much nicer presentation.

 
They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
post #38 of 55

Ducasse's Grand Livre de Cuisine, which is poorly but literally translated, uses the term "spat-cooked," as a translation of "cuit sur la braise." He removes the ribs by the shoulder but not elsewhere.

post #39 of 55

Chris, does "braise" in that phrase mean the same as it does in English? And what is "cuit?"

 

Besides which, I'd almost bet that the translater saw something lewd or otherwise off-putting in "spatchcock" and so changed is to something similar sounding.

They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
post #40 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYHeirloomer View Post

Chris, does "braise" in that phrase mean the same as it does in English? And what is "cuit?"

 

Besides which, I'd almost bet that the translater saw something lewd or otherwise off-putting in "spatchcock" and so changed is to something similar sounding.


"Braise" is a noun here, and means "embers" -- sur le braise = over the embers. "Cuit" is just the past participle of cuire, "to cook." So the phrase really means nothing more than "cooked over the embers." I did find another recipe in the same book: "Spat Cooked Squabs with Pommes Dauphine in a 'Sauce a la diable'" -- Pigeonneau cuit sur la braise en crapaudine, pommes dauphine, sauce--condiment a la diable. So it turns out they're rendering en crapaudine as "spatchcocked," "spat-cooked," etc. (en crapaudine, "in toad form"). I thought it was odd!

 

As you noted earlier, the current edition of the OED gives the term "spatchcock" as from Irish usage, already in its first English usage meaning a bird killed, immediately split open, and broiled. "Spatch," from "dispatch," is quite a bit earlier, and the two may have gotten muddied together, as often happens with English words. Whether you want to distinguish "butterfly" from "spatchcock" strikes me as a piece of precision that the older history won't sustain, so it's more a question of arguing what the words should mean now, instead of what they already mean.

 

"Spat-cooked" is a perfectly plausible usage, but I don't see it anywhere obvious. It would presumably mean "cooked like spat" (essentially baby oysters), "cooked on a spatula (or spatula-style)," or "cooked by, while, or after slapping" -- those all being established meanings of "spat." I suspect the mediocre translators here ran into "spatchcock," didn't know what it meant, and were reminded of "spit-cooked." Not everyone has as dirty a mind as you and I do, you know.

post #41 of 55

Not everyone has as dirty a mind as you and I do, you know.

 

How sad. What boring lives they must live.

They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
post #42 of 55

So the phrase really means nothing more than "cooked over the embers."

 

Or, in other words, grilled (or as you Yankees say, barbecued)? 

 

Whether you want to distinguish "butterfly" from "spatchcock" strikes me as a piece of precision that the older history won't sustain, so it's more a question of arguing what the words should mean now, instead of what they already mean.

 

I'm less interested in the semantics, per se, than in the actual techniques. Splitting a bird and leaving the bones in means it will cook differently, and make a different presentation, then one which is partially boned. So the reason for any differentiation is to assure that the reader (of the menu, of the recipe, whatever) understands your intent.

 

That aside, Siduri is so right. Some words are just inherently fun. "Brooklyn" is a fun word, for instance while "Indianapolis" is not. Samee-same here: Spatchcock is a word filled with whimsy, lending itself to deep connotative ruminations. In short: fun. But what can you do with "butterfly?"

They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
post #43 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYHeirloomer View Post
 But what can you do with "butterfly?"

 

worry about winged pests in my butter? Have visions of butter being flung out a window?
 

"In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were real men, women were real women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. "
Reply
"In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were real men, women were real women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. "
Reply
post #44 of 55

Surely "crapaudine" is funny? As to place name, "Schenectady" is tops in my book.

 

Actually, and I realize we've now drifted this thread wildly, so if the OP wants to tell us to quit it, s/he'd be well within reason --- I was turning this over in my head, this spatchcocking problem, and it occurred to me that en crapaudine doesn't mean either butterflying or spatchcocking (if there's a difference). I reread the awful instructions in Ducasse's Grand Livre, and I'm right: to prepare a bird (usually a smallish game bird, usually pigeonneau -- squab) en crapaudine, you split and fold it the other way, crosswise. You end up with a whole breast on the front, then part of the back with the legs sort of akimbo but with the knees in the air, so it looks sort of like a toad preparing to jump at you (the breast becomes the head of the toad). You can then grill the thing that way. So "spat-cooked" is totally wrong, no matter how you think about it -- it's not on a spatula, you don't slap it, and it's nothing like oysters, and what's more it's nothing like any spatchcocking any of us or the OED has heard of.

 

Now that we've settled the uselessness of my complete tangent, what should we discuss instead?

post #45 of 55

You end up with a whole breast on the front, then part of the back with the legs sort of akimbo but with the knees in the air, so it looks sort of like a toad preparing to jump at you (the breast becomes the head of the toad).

 

 I'm trying to envision how you eat something like that with any kind of grace.

 

And where's the parson's piece? Seems as if the breast must be resting on top of it, no?

They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
post #46 of 55

Bringing it home, the Ducasse recipe clearly demonstrates why ingredient count and speed of preparation aren't synonymous.

 

Pommes Dauphine requires six ingredients if you count my way, but only four if you use the 5-ingredients fix rubric (salt & pepper don't count).

 

The en crapaudine could be anything. At it's simplest we're talking two ingredients: chicken and butter. But the butchering and folding aren't simple, by any means.

 

Sauce Diable pushes the concept, because it has six ingredients. But there are more-or-less traditional variations that leave out the vinegar, bringing it down to only five---providing we count the demi-glace as only one (which the rules seem to allow)

 

So, here are three recipes, each of which uses 5 ingredients or fewer. Yet none of them are particularly simple to prepare.

They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
post #47 of 55

The Larousse Gastronomique, edition before the present one, gives "en crapaudine" as synonymous with "spatchcock," which they take to mean split down the back and with the ribs removed. It's an English-edited book, if that matters to you.

 

"A la diable" is a lot simpler than 6 ingredients. Usually it's just prepared Dijon mustard and breadcrumbs, to which you maybe add salt and pepper if you think they're needed -- but of course, those don't count (for some reason) in the Gang Of Five. You can toss in a little fat of some kind to make it brown more smoothly, but if you want that you can always just use a little of the fatty juices from the chicken -- remember, you cook it almost completely before crumbing and broiling it, so you've got some juices. I say it's 2 ingredients, plus one chicken, and let's count salt and pepper and you've got Five Easy Pieces. If you really want en crapaudine in the old grotesque-haute-cuisine mode, you can add two slices of hard-boiled egg white and two thin triangles of black truffle, from which you fashion eyes, and then you forget about salt and pepper and it's still Five Phases Cooking.

 

Hey, we could have some totally unhelpful fun with this. We could come up with all kinds of wonderful, relatively quick recipes that have only 5 ingredients (or fewer), but that clearly the audience for this course have less than no interest in cooking under any circumstances. How long do split sheep testicles take to cook, anyway? Sorry -- I won't do that, but the whole concept irks me no end.

post #48 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYHeirloomer View Post


And where's the parson's piece? Seems as if the breast must be resting on top of it, no?


That's one of the drawbacks to the way I spatchcock a chicken.  The parson's nose stays with the backbone to eventually find its way into the stockpot.  When doing a whole roasted chicken intact that morsel never touches my lips - it bounces right off my tongue into my belly

 

And as far as my earlier discussion regarding the keel bone and the difference between butterfly and spatchcock, go to Youtube and look for Good Eats "A Bird in the Pan" episode.

 

mjb.

Food nourishes my body.  Cooking nourishes my soul.
Reply
Food nourishes my body.  Cooking nourishes my soul.
Reply
post #49 of 55

OK, Teamfat, I'll look at it. But although Alton Brown won my "okay, give him credit" award -- big of me, I know -- for his "yes, you can trim and French your own rack of lamb" episode, I do not trust him for any historical information, nor that food historian person he carts around with him. I have spotted many significant historical errors for which I could give you extensive really serious scholarly references. Still, he's always entertaining, so I'll hold my nose and take a look.

 

I am also saying this so that I can have the pleasure or horror of later saying "toldja, he's full of it," or "ooooops, foot in mouth again, mmmmfsshsffssfsfssmmmmmmm." Can't do that at work so much, so why not now?

post #50 of 55

I agree with you about Alton Brown, Chris. He's never been a favorite of mine, and much of his food history must be made up out of whole cloth cuz it can't be documented and flies in the face of actual historical info.

 

The sad thing is, there often are cases where there are both factual and legendary reasons for food names and proceedures. The legends usually are more fun; such as the different explanations for the name Sally Lunn.

 

There is no reason to make up your own stories, just so you can appear all-knowing about culinary matters.

 

My antipathy goes deeper, though. I think a little of his schtick goes a long, long way. I don't care for his my-way-or-the-highway approach. And his numerous self-contradictions leave me cold.

 

Add it up, and the last person I'd accept as an authority on butterfly/spatchcock is Mr. Brown.

They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
post #51 of 55

"A la diable" is a lot simpler than 6 ingredients.

 

Yes and no, Chris. There are numerous modern simplified versions. But I wanted to make it as difficult as possible to fit the five easy pieces rubric, so used the classic recipe. Besides, if we're talking Ducasse, to we dare do otherwise?

 

According to James Peterson, here is the classic:

 

Sauce Diable

 

Finely chop 3 shallots and combine them with 5 fluid ounces of white wine and 5 fluid ounces of white wine vinegar. Reduce the mixture by two-thirds until about 6 tablespoons of flavor base remain. Add 7 fluid ounces of demi-glace or coulis, and recuce slightly until the sauce has a very lightly syrupy consistency. Add cayenne to taste.

 

 

They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
They have taken the oath of the brother in blood, in leavened bread and salt. Rudyard Kipling
Reply
post #52 of 55

Feh. Peterson? Let's get serious here.

 

"A La Diable Sauce

"Finely mince the [200g] shallots and sweat without browning in some olive oil in a saute pan. Deglaze with the [20 cl] champagne vinegar and [20 cl] white wine, add the [1 Tb] coriander seeds, [2 branches] tarragon ... and [1 Tb] coarsely ground black pepper, then reduce the sauce until dry.

 

"Set aside half this reduction for the condiment.

 

"Add the [100g] coarsely chopped tomatoes to the rest of this reduction, folding in the caramelized meat juices with a spatula, moisten with the [20 cl] pigeon [squab] juice and simmer for 30 minutes over a low heat. When cooked, the juice should be syrupy and very flavored [sic]. Add the [1] Espelette chilli, infuse for 10 minutes and filter through a fine-meshed chinois without pressing.

 

"A La Diable Condiment

"Mash the [50 g squab] livers and hearts with a knife, making sure to remove any fatty parts beforehand.

 

"Reduce the [2 cl] pigeon juice to a glaze in a saute pan, add the reduced sauce set aside previously as well as all of the condiment ingredients [i.e., 50g confit tomato strips, 1 Tb Meaux-style mustard, 1 branch tarragon]."

 

To serve, coat the meat (which is not cooked with anything but fleur de sel and pepper) with the sauce, then serve the rest of the sauce in a separate casserole and present the condiment in small cups.

 

Just the sort of thing Rachael Ray likes, right?

post #53 of 55

Crapaudine: (sometimes I've seen it with the toad's eyes: a slice of hard boiled egg, and a half black olive on top, for each eye, on each breast (at the right on the picture).

 

decouper-poulet-crapaudine.jpg

post #54 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisLehrer View Post

The "au diable" just means the mustard and crumb crust, really.


Not really, the mustard and  crumb are just a way to finish the chicken, a flavorful breading. "diable" is the name of the sauce, which is what I and KYH have described: stock, shallots, vinegar, tomato, pepper, then monte au beurre.

 

Note that the name is not "Sauce au diable", which would translates to "Sauce made from devil" - so actually a sauce made from the meat of the devil's body ... (sounds funny actually) but "Sauce a la diable", or "Sauce diable", or "Sauce du diable", which translates to "Sauce made as the devil would" or something like that.

 

post #55 of 55

Thanks for all of these lovely ideas.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Food & Cooking
ChefTalk.com › ChefTalk Cooking Forums › Cooking Discussions › Food & Cooking › Fast and Easy (5 ingredients or Less) Recipes