Bakin-n-Bacon

A Month Without Plastic - Trying to Reduce My Impact

I've been thinking about how much waste we produce in our modern society, and frankly it appalls me. Between the two of us (plus 6 cats), we have about 4 bags of garbage per week (two are mostly cat litter), even though I try to recycle as much as I can. We fill our recycling bin to overflow (and the city won't give me another bin!), but I feel I should also reduce what we are using, especially plastic since a lot of it is not recyclable here. We are very limited in what we can put in the recycling bin plastic-wise. I don't feel as bad about paper, cans and glass because they are more easily recycled. Plus paper is made out of renewable resources (and should be made out of hemp and bamboo instead of trees, but I'll save that for another diatribe).

So I have decided that for the month of April I am going to see how little plastic I can purchase. This will mean changing a lot of things that I buy. For example, I usually buy gel dishwasher detergent and cat little in a big plastic container. Even though both of those are recyclable, I have other options. Next month (actually starting today) I am going to buy powdered detergent and the little in a box (even though my cats and I prefer a different brand).

There are some things that will be difficult, if not impossible, such as regular dishwashing liquid. I've not seen any other kind of packaging for that, but at least it is recyclable. Milk will be at least twice as expensive if I buy it in cartons or returnable bottles.  Some things, like buttermilk, yogurt and sour cream have no other types of packaging. I can make my own yogurt, but boy is that going to be expensive if I'm buying milk in returnable bottles. I have buttermilk powder to use, but I prefer fresh buttermilk.

There will be a few items where avoiding plastic could cost a lot of time, such as bread and tortillas. They come in a plastic bag only, but I could make my own very cheaply. However, it will take a significant amount of time. My spirit is certainly willing, but we'll see if my flesh is weak when it comes to making all my own tortillas and bread.

I can suck it up and spend more on groceries to achieve my goal, but those on a tight budget will find it quite difficult. I just want to see how much I can reduce my packaging, especially plastic, and how much more it will cost. I'll report in periodically to let you know how it's progressing. I've already got my reusable grocery bags in the car so no more plastic bags!

Of course I need to commit to this for more than just one month, and I fully intend to continue to reduce my use, but for April I'm trying to take it to the extreme. That means even trying not to use the plastic I already have, like cling wrap and Ziploc bags. That is going to be really difficult.

 

Easter Dessert

I got carried away again. It happens about every three or four years, when I look at the mini egg-shaped cake pans in my cabinet. They are really only useful two times a year - at Easter and during football season. Since we don't watch football, Easter is really the only time I use these pans. I had some egg whites to use up, so I made my favorite white cake. I decided to make some for our Easter/Equinox/Spring cookout (a very non-traditional but yummy brisket and ribs dinner). I told myself I wouldn't get carried away with decorating and would slap on some icing, but I just couldn't resist temptation. I did fewer designs than last time, though, where each one was different, but it still took a couple of hours. It was fun and everyone liked them. The leftovers went to the neighbors, except for the bonus cake (see below).

I have closeup pictures posted on my blog's photo album so you can see the detail.

BONUS CAKE

Since I had more cake batter than egg-shaped pans, I decided to make a small layer cake with the leftover batter. The batter took a few more whites than I had on hand, so I ended up with a couple of yolks to use up. Yolks don't keep as well as whites do, so I needed to use them fast. I made a lemon curd with them to use as a filling for the cake.

I use the Fine Cooking lemon curd recipe (Lemon Curd for Scottish Shortbread), but I follow the Cook's Illustrated instructions, since the FC recipe has weird directions like creaming the butter and sugar together - even though it will be melted. I just don't get that.

Lemon curd must be one of the top 10 foods in the world. It has a great balance between tart and sweet, has a luscious texture and it seems to glow with inner beauty. If I were on death row, lemon curd would make an appearance in my last meal.

The bonus cake is a cute size at 7 inches. I found the 7-inch pans at a flea market in Ohio last fall for $3.00 and scooped them up - I've never seen that size before. As cute as the cake could have been, I did a lot things half-assed with it. I didn't even try to level it, so my practice icing job doesn't look too great. I didn't have much yellow icing left, so I used some to make a dam to hold back the lemon curd between the layers, then mixed the rest in with the green icing. Therefore the only two colors of icing left were green and purple, hardly an attractive combination when not being used as flowers and leaves. There was juuust enough to cover the sides and do a few dots, so lemon curd ended up on top as well. Although it looks garish the taste is oh so yummy. I'm eating the leftover lemon curd with a spoon as a midnight snack.

Charcoal - DIY

After my husband discovered that regular charcoal in fact does contain coal, in addition to other nasty byproducts, he switched exclusively to lump hardwood char. That can be difficult to find around here, and is more expensive than regular charcoal. So he decided to learn how to make his own char from wood trimmings we had after we cut down a large tree in the backyard. He has discovered that the flavor of REAL hardwood char is superior even to manufactured lump hardwood (which is mostly wood floor and pallet trimmings).

The most important thing to remember when making your own char is to be certain that the outside of the wood is completely charred, as in total carbon black, otherwise you are cooking with soot or creosote. My husband usually starts with with oak or maple branches with a wrist-sized diameter and cut to fit the length of the firebox. (I have seen some websites that recommend chunks no larger than 5-6 inches, but we have a pretty big firebox). To make your own, find some wood, cut it into the biggest chunks that will easily fit in your smoker or grill, and fill your firebox pretty full. You want to layer the wood criss-cross style for maximum exposure to flame and air during the beginning phase to be sure that it all chars evenly. This means you will be able to see light through to the bottom of the stack.

My husband prefers to ignite the wood with a MAPP gas or propane torch rather than soaking it in lighter fluid so it doesn't have any off-odors or noxious gases. You could also do it kind of like a chimney, by placing wadded paper underneath and lighting the paper until the wood catches. It takes a lot longer to do that, though. Once it's lit, leave the fire uncovered and burning vigorously until all the wood is completely charred on the outside. Now comes the critical step. Close the lid, close the dampers, close any vents. This allows the wood to burn with no oxygen. This consumes the wood and leaves the char. In the beginning of the process, a lot of smoke will be produced, which is actually the water being steamed out of the wood. It's our way of sending smoke signals to the neighbors so they know we'll be having some tasty pork and/or beef later in the day.

When it looks like glowing orange coals, rather similar to regular charcoal, it's ready to be used for cooking. This usually takes about an hour to an hour and a half in our firebox. If the chunks of wood are big enough, you can keep a medium-sized smoker can at 400 degrees for several hours just by regulating the vents/damper. When you are ready to smoke or grill, open up the damper and chimney vent to allow air to flow, thereby increasing the temperature of the grill. If you are grilling you can grill directly over the coals, or you can smoke with an offset or vertical smoker box.

You don't want to add fresh wood to this fire (to avoid soot), so if you have to add fuel to keep the heat up, it's best to add manufactured lump hardwood char. You can add small pieces of raw wood for flavoring, but don't add large chunks for fuel/heat. Just as with charcoal, this will burn until nothing is left but ash. We use the ash in the cracks of our driveway to keep weeds from growing. It's quite alkaline, and most plants will not tolerate a highly alkaline soil. It's better for the environment than weed killer and just as effective.

Financiers

A recent post on beurre noisette, or browned butter, on Michael Ruhlman's blog made me realize that I had never made any baked goods with browned butter. I once made a pasta dish with browned butter and sage but no sweets. However, the potential for turning an already wonderful ingredient into something even better, with nutty overtones and rich flavor, was too much to resist. Since I had some almond flour left over from the macaron experiment, I decided to give financiers a try.

I want to clarify from the outset that the treats pictured above are not madeleines, even though I used a madeleine pan. Financiers are rich cakes made with almond flour and browned butter. Traditionally, they are baked into small rectangles to emulate bars of gold (hence one explanation of how they got their name). However, that is one piece of baking paraphenalia that I don't own, so I decided to make multi-taskers out of my tinned-steel madeleine pans.

The batter for this cake comes together quite easily, and since the batter is supposed to rest in the fridge for several hours (and can rest for a few days), this is a great idea for a make-ahead dessert (except for the fact that almond flour is now about $15/pound! But this recipe uses very little). First, however, you have to brown the butter, which can also be done ahead. I used my lovely Mauviel Windsor pan and put the butter over medium heat. After a few minutes, it began to separate. A foam covered the top as the milk solids dropped to the bottom of the pan where they browned as I stirred occasionally.

I skimmed off some of the foam so that you could see the browned bits at the bottom of the pan. Once the butter had browned as far as I dared to take it, I poured it through a mesh strainer to remove the rest of the foam. I could probably have pushed it a little farther, but there is a fine line between browned butter and a burned mess, and butter is too valuable for me to take that chance. I put the butter into a bowl and proceeded with the recipe. Below is my mise en place. Please ignore the bottle of Rhum Agricole lurking in the upper left corner of the shot. It did not go into the cakes but instead into the cook. That stuff is wicked!

There are two bowls of egg whites in the photo because I had a lot left over from making the double batches of cookies in the food processor battle.

All of the recipes for financiers that I found were in grams, so I'm glad I have the myWeigh 7001, which converts at the touch of a button from ounces to grams (also pounds/ounces and kilograms). That is one nifty scale, and only cost about $35 including an AC adapter, which I am not currently using. The batteries last a very long time in this scale and they make the scale ultra portable. I even travel with it, making sure to package it carefully. I don't know how to recalibrate it, if that is even possible, so I try to keep it from getting knocked around.

I sifted the powdered sugar, almond flour and cake flour into the bowl. To it I added some of the egg whites, the browned butter, and a little invert sugar syrup. Invert sugar is a fancy way of saying simple syrup made with an acid. The process of acid hydrolysis converts the sucrose into glucose and fructose. The end result is that the sugar syrup is more hygroscopic, meaning it attracts water and makes cakes more moist, with a longer shelf life. Think Twinkies. On second thought, don't. Anyway, I bought a container of the stuff thinking I would be making truffles and other confections where it would add a safety factor to the shelf life. However, this is the first time I've actually found a recipe that called for it, so it's the first time I've used it! I have no idea how important invert syrup is to a product that will likely last for about 10 minutes after it's baked, but don't I look cool for using it.

Anyway, after stirring the butter and part of the whites, I whisked in the remaining whites and scraped the batter into a piping bag. The bag was placed in the fridge for about 8 hours, and baking the financiers was a snap. I snipped the point off the piping bag and piped batter into the madeleine pans. I baked them for about 15 minutes at 350, until they were nicely browned. Yum! My husband says they are perfect for dipping into coffee.

Here's the recipe:

Financiers

410g Beurre noisette (browned butter)
450g Egg whites
460g Powdered sugar
40g Invert syrup (see note)
300g Almond flour
150g Cake flour

Note: If you don't have invert syrup, use 510 grams of powdered sugar.

Brown butter and strain. Sift all dry ingredients together. Whisk in invert syrup, half of egg whites and hot browned butter. Add rest of egg whites. Scrape into large pastry bag and secure the end. Let rest for several hours or overnight in the fridge. Pipe into molds and bake at 350 for 10-15 minutes, or until golden brown. Remove from pans and cool on a wire rack.

Food Processor Death Match: Round 2

The second, and deciding, round of the food processor battle is over. I'll announce my winner at the end, but first let's review how each competitor fared. The task I tackled next was making a puree. I chose hummus bi tahini, because the texture change is substantial moving from nearly crunchy chickpeas to an almost smooth puree. I like to leave my hummus a bit coarse so it doesn't lay like a paste on the tongue.

The KitchenAid took less time to achieve the consistency I was after. After the same amount of processing time, you can see the difference:
The KitchenAid is on the left and the Cuisinart on the right. You'll notice that the KA puree is finer, although it left a little oil unincorporated. The Cuisinart still has larger chunks of chickpeas, but all of the ingredients are evenly distributed. These photos are after 20 seconds of processing. It took another 10 seconds in the Cuisinart for it to achieve the same texture as the KA, but it eventually got the same results. The KA wins the puree contest.

Next I moved on to more vegetable preparation and grated cabbage and carrots for slaw. I had to cut the cabbage wedge down more to fit in the KA's narrow feed tube, and that may have been the cause of the noticeable difference in texture between the two units. But, it may have been the distribution of the grating holes - the KA has holes that are more evenly distributed, while the Cuisinart has a cluster of holes near the center and then fewer at the edges. Below, on the left, is the KA cabbage. It almost looks chopped rather than grated or shredded. I preferred the texture achieved by the Cuisinart - that's what I think shredded cabbage should look like.

The knife shown in the photo on the right was to chop up the "angel's share" of cabbage each processor left whirling helplessly around the top of the blade:

What's interesting, although I didn't take a picture of it, is that for the carrot, the KA left a perfect little carrot disc, and the Cuisinart left a piece from the side of the carrot.

One thing that confused me when I was setting up the processors to do the grating and slicing is that the KA blade is upside down compared to the Cuisinart. The lip is on the top side instead of the bottom. I thought it might cause more problems with food catching and such but it doesn't seem to make any difference.

The carrot test was not as conclusive. They both grated them well, although the Cuisinart's may have been a hair thinner. The KA shreds seemed more three-dimensional, but the difference was very slight. I don't know that one was better than the other but they were slightly different. Both were acceptable to me.

For what proved to be the final task I was willing to do, I did a liquid leaking test. I made a large batch of marinara, which called for 56 ounces of whole tomatoes that needed to be pureed. It was first cooked down, so it probably was only about 40 ounces by the time I put it in the processors. I put it in the Cuisinart first and spun it for two pulses. The amount of liquid went over the recommended liquid line, so I was expecting the worst. However, it didn't seem to leak. There was a little liquid on the stem of the processor, but no drips or puddles under the bowl. I transferred the contents to the KA, where the liquid just reached the liquid limit line. Two pulses later, and I had slight leakage. Again, the KA is the photo on the left:
While the KA supposedly has a higher liquid capacity if you go by the line indicated on the bowl, in reality the capacities are very close to the same in both models. It still beats my 7-cup, though, which leaked with a single 28-ounce can of tomatoes in it!

 

I hate to harp on a subject, but I have to go back to the sturdiness factor again. Looking at the blades of both units, it appears that the Cuisinart is again the winner. Cuisinart uses rivets more than KitchenAid, and where KA does use rivets they appear to be smaller. Again, there is no way of knowing for sure without doing destructive testing, but if I had to guess, I'd say the Cuisinart blades will hold up better.

I decided not to make a dough with the machines because I don't use a food processor for dough. But repeated tests have shown that the Cuisinart is a bit better for making dough, but that the KA will perform more than adequately in this task.

A couple of points I didn't mention before and I will wrap up this comparison. The Cuisinart motor is quieter than the KitchenAid; however, the bowl of the KA is thicker and therefore masks some of the noise from ingredients hitting the sides of the bowl, so neither one is a clear winner in this area. It's tough to make a silent food processor that actually works. But neither of these is jarring in its noise level.

Both have motors that are close to one another in stated wattage. I don't know how much difference 20 more watts will make when you are already at 700 watts. That is nearly 3/4 horsepower! Of course, the actual performance will depend on the current reaching the outlet. Although the electric company may claim otherwise, your household current probably varies between 90 and 130 volts throughout the day. The condition of the wiring in your house affects the outlet voltage as well. Our usually runs between 110 and 118. So we aren't getting quite the performance out of the motors that we could - the rating is for 120 volts. But both these puppies are pretty stout

I had some trouble getting the bowl off the KitchenAid. The indents on the base are longer than on the Cuisinart so you have to turn the bowl just right to lift it off. I'm sure I'd get better at it with practice but it annoyed the shit out of me during the testing. Also, I much prefer the paddle controls of the Cuisinart, because the buttons on the KA are fairly small and I always had to look down to make sure I was pressing the right one. So I am going to rate the Cuisinart higher on ease of use with a caveat that I previously owned a Cuisinart so my comfort level is greater with that brand.

In the end, both of these machines are great food processors, and are superior to the Black & Decker/Oster/Hamilton Beach models. You really can't go wrong with either of them, so base your choice on how well each one performs in the tasks you will be doing in your food processor.

Here's a summary of the results:

Looks: in the eye of the beholder
Size of unit: Cuisinart (it fits under my cabinets)
Dry ingredient capacity: Cuisinart
Liquid ingredient capacity: Tie
Smooth puree: KitchenAid
Grating: Cuisinart
Slicing: KitchenAid (two slicing blades)
Accessories: KitchenAid (extra slicing blade; mini bowl/blade)
Sturdiness (perceived): Cuisinart
Noise: Tie (I don't have a decibel meter to measure precisely)
Ease of use: Cuisinart (caveat - I was a previous Cuisinart user)

Neither of these units clearly outshone the other, so I can't say one is a much better product. It depends on the criteria that are important to you. If you want an all around machine and don't care if it fits under your cabinets, I'd choose the KitchenAid because it has more accessories and, if you like black, it's cheaper. If capacity and sturdiness are what you're after, choose the Cuisinart. I am keeping the Cuisinart, based on the following criteria:

1. The dry capacity is larger - it will handle a double batch of cookie dough (you could say 'it had me at double dough' - groan)
2. It appears to be more sturdily constructed
3. It fits under my cabinets - if I have to put it in a cabinet, I'll never use it
4. My comfort level is greater due to my previous Cuisinart ownership

Even though I had to spend an extra $70, I'm happy with my Cuisinart. I'm looking forward to many years of processing bliss.

Food Processor Death Match: Round 1

I have pitted two machines, the KitchenAid KFP750 and the Cuisinart DFP-14, against each other in a death match. I’m not actually going to kill one, at least I hope not because I can’t afford them both. But one of them will be dead to me, and will be returned to Amazon. I wonder if it will be resold as a refurb. Does anyone know what happens to unwanted used appliances that have been returned under a generous return policy?

Let’s begin by looking at the boxes. It’s interesting that the slightly smaller unit, the KA750 (12 cups) has a box that’s twice as big. It certainly aims to impress, but I always suspect that anyone who thinks that bigger and flashier is better is overcompensating for something. That’s why I always tell Hummer owners that I’m sorry for them.

The unit I’m replacing is a Cuisinart 7-cup, with which I’ve been extremely pleased. So you might think I’m partial to the Cuisinart brand, especially since I also own a Cuisinart hand mixer that I like very much. However, I have an older KitchenAid stand mixer and it’s very dear to my heart. I also own other brands of small appliances, so I really don’t have a strong brand loyalty. I’m sure brand-marketing directors everywhere gnash their teeth thinking about folks like me.

I originally purchased the KitchenAid because it came more highly recommended than the similarly sized Cuisinart, which has an 11-cup capacity. However, the Cuisinart I purchased for this comparison has the largest capacity available (14 cups), and is not the newer style that is usually tested for reviews. You could say I’m comparing apples and oranges (or perhaps more accurately oranges and tangerines) because the Cuisinart is larger, and maybe you’re right. But I wanted the largest available, and KA doesn’t make a bigger model. OK, I'm a dummy. The KA Pro Line food processor has a 16 cup capacity. However, it's even more expensive - $299, compared to the $199 I paid for the Cuisinart. That's not a price I'm willing to pay, although I bet it's a humdinger of a food processor. I wanted to compare products in the same price range, and even though I got a steal on the KA (black only at $129), most places have these two products for about the same price.

Let’s first put them side-by-side on the counter and compare their aesthetics. I’m not going to use appearance as a factor in my decision, but I know some people want appliances to look nice on their counter. I’m all about performance over style (do I hear gnashing of teeth again?). You can see that the Cuisinart is a bit stodgy. What I find interesting is that the larger capacity Cuisinart is much more compact than the KA. It fits under my cabinets whereas the KA is about 1/4 inch too tall, which although not a deal-breaker, makes the Cuisinart more attractive to me. The “black chrome” on the Cuisinart is going to be a bitch to keep free from smudges and fingerprints, and I did not see an all-black version available. Again, not crucial but it is something to consider. Since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I leave it to you to pick the winner of this swimsuit competition.

Moving on to construction, it appears to me that the blade of the Cuisinart is sturdier, although the bowl of the KA appears to be heavier. It would be interesting to do destructive testing on these pups to see which is in fact more durable, but I can’t afford that, so unless someone wants to fund a destructive testing, we’ll have to just guess. My older Cuisinart is still going strong; I just wanted a larger one. I feel that the buttons on the KA are more prone to failure than the paddles of the Cuisinart, but I have nothing but a gut feeling to back up that assertion. Other than that, I feel they are equal in sturdiness. They weigh about the same, and their motors are on par with each other. So we’ll call this a draw, with perhaps a slight advantage to the Cuisinart on the controls.

 

After appearance I looked at accessories. The KA comes with two slicing discs, I think 2mm and 4mm, which is nice. The Cuisinart only has a 4mm blade standard. Also, the KA comes with the mini-bowl, which is good if you have a small batch of something. The first thing that comes to mind is mayo - you'd have to make a monster batch if you were just using the large bowl. But that smaller bowl is juuust right. I don't think I would use the mini-bowl much since if I have just a few ingredients to chop I would rather do it by hand and not muck up the entire food processor. You can forget about using the mini-bowl and not having to wash the larger bowl - I whizzed up graham crackers in the mini bowl and not only did the lid get dirty but particles ended up in the larger bowl as well so all of it had to be washed (thanks for warning me anisette). Yuck. The KA comes with a plastic container to hold all the accessories, which is handy, although that means you have to find a place for it. I usually just tuck the blades in a cabinet or drawer. Both units come with a shredding disc, a dough blade, and a hard plastic spatula shaped to fit the bowl. I'm a little 'meh' on those spatulas - I prefer a flexible one. Some people swear by them, though. Again, in my opinion, the Cuisinart parts seem a little heavier, although the KA stem/blade is easier to assemble. It just slips on, whereas on the Cuisinart you have to hold in a little button, insert just so, and twist to lock. It's a bit more cumbersome but I think it feels more secure. Of course, I haven't heard of any blades flying loose on the KA so I'm probably just being paranoid. Given the fact that the KA comes with two slicing discs and a mini bowl/blade, I have to give it the nod for this category.

Capacity is next on the list since it's probably the biggest factor I will use to determine which one to keep. You'll remember that a few days ago I tried to make a double batch of cookie dough in the KA and it failed miserably. Only the stuff on the bottom got mixed together, and it never pulled down the stuff from the top. I tried a similar recipe in the Cuisinart, one that had the same proportion of ingredients but had more flour and sugar, so it made the competition almost exactly even, considering the Cuisinart has about 14% more capacity, and this recipe ended up being about 14% larger. While not perfect, the Cuisinart did a much butter job. When pulsed, it brought the ingredients down from the top and got them incorporated. I did have to scrape the bowl down once, but it got the bulk of the job done, unlike the KA. So I’m going to give dry ingredient capacity to the Cuisinart, which of course is bigger. 

There is one thing I’d like to point out about capacity. Even though these are rated at 12 and 14 cups, there is no way you can use them that full, especially with liquid ingredients. The KA has an indicator for liquid level on the side. It took about 4 cups of liquid to get to that line, but even with careful pouring, it leaked around the stem before the line was reached. The Cuisinart’s liquid line only allowed 3 cups of liquid. I will process some liquid ingredients to see how well they each perform tomorrow.

Slicing and shredding were the next tasks I chose. I sliced a cucumber for a salad this evening, and put half in each unit. The KA750 has a small feed tube, so the cucumber barely fit. You'd have to cut a potato or anything bigger than a medium cucumber to fit it in the tube. However, for the same price as the Cuisinart, you can get the KA760 which has the larger feed tube, but I've heard that it is a pain to use. I thought the Cuisinart would ace the capacity test since it has an enormous tube. Well, yes but no. The tube is wide and deep, but the safety interlock is activated by the top of the tube, so anything taller than the tube (about 4"), needs to be cut down to fit before you can slice or shred. One caveat: if the item is very thin like a carrot or skinny cucumber, you can use just the middle portion of the tube and process a long item. That worked, barely, for this cucumber. But if I were going to do a bunch of carrots I'd have to cut them into pieces. A medium potato, though, would fit in the Cuisinart without cutting but not in the KA.

I don't know if the larger feed tube on the KA 760 has the same safety interlock "feature" but I'd bet it does. You see, a large feed tube means you can fit your hand in it so there has to be another safety device to keep stupid people from mangling themselves. (Sometimes I'm surprised we can still buy sharp knives in this country. We keep trying to make things idiot proof, but the idiots keep getting better at being dumb.) So the feed tubes are a draw.

Feed tube capacity aside, both did a fine job on slicing. The Cuisinart ended up with a little larger piece floating around on top of the blade, but that has more to do with my clumsiness at pushing it down than in the product itself. I'll do more slicing and shredding tomorrow and post some photos. But for now it's late, I'm tired, and my belly is full. Which is a good thing.

Double Butter Burgers

Before I get into the food processor wars, I want to briefly delve into a diversion about luscious burgers. After needlessly ruining many a burger in my youth by overcooking, underseasoning, and a multitude of other sins, I think I finally have a great burger recipe. It involves an unusual ingredient and interesting assembly procedures, but many of my friends say it’s the best burger they’ve eaten.

I start with ground chuck. If your burger looks fattier than mine in the photo below, you might want to cut back a little on the next two ingredients. To this freshly ground chuck, I add some butter and peanut butter. I’m not going to publish the actual measurements in case I want to enter this burger into a competition sometime. Most competitions clearly state that the recipe cannot have been published prior to entry in the contest.

You can see this is not health food, by any means. Salt, pepper and a bit of special sauce (OK it's Worcestershire) round out the patty ingredients. Not terribly complex, but when you are starting out with good meat, you don’t need to embellish that much. One of the problems I have with many burger concoctions is there are too many ingredients – eggs, breadcrumbs, tons of seasonings. You might as well just make meatloaf.

I form the burger into balls. Each ball is patted pretty thin. To half the balls I add cheese – whatever kind you like is the right kind to use. I have used cheddar, blue, pepper jack and Colby jack with excellent results. I put the two halves together and let my husband, the Grillmeister, work his magic.

The end result is pretty darn tasty. Oh, and those things that look like dead worms on top of my burger are sauteed red onions. I'm no Andrew Zimmern.

Trying Out a New Food Processor - Cookie Dough

I was so excited to receive a new Kitchen Aid food processor (hereinafter referred to as "fp") to replace my small and aging Cuisinart. To break in the new toy, I decided to do something pretty easy - cookie dough. I tried out a couple of recipes from Cook's Country for slice-and-bake cookies.

Since the new fp was nearly twice as large as my old one, 12 cups vs. 7 cups, I thought I could make a double batch of cookies. Now, I'm not that bad at math to think that the capacity was actually double, but since a single batch didn't seem to come close to the limits of my old fp, I figured the larger size was big enough to accommodate a double batch of orange poppy seed cookie dough. I was wrong. It was a disaster. The ingredients at the bottom of the bowl got pulverized, including the poppy seeds, turning that portion of the dough a sickly bluish color while the ingredients at the top remained untouched. I emptied the ingredients into another bowl and returned half the mixture to the fp, where I finally got the ingredients together. However, the dough was very dry and I added a little water. After repeating this procedure I worked the two halves together by hand to make sure everything was evenly distributed, then formed the dough into two logs. It still seemed a little dry. 

This was not exactly the debut I was hoping for, although I was not expecting too much since I found the quality of the materials to be suspect from the time I opened the box. The blade seemed flimsy compared to the sturdy  blade on my Cuisinart. The bowl seems to be heavy duty and the base is certainly heavy enough, but those blades just don't look like they can handle what I will most likely throw at them. Plus, the stupid thing doesn't fit under my cabinets. It is about 1/4 inch too tall. You don't think they could have accounted for that? My cabinets are industry standard height above the countertop - I'm sure I'm not the only one with this problem.

You can just barely see my Cuisinart ice cream maker behind the fp - another somewhat disappointing purchase. It makes ice cream okay, but the noise is as bad as my old ice/salt model, which actually works better although it is less convenient. But now I have two ice cream makers, and that is not a bad thing.

Can you tell from the photo that a little red light comes on next to one of the buttons when the unit is in operation? I can't think of a more useless feature. I find that the distinct hum of an electric motor, ingredients bashing the side of the bowl, and whirling blades of death to be much more effective at indicating that a food processor is working than a tiny red light that is covered up by my finger hovering over the off button. That brings up another problem I have with this machine. I really liked the toggle of the old Cuisinart. Up was on, middle was off, and down was pulse. It was easy to go back and forth without looking down at my hands. This is quite a bit less intuitive (oh, but it looks so cool).

As if I weren't already annoyed enough, one of my cats decided that he wanted to assist by jumping on the counter and performing a quality check on the butter. Before he made the leap, I distracted him with a treat. That kept him occupied while I cleaned up the unit for the next batch of dough.

This Kitchen Aid machine came highly recommended by Cook's Illustrated, which, coupled with the sale price at Amazon.com, prompted me to choose this model. I may have to reconsider the purchase and crack open the wallet for a more heavy duty model. But to be fair in my evaluation, I decided to make a single batch of cookie dough. I chose Coconut Lime for the next batch. It went a lot better, although the dough still seemed a bit dry, so I squeezed in a little lime juice. Perhaps I used a little too much juice, because this dough was decidedly sticky. Nevertheless, I decided to quit while I was ahead (behind?) and formed it into a log. I think these cookies are going to be huge, because I was to make the log only 10 inches long, according to the recipe, and it's about 2 1/2 inches in diameter. If these cookies spread even a little, they will be monsters. I prefer a smaller cookie to help assuage the guilt I have in consuming multiples.

I threw the bowl and lid into the dishwasher, even though I had originally planned to make three types of dough (double batches so I could freeze half for later). By the time the second batch was done, it was late and I was whipped, so I called it an evening. Plus, my cat was no longer distracted and seemed to ask "what, is that all I get?" 
Tomorrow I will research some larger, more heavy duty food processors to see if I want to trade up.

Sweet Miniatures #122, Golden Caramels (Dark Chocolate Variation)

Since I already have a super, duper, can't be beat vanilla caramel recipe (available for free on the Cook's Illustrated Bulletin Board), I wasn't going to try these. Then I noticed that there is a dark chocolate version so I was back on board, as I've been searching for a great chocolate caramel.

As I perused the recipe, though, I became worried. Ms. Braker has you heat the sugar, corn syrup and bittersweet chocolate to 305 degrees F. before adding cream and butter to soften the caramel, which is then cooked to a reasonable 248 degrees F. I really didn't think the chocolate should be added with the corn syrup and sugar and heated to such a high temperature, but against my better judgment I did it her way.

The basic formula is: heat sugar and corn syrup to hard crack stage (add bittersweet chocolate for the chocolate caramels). Then you add butter, let it melt, and add cream. The caramel is hardened at this point, and you have to stir constantly as the caramel re-melts under the heat and the liquid gets worked in. I've had more than one caramel separate on me completely at this stage, so I was relieved when it all finally came together in this recipe.

Unfortunately, the end result is what I had feared. Despite my thorough, almost obsessive, stirring and scraping of the pot, the chocolate scorched and the caramels, although attractive and with the perfect amount of chew, taste burned. I do think that if the chocolate were melted and added with the cream that these would be outstanding. Perhaps I am missing something and the chocolate needs to be heated this high, but I will try it my way (crap, now I'll be hearing that song in my head all day) and see if it works.

I am debating whether to finish eating these with their slightly burned aftertaste or if I should pitch them. I sure won't serve them to any of my friends. Usually I don't mind a little extra toasty flavor, but these are a little too much. I really hate to waste a whole pan of caramels, but I am not looking forward to these the way I do my regular caramels. Drat.

One thing I want to point out is how the copper saucepan changes color at the bottom when exposed to high heat (in this case, medium-high). The bottom turns a dark red, with highlights of purple and blue forming as it gets hotter, then the color fades to regular copper at the top. I wonder if this was the inspiration for the Flame color of Le Creuset?

More Uses for Strawberries: Strawberry Topping

Yes, I still had strawberries left on Monday and most of them (in the green bags) were still good! Plus I bought another half-flat last Thursday. We will be sick of strawberries soon, I suspect. This time I decided to use them as topping for a cheesecake, which my husband had requested some time back.

The cheesecake I felt would pair well with the topping is a white chocolate cheesecake. Lots of people aren't big fans of white chocolate, which is basically cocoa butter solids and sugar, but I have grown quite fond of it. I am careful to buy real white chocolate, not white candy melts or other abominations masquerading as white chocolate. Those are truly vile, and taste like melted plastic.

Cheesecake is one of those things that people don't often make at home but pay through the nose for when eating out. It's true that to make an uncracked, moist cheesecake takes a little work, but it isn't THAT hard. The first thing I like to tell people about making cheesecake is to forget about the springform pan. There's one less thing you need to keep in your cupboard, too. I make mine in a regular cake pan. Actually, since receiving it as a Christmas gift, I now use a silicone cake pan which makes life even easier.

The reason I don't use a springform pan is because I like to bake my cheesecake in a water bath, and no matter how well you think you've wrapped your springform pan with layer upon layer of heavy duty foil, it will leak and your cheesecake will be soggy. With a regular cake pan, no leaks. Ta-da!

You may be wondering how difficult it is to remove a cheesecake from a regular cake pan. It isn't, as long as you follow these simple directions. First, use parchment or waxed paper underneath your crust (or, if sans crust, under the batter). Second, let the cheesecake cool completely in the fridge. NO cheating. Third, invert the cheesecake and pan onto a plastic wrap-lined cutting board or cookie sheet, and lay a warm damp towel on the bottom of the pan. In 20-30 seconds, the cake will release. You can then reinvert onto a serving plate, peeling off the plastic wrap. Once I forgot the plastic wrap and it released cleanly from the cutting board, but I use the wrap as insurance.

Another question you may have is why use a water bath? It helps the cheesecake bake more evenly and also lessens the likelihood of cracks (which, if they happen, can always be covered up with gooey topping, so don't fret).

As you can see from the photo at right, I sometimes don't use a crust. That way I can store the cheesecake in the fridge longer without worrying about the crust getting soggy. Can you tell I abhor a soggy crust? If I don't use a crust, I will crush up a graham cracker or two, sprinkle with sugar and melted butter, and pop it into the toaster oven for a brief toast (yep, I use the toast setting). Then I put the crispy crumbs on the plate, top with the cheesecake and whatever topping I am using. Another advantage of this, besides never having a soggy crust, is that you can put cold cheesecake on a warm crust for a delightful juxtaposition of temperatures. This morning I had cheesecake for breakfast - why not? - and used finely chopped pistachios as the crust. It was a tasty, if unorthodox, breakfast.

One last tip on making cheesecake - make sure your cream cheese is totally softened before you begin, especially if you use store brand cream cheese. If you don't soften it fully, little lumps of cream cheese will remain. It won't ruin the cheesecake, but it won't be quite as creamy. And yes, Philly cream cheese really is the best.

So here's the recipe for my white chocolate cheesecake. I hope you enjoy it!

White Chocolate Cheesecake with Strawberry Topping

1 1/2 cups vanilla wafer or graham cracker crumbs
5 tablespoons melted butter
1/4 cup sugar

3 (8 oz.) packages cream cheese, softened
1 cup sour cream
3 eggs
2/3 cup granulated sugar
1 tsp. vanilla
7.5 oz white chocolate, melted

Strawberry Topping (recipe follows)

Heat oven to 350 degrees. Mix wafer crumbs, melted butter and 1/4 cup sugar together. Spread over bottom and partway up sides of 9 inch cake pan lined with parchment or waxed paper. Bake for 8-10 minutes, or until very lightly browned. Set on rack to cool. Meanwhile, heat water to a boil in a saucepan or tea kettle, and have ready a roasting pan or other deep pan large enough to hold the cake pan with at least 1 inch clearance around it.

In large bowl, beat softened cream cheese until smooth. Beat in sour cream, eggs, vanilla and sugar. Stir in melted white chocolate. Spread in pan. Place filled pan in roasting pan and add boiling water. Carefully transfer to middle oven rack and bake at 350 for about 1 hour, or until center is almost set (middle 3 inches should still jiggle just a little). Let cool 2 hours to room temperature. Cover with plastic wrap and refrigerate until fully set, which may take several hours.

Invert the cheesecake and pan onto a plastic wrap-lined cutting board or cookie sheet, and lay a warm damp towel on the bottom of the pan. In 20-30 seconds, the cake will release. You can then reinvert onto a serving plate, peeling off the plastic wrap.

Slice and serve with topping.

Strawberry Topping

2 pounds strawberries, hulled and sliced into 1/8 inch slices
2/3 cup light brown sugar
1 cup strawberry or seedless raspberry preserves

Toss sliced strawberries in large bowl with brown sugar. Let berries sit for 20-30 minutes. In a small saucepan over low heat, heat preserves until melted, and pour into strawberry mixture. Refrigerate until cold, then spoon over cheesecake.