Hey Grandpa Delphas, what's for supper?

It has been suggested that I seek an alternative venue for my evening meal announcements.  This is acceptable, so here is where I'll post them.  Bear in mind I have a gas stove, a has oven, and an electric convection oven, so some of your results may vary.

First is the rice.  The easy way? Get a pot.  Add a splash of olive oil, 1 part rice, 2 parts water (or broth if you like something with flavour).  Foil the pan tightly.  Put pan in oven at 350F for 60 minutes.  Rice is perfect.  There, now you don't have any excuses for shitty rice ever again.  If you like your rice ``sticky'' then go with medium grain (more starch/area).  If you don't like your rice sticky then go with long grain (less starch/area).

Tonight was a variation on dopiaza.  For those literate, ``dopiaza'' is persian meaning ``two onions'', but I went with more of a tripiaza.  The ``two'' (or three in my case) isn't the count of onions, but the number of times onions were added to cooking process (similar to how adding hops at two different points of the brewing process makes a beer ``double-hopped'').  Since we're going to do some high-temp cooking here, I do NOT suggest Extra-virgin Olive Oil, Virgin Olive Oil, or even Vegatable Oil.  That stuff is going to burn.  You just need a tblsp of peanut oil (smoke point is on the order of 400F, so we should be good until the very end).

First I added some tomato sauce (we'll and some paste to thicken it later) to a large pot.  I let that warm up on low heat for now.  Then I chopped two medium onions and three ribs of celery and put them on to sweat.  ``Sweating'' means med-low heat (no sizzle! just a light rustle).  You can a  bit of salt at this point, and since it'll draw some moisture out of them it'll help the cooking process.  Don't stir them or mess around with them more than once or twice (the oil will transfer the heat).  Once them things turn sort of transparent you can move them to the pot.  Next I chopped up one small onion and turned the heat up to 11.  This (cooking on very high) is called ``saute-ing'', which is french for ``Keep it moving, baby!''.  If you don't ``Keep it moving, baby!'' your onions are going to burn, so shake that skillet (or flip with a silicone spatula if you don't know how to flip the pan) every 30-45 seconds.  NASA considers this ``hot'', and NASA measures the temperature of stars.  Now once you have some nice delicious browning throw them into that pot.  This is really just the first chance to add onion.  Turn the skillet down to low for the moment, but not off; we're going to cook the shit out of something there in just a few minutes.

The sauce should be warming up now, so go ahead and attack the hell out of that pot with anything that will make your house smell like a restaurant.  I added oregano, parsley, cilantro, sage, chili powder, turmeric, corriander, a couple of forkfuls of minced garlic, one small onion chopped, one parsnip chopped, two carrots chopped, a handful of radishes chopped, and some chopped spinach (I bought mine from a can) and some sweet peas.  Then I gave it the evil eye and added a crapload of cumin and some paprika and a touch more coriander.  For good measure I stole/add a container of the toddler's cocoanut yogurt.  Yumm! Turn the heat up to medium and keep a lid on that.  We still need them raw veggies to cook!

I bought simple, good old-fashioned chuck.  Yes, the toughest hunk of beef there ever was.  Cube that up into anything between 1/2" and 3/2" and you'll be fine.  I used 1.5#, but I'm a big eater so your mileage may vary.  Crank the heat under that skillet back up to 11 and wait a minute or two.  Once the skillet is still damn hot again go ahead and throw in your meat (you can use chix or shrimp or pork or even tofu.. I was jsut in the mood for beef tonight) but make sure you keep it to a single layer.  That stuff should sizzle immediately, but DO NOT TURN IT.  DO NOT TOUCH IT.  Let it really sizzle and pop and snap and all that good stuff for a minute or two or three.  JUST DO NOT TOUCH IT.  Willpower.. remember willpower... you can do this.  See, browning is delicious, but browning is the result of pyrolysis.  This means so long as juices are rendering out of that thing your meat has no chance of burning at all.  The trouble is it also won't brown.  The solution? Let it cook for a few minutes on the stove, then move your skillet under the broiler.  A broiler is just an upside-down grill.  Broil on high and you'll be in the clover, because any water will render to the bottom of the skillet, leaving the top and sides nice and exposed to the super-high heat.  Now these babies can brown because both the temperature will get hot enough, and the flames are going to suck up most of the oxygen (any halogen will impede pyrolysis, btw).  How long? The more time the better, but do take them out before they are burnt to a crisp because while browning is delicious, burning tastes like garbage.  You want to see some really good darkening all over.

Remove from oven, plop into pot, bring pot to boil, then kill heat down to lowest of low.  We'll just let that simmer for a while.  You can add almost anything to thicken (tomato paste, roux, cornstarch slurry [which tastes just as bad as it sounds], etc).  I'm a big fan of tomato paste and roux with this.  Too much tomato paste and things tend to get sweet really quick (tomato paste is nature's candy).

Oh, the third onion? When you serve, serve it over the rice and then cover it with chopped scallions.  I suggest serving with fresh nan if possible (it's just flour, water, and yeast... make the dough on sunday and then just pinch off a bit to rise when you go to work.  At dinner just flatten and bake with the rice directly on the rack).

Eh-yup, a good dinner had by all, and only took an hour (but I tend to Iron Chef things because the sooner I finish cooking the sooner I can take a break and eat and slack off).
</RANT>

Comments

  • ShaddusShaddus , the Leper Messiah Outside your window.
    edited March 2015
    Grandpa Delphas, my pan won't fold in half. What do I do?



    ..never mind, you said foil. Not fold.
    Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
  •  I'm just curious, what does baking the rice do to it?
    is dead like the dodo
  • EnyalidaEnyalida Nasty Woman, Sockpuppeteer to the Gods
    Cooks it.
  • LuceLuce Fox Populi
    Xeria said:

     I'm just curious, what does baking the rice do to it?

    Ordinarily (correct me if I'm wrong) the primary difference between baking and boiling the rice would be speed and loss of liquid, but if the pan is foiled properly so that it can't lose the water as quickly, it comes down to 60 minutes verses the stovetop equivalent, which I usually find is 30-45 minutes? However, my rice rarely comes out properly. Using the oven should also provide a more even temperature, which in cooking is generally a good thing.

    Hey Grandpa Delphas, how do you usually deal with the rice's tendancy to try to boil over and ruin the bottom of your oven/drip pan. (I know it can be scrubbed clean, but that's why I said 'try')
  • EnyalidaEnyalida Nasty Woman, Sockpuppeteer to the Gods
    Yeah, the idea behind baking it instead of using the stovetop would be to have a more even heat... but more importantly, to prevent you from bothering the rice or peaking at it and subsequently screwing it up.
  • Enyalida said:

    Yeah, the idea behind baking it instead of using the stovetop would be to have a more even heat... but more importantly, to prevent you from bothering the rice or peaking at it and subsequently screwing it up.

    It also doesn't burn even if you accidentally leave it in for 15 mins too long (try that on the stove-top, especially if you're using propane instead of ``natural gas'').

    Things are predictable: rather than guessing sometime between 25 and 35 minutes, you can just plop it in for exactly 60 minutes.

    Cooking is chemistry and physics which taste delicious.
    </RANT>
  • EnyalidaEnyalida Nasty Woman, Sockpuppeteer to the Gods
    Ah, I use an electric range, always have. The heat they apply at each setting is pretty consistent and dependable. 
  • Luce said:

    Xeria said:

     I'm just curious, what does baking the rice do to it?

    Ordinarily (correct me if I'm wrong) the primary difference between baking and boiling the rice would be speed and loss of liquid, but if the pan is foiled properly so that it can't lose the water as quickly, it comes down to 60 minutes verses the stovetop equivalent, which I usually find is 30-45 minutes? However, my rice rarely comes out properly. Using the oven should also provide a more even temperature, which in cooking is generally a good thing.

    Hey Grandpa Delphas, how do you usually deal with the rice's tendancy to try to boil over and ruin the bottom of your oven/drip pan. (I know it can be scrubbed clean, but that's why I said 'try')
    I have no idea how to deal with ``boil-over'' or ``burning''.  Because I use the oven those things never happen.

    Pro tip: Like to camp? You can bake your rice in a dutch oven too.
    </RANT>
  • Enyalida said:

    Ah, I use an electric range, always have. The heat they apply at each setting is pretty consistent and dependable. 

    Indeed, once the coil comes to proper heat these modern electrics don't vary too much.  I still prefer gas because changes to heat are instantaneous, and often more economical, but your mileage may vary on that last one.  I prefer to raise a fire to make a nice bed of coals for cooking, but since the weather (and time-constraints) isn't always with me then I guess my mileage varies as well.
    </RANT>
  • Put a wooden spoon over your pot.
  • edited March 2015
    @luce use a taller pot or buy an electric rice cooker. If you're doing it on the stove top, you're suppose to turn down the heat to a simmer -after- the water has come to a boil. No burnt rice! 
    is dead like the dodo
  • TarkentonTarkenton Traitor Bear
    Electric rice cooker is handy. My house eats a lot of rice, so I don't mind having it on the counter. Would also recommend a good rice colander.
    image
  • Yes, specialized steamers and cookers are handy.  I also already own an oven.  I can spend $45 on a special-purpose device which only does one thing, or I can spend $0 for something I already own which does a million things.  I'm sticking with the oven.  I like to call it ``common sense'' but I'm also the son of a merchant, which means to me the word ``waste'' is a very dirty word.  Besides, when I'm cooking I have so much going on for the sauce and the main (all meals should have a sauce, Imho) then I really don't have time to be bothered with the starch.

    Now, on to tonight's post!
    </RANT>
  • Last night, due to time constraints, I roasted a chicken.  It was nothing fancy, but Saturday I'm turning the remains of that bad boy into chicken & biscuits with gravy.  So what to do for tonight? Beef tips with gravy over noodles, of course!

    The first thing we'll need is some roux.  You know how to make a pie crust? It's just flour and butter.  Then it sounds like you know how to make roux.  Drop a stick of butter into a small pot or small skillet and, as Johnny Storm would say,  ``flame-on!'' until thoroughly melted.  Now just add as much flour as that will hold.  You'll add a bunch and swear it's too much but you still don't have enough.  If you see any sort of sheen, like a beige oil-slick, then you need to keep adding flour.  Don't worry if you accidentally add too much, by the way.  We're making roux, not plutonium! One extra proton or one fewer neutron will not screw this up.  Just keep adding flour until you have something which isn't shiny, and crumbles into small grains.  There you go! You've just fried flour, which appears to be french for roux.

    Now we'll start the mirepoix.  I chopped one small onion and two ribs of celery and tossed them into my trusty skillet.  Once again I used peanut oil because later on we're cranking the heat to 11.  While that sweat (med-low, just a quiet rustle) I added chopped two carrots and tossed them into a pot, then added the celery and onions when they were nice and transparent.  I added enough beef stock (not broth) to cover them, covered the pot, and then put them on the back burner to warm up (but not come to a boil just yet).  Stock is made from bones and connective tissues, whereas broth is made from meat.  We're going to use some of each in this process, but for now just the stock.

    Now I cubed up some beef and cooked that identically as the tripiaza from the other day.  Remember we want dark colours and a little crisping, but don't burn anything.  If you get nervous you can take it out a little early until you gain some confidence.  Now dump that into the gravy pot we started, crank the heat up to the most (those carrots aren't cooked just yet), and add enough broth to cover everything.  At this point I deglazed my pan and added the gristle too, but you can skip that.

    It won't take much time to get that pot up to a good and violent boil.  While it heats up you can grab a cigarette and start today's forum post.  It should boil like that for a few minutes to make sure them carrots get softened, because this is going to be our gravy and no one likes crunchy gravy.  Now take it off the heat completely and remove the lid.  We can't thicken it until the temperature comes down quite a bit.  This is due to how the proteins in the flour react to the fats in the liquid.  When proteins get heated up they tend to crinkle up (ever burn a piece of hair?).  If there are any fats in proximity, the proteins will, ahh, ``take the world in a love embrace''.  This is exactly what we want.  But if the liquid is already above 195F? Then you don't have gravy.  You have soup with lumps in it.  You need that pot to cool way down before you add the roux so it won't instantly crinkle.

    In the event you cannot wait that long, you can attempt to maintain the temper of the roux with an alternate route.  Ladle out 1/4-1/2 of the liquids (no solids) into a container and slap that container into the 'fridge or freezer.  It will still take a long time (water has a very high specific heat), but if you can't wait for the whole pot to cool then so be it.  Once that minority has cooled add your roux to this and thoroughly mix it.  Then return this to the main pot and thoroughly mix it all together.  Technically this is a slurry, but since it's not a corn starch slurry it won't ruin the flavour of your gravy.

    Regardless of how you add the roux, now you can crank the heat up to the most.  Constantly stir while doing so, so you don't have a layer of paste at the bottom and soup at the top.  You'll feel it start to thicken on you, and here comes the worry.  It won't be a proper gravy unless the proteins and fats have had a chance to do their thing, but sadly it will get more firm when it cools to serving temperature.  Also I don't have any advice for how much roux to how much gravy.  Just add only a little roux at a time, constantly stirring and mixing, until it is just slightly too thin to be gravy.  Just a hair too thin is the good rule.  It should have legs, but not so thick it can be eaten with a fork.  Comprende? When you get to this point take it off the heat so it can cool to serving temperature.

    As for the noodles, I went with wacky mac.  Sure there are plenty of veggies in the gravy, and we're enjoying a salad of tomatoes and cucumbers with lemon juice and extra virgin olive oil, but I'll take any excuse to shove yet another veggie down my children's throat.  I can further fortify them by boiling the noodles in the last few swishes of stock and broth.  They'll absorb some of that beefy yumminess too, but you can just boil them up in plain water if you like.  Just remember to add way more salt to that water than you think is necessary, because the noodles aren't going to absorb much of it.  You could also add some celery salt and onion powder if you wanted to broaden the palette of the noodles.  I always do.

    My noodles just finished their boil, and it is 1800 on the dot.  I love it when a plan comes together, B.A.
    </RANT>
  • So, two nights ago time was tight so I roasted a chicken.  How? I put it in in the oven, stupid.

    Well, not quite.  First, using my fingers, I reached in between the skin and flesh to separate the skin.  Here is my secret attack strategy! Using my hands (which were thoroughly washed, but I guess one could use a spoon) I added those delicious herbs which make chicken taste great, such as Rosemary (the herb of Memory), Thyme (herb of spring, which the romans added to autumn dishes as remembrance), and Sage (good old American sage!) between the skin and flesh.  Then I sprinkled salt all over the bird (even rubbing it in where necessary, such as those hard-to-reach or sheltered places), and then thoroughly oiled it up with Virgin (but not Exra Virgin) Olive Oil.  The next step?

    DO NOT PUT ANYTHING INSIDE THAT BIRD! Do y'hear me? Seriously.  Don't! Filling (or as you Philistines call it, ``stuffing'') is just insulation.  We insulate things (such as our house) to prevent temperature changes.  Do you really want the innards (yes, that is a scientific term) of your bird to remain a constant 35F throughout the cooking?

    Filling is delicious, so if you have a chance go ahead and sweat one medium onion, two ribs of celery, and one carrot until cooked, and then follow directions on your package (or add croutons and then cover with chix broth), but do NOT put this inside your bird just yet.

    Now salt is hydrostatic.  That means it draws moisture towards it, and most proteins are water soluble which means it draws flavour up to the surface.  As we covered before, browning is pyrolytic reaction between heat and proteins in the absence of halogens (such as Oxygen).  Browning is delicious.  Believe you me, once the skin is free-floating from the flesh, it'll crisp up super-delicious.  I just add a few cracks of black pepper, but some have dipped it into Mayonnaise.  To each their own.

    Once the bird is measured at the deepest and thickest part to not less than 165F (I prefer 175F) you can fluff up your bird with the filling.  Why? Well, if that stuffing were to insulate the interior of the bird then we would have problems.  The ``middle'' of the meat might measure one temp, but the innards (the deepest part) might be considerably cooler.  So don't add your filling until everything has come up to temp! Go ahead and add the now-cooked filling and go do something else for a short while.  Relax, it won't dry the bird to cook it a few minutes longer.  Dryness actually comes from another problem.

    Have you ever had a really dry turkey or chicken? Of course you have.  This is because whomever carved it didn't know what they were doing.  Meat is, by definition, the muscle fibres of the animal.  When they are cooked up they contract.  This contraction (read: squeezing or coiling) drives the juices out of them.  Once the bird has come to temperature simply remove it and let it rest on the cutting board for 15 minutes.  As the bird cools these fibres relax and the juices return to fill the slack in the spaces.  If you get in hurry? Well, sure, you'll carve that bird but it'll be as dry as a bone and not even gravy will help you.  If you don't have a probe thermometer? It is properly cooked when the juices of the thickest part run clear when cut, so you'll just have to keep it in there longer than you think is necessary.  Remember the skin will brown before the bird itself cooks, but it won't burn any time soon.

    There are many opinions when it comes to roasting pans.  Just be aware that ``roasting'' is ``surrounding with dry heat'', so whatever you're roasting cannot be directly on the pan (lest the bottom not roast, but fry or boil or bake!).  Me? I like to rest my meat on a bed of veggies (carrots, celery, onions, potatoes) in a 2" half-pan.  That seems to do the trick, and said veggies inherit the deliciousness of whatever I roasted.
    </RANT>
  • edited March 2015
    Delphas said:

    Now salt is hydrostatic.  That means it draws moisture towards it, and most proteins are water soluble which means it draws flavour up to the surface.  As we covered before, browning is pyrolytic reaction between heat and proteins in the absence of halogens (such as Oxygen).  


    @Delphas, I am sorry to be a pedant, but chemistry is my meat and potatoes, and every science point here is wrong.  The term 'hydrostatic' indicates osmotic equilibrium, i.e. that there is no net movement of water towards or away from one part of the system.  You mean to say that salt is a dessicant. 

    Pyrolysis refers to thermal decomposition reactions, a process most people would be familiar with in the form of combustion reactions.  The cooking process actually induces a set of processes collectively known as the 'Maillard reaction' which are primarily redox and combination processes rather than decomposition.  As an aside, carmelization does result in pyrolysis.

    Finally, oxygen is a chalcogen, along with sulfur, selenium, and a few more exotic elements.  Halogens are typically 'oxidative' molecules, but the family consists of fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine, all of which are substantially more lethal in their elemental form than oxygen.

    Edit: Added in carmelization.
  • Zitto said:

    Delphas said:

    Now salt is hydrostatic.  That means it draws moisture towards it, and most proteins are water soluble which means it draws flavour up to the surface.  As we covered before, browning is pyrolytic reaction between heat and proteins in the absence of halogens (such as Oxygen).  


    @Delphas, I am sorry to be a pedant, but chemistry is my meat and potatoes, and every science point here is wrong.  The term 'hydrostatic' indicates osmotic equilibrium, i.e. that there is no net movement of water towards or away from one part of the system.  You mean to say that salt is a dessicant. 

    Pyrolysis refers to thermal decomposition reactions, a process most people would be familiar with in the form of combustion reactions.  The cooking process actually induces a set of processes collectively known as the 'Maillard reaction' which are primarily redox and combination processes rather than decomposition.  As an aside, carmelization does result in pyrolysis.

    Finally, oxygen is a chalcogen, along with sulfur, selenium, and a few more exotic elements.  Halogens are typically 'oxidative' molecules, but the family consists of fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine, all of which are substantially more lethal in their elemental form than oxygen.

    Edit: Added in carmelization.
    I'm sorry.  I always thought Pyrolosys was ``Pyrolysis is a thermochemical decomposition of organic material at elevated temperatures in the absence of oxygen (or any halogen). It involves the simultaneous change of chemical composition and physical phase, and is irreversible. The word is coined from the Greek-derived elements pyro "fire" and lysis "separating".''  Where here am I wrong?

    With respect to Hydrostatic, with common materials being sugar and salt, I take this to mean yes, the salt or sugar draws moisture towards it as in ``When liquids are constrained in vessels whose dimensions are small, compared to the relevant length scales, surface tension effects become important leading to the formation of a meniscus through capillary action.
    This capillary action has profound consequences for biological systems
    as it is part of one of the two driving mechanisms of the flow of water
    in plant xylem, the transpirational pull.''

    Where, exactly, am I confused? Because my understanding seems to be in complete agreement with that which you assert.

    Wrt Carmelazation, the Maillard reacation, we find second-level reactions here but usually apropos the fist two discussed previously.  I do not mean to be argumentive, but rather take my correction where it is due! I have been an engineer for almost 30 years now and therefore value the assertive voice of science.
    </RANT>
  • Protip: You can slow the Maillard reaction with the addition of an acid, such a delicious vinegar.  Maybe useful if you insist on browning meatballs in a skillet as opposed to an oven?
    </RANT>
  • I must have forgetten my CRC, if I misplaced O in the Halogens.  My fault on that mark.
    </RANT>
  • edited March 2015
    Sorry if I sounded a bit cranky.  I just like any chance to discuss science, and chemistry in particular.  

    Hydrostatic is the easier part to discuss.  The term hydrostatic refers to one of two concepts: in a chemical sense, it describes a system in osmotic equilibrium.  A hydrostatic system is one in which there is no net movement of water.  In the situation you described, salt is disturbing equilibrium and causing the migration of water to the surface.  I agree that this is what will happen, but disagreed with your description because net migration of water is the opposite of the chemical term 'hydrostatic.'  I think the confusion here is because the term hydrostatic is also used to describe the field of study relating to the physical forces of fluids at rest.  In this context, hydrostatics would address concepts such as buoyancy and fluid pressure, but would in no way whatsoever address migration of water.  When you're considering whether or not water will migrate, the chemical definition applies.  When you're considering the physical forces exerted by fluids, the engineering definition applies.  The thing these terms have in common is that if water is moving, the term hydrostatic does not apply.

    Regarding the other terms, my major dispute is that 'pyrolysis' refers to heat causing molecules to fall apart into smaller molecules, while during most browning processes (carmelization excluded) you see primarily molecules experiencing structural rearrangements and combinations.  The Malliard reaction is characterized by the formation of glycosylamines, which consist of fused sugars and amino acids that rearrange into ketosamines.  These are both thermal processes, but pyrolysis involves molecules falling apart, while Malliard reactions involve synthesis, or molecules becoming more complex through combination.

    Edit: Removed a discussion on chemical families.
  • OK, so we agree in part, which means if your specialty is Chemistry then I cannot argue further, since you agree Pyrolosys and Maillirrd are related because neither will happen in the presence of water since liquid water has such a cool boiling point and polluting substances.

    With respect to the powers of salt or sugar for drawing humidity towards it (and away from whatever it covers) can you name the specific prorcess? It is obvious both have a ``generically drying action'' and I would be most keen on learning this terminology.  Wrt cooking, I have relied on the above capillary action to remove moisture to aid browning, so I would like to know simply so I can stop being a dumbass.  There are many dishes which require sugar just as many require salt, and I would be most grateful to know.

    Also, what other reactions with organic compounds ought we know regarding the addition of acid? I would rather not repeat the vinegar falsehoods, but instead extend the wine of truth with such matters.

    Thanks for your corrections.
    </RANT>
  • Delphas said:

    Pyrolosys and Maillirrd are related because neither will happen in the presence of water since liquid water has such a cool boiling point and polluting substances.

    There is actually an entire field of study related to pyrolysis in water!  Hydrous Pyrolysis 
    That said, many baking reactions occur above water's boiling point, but not all.  Consider for example that you can boil an egg.  The trouble with a term like pyrolysis or synthesis is that it has a very specific reserved meaning.  For this reason, nomenclature like browning, carmelizing, malting, toasting, etc. are preferred in culinary science, as they describe the effect on the taste, texture, and appearance of the food without implying technical details of the chemical reactions involved.  They are also preferred because people don't like it when you tell them you are polymerizing their food..  As for water polluting substances, I am afraid I am inept at Geomancy and cannot comment.
    Delphas said:

    With respect to the powers of salt or sugar for drawing humidity towards it (and away from whatever it covers) can you name the specific prorcess? It is obvious both have a ``generically drying action'' and I would be most keen on learning this terminology. 

    The preferred chemical term for a compound which accumulates water from its surroundings is hygroscopic.  


    Delphas said:

    Also, what other reactions with organic compounds ought we know regarding the addition of acid? 

    The most interesting thing I can think of regarding adding acids to food involve the reason why seafood is commonly served with lemon.  This practice began prior to electrical refrigeration, when such products had a certain amount of time to age.  As the fish decay, nitrogen-bearing compounds called amines are released.  These compounds are responsible for the intense odor of spoiled sea-food.  The addition of an acid protonates the amines, forming an ammonium complex that does not possess the offensive smell or taste characteristic of amines.
  • From my experience, acid impedes the crinkling of proteins.  Your mileage may not vary.  I still do not know the proper chemical term for this reaction.
    </RANT>
  • So there it is, Hydroscopic not Hydrostatic.  Live long enough learn just enough, eh?
    </RANT>
  • I decided to go with soup instead of gravy'n'biscuits.  I accidentally added some whole cloves instead of whole black peppercorns.  I noticed my mistake almost immediately (a pretty recognizable smell) so only a few made it into the pot.  I left them in rather than pick them out.  I've had cloved chicken before, so maybe the soup will turn out Ok.  If not? The absolute worst thing that can happen is I'll order something delivered.

    The real moral of this story is never be afraid to just give things a try.  The absolute worst thing that can happen isn't burning it or making something that tastes terrible.  The absolute worst thing that can happen is you'll finally try that new sandwich shop down the street, or have something delivered which you haven't had in ages.  The absolute worst that can happen sounds pretty good to me, so don't cringe about getting measurements perfect or the timing down to the second.  Just go with it and have fun making something.
    </RANT>
Sign In or Register to comment.