[Sca-cooks] One for the pros

[Nicolas Steenhout]

>It will do no harm to use a moist heat method in cooking a prime piece of
>roast.  No it is not necessary.  I just prefer it as I usually take that
>opportunity to add some bayleaf and other herbs in the water to fragrance
>the air being blown out of the convection oven.

Again, it depends on the *definition* of moist heat.  For me, moist heat is
cooked in liquids, or in an "etouffee".  What you're talking about does not
constitute moist heat.  The amount of moisture evaporating is minimal.  I
haven't actually measured it, or read studies about it in ovens, though
from another list I'm on, I think that the increase in air humidity in your
oven would not go much more than 10%, perhaps 15% above "normal" just by
placing a pan of water under your roast in the oven.  This is not quite
enough to be considered moist heat.  But what do I know?  I'm in a rotten
mood right now and rather argumentative.  I really should shut up, but I
can't leave well enough alone, eh? :-)

As for bayleaves and other herbs, I've seen this done quite a
bit.  Personally, I question the real use of it.  Surely, it gives out
wonderful aromas, but in terms of actual taste to the piece you're cooking,
I have not seen any real difference.  I am basing this on cooking fish in
"marguerite", or other steam methods, where aromatic elements were added to
the liquid used for steaming.  I've also seen some people use wine as a
steaming liquid.  Again, I think it's pretty useless, unless your food
actually touches the liquid.

I would prefer to actually put the herbs and other aromatic elements
directly on the piece I'm cooking.  I think it's much more efficient.  But
again, this is merely empirical findings, nothing "scientific" about
it.  In the end, if it works for you, that's what counts, eh? :-)

>I should have been more size specific in this but wanted to make the point
>that a piece of beef that comes straight from the refrigerator and goes
>directly into the oven tends to drain juice out and makes for a tougher
>piece of meat.

Yes absoluterly.  :-)  But then, I thought we *were* talking about big ol'
chunks of roasts, not smaller pieces :-)  Ok, I'm semi anal retentive :-)

>I have used that method too but forgot about it.  It's a pretty good one.
>And depending on how 'crusty' a larger piece of meat is then yes, even a
>larger roast can be checked with a touch method.

Well, I was thinking in terms of larger chunks of meat.  Having roasted
regularly big pieces of meat, as big as 100 pound at a time, I can tell you
that the touch method is really not accurate at all on them, crusty or not :-)

Forgot to mention that you should be careful with your roast.  Remember it
will keep on cooking once outside the oven.  Especially with large pieces
of meat that carry lots of weight and heat.

>  If your read what I wrote
>I actually said poke.  To me there is a difference.  A touch is a caress and
>a poke is much firmer.

Ok, I *had* to address this in private, which I did.  Ohhh but it sometimes
hurt to have a mind residing in the gutter... :-)

'Nuff for now.

Muiredach mac Loloig
Rokkehealden Shire
aka
Nicolas Steenhout
"You must deal with me as I think of myself" J. Hockenberry