Techniques for making cheap and tasty meals
- Thread starter Chief Longwind Of The North
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that enjoys cooking.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Jeekinz
Washing Up
My DO came with a few recipes, but there's like 500 ingredients for each one.
For example: Last night, I seared some chicken leg/thigh quarters in a saute pan and rendered out most of the fat from the skin. Turned them once and continued to cook until slightly brown on the bottom. Removed them to a bowl, and removed about 95% of the fat. Sauteed some thick sliced onion, and deglazed with about a cup of white wine. Added garlic, thyme & rosemary sprigs, bay leaf, a can of whole tomatoes that I sliced in the pan, some tomato paste, chopped roasted red pepper, frozen artichokes. Mainly just ingredients I had laying around. Put the chicken back in kind of burying them in the sauce. Lid on, and simmer until done. I remove the chicken and reduce the sauce checking for seasoning and removing leftover herb pieces. I serve it over white rice.
No muss, no fuss. You would have to try real hard to screw that up. And theres a huge window for the meat to be done, so you don't have to worry about over/under cooking.
Just think bold flavors, low and slow. Watch for too much salt too early if you reduce your liquid to a sauce. Been there, done that.
Fisher's Mom
Executive Chef
Thanks, IC. This helped. My first real successes with meat were through braising in a slow cooker, but I have yet to manage a good result braising on the stove or in the oven. Also, you crystallized the vague idea in my head that my seasonings and braising liquids and vegetables have the greatest impact on the results. So I'm going to focus on that, since I haven't ventured much past onions, salt, pepper and Worcestershire sauce. But do you have any pointers on braising in the oven vs the cook top? Also, covered or open? How do you decide which?
Fisher's Mom
Executive Chef
Yep, I did use too much salt once and as a result, I'm pretty sure I undersalt now. Does it taste the same if you wait to add the salt until the braising is done?
ironchef
Executive Chef
I prefer to braise on the stovetop, because it's easier to check and you don't have to worry about the oven temperature dropping everytime you open the door to check. I like to cut a piece of parchment paper that fits the size of the pan, then lay that on top of the liquid as opposed to leaving the cover ajar.
There are so many different combinations: beef vs. chicken stock, red vs. white wine, wine vs. port, tomato vs. no tomato, etc. Easiest thing is to search online for different recipes and use those as referrence.
Fisher's Mom
Executive Chef
Thanks again, IC. When you say parchment paper, do you mean instead of a lid or under a lid?
I forgot, yes I usually add red wine when braising a roast. But I have never actually made stock before. I've saved up a bunch of bones in the freezer so I'm going to try that next. I didn't think about using it as the braising liquid but it sounds like it would be great. I'll let you know how I do.
I forgot, yes I usually add red wine when braising a roast. But I have never actually made stock before. I've saved up a bunch of bones in the freezer so I'm going to try that next. I didn't think about using it as the braising liquid but it sounds like it would be great. I'll let you know how I do.
ironchef
Executive Chef
Parchment paper = no lid. Just lay it over everything and lightly simmer the braise.
A good stock will elevate a braise from good to great. A braised dish in mostly any great restaurant will have utilize a great stock as part of the braising liquid.
josh_swinehart
Senior Cook
This is great thread, lots of good ideas. Thanks everyone.
-Josh
hart
-Josh
hart
Making your own pasta is probably one of the most rewarding activities.
It is not only extremely inexpensive, but also the best way to enjoy sauces because the fresh past will absorb juices as opposed of dry pasta purchased at the store.
Refrigerated pasta purchased at the store is OK, but still no match to homemade...specially if you are making fetuccini Alfredo.
It is not only extremely inexpensive, but also the best way to enjoy sauces because the fresh past will absorb juices as opposed of dry pasta purchased at the store.
Refrigerated pasta purchased at the store is OK, but still no match to homemade...specially if you are making fetuccini Alfredo.
Andy M.
Certified Pretend Chef
But then you're geting half milk with half the nutritional value and half the flavor.
bethzaring
Master Chef
Wouldn't you have to mix a gallon of skim milk and a gallon of whole milk to get your 1% to 2% milk? I'm having trouble with the logic here, my brain is not coming up with the answer, but adding water to a product and expecting the water to enhance anything is not ringing true for me. Andy is correct, you are reducing the nutritive value by 50%. Just not sure that adding 1 gallon of water to one gallon of milk is cost effective, or nutritionally adequate, or something
? I guess since milk is about 88% water to begin with, I can't see adding any more water to it!.josh_swinehart
Senior Cook
Originally Posted by Maverick2272
Its not the price difference, the idea is to buy one gallon of whole milk then add a gallon of water to it, thus giving you two gallons of milk that is thinner than whole milk and thicker than skim. Probably close to your 1% or 2% milk.
We pay $2.70 for whole milk right now at ALDI, so that works out to $1.35 per gallon when watered down.
There have been two posts dismissing this idea out of hand, but someone correct me if I am wrong. Whole milk is 3.25% butterfat, so if you retained one half and mixed the other with water 1:1 then you would have half a gallon that is still at 3.25% and one gallon that is 1.625% butterfat. So Maverick is right about percentages. So the only problem remaining are the vitamins and other things in milk. This method only really stands up if whole milk has more (by percentage) of the vitamins, etc. then its lower butterfat counterparts. I don't know if it does or not.
-Josh
hart
Andy M.
Certified Pretend Chef
There have been two posts dismissing this idea out of hand, but someone correct me if I am wrong. Whole milk is 3.25% butterfat, so if you retained one half and mixed the other with water 1:1 then you would have half a gallon that is still at 3.25% and one gallon that is 1.625% butterfat. So Maverick is right about percentages. So the only problem remaining are the vitamins and other things in milk. This method only really stands up if whole milk has more (by percentage) of the vitamins, etc. then its lower butterfat counterparts. I don't know if it does or not.
-Josh
Your math is correct regarding the fat content. My point was that diluting milk with water costs you half the nutritional value of the milk.
Milk producers reduce the fat content without diluting the rest of the product.
For future reference, here is a list of the fat content of some common milks and creams:
Heavy cream has a milk fat content of between 36 and 40%
Light whipping cream, 30 to 36%
Light cream (also called coffee or table cream) 18 to 30%
Half and half is 10 to 12% milk fat.
Whole Milk is 3.7% milk fat.
Then there are 2% and 1% milks and...
Skim, which must be less than 0.5% milk fat.
bethzaring
Master Chef
There have been two posts dismissing this idea out of hand, but someone correct me if I am wrong. Whole milk is 3.25% butterfat, so if you retained one half and mixed the other with water 1:1 then you would have half a gallon that is still at 3.25% and one gallon that is 1.625% butterfat. So Maverick is right about percentages. So the only problem remaining are the vitamins and other things in milk. This method only really stands up if whole milk has more (by percentage) of the vitamins, etc. then its lower butterfat counterparts. I don't know if it does or not.
-Josh
I can answer your question regarding the different milks (whole vs 1%) and the vitamin and mineral content. There is negligible difference in the vitamin, mineral and other components of milk, among the different fat levels of milk. In fact, there are slightly more vitamins and minerals in 1% butterfat milk than whole milk. That is because the fat is displaced by more whey in the lower butterfat milks, and the whey is where the vitamins and minerals are. So the only difference in the milks are the butterfat levels, not the vitamin and mineral levels.
And I do not follow this sentence..
Whole milk is 3.25% butterfat, so if you retained one half and mixed the other with water 1:1 then you would have half a gallon that is still at 3.25% and one gallon that is 1.625% butterfat.
Do you mean 1/2 gallon that is 1.625%?
Did I answer your question?
josh_swinehart
Senior Cook
You answered my vitamin/nutrient question but my volume and percent butterfat math does seem to be correct.
1 gallon whole milk < 1/2 gallon whole milk + (1/2 gallon whole milk + 1/2 gallon water) = 1/2 gallon whole milk + 1 gallon Frankenmilk (1.625% butterfat)
Ok I agree with you on the vitamins/nutrients.
Last edited:
Maverick2272
Washing Up
Not to mention you reduce the hormones by half....
The point is you are saving money by doubling your milk. Considering the amount of milk the kids get these days, thats not a bad thing at all.
And they get plenty of vitamins and nutrients from other sources as well, so reducing by half causes no harm at all. Taste wise it doesn't taste any different to us then 1% or 2% and is still better tasting to us than skim.
The point is you are saving money by doubling your milk. Considering the amount of milk the kids get these days, thats not a bad thing at all.
And they get plenty of vitamins and nutrients from other sources as well, so reducing by half causes no harm at all. Taste wise it doesn't taste any different to us then 1% or 2% and is still better tasting to us than skim.
