Doris and I visited my mum this evening, to investigate her lack of Internet. I fixed it, and gave her some tactics for using against SKY, the next time it fails (tomorrow, perhaps). We had a nice chat, in the process of which we spoke about cookistry, and this blog.
I showed my mum a random entry here. It was my "Cabbage Sandwich" one. My mum said "you didn't like lettuce when you were young. You would eat cabbage because it was cooked. Of course, cabbage was never stored in the fridge". Aha! I found a head of brassica in the fridge, so therefore it MUST have been lettuce! I am vindicated! :D
We also spoke about my most recent blog entry, "Gravy Stock". When I said that I hadn't known that gravy and stock are different things, my mum said "yes they are". This needed investigation ...
Mum spoke about her mother, who would add water to meat juices and serve that as gravy. This is how Mum learned what constitutes gravy. She also spoke about her mother-in-law, who would make gravy that Mum didn't like. Apparently, this was made by mixing water with Gravy Browning. I had no idea what "Gravy Browning" is, but Doris came to the rescue ...
Gravy Browning is supposed to be added to a lard-based gravy. Lard-based gravy has no colour. To make it more appetizing, you add Gravy Browning to change the colour to something that looks "gravy-coloured".
So, I have one grandmother would would make gravy by adding gravy browning to water, and another grandmother who would make gravy by adding meat juices to water. My Mum makes much better gravy, by adding stock cubes to water. It seems that my exploits in the kitchen are maintaining a family tradition of being crap in the kitchen!
I now have an excuse. I will try not to use it very often, but in the back of my mind, whenever I have a cookery disaster in the future, I will be thinking "but this rubbish is STILL better than my forebears' efforts!"
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
Friday, 4 February 2011
Gravy Stock
This evening, I served-up grilled pork loin, mashed potatoes, petits pois and gravy. I didn't really have any disasters whilst cooking. Ok, I cooked twice as many potatoes as I should have done, and the smoke alarm blared, but those are just normal side-effects of my cookistry prowess. Also, I had to serve the plates singularly, as I had poured too much gravy over the meals.
When I served Doris's to her, she asked how I'd made the gravy. Come to think of it, she asked whether I'd had trouble with the gravy at the weekend, when I cooked roast Lamb.
I explained that I didn't understand how it had gone wrong, as it was about 1/3 of a pint of water with a vegetable Oxo cube in it, following the instructions on the side of the Oxo box. Our measuring jugs don't have a marker for "1/3 Pint", so I thought that possibly I'd used the wrong amount of water. This admission prompted a discussion about the difference between stock and gravy. Apparently, I have been serving stock in place of gravy.
I have successfully made gravy in the past, after Doris taught me. The opening line to her tutelage was always "Using the juice from the meat, ..." and neither these pork loins nor the lamb at the weekend expelled any juice. Now I know ... if the meat doesn't leave any juices behind, use olive oil instead, and make it the same way as I've been taught, rather than just to crumble an Oxo cube into some water.
At least we had lots of spare mashed potatoes, to mop up the surplus gravy stock. I had made special mash too, using both butter and cream. When I explained this to Doris, she mentioned that she's on a diet, so needs to be aware of butter and cream intake before she eats, rather than when she's nearly finished.
At this stage, I think I should give thanks to Doris, my partner, who is becoming a long-standing Guinea Pig for my fumblings in the kitchen. I have hardly made her ill with any of the food I've served, which I count as a bonus!
She's sitting next to me, and just said "When I come home after a full-on tiring week, I can't say what I want for dinner without an ensuing drama! At least I don't shout at you". I'm thankful for small mercies, with the standard of my cooking.
When I served Doris's to her, she asked how I'd made the gravy. Come to think of it, she asked whether I'd had trouble with the gravy at the weekend, when I cooked roast Lamb.
I explained that I didn't understand how it had gone wrong, as it was about 1/3 of a pint of water with a vegetable Oxo cube in it, following the instructions on the side of the Oxo box. Our measuring jugs don't have a marker for "1/3 Pint", so I thought that possibly I'd used the wrong amount of water. This admission prompted a discussion about the difference between stock and gravy. Apparently, I have been serving stock in place of gravy.
I have successfully made gravy in the past, after Doris taught me. The opening line to her tutelage was always "Using the juice from the meat, ..." and neither these pork loins nor the lamb at the weekend expelled any juice. Now I know ... if the meat doesn't leave any juices behind, use olive oil instead, and make it the same way as I've been taught, rather than just to crumble an Oxo cube into some water.
At least we had lots of spare mashed potatoes, to mop up the surplus gravy stock. I had made special mash too, using both butter and cream. When I explained this to Doris, she mentioned that she's on a diet, so needs to be aware of butter and cream intake before she eats, rather than when she's nearly finished.
At this stage, I think I should give thanks to Doris, my partner, who is becoming a long-standing Guinea Pig for my fumblings in the kitchen. I have hardly made her ill with any of the food I've served, which I count as a bonus!
She's sitting next to me, and just said "When I come home after a full-on tiring week, I can't say what I want for dinner without an ensuing drama! At least I don't shout at you". I'm thankful for small mercies, with the standard of my cooking.
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
Eaten Mess
I cooked chicken stir fry this evening. I really need to remember to chop the veggies before starting to fry the chicken. Thankfully, Doris rescued the situation by rushing into the kitchen to chop the greens.
We have some mini meringue nests in the cupboard, along with a pot of fruit. There is also some double cream (out-of-date) in the fridge. I like Eton Mess, so I thought I'd construct it from the ingredients to-hand.
Unfortunately, the fruit is pineapple chunks. Nevertheless, these will be a good substitute for strawberries.
I chopped the nests loosely, poured the cream over them and dumped a load of the pineapple chunks on top. Although it tastes quite nice, it's missing something.
We don't have any syrup that would go with pineapple, but we have some Quality Street left over from Christmas. No-one likes the coconut chocolates.
I broke-up four of the chocolates and dumped them into my mixture. It is now speckled with chocolate and tasting of pina colada. Lovely dessert!
We have some mini meringue nests in the cupboard, along with a pot of fruit. There is also some double cream (out-of-date) in the fridge. I like Eton Mess, so I thought I'd construct it from the ingredients to-hand.
Unfortunately, the fruit is pineapple chunks. Nevertheless, these will be a good substitute for strawberries.
I chopped the nests loosely, poured the cream over them and dumped a load of the pineapple chunks on top. Although it tastes quite nice, it's missing something.
We don't have any syrup that would go with pineapple, but we have some Quality Street left over from Christmas. No-one likes the coconut chocolates.
I broke-up four of the chocolates and dumped them into my mixture. It is now speckled with chocolate and tasting of pina colada. Lovely dessert!
Sunday, 16 January 2011
Weights and Measures 2
Teaspoons and Tablespoons
As can be seen from the comments on my last two blog posts, tablespoon volume measurements are used for various things. I had never thought of using a tablespoon measurement for something hard, as I wouldn't be able to pour the substance reliably.
I have small spoons for stirring coffee (and eating ice cream).
I have spoons for taking medicine.
I have spoons for eating soup.
I have spoons for eating desserts.
I have spoons for serving vegetables.
I have wooden spoons for stirring things in pots.
I have no idea whether any of these conform to "teaspoon" or "tablespoon" measurements, but I guess that none of them do.
Some recipes require tea- or table-spoons of a substance, some require heaped tea- or table-spoons. If a recipe calls for a liquid in spoon measurements, I guess that some specific volume of spoon needs to be filled to surface-tension point, but alternatively it could be asking to be filled to a point level with the rim. The difference in volume won't be much, but if we are dealing with one teaspoon of something, the volume difference might be significant.
However, what about heaped measurements? If a recipe calls for a heaped spoonful, what angle of heap is required? Should the substance be gently domed over the spoon, at some pre-determined angle, or should the spoon be rammed into the substance as far as it will go and the amount of substance that can be crammed onto the spoon is the correct amount?
If we cake hot chocolate as an example ... the angle of friction is very high, With care, I can easily get inches of chocolate onto a small spoon. However, if we take granulated sugar, I can hardly get more height on top of the spoon than the spoon's depth. Which of these is heaped, or are they both heaped?
As can be seen from the comments on my last two blog posts, tablespoon volume measurements are used for various things. I had never thought of using a tablespoon measurement for something hard, as I wouldn't be able to pour the substance reliably.
I have small spoons for stirring coffee (and eating ice cream).
I have spoons for taking medicine.
I have spoons for eating soup.
I have spoons for eating desserts.
I have spoons for serving vegetables.
I have wooden spoons for stirring things in pots.
I have no idea whether any of these conform to "teaspoon" or "tablespoon" measurements, but I guess that none of them do.
Some recipes require tea- or table-spoons of a substance, some require heaped tea- or table-spoons. If a recipe calls for a liquid in spoon measurements, I guess that some specific volume of spoon needs to be filled to surface-tension point, but alternatively it could be asking to be filled to a point level with the rim. The difference in volume won't be much, but if we are dealing with one teaspoon of something, the volume difference might be significant.
However, what about heaped measurements? If a recipe calls for a heaped spoonful, what angle of heap is required? Should the substance be gently domed over the spoon, at some pre-determined angle, or should the spoon be rammed into the substance as far as it will go and the amount of substance that can be crammed onto the spoon is the correct amount?
If we cake hot chocolate as an example ... the angle of friction is very high, With care, I can easily get inches of chocolate onto a small spoon. However, if we take granulated sugar, I can hardly get more height on top of the spoon than the spoon's depth. Which of these is heaped, or are they both heaped?
Ridiculous Recipe?
I got linked to this recipe yesterday.
The comments on the recipe, here, seem to be unanimously dismissive, with people trying to be funny.
I have other problems with the recipe:
1. the amount of butter. Butter in the recipe seems to be measured in cups and sticks. I have no idea how to cram butter into a cup, and can only assume that a stick would be used to extract the butter from the cup after it has been squashed in.
2. I have never heard of peas in a can. I use frozen peas, so don't even know if there's a standard can size for peas.
3. the recipe doesn't say how warm the peas should be. Surely you would need to heat the peas to a level where bacteria & viruses are destroyed. I don't see how "warm" would do that.
4. the recipe doesn't say whether there wants to be an even coating of butter over the peas. I would presume that tossing, mixing or stirring would be necessary, but I don't know which would be the most successful method of buttering the peas.
Looking at the comments, I see a couple of them berating the author for writing a recipe elsewhere that instructs the cook to buy products from a store and pretend that they are home-cooked. I think that this is a great idea ... if something is difficult to cook, I would love to be directed to buy it instead. Far fewer disasters, that way!
The comments on the recipe, here, seem to be unanimously dismissive, with people trying to be funny.
I have other problems with the recipe:
1. the amount of butter. Butter in the recipe seems to be measured in cups and sticks. I have no idea how to cram butter into a cup, and can only assume that a stick would be used to extract the butter from the cup after it has been squashed in.
2. I have never heard of peas in a can. I use frozen peas, so don't even know if there's a standard can size for peas.
3. the recipe doesn't say how warm the peas should be. Surely you would need to heat the peas to a level where bacteria & viruses are destroyed. I don't see how "warm" would do that.
4. the recipe doesn't say whether there wants to be an even coating of butter over the peas. I would presume that tossing, mixing or stirring would be necessary, but I don't know which would be the most successful method of buttering the peas.
Looking at the comments, I see a couple of them berating the author for writing a recipe elsewhere that instructs the cook to buy products from a store and pretend that they are home-cooked. I think that this is a great idea ... if something is difficult to cook, I would love to be directed to buy it instead. Far fewer disasters, that way!
Thursday, 13 January 2011
Weights and Measures
This isn't a usual "I did something wrong and we had a disaster" post, because I haven't had many disasters recently, and the ones I *have* had (I cooked last night ... I ate two lumps of omelette) are for known reasons (I neglected to re-oil the non-stick frying pan after cooking one omelette successfully). Instead, this is the first of a possibly recurring series, pondering about weights and measures.
I will make presumptions here when I don't understand something. I think this will be the best way to identify my lack of understanding. I will only then research the subjects that I find problems with, to prove (test) my assumptions.
The Fluid Ounce
An ounce ... but fluid? As opposed to a solid ounce? I note that it's not "liquid ounce", so I suggest that "fluid" might refer to granules or powder, as much as a solution or emulsion. The markings for fluid ounces are on our measuring jug, between the ml and the pint markers. This suggests that it's a volume measurement rather than a weight measurement, but I have no idea why a modification (in this case "fluid") of a weight measurement converts to a volume measurement. I don't think we get a "fluid gram", so I presume it's not a standardised thing to do.
I just showed this screen to my partner, and she immediately said "the fluid gram is the millilitre."
Me: "What about the cubic centimetre?"
Her: "The cubic centimetre and millilitre are the same measurement for water, but not necessarily for other liquids".
Our conversation continues into fluids, and she said that she measures powers in weights rather than in volumes (I might be correct in my fluid-dynamics assumption ... I'll need to research it).
This brings me on to my next problem, of measuring in weights rather than in volumes:
The Cup
I have lots of cups, of different sizes. If I want to make sure I have a consistent amount of "stuff" in a recipe, I could see myself copying the builders' concrete formula. That is: one spade of cement, two spades of sand, three spades of aggregate, will give you a consistent mortar, regardless of the size of the spade or the expertise of the builder. Moving this to cooking, I can see that one cup of flour, one cup of sugar, one cup of cocoa, will always give you a consistent mixture if you use the same cup (although I don't know what you could make from those items in a mix).
However, can different substances not be tamped to different degrees? I can see that sugar would be impossible to squash, but that cocoa would be easy; so I would be able to alter the ratio of items in the mixture if I was using volumes.
Therefore, as my partner just said, we use weight as a measure of the amounts of dry items ... although Americans use the Cup. Bugger, I don't suppose that a Cup is actually a weight measurement rather than a volume measurement, is it?
I've just been served dinner (steamed haddock, chips & asparagus), so I'll need to add a post about tea- and table-spoons later.
I will make presumptions here when I don't understand something. I think this will be the best way to identify my lack of understanding. I will only then research the subjects that I find problems with, to prove (test) my assumptions.
The Fluid Ounce
An ounce ... but fluid? As opposed to a solid ounce? I note that it's not "liquid ounce", so I suggest that "fluid" might refer to granules or powder, as much as a solution or emulsion. The markings for fluid ounces are on our measuring jug, between the ml and the pint markers. This suggests that it's a volume measurement rather than a weight measurement, but I have no idea why a modification (in this case "fluid") of a weight measurement converts to a volume measurement. I don't think we get a "fluid gram", so I presume it's not a standardised thing to do.
I just showed this screen to my partner, and she immediately said "the fluid gram is the millilitre."
Me: "What about the cubic centimetre?"
Her: "The cubic centimetre and millilitre are the same measurement for water, but not necessarily for other liquids".
Our conversation continues into fluids, and she said that she measures powers in weights rather than in volumes (I might be correct in my fluid-dynamics assumption ... I'll need to research it).
This brings me on to my next problem, of measuring in weights rather than in volumes:
The Cup
I have lots of cups, of different sizes. If I want to make sure I have a consistent amount of "stuff" in a recipe, I could see myself copying the builders' concrete formula. That is: one spade of cement, two spades of sand, three spades of aggregate, will give you a consistent mortar, regardless of the size of the spade or the expertise of the builder. Moving this to cooking, I can see that one cup of flour, one cup of sugar, one cup of cocoa, will always give you a consistent mixture if you use the same cup (although I don't know what you could make from those items in a mix).
However, can different substances not be tamped to different degrees? I can see that sugar would be impossible to squash, but that cocoa would be easy; so I would be able to alter the ratio of items in the mixture if I was using volumes.
Therefore, as my partner just said, we use weight as a measure of the amounts of dry items ... although Americans use the Cup. Bugger, I don't suppose that a Cup is actually a weight measurement rather than a volume measurement, is it?
I've just been served dinner (steamed haddock, chips & asparagus), so I'll need to add a post about tea- and table-spoons later.
Tuesday, 28 December 2010
No new big disasters to report
It's been a couple of weeks since I last posted here. This is due to a couple of reasons:
1. I have restricted myself to cooking things that I know how to do, and haven't had any disasters (well, except for today, when I managed to cremate a dozen chipolatas under the grill)
2. It's Christmas! My partner reads this blog (and has both reminded me of disasters that I'd forgotten and prompted me to update occasionally), so she has made sure that all Christmas meals have been cooked properly, by cooking them herself!
She allowed me to help with the Christmas Day dinner, by cooking roast potatoes. I like my roast potatoes cooked in a specific way, with their sharp edges scrumbly. I think I have explained before in this blog about what "scrumbly" means when defining roast potatoes, so I won't do so again (unless anyone comments that they don't understand). My partner's parents were staying with us for a few days, and the single negative comment made by them regarding their meals while they were with us was "the potatoes were burnt". So, over Christmas, I have a 100% disaster-rate for my cooking, whilst having lots of wonderful food!
1. I have restricted myself to cooking things that I know how to do, and haven't had any disasters (well, except for today, when I managed to cremate a dozen chipolatas under the grill)
2. It's Christmas! My partner reads this blog (and has both reminded me of disasters that I'd forgotten and prompted me to update occasionally), so she has made sure that all Christmas meals have been cooked properly, by cooking them herself!
She allowed me to help with the Christmas Day dinner, by cooking roast potatoes. I like my roast potatoes cooked in a specific way, with their sharp edges scrumbly. I think I have explained before in this blog about what "scrumbly" means when defining roast potatoes, so I won't do so again (unless anyone comments that they don't understand). My partner's parents were staying with us for a few days, and the single negative comment made by them regarding their meals while they were with us was "the potatoes were burnt". So, over Christmas, I have a 100% disaster-rate for my cooking, whilst having lots of wonderful food!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)