Yes Lemon Curd uses eggs as the thickener. TNT Recipe: http://www.discusscooking.com/forums/f40/lemon-curd-a-la-pf-74950.html
Lemon Pie...or Tart???
- Thread starter Daizymae
- 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.
Yes Lemon Curd uses eggs as the thickener. TNT Recipe: http://www.discusscooking.com/forums/f40/lemon-curd-a-la-pf-74950.html
msmofet
Chef Extraordinaire
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,927
Thank you PF, on my way to check it out.
Mad Cook
Master Chef
I've always understood that lemon curd and lemon cheese were the same thing but my local shop sells both made by the same "artisan" manufacturer so I suppose "you pays your money and you takes your chance" as they say.
Whatever you call it, it's a pain to make at home. If you take your eye off it for a minute it scrambles
Mad Cook
Master Chef
I was a bit appalled about the cornstarch at first. Then I remembered that Delia Smith recommended a teaspoon of corn starch/cornflour when making the custard for ice cream. It stabilises the mixture so it doesn't scramble if it gets a bit too hot. I expect it would work in lemon curd/cheese.
I don't make it often but when I do I always use the zest of the lemon as well as the juice.
When my aunt used to make orange curd she used to slip in a slug of Cointreau
At this point I sure wish I had that book on food chemistry that explains just why professional and/or traditional cooks do things the way they do. There is apparently a good reason for adding certain ingredients into the mix, in a specific way. I don't recall the name of the book but I saw it on Amazon. Someone here might have mentioned it but I forgot.
Here is an example I read in a traditionally oriented health book: the author states that kale doesn't do much for you if only lightly steamed, as is the fad in recent years.
She explained that the old way, where you cook the kale in lots of water, then drain off the darkened water after cooking, then sauteeing the greens, makes the beneficial minerals much more available to our bodies. And that the dark water you get rid of contains non-digestible, unhealthful elements.
So, there ya go! From addition of corn starch in lemon tart or is it pie, to how to cook kale.
Here is an example I read in a traditionally oriented health book: the author states that kale doesn't do much for you if only lightly steamed, as is the fad in recent years.
She explained that the old way, where you cook the kale in lots of water, then drain off the darkened water after cooking, then sauteeing the greens, makes the beneficial minerals much more available to our bodies. And that the dark water you get rid of contains non-digestible, unhealthful elements.
So, there ya go! From addition of corn starch in lemon tart or is it pie, to how to cook kale.
GotGarlic
Chef Extraordinaire
Interesting. In the southern United States, it's common to cook bitter greens (like kale, collards and mustard greens) for a long time, usually with some seasoning pork (a smoked ham hock or some sausage) and finish with vinegar. The liquid left from cooking is known as "pot liquor," and is savored by people who enjoy this preparation.
There is no way to really get rid of the non-digestible elements in bitter greens, and you don't really want to. It's the fiber that can't be digested, but it's also the fiber that helps keep the colon healthy.
If you remember the name of the book, I'd be interested in knowing it. I love this kind of stuff
Last edited:
@GotGarlic. You are correct about the fiber in the greens. When softened, they are a healthful component of food to eat.
I wasn't talking about fiber, though, but about certain chemical elements in greens generally that are perhaps not the best thing for us. If consumed in the context of the other ingredients, as in the south's tradition, this would be a good dish. Probably the vinegar does the trick, somehow modifying any negative components of greens.
The author of this health book I read stated "Traditional cooking practices are rarely wrong" or words to that effect. It has time and instinct behind it.
Perhaps my use of the term "non digestible" wasn't quite correctly used.
I am going to hunt for the name of that book. I love info like that, too.
I wasn't talking about fiber, though, but about certain chemical elements in greens generally that are perhaps not the best thing for us. If consumed in the context of the other ingredients, as in the south's tradition, this would be a good dish. Probably the vinegar does the trick, somehow modifying any negative components of greens.
The author of this health book I read stated "Traditional cooking practices are rarely wrong" or words to that effect. It has time and instinct behind it.
Perhaps my use of the term "non digestible" wasn't quite correctly used.
I am going to hunt for the name of that book. I love info like that, too.
Last edited:
GotGarlic
Chef Extraordinaire
I'd really like to know what those are. I couldn't find anything when I did a search.
Old ways are not always the best ways, or done for the reasons per think they are. People have a strong tendency to ascribe cause and effect because X happened after Y, but that's a logical fallacy.
I'd really like to know what those are. I couldn't find anything when I did a search.
Old ways are not always the best ways, or done for the reasons per think they are. People have a strong tendency to ascribe cause and effect because X happened after Y, but that's a logical fallacy.
I don't know what those unhealthy components might be. I am quoting an author who was a food researcher/philosopher, also highly learned in general. I took her at her word, while still agreeing with your statements, above, that old does not automatically = good.
Here is an example of an old way being the best way. Early in civilization, populations everywhere apparently figured out that the outer skin of seeds was not good for people. So, prior to the invention of seed and grain refining machinery, they would ferment their grains and seeds, as well as developing elaborate cooking methods for certain foods. I got this info from the Weston Price Foundation, promoters of traditional foods combined with modern knowledge.
Well, lo and behold, it turns out that unrefined seeds are high in anti-nutrients. There's been plenty of scientific study of this. This knowledge has changed my eating and cooking habits. Eating raw whole (unskinned) sesame seeds gives me leg cramps. Toasting, then grinding, them seems to inactivate whatever it is that is sucking minerals out of me.
Anlother traditional practice is the consumption of spinach and other leaves of the same family with dairy products, as the antinutrients in these species apparently are calcium antagonists. Same is true of nightshade products. Tomatoes are notorious for this.
Other examples exist but I can't recall right now.
Old ways are not always the best ways, or done for the reasons per think they are. People have a strong tendency to ascribe cause and effect because X happened after Y, but that's a logical fallacy.
I don't know what those unhealthy components might be. I am quoting an author who was a food researcher/philosopher, also highly learned in general. I took her at her word, while still agreeing with your statements, above, that old does not automatically = good.
Here is an example of an old way being the best way. Early in civilization, populations everywhere apparently figured out that the outer skin of seeds was not good for people. So, prior to the invention of seed and grain refining machinery, they would ferment their grains and seeds, as well as developing elaborate cooking methods for certain foods. I got this info from the Weston Price Foundation, promoters of traditional foods combined with modern knowledge.
Well, lo and behold, it turns out that unrefined seeds are high in anti-nutrients. There's been plenty of scientific study of this. This knowledge has changed my eating and cooking habits. Eating raw whole (unskinned) sesame seeds gives me leg cramps. Toasting, then grinding, them seems to inactivate whatever it is that is sucking minerals out of me.
Anlother traditional practice is the consumption of spinach and other leaves of the same family with dairy products, as the antinutrients in these species apparently are calcium antagonists. Same is true of nightshade products. Tomatoes are notorious for this.
Other examples exist but I can't recall right now.
GotGarlic
Chef Extraordinaire
Well, that's very interesting. I've never heard that before and I've been studying nutrition for many years. Nightshades, of course, are indigenous to Central and South America, where there is no tradition of dairy products before European explorers arrived in the 15th century.
Did you mean that nightshades are indigenous to Central and South America and also that the populations there consumed them? From what I read, they did not do so, but I will stand corrected. In the wild tomatoes were small and bitter - it was Europeans who bred tomatoes for ages til they became soft and juicy and tasty. About other members of the nightshade family, I don't know for sure. This may be true of potatoes; as to eggplant, I know nothing about it except for knowing that some people with arthritis are advised to avoid all nightshades.
The indigenous peoples rightly knew they were poisonous. Europeans tamed them somewhat, but they apparently still drain calcium. From what I hear. I am not a scientists.
The indigenous peoples rightly knew they were poisonous. Europeans tamed them somewhat, but they apparently still drain calcium. From what I hear. I am not a scientists.
GotGarlic
Chef Extraordinaire
Of course they did. Please - I really want to know where you read that.
No, no, no, no and no. None of that is true. "In the wild"? That implies that the indigenous peoples of the Americas did not farm and breed the food they ate. They did.
In particular, the idea that Europeans fixed supposed problems with Central and South American foods is quite condescending and close to racist. This is not an uncommon attitude among conquerors.
The indigenous peoples rightly knew they were poisonous. Europeans tamed them somewhat, but they apparently still drain calcium. From what I hear. I am not a scientists.
No and no again. The leaves can cause digestive issues, but the fruits are highly nutritious and easily digestible. They certainly do not "drain calcium." I'm not a scientist either, but again, I have studied nutrition for many years.
In the 16th and 17th centuries, Europeans and English Americans did believe that tomatoes and other fruits from nightshades were poisonous, but they were wrong.
http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/plantanswers/publications/vegetabletravelers/tomato.html
http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodmexican.html#chile
http://www.foodreference.com/html/a-pot-hist0607.html
Last edited:
@GotGarlic.
My opinions - which I am not married to - come from (1) my understanding of food energies as expounded by far eastern dietary ideas and expanded by western science; (2) a book by Pitchford on Asian healing traditions and modern nutrition; (3) a book by A. Colbin (food researcher) (4) a big book by a socalled food philosopher whose author I can't recall but I will put my thinking cap on, as I want to reread. I believe his ideas come from the anthroposophical standpoint, which does not reject anything out of hand but instead tries to harmonize - as far as I can remember.
Re nightshades. They contain solanine, a calcium antagonist. Therefore, they would be useful when a person is suffering from inappropriate calcium deposits, in some cases. Pitchford has more to say on the actions of solanine. Pages 542-545. People under severe stress and tension, as well as meat eaters, would crave these kinds of foods. No food is truly poisonous if its qualities are understood and you have the capacity to balance your diet.
My opinions - which I am not married to - come from (1) my understanding of food energies as expounded by far eastern dietary ideas and expanded by western science; (2) a book by Pitchford on Asian healing traditions and modern nutrition; (3) a book by A. Colbin (food researcher) (4) a big book by a socalled food philosopher whose author I can't recall but I will put my thinking cap on, as I want to reread. I believe his ideas come from the anthroposophical standpoint, which does not reject anything out of hand but instead tries to harmonize - as far as I can remember.
Re nightshades. They contain solanine, a calcium antagonist. Therefore, they would be useful when a person is suffering from inappropriate calcium deposits, in some cases. Pitchford has more to say on the actions of solanine. Pages 542-545. People under severe stress and tension, as well as meat eaters, would crave these kinds of foods. No food is truly poisonous if its qualities are understood and you have the capacity to balance your diet.
GotGarlic
Chef Extraordinaire
Daizy, philosophy has no bearing on the chemistry of food. A calcium antagonist is a medication - a highly refined substance often derived from plants that has a clinical effect on disease. Eating food that contains relatively small amounts of solanine is not the same as taking a more concentrated form as in medication.
I am huge fan of lemon pie
Me, too, but making one from scratch is for some of us folks quite an effort.
erehweslefox
Sous Chef
GotGarlic
Chef Extraordinaire
Last edited:
erehweslefox
Sous Chef
Well, Europeans decided they weren't poisonous, and I only use belladonna as a food ingredient with people I don't like.
I'd disagree with you on the idea of mono-culture separate from plant breeding.
Perhaps we can disagree in particular or in a different thread? It would be an idea I am interested in.
yours, TBS
GotGarlic
Chef Extraordinaire
This is what I was responding to:
If you know anything at all about the history of the Americas before the Europeans, you know that none of this is true. Indigenous Americans ate the fruits of nightshade plants, tomatoes were not poisonous, Europeans did not "tame" them, and they were not "small and bitter" before "Europeans bred them to be soft and juicy and tasty."
You can start a new thread if you want but the bottom line is this: monoculture is an agricultural method - growing crops to feed people - and plant breeding is the practice of developing new varieties of plants using a knowledge of genetics. I didn't say they are separate - I said they are not the same.
Last edited:
erehweslefox
Sous Chef
Yeah I am cool with a new thread. I hope you join me there.
