| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Teaser Appetizer: Sleep and Insomnia, A Letter to Shakespeare | Main | New York City most courteous place on planet »

June 26, 2006

Dispatches: Chicken Country

I'm currently living temporarily in Parkersburg, West Virginia, a state of affairs that has led me to think quite a bit about locality.  My dreams, of course, before coming here were to finally make contact with authentic American folkways, and hopefully foodways, to find local diners and farm markets and maybe even meet a grizzled trapper, a la Withnail and I, who would supply me with rabbits or venison or brook trout.  Ah, Asad, you idiotic city slicker.  The most popular grocery in town is at Wal-Mart, and the diner is Denny's.  (Though the Georgian fast-food chain, Chick-Fil-A, and their superbly simple chicken sandwich (toasted buttered bun, fried chicken cutlet, pickles), leaves me overjoyed.  When I get back, I think I'm going to open a Chick-Fil-A on, like, Metropolitan and Lorimer and rake it in.)  If anything, the national food distribution system is more entrenched and dominant here in sleepy P-burg, with its forty thousand people, than in New York, where I can choose which season's milk I want my Parmigiano-Reggiano from DiPalo's to have been made from, thank you very much.  (I like winter, and I am insufferable.)  But the experience of extreme difficulty finding any locally, sustainably produced food here in WV has gotten me thinking.

A couple of years back, my aunt was kind enough to invite me to a house she rented in Cape Cod during the summer.  Naturally, given my fish obsession, I visited the well-stocked local fish store, excited about the prospect of partaking of the local catch.  Yet upon questioning the honest staff about the provenance of their selection, I learned that while some fish was locally caught, much of the fish was shipped in by truck - swordfish from the Carolinas, bluefin tuna via Boston or even New York's now-defunct Fulton Fish Market, etc.  I'd had a similar experience in the charming little English seaside town of Aldeburgh, where there was a great selection of fish trucked in from Billingsgate, London's wholesale market, resting prettily on ice, or being fried and wrapped in newspaper at the delicious fish-and-chip shop on the high street.  (Random aside: I groggily concussed myself one morning there because of the medievally low doorframes.)  Somehow, this seemed wrong, even though in London I would happily buy little vongole shipped from the Adriatic, cause that seems like a metropolitan prerogative.  I was buying into the pastoral myth of the countryside as the authentic source of food.

So, the fish shops of Wellfleet and Aldeburgh are far better than the fish shops in, say equally picturesque mountain villages, yet the fish they stocked was, for the most part, equally accessible to retailers anywhere.  Why the paradox?  Expectation creates demand, and people expect fish near the sea, and like to assume it came right out of that sea, and usually don't ask if it did.  So fishmongers do business by the sea, often selling farmed fish like cod and salmon that it's really hard to catch in the sea nowadays, while local fishermen cannot get distribution locally.  Of course, there is wild seafood to be had in Wellfleet and Aldeburgh, it's just harder to come by in this confusingly globalized day and age.  In the case of Cape Cod, strolling down to the beach revealed thousands of native Wellfleet oysters lying around; I'm happy to report that we gathered and ate at least two hundred, and that my little nephew Sam really liked the tiny crab hitchhiking in our bucket.  The point, however, is that locality is very difficult to ascertain in our current food system, dominated as it is by supermarkets with global supply systems.  Even regional food preferences, where they exist, are largely now maintained for show rather than for the traditional reason that a particular food is in prolific supply in a region, with a few exceptions, such as Maine lobster, Maryland crab and Pacific salmon.

There's a reason those three items are all, well, seafood.  Fish and seafood are the last wild creatures we eat much of.  But even farmed food's origins are increasingly unclear these days, as I was finding here in Parkersburg, where my fantasies of connection with the land were being completely thwarted.  By coincidence, the new Michael Pollan book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, had just come out.  Really three books in one, it recounts three meals in Pollan's trademark analytical goody two-shoes style, one following a confined steer to McDonald's, one from an organic farm, and one foraged and hunted by Pollan.  The McDonald's meal comes at the end of a long, and utterly fascinating, description of the dominance of subsidized corn production in the U.S. economy, and how the overabundance of cheap corn threatens to ruin our environment and our very selves.  Pollan makes the astute point that industrial monocultures such as the corn, chicken, and beef industries transform the nation's landscape into a dystopia.  Rather than the aesthetically pleasing little system of a Georgic ode, we have instead literally disgusting operations the sight and smell of which must be kept in quarantine out of sight.  The synthetic fertilizers and pesticides that industrial agriculture requires pollute water tables and turn frogs hermaphroditic.  The addiction to feeding cheap corn to cows, a ruminant that evolved to eat grass, means that harmful bacteria such as E.Coli multiply in their stomachs.  And finally, the transformation of the rest of that pile of surplus corn into byproducts such as oils, starches, syrups and stabilizers means that most of our cheapest food is just corn byproducts (it occurs to me, with horror: et tu, Chick-Fil-A?).  If I was to propose the simplest possible anti-industrial agriculture diet, I'd say: just don't eat or drink anything with high-fructose corn syrup or vegetable (i.e. corn and soybean) oil.

To my pleasant surprise, however, Pollan's second meal is a sunny account of Joel Salatin's Polyface Farm in the nearby Shenadoah Valley.  Salatin is a hero of the "managed pasture" movement, which entails rotating animals on pasture and allowing the grass to recover, rather than separately inputting synthetic fertilizers, corn, and antibiotics.  He pioneered moving chickens in mobile coops after his cows, allowing them to pick grubs and worms out of the cow's manure, in the process fertilizing the fields, keeping the steer disease-free, and filling their own stomachs.  He has created similarly symbiotic relationships between the pigs, rabbits, and sheep on his farms, all of which rotate around the property while never being allowed to exhaust the pasture.  Salatin's beef eat only grass, which according to Pollan makes for a much healthier and beefier beef, which is confirmed by my experience of Argentinian grass-fed beef (which, sadly and absurdly, is as illegal here as Pakistani mangoes and unpasteurized French cheese).  And I know for a fact that free-ranging chickens eating a varied diet as Salatin's do make for much better eating than do your average Purdue broiler.  Salatin is a bit of a nutcase (when Pollan asks how people in New York can get access to food like this, Salatin replies, "Why do we need a New York City?") but his methods are impeccable, and from 100 acres of farm and 450 acres of forest he produces 30,000 dozen eggs, 11,000 chickens, 25,000 pounds of beef, 25,000 pounds of pork, 1000 turkeys, and 500 rabbits annually.  Of course, this is a drop in the ocean: we'd need thousands of farms like Polyface to feed people this stuff, and food would be much more expensive.

Although, I wonder if it wouldn't be a good thing for meat, at least, to be a great deal more expensive.  Why should we subsidize the cost of disease-ridden meats itself produced from subsidized corn when people spend barely any money on food as it is?  Would less meat and less sugar in the American diet be a bad thing?  Maybe the worst and most objectionable thing of all, though, about contemporary U.S. foodways is the flavor.  Let's be honest.  The U.S.A. has the worst quality produce in the world.  An apple or a peach or a strawberry from an average supermarket taste like mildly flavored cellulose.  An apple from an orchard, ripe, in October, tastes complex and perfumed; a summer strawberry from an allotment is like an uncloying little sugar bomb; a real ripe peach from, say, Turkey, in summertime is simply absurdly good to eat.  Yet here we are in the richest country in the world, etc, etc, etc, and we eat food that's fit for the table of some Protestant Low Country in which toil and suffering in this world bring redemption only in the next.  Unpasteurized cheese, which millions of Europeans eat safely every year, is illegal here out of fear.  Yet the FDA would rather irradiate beef, killing its taste entirely, than impose any punishment upon producers whose product is routinely contaminated with lethal fecal matter.  How are we screwing up this bad?

I don't have an answer, other than to say that I'm going to be heading over to Salatin's to fill a cooler with grass-fed beef and chickens and eggs soon.  Pretending to be Argentine, by eating that beef with some chimichurri and some Malbec will be nice.  So, I have realized, will eating food that accords with my general philosophy of taste: it's better to perform labor procuring something that tastes good than trying to redeem something that doesn't.  A subway ride to a good butcher is better cooking than following thirty-six steps from Eric Ripert's cookbook with watery scallops and woody rosemary.  The increasing spiciness of American fast food, I think, is tied to an increasing need to camouflage the blandness and insipidity of the main ingredients.  Not that I'm saying spicy food is bad; I'm Pakistani, after all.  But excessive concealment is a sign of bad ingredients - I have my mother's father's favorite cookbook, from 1920's India, and the recipes are amazingly simple: korma has chicken, onions, ginger, red pepper, and saffron. 

New York is as guilty of overcomplexity as anywhere, with its chattering vogues for senseless combinations and magical thinking about this season's ingredient, be it lotus bulbs or pork belly.  How often do you see pastas or sandwiches that have four or five too many things on them?  And how rarely do you see people with the rigor of gastronomes past, with a steady assurance as to what goes with what, in what season?  Now we ridicule such inflexibility, residing bravely as we do in the great masala of today, where we have  oversweet versions of Thai food served to us by French chefs.  Take that, orthodoxies of yesterday!, comes our adolescent cry.  Meanwhile, we've never eaten the simple, decent reduction from which the lemongrass reduction departs, and have no sense of which rules are being broken.  And lest you think that cooking rules are some kind of dead-European-male thing, some sign of domination, remember this: all cuisines are bounded languages in which utterances have a grammar, and Mexicans, Provençals and Indians are equally protective of their regional foodways.  There's much pleasure to be had from intermingling them, but much to be lost by forgetting that people ate certain ways because long experience and settled tradition embody much more knowledge of their food than we have.

I recently tried to convince my sister that no spices whatsoever are needed to enhance a good chicken, and thusly cooked her the dish whose recipe I'm about to give you, along with some by-recipes that come along with buying a whole animal and using it unwastefully.  But don't try it with a factory bird from Giant Eagle, as I did recently, the flesh is mushy and dry simultaneously, and the muscle tone is weird, and the bird just doesn't taste like anything.  So get something good and then don't do much to it.  Try this if I haven't convinced you.  All you need is one good chicken; of course, finding one is harder than it should be.

ROAST CHICKEN

This dish is a touchstone of simplicity, and won the argument with my sister.  I like it with mashed potatoes.  I read accounts of roast chickens in food books all the time, and often order it to test a kitchen, the same way you might do with tandoori chicken and naan at a tandoori place.  By the way, Simon Hopkinson's Roast Chicken and Other Stories is one of my favorite cookbooks, simple and methodologically sound and really indicative of a chef's whole style, and he recounts some great tales of L'Ami Louis in Paris and their roast poulet de Bresse with fries.  Oh man.

Serves 4

One chicken, smallish (free-range essential, organic preferable)
Half a lemon
Butter
Salt
Pepper (don't even ask; yes, freshly)

Preheat the oven to 400 degrees Farenheit.  Take the neck and organs out of the chicken's cavity, reserving for stock, and put the chicken in a roasting pan.  Put the lemon half in, cut side "up."  Smear butter all over the chicken, leaving a prodigious amount on the breast.  Sprinkle with a lot of salt and pepper.

Put the chicken in the oven and leave it for an hour.  Open up and check if it's getting too browned, if so, turn down to 350.  If not, leave and check again in fifteen minutes.  Pull the chicken out, and poke a paring knife into the thigh - the juices will come rushing out clear as a bell.  You should have a really beautiful bird with burnished dark-golden, crackling skin. 

Carve the chicken into pieces (drumsticks, thighs, wings and breast) and remove to platter.  If you don't know how, just do it; you'll be fine, it's dead easy.  Now pour off the accumulated juices into a small saucepan, spooning off excess oil, and squeezing the lemon half into the mix, and boil for a bit (you can mix in some flour here if you want a thick gravy - I prefer thinner juices as a sauce).  Spoon over the chicken, or pass around.  Putting these pieces of chicken over mashed potato provides more starch to absorb the reduced chicken jus, which is a great idea.  Make it with a good chicken, and I guarantee this recipe.

CHICKEN STOCK

Roast chicken bones (including what's on people's plates - don't be shy)
Peppercorns
Bay leaf
Onion, halved
Celery stalk, broken in half
Slice of ginger
Clove of garlic

Put it all in a pot, just cover with water, and bring to boil.  Skim, turn down, and simmer for two hours.  At this point, you'll have a nice chicken-y stock that beats the pants off any can or cube and you can salt it properly and strain it.  But don't throw away the bones; take the leftover chicken pieces from the stockpot and pick the meat off the bones - there will be a great deal on the back, especially the two little pearly nuggets on the underside.  French people have some sexy name for them, and they are good.

THREE CHINESE CHICKEN SOUPS

A good way to use chicken stock and meat; funny and old-fashioned but comforting and nice.  Another is to use all the meat for a nice chicken salad.  Another is to cook any vegetable in season (asparagus, celeriac, peas, nettles, you name it) in the stock and then puree it, topping with more pepper and a little Parmigiano, if you want.  Another is to braise lamb shanks in it with onion and fennel and top them gremolata (minced parsley and garlic, mixed).  Another is... well, you get it: it's good to have some stock around.

Chicken stock with extra chicken meat (see above)
Vinegar
Soy sauce

Flake the reserved meat into the pot of stock, which is simmering on the stove.  Add a little vinegar and a little soy sauce.  Simmer away for a while and then pick one of these three options:

1. Egg Drop: Mix about two tablespoons cornstarch and equal water, then mix into stock, stirring vigorously.  Let thickening magic occur for a while.  Beat an egg in a bowl, and pour into soup, stirring.  You're done.  Serve with thinly sliced superhot little Indian chilies soaked in vinegar in a little bowl.

2. Chicken Corn: Add a couple of ears worth of corn kernels or a can of corn to the stock.  Then follow the instructions for Egg Drop.

3. Hot and Sour: Add sliced fresh mushrooms, cubed tofu, julienned bamboo shoots, some sliced pork if you have it, extra soy and vinegar, and a mess of white (or black) pepper.  Then follow the instructions for Egg Drop.

The rest of Dispatches.

Posted by Asad Raza at 02:11 AM | Permalink

Comments

Parkersburg has only a few family owned restaurants, the rest being a;; the fast food chains. There are rarely any local farm markets to be seen. So you are right it is a great disappointment if one is looking for any thing authentic here. This is one of those homogenized towns in America, that you can not distinguish from another. I agree with you about every thing you have written on food production and feel disgusted that we cant do better. I am looking to move to a farm in my retirement and use Salatin's methods to produce food. Thanks for this dispatch.

Posted by: Tasnim | Jun 26, 2006 6:51:18 AM

Clearly what is needed in Parkersburg is a way to effect the spiritual transmutation of 'industrial food'. There's a wonderful article about how this ceremony works in Provence:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/141845.html

Posted by: Slocum | Jun 26, 2006 8:29:10 AM

While I've not been to Pburg, I did go to school at Ohio U in the fifties, when crossing the river was a real adventure. There was rumor of a whorehouse across or next to the police station, and owned by the chief. As I was testing my tolerance for alcohol for the first time, and trying to date the local fire chief's redhead daughter and also stay in school, I never got to WV.
Getting to the subject above, there's a rating of chain restaurants in this month's Consumer Reports. Good place to start. And your lemon chicken is an old Italian recipe. But please skip the salt, and use a whole punctured lemon.

Posted by: mr.ed | Jun 26, 2006 9:08:30 AM

Wow, mr. ed, that's a funny recollection. I believe Elizabeth David may be the ultimate source of the lemon in my roast chicken, but I can't remember. Which makes sense as she was the great translator of Italian food for modern Britons, not that I'm a Briton. Leaving out salt seems a little nutty to me, though. Why?

Posted by: Asad | Jun 26, 2006 9:52:32 AM

Two comments:

1. Sounds like you might enjoy reading Margaret Visser "Much Depends on Dinner". She uses the 4 or 5 simple ingredients of a chicken dinner as the backbone (haha) for a fascinating discussion. Who knew that salt, chicken, lemon, lettuce and (I think) corn would someday be the lead characters in a work of nonfiction?

2. Vis-a-vis Tasnim on homogenized food in homogenized towns...good point! That's what I love about Canadian multiculturism vs. American melting-pot culture. To take the "melting pot" analogy to its logical conclusion, ultimately you end up with tasteless glop of indistinguishable texture. Yuck! Give me a simple, beautifully prepared korma anyday!

And yet, there's an interesting quandry developing around this issue in terms of immigration and "homegrown terrorism". See http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0626/p01s01-ussc.html?s=itm

Posted by: S. | Jun 26, 2006 10:49:31 AM

S., here's another thing I love about Canada: you can get unpasteurized raw-milk cheese, Argentine beef, and South Asian mangoes, all of which we are denied over here in the land of freedom in the name of safety. It's amazing to me that artisanal cheesemaking is considered too dangerous, while, say, I can buy a handgun around here with no trouble at all.

I read the article you linked to, which was interesting, though I'm not quite sure how it connects. I did find it laughable how scary it's supposed to be that the Lackawanna six "grew up watching football, played sports, and enjoyed barbecue." My God! Those are all-American activities! These confounded terrorists!

Posted by: Asad | Jun 26, 2006 11:23:02 AM

That's what I love about Canadian multiculturism vs. American melting-pot culture. To take the "melting pot" analogy to its logical conclusion, ultimately you end up with tasteless glop of indistinguishable texture. Yuck! Give me a simple, beautifully prepared korma anyday!

Oh, please. Do you really think that culture in New York is more homogenized than in Toronto? And if you think that the hinterlands in Canada are move diverse and interesting than they are in the U.S., go spend a weekend in, say, Sault Ste Marie (more than twice the size of Parkersburg, WV) and get back to us on the culinary delights you find there.

We've vacationed up in northern Ontario many times, and the scenery is gorgeous, but we sure don't go for the ethnic diversity or fine dining...

Posted by: Slocum | Jun 26, 2006 11:42:05 AM

Funny you should say that, Slocum, but Toronto is the only place I have ever been in the world that seems more ethnically diverse than New York City. Check it out.

Posted by: Asad | Jun 26, 2006 2:26:52 PM

Sorry, Asad. The connection was oblique and totally uncommunicated. (:>) I was referring to much of the commentary in the (mostly US) press nagging about Canada's policy of multiculturalism as a terrorist threat to the US. See the NYT, June 20ish article:

THE NATION: Terror Tactics; Lessons From Canada: Snooping Works... 17 terror suspects in the Toronto area...all residents of Canada...has inspired a flurry of calls in Washington for new protections against immigration...

(sorry, the NYT site is down...you can find it by searching "terrorism threat Canada" on the NYT site)

(I was going to mention the myriad unpasteurized (not to say homogenized!) cheeses we have here, but didn't want to gloat.)

Slocum: actually I didn't say that NYC was more homogenized than Toronto, although now that you mention it, yes, I think it might be, but only by a whisker. Not the point, though. The very diversity of NYC proves what good multiculturalism can do. And I assume you are referring to the American Sault Ste Marie, and not the Canadian? 'Cause the very BEST polish sausage I've ever had was in Sault Ste Marie (affectionately known as "the Soo"), ON.

Posted by: S. | Jun 26, 2006 3:24:19 PM

Meanwhile, we've never eaten the simple, decent reduction from which the lemongrass reduction departs, and have no sense of which rules are being broken.

It seems that this is changing, for reasons which aren't entirely clear. "Simpler", more classic food is easier to find, perhaps as a result of the glut of CIA, FCI, and other chef school grads.

On a larger note, I wonder if "rules" are temporary in the first place, a fleeting stability that serves as a launching point for something later, which eventually results in it being abandoned. I think of the cajun roue or the black mustard seed/curry leaf base of Dravidian food your once got exhausted by. They provide a baseline structure which allows you to understand the other elements, and once understood you can "move on" as it were.

I think that the complexity (maybe even over complexity) of food in New York is a healthy product of the organization of the city. Eric Ripert was once asked on Charlie Rose about his inspiration. Before the inevitable Rose interruption of an interesting point, Ripert got something that was also a lovely image. He said walking through New York, through its cultural enclaves -- Jackson Heights, Chinatown, the various ones in Flushings -- you come across ingredients, smells, restautants filled with cuisines unknown and you engage them, not simply as an exotic ingredient but ones which are attached to specific styles and cultures. Sure, there's the pan-fusion-melange-hyphen cuisine that's just an excuse for attracting the curious. But much of the mix in New York I think is less deracinated and free floating that people think.

Posted by: Robin | Jun 26, 2006 4:33:48 PM

And I assume you are referring to the American Sault Ste Marie, and not the Canadian? 'Cause the very BEST polish sausage I've ever had was in Sault Ste Marie (affectionately known as "the Soo"), ON.

No, not the American Sault Ste Marie. But the best polish sausage ever? How could we have overlooked that in our search for fine dining ;)

Actually, there is one local delicacy (not limited to the Canadian side) -- fresh Whitefish is excellent.

Posted by: Slocum | Jun 26, 2006 4:45:41 PM

Robin, point taken. My argument isn't so much about the standard of cooking of the elite echelon of New York chefs - Ripert certainly sources amazing fish and knows how not to conceal its flavor - but with the standard of eating in this country, which generally prizes innovation over taste.

I'm more partial to very simple meals generally, in particular idioms, for everyday eating. I'd rather sip tequila, and have carnitas, with tortillas and some roasted onions and crema, than a foamy neo-Mexican dish and some fancy new cocktail with a pithy name.

Posted by: Asad | Jun 26, 2006 4:55:08 PM

"I'd rather sip tequila, and have carnitas, with tortillas and some roasted onions and crema, than a foamy neo-Mexican dish and some fancy new cocktail with a pithy name."

Who wouldn't!? What's with foam on things anyway? I like it on Cappuccinos - but on roast meat? I can't get into it I'm afraid.

As a general rule, you might try finding restaurants in the Zagat's guide that have the largest differential between a high food rating and a low decor rating. It's a great way to locate great food - and often with a byo bonus!

Posted by: anna | Jun 26, 2006 5:12:26 PM

"No, not the American Sault Ste Marie. But the best polish sausage ever? How could we have overlooked that in our search for fine dining ;)" - Slocum

Like I say ... multiculturalism. Now for Ukranaine sausage, I would highly recommend Mundare, AB. (Arguably, in the hinterlands.)

I wonder if multiculturalism could be one of the key reasons for our (in)famous Canadian politeness?

Posted by: S. | Jun 26, 2006 5:22:23 PM

Very sensible method, Anna!

The foam thing is the innovation of Spanish chef/chemist Ferran Adria. Robin once wrote an astute piece comparing his food to haute-cuisine simulations of convenience foods like Twinkies.

Posted by: Asad | Jun 26, 2006 5:24:48 PM

You have the cooking instructions for roast chicken *almost* right.

You should start the chicken roasting at 400 degrees with breast side *down*. About half-way through the total roasting time (figuring about 15 minutes per pound), turn the chicken breast side *up*, and continue roasting at 400 degrees till finished.

And that absolutely guarantees "a really beautiful bird with burnished dark-golden, crackling skin" all round.

ACD

Posted by: A.C. Douglas | Jun 26, 2006 5:47:28 PM

Two things you might want to try in WV: "ramp dinners" and "merkels"

Ramps are wild onions that people harvest and have huge potluck dinners at the high school or VFW hall or places like that.

Merkels are morels. Probably too late in the year for the harvest, but they grow wild in many parts of WV and Morels are, well, Morels!

Posted by: tde | Jun 26, 2006 6:08:59 PM

tde, I was all excited to go to some ramp dinners, but the ramp season ended in late May - I do eat them in New York, however.

I'll look into the merkels tip, though - thanks!

Posted by: Asad | Jun 26, 2006 6:14:16 PM

Hi,
I Found Absolutely FREE PlayBoy & PentHouse:
http://www.playmates-girls.com
http://www.oxpe.net
If I find something else I'll inform you.
Best Regards, Yuriy

Posted by: yuriy | Jun 27, 2006 1:52:31 AM

I didn't know you were a Williamsburger.

Way cool.

Posted by: Jackie at Element List | Jun 27, 2006 2:31:39 AM

Asad,

This is really good stuff. Just thought I'd say that before the fatigue hits me. (And what about those playboys and penthouses!)

J

Posted by: Jonathan | Jun 27, 2006 11:54:15 PM

re:Salt
A:You're probably already using salted butter. That's enough. B:A common substitute for salt is lemon, the acidity giving a similar sensation to the tongue. C:Salt raises blood pressure. Who needs that?
Many recipes call for salt in pasta water. A legend states that this raises the boiling point, cooking the noodles faster or better. The amount of NaCl required to do even one degree would make the dish unpalatable.

Posted by: mr.ed | Jun 28, 2006 8:21:03 AM

mr.ed, I think the reason people put salt in pasta water is to season the pasta. And you need to salt the chicken's skin properly to make the dish. Lemon alone isn't gonna cut it.

One thing I didn't mention is how many people procure their own meat by hunting: several have offered venison, and one co-worker of my father's asked if we wanted a 'half a cow,' as he was slaughtering one soon (grass-fed, too!). Alas, two hundred pounds of beef exceeds our eating capacities. In any case, since I'm always annoyingly going on about my propensity to cook whole fish and chickens and use the leftovers, it might be the proper gastronautical thing to do to go kill an animal myself. Gulp. I'm pondering.

J., not sure what you mean, but Abbas once cleverly remarked on the symbiotic relation here between an excess of both churches and adult bookstores!

Posted by: Asad | Jun 28, 2006 10:30:24 AM

A,

Just referring to the porn spam several comments above. Scroll up.

J

Posted by: Jonathan | Jun 28, 2006 10:35:53 AM

Oh! Got it - many thanks, yuriy...

I got a crazy one on the Nadal piece this morning too. Woodwork; they're coming.

Posted by: Asad | Jun 28, 2006 10:45:00 AM

pepper is the king of spices.

I side with your sister.

Posted by: jane | Jun 28, 2006 11:31:59 AM

As Robin mentioned the influx of grads from CIA and FCI, I feel almost obligated to reply. I did notice some potential problems with the recipes, and also some tidbits that I thought I could add, so here they are:
1. A famous tip in French cooking when roasting a bird of any type is to sear the skin all over the bird (six sides: under, top, wing-sides, and neck and bottom) in a hot skillet first. This does 3 things: it creates a seal out of the skin, so that all (or most of) the juices remain in the meat instead of in the pan; it allows one to set the oven temperature a little lower (375) so that the meat can cook at the perfect temperature for tenderness; it seals the seasonings into the skin, and allows those seasonings to perfume the meat while cooking. (By the way, about the salt controversy, there are tastebuds that can only be activated by salt, which is why salt is so essential a seasoning for any ingredient - if you want to taste fully any food item, including desserts, salt must be added).
2. Stock: I spent many months of my time in kitchens only cooking stock, all day, every day. Stock is a French obsession (although I think it is an obsession in many other cuisines as well), and French chefs love to torture their underlings with "perfecting" their stock-making skills, forcing them to spend whole shifts standing over huge steaming pots in 100 degree weather skimming and watching, skimming and watching... The potential problems with your recipe mostly come from the list of ingredients and the treatment of the bones. In your list of ingredients, you included all the innards. Liver and kidneys are not suitable for stock-making, as they are rich meats which muddy the stock. If you want to produce that perfect, clear stock, from which you can make a beautiful warm-amber consomme (one of the simplest and most intoxicating of dishes) or handy demi-glace, you can sear the kidneys in a pan, add some wine to take up the browned crusts, but then you have to reserve those kidneys for another use (pate, perhaps?). The neck and feet are the best to use, especially the feet, as they add gluten, which will make the best demi-glace. I often make a stock, reduce it, and pour it into an ice-cube tray to stick in the freezer and use instead of store-bought cubes. As far as the bones go, if you want a white stock, you can leave the bones unbrowned, but you must remove the meat, as, again, it will muddy the stock. If you want a brown chicken stock (the most common and most flavourful) you should re-roast the bones in a pan, with onions, celery, a few carrots (not too many), bay leaf, thyme, cloves, peppercorns, and any other spices you might like to add (each restaurant in the town where I worked had their own magical combination of spices that they would not reveal to each other for anything in the world - in fact there are stories of chefs trying to bribe each other for spice combinations in their stocks which I heard told almost as camp-fire stories while I stood over those steaming pots mentioned above). When the bones and vegetables are browned, add wine to deglaze the pan, then add everything into a pot, cover with COLD water, bring to a boil, and immediately turn down to a slow simmer. If you boil for even a minute, the stock, again, will muddy. The way you can tell it is at exactly the right temperature is if foaming scum is produced (if not, flame is too low) but does not get reincorporated into the stock (if so, the flame is too high).
Robin is, I think, correct about the return to simple foods. Great cooking schools (and I personally don't rate CIA as high, although their program is longer) teach their students the traditional way of cooking for almost the entirety of their education - it is a way of preserving those traditions since our generation does not as often benefit from recipes handed down (especially in USA), and it is a way to ensure that complex recipes created by young chefs are conscious of the departures from tradition that they exact. But I agree that living in NYC tempts one to create a marriage of flavours, as even the smallest markets sell foods from more than one culture (by the way, how do you figure into your comments the fact that even the most traditional of European recipes tends to benefit from colonialism and the empire - even "traditional" recipes include, say, saffron, sugar, cloves, etc. If we wanted to be purist, then I believe we would have to go back to the middle ages, and those recipes - I have a book of them - are not exactly fit for daily fare? Just a thought).

Posted by: Sarah | Jun 28, 2006 12:46:56 PM

Re pepper:

As Rushdie notes in The Moor's Last Sigh and as Christopher Columbus, Vasco de Gama, and others would attest, pepper begat world history. But then I'm from the Spice Coast and may be biased.

The orginal Mulligatawny soup, which does mean "pepper water" as Ram is fond of pointing out--"mulaguh" is pepper in Dravidian languages--is called rasam in south India and the base consists of mostly black pepper. That it became the Anglo-Indian dish speak volumes.

Posted by: Robin | Jun 28, 2006 1:26:13 PM

Sarah--thanks for the recipes.

Posted by: Robin | Jun 28, 2006 1:29:43 PM

Wow, Sarah, you really took my recipes to the woodshed. Professional beatdown. The great details in your stock tips, particularly, are really appreciated.

On searing as a way to seal in the juices, however, that's a culinary myth disproved by the great Harold McGee.

Your question about medieval food gives me a chance to clarify my defense of simplicity in cooking. I didn't mean to associate simplicity with chronologically earlier cooking. For instance, I disagree with the cooking-school idea that French technique should serve as the basic scaffolding for all cooking, and that it constitutes a tradition more authentic than others.

As you say, a fantasy of cooking before the arrival of 'foreign' ingredients is crazy: it would entail Thailand without chilies, Italy without tomatoes, Ireland without potatoes, etc. I was after something a little humbler than than a return to culinary purity, namely, to observe that local, seasonal, well-procured meats and fish can stand up to extreme simplicity of preparation, and that prior generations of cooks generally had better access to such ingredients.

Posted by: Asad | Jun 28, 2006 3:16:45 PM

Robin: I may be being slow here, but what do those volumes say?

Posted by: Asad | Jun 28, 2006 3:18:03 PM

Volumes about the centrality of pepper in forging the modern world.

Posted by: Robin | Jun 28, 2006 3:30:17 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Matt on The Science Mystique

Eleutheria on Why is Europe so Messed Up? An Illuminating History

Elatia Harris on I am dust and ashes and full of sin

PeteChapman on I am dust and ashes and full of sin

Raza Husain on the culture animal

Chris on Positive Failure - a review of "The Power" by Rhonda Byrne

DAS on Why is Europe so Messed Up? An Illuminating History

DAS on Is the Brain No Different From a Light Switch? The Uncomfortable Ideas of the Philosopher Daniel Dennett

DAS on the culture animal

Raza Husain on Unknown Mathematician Proves Elusive Property of Prime Numbers

Dredd on NORTH KOREA’S NERVE WAR

Dredd on Unknown Mathematician Proves Elusive Property of Prime Numbers

Raza Husain on Is the Brain No Different From a Light Switch? The Uncomfortable Ideas of the Philosopher Daniel Dennett

Dana on germ houses

musafir on Tuesday Poem

soubriquet on Tuesday Poem

Eli on Unknown Mathematician Proves Elusive Property of Prime Numbers

Jim on Tuesday Poem

Josef Stern on Unknown Mathematician Proves Elusive Property of Prime Numbers

Shelley on Is the Brain No Different From a Light Switch? The Uncomfortable Ideas of the Philosopher Daniel Dennett

Bill on The Beautiful German Language

Eleutheria on The Bystander Effect in Medical Care. Why Do I Have So Many Doctors Not Taking Care of Me?

Eleutheria on Tuesday Poem

Raza Husain on the culture animal

musafir on The Bystander Effect in Medical Care. Why Do I Have So Many Doctors Not Taking Care of Me?

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed