On 2010-05-04 10:19:53 -0700, Stu said:

> Pasulj (Serbian Bean Soup)

I gave this a shot and had a hell of a time.

> You will need a large saucepan. Pick over the beans for bits of grit
> and chaff, and rinse them twice in cold water. Put the beans in a
> large saucepan and cover them with water to a depth of 1 to 2 inches.
> Bring the water to a boil and then turn down the heat. Leave to simmer
> gently for half an hour.

I followed all of this timings but the beans came out with very dense
skins, undercooked. The beans I used were a couple of years old, but in
an unoppened package. I'm not sure if that matters. I cooked them for
an additional 1.5 to 2 hours, and even still my wife felt obliged to
put them for 8 minutes in a pressure cooker.

I put the raw beans in water overnight until mid-day. Then soaked for
14-16 hours.

I'm using an electric stove-top. It's glass and pretty and all, but all
the burners working dramatically differently, and I am having a hell of
a time controlling heat without seeing a flame. I think I'm going in
there today and see if I can't do some measurements to find out what
these burners are doing.

Nevertheless, whereever I may have erred in cooking it was in putting
too much heat on, rather than too little, it seemed.

> Remove the pan from the heat and pour in enough cold water to cover
> the beans to a depth of 3 inches. The beans will settle on the
> bottom. Leave them for a minute or two; then pour off the water and
> replace with fresh water. Bring the water to a boil and then turn
> down the heat to simmer.

Can you say why--the adding water, waiting, pouring, out replacing?
What's going on here? Additionally, what does "replace" with fresh
water mean? Is that another "depth of 3 inches" in my unsized vessel?
Or just "add it until it looks like soup ought to? :-)

> Add the onions, garlic, bay leaves, parsley, tomato paste, carrot, and
> peppercorns to the beans. Cook gently over very low heat for 1 1/2
> to 2 hours, until the beans are soft.

Here I waited 3.5 to 4 and then went with the pressure cooker.
--
If you limit your actions in life to things that nobody can possibly
find fault with, you will not do much. -- Lewis Carroll

On May 12, 3:28 pm, gtr > wrote:

> I gave this a shot and had a hell of a time.
>
Hardly a surprise.

> I followed all of this timings but the beans came out with very dense
> skins, undercooked. The beans I used were a couple of years old, but in
> an unoppened package. I'm not sure if that matters. I cooked them for
> an additional 1.5 to 2 hours, and even still my wife felt obliged to
> put them for 8 minutes in a pressure cooker.

There's no way to know for sure but their age probably caused the long
cooking time. There's two good results here -- for one, you've now
used up these ancient beans, and for two, you'll be receptive to my
rule for making any kind of bean soup. It's a two part rule: first,
cook your beans; second, make your soup. Combining these steps can
work and save time, but it can also fail. Separating the steps cannot
fail.
>
> I'm using an electric stove-top.[snip]

Interesting but irrelevant. If you can see the pot simmering, what
else do you need to know?
>
> Can you say why--the adding water, waiting, pouring, out replacing?
> What's going on here?

It's just gibberish. Possibly it was originally a version of
presoaking--simmer for a few minutes, then let rest for a few hours,
drain and start afresh--and it got corrupted through mistranslations.
In any case, it means nothing now. A real cook would not have
reprinted it this way, but you're dealing with Stu here.

If you like this kind of thing, look up Senate Bean Soup threads on
rfc. It's quite tasty. -aem

On Wed, 12 May 2010 17:32:08 -0700 (PDT), aem >
wrote:


>There's no way to know for sure but their age probably caused the long
>cooking time. There's two good results here -- for one, you've now
>used up these ancient beans, and for two, you'll be receptive to my
>rule for making any kind of bean soup. It's a two part rule: first,
>cook your beans; second, make your soup. Combining these steps can
>work and save time, but it can also fail. Separating the steps cannot
>fail.

I like that rule. I'll remember it.

>If you like this kind of thing, look up Senate Bean Soup threads on
>rfc. It's quite tasty.

Yep! RFC is probably a better place to search than the web. There's
some bad recipes out there. I see Paula Deen has one that doesn't
even have a ham bone. Just a slice of ham. Weird.

Lou

On Wed, 12 May 2010 15:28:40 -0700, gtr > wrote:

>I'm using an electric stove-top. It's glass and pretty and all, but all
>the burners working dramatically differently, and I am having a hell of
>a time controlling heat without seeing a flame. I think I'm going in
>there today and see if I can't do some measurements to find out what
>these burners are doing.

I've got a glass top at my cottage and it took me a few meals to get
used to it. The burners cycle. They're either on or off for various
lengths of time depending on what you have it set on. I've got gas in
the city and for most things I like the glass top is better. Don't
give up and you'll get the hang of it.

Lou

On Wed, 12 May 2010 21:05:50 -0500, Lou Decruss wrote:

> On Wed, 12 May 2010 17:32:08 -0700 (PDT), aem >
> wrote:
>
>>There's no way to know for sure but their age probably caused the long
>>cooking time. There's two good results here -- for one, you've now
>>used up these ancient beans, and for two, you'll be receptive to my
>>rule for making any kind of bean soup. It's a two part rule: first,
>>cook your beans; second, make your soup. Combining these steps can
>>work and save time, but it can also fail. Separating the steps cannot
>>fail.
>
> I like that rule. I'll remember it.
>
>>If you like this kind of thing, look up Senate Bean Soup threads on
>>rfc. It's quite tasty.
>
> Yep! RFC is probably a better place to search than the web. There's
> some bad recipes out there. I see Paula Deen has one that doesn't
> even have a ham bone. Just a slice of ham. Weird.
>
> Lou

i've used what's labeled as 'country ham chips' (at my grocery, found in
the meat case along with ham slices) before with good success. be wary of
adding additional salt, though.

your pal,
blake

On 2010-05-12 17:32:08 -0700, aem said:

[snip]

> If you like this kind of thing, look up Senate Bean Soup threads on
> rfc. It's quite tasty.

Thanks for all the good advice.

On Thu, 13 May 2010 12:27:43 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 May 2010 21:05:50 -0500, Lou Decruss wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 17:32:08 -0700 (PDT), aem >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>There's no way to know for sure but their age probably caused the long
>>>cooking time. There's two good results here -- for one, you've now
>>>used up these ancient beans, and for two, you'll be receptive to my
>>>rule for making any kind of bean soup. It's a two part rule: first,
>>>cook your beans; second, make your soup. Combining these steps can
>>>work and save time, but it can also fail. Separating the steps cannot
>>>fail.
>>
>> I like that rule. I'll remember it.
>>
>>>If you like this kind of thing, look up Senate Bean Soup threads on
>>>rfc. It's quite tasty.
>>
>> Yep! RFC is probably a better place to search than the web. There's
>> some bad recipes out there. I see Paula Deen has one that doesn't
>> even have a ham bone. Just a slice of ham. Weird.
>>
>> Lou
>
>i've used what's labeled as 'country ham chips' (at my grocery, found in
>the meat case along with ham slices) before with good success. be wary of
>adding additional salt, though.

I've never seen that. Out of curiosity I'll keep an eye out but hocks
are only a buck a pound.

Lou

Lou Decruss wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 12:27:43 -0400, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 21:05:50 -0500, Lou Decruss wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 17:32:08 -0700 (PDT), aem >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's no way to know for sure but their age probably caused the long
>>>> cooking time. There's two good results here -- for one, you've now
>>>> used up these ancient beans, and for two, you'll be receptive to my
>>>> rule for making any kind of bean soup. It's a two part rule: first,
>>>> cook your beans; second, make your soup. Combining these steps can
>>>> work and save time, but it can also fail. Separating the steps cannot
>>>> fail.
>>> I like that rule. I'll remember it.
>>>
>>>> If you like this kind of thing, look up Senate Bean Soup threads on
>>>> rfc. It's quite tasty.
>>> Yep! RFC is probably a better place to search than the web. There's
>>> some bad recipes out there. I see Paula Deen has one that doesn't
>>> even have a ham bone. Just a slice of ham. Weird.
>>>
>>> Lou
>> i've used what's labeled as 'country ham chips' (at my grocery, found in
>> the meat case along with ham slices) before with good success. be wary of
>> adding additional salt, though.
>
> I've never seen that. Out of curiosity I'll keep an eye out but hocks
> are only a buck a pound.
>
> Lou


I made a pot of navy bean soup Sunday. I added a cup of strong ham
stock from the freezer, and two dried chipotle peppers to get it
nice and smoky. There's no actual meat in it (it's certainly not
vegetarian tho' because of the stock.) It turned out really good,
but hotter than I expected -- Wife won't eat it cuz it's too hot.

Bob

On Thu, 13 May 2010 21:59:49 -0500, Lou Decruss wrote:

> On Thu, 13 May 2010 12:27:43 -0400, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 May 2010 21:05:50 -0500, Lou Decruss wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 17:32:08 -0700 (PDT), aem >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>There's no way to know for sure but their age probably caused the long
>>>>cooking time. There's two good results here -- for one, you've now
>>>>used up these ancient beans, and for two, you'll be receptive to my
>>>>rule for making any kind of bean soup. It's a two part rule: first,
>>>>cook your beans; second, make your soup. Combining these steps can
>>>>work and save time, but it can also fail. Separating the steps cannot
>>>>fail.
>>>
>>> I like that rule. I'll remember it.
>>>
>>>>If you like this kind of thing, look up Senate Bean Soup threads on
>>>>rfc. It's quite tasty.
>>>
>>> Yep! RFC is probably a better place to search than the web. There's
>>> some bad recipes out there. I see Paula Deen has one that doesn't
>>> even have a ham bone. Just a slice of ham. Weird.
>>>
>>> Lou
>>
>>i've used what's labeled as 'country ham chips' (at my grocery, found in
>>the meat case along with ham slices) before with good success. be wary of
>>adding additional salt, though.
>
> I've never seen that. Out of curiosity I'll keep an eye out but hocks
> are only a buck a pound.
>
> Lou

i know folks get tired of my bitching about meat price in maryland, but i'm
pretty sure they are around $2.80 a pound or so here. ain't nothing for a
buck, except maybe beef liver or heart, and i'm guessing that's higher as
well.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 13 May 2010 22:49:32 -0500, zxcvbob >
wrote:

>Lou Decruss wrote:

>>>>> If you like this kind of thing, look up Senate Bean Soup threads on
>>>>> rfc. It's quite tasty.
>>>> Yep! RFC is probably a better place to search than the web. There's
>>>> some bad recipes out there. I see Paula Deen has one that doesn't
>>>> even have a ham bone. Just a slice of ham. Weird.
>>>>
>>>> Lou
>>> i've used what's labeled as 'country ham chips' (at my grocery, found in
>>> the meat case along with ham slices) before with good success. be wary of
>>> adding additional salt, though.
>>
>> I've never seen that. Out of curiosity I'll keep an eye out but hocks
>> are only a buck a pound.
>>
>> Lou

>I made a pot of navy bean soup Sunday. I added a cup of strong ham
>stock from the freezer, and two dried chipotle peppers to get it
>nice and smoky. There's no actual meat in it (it's certainly not
>vegetarian tho' because of the stock.) It turned out really good,
>but hotter than I expected -- Wife won't eat it cuz it's too hot.

Yabutt you had stock so there was a bone involved at one time. The
Deen recipe I mentioned called for 4 quarts of water and a thick slice
leftover spiral ham, cut into small pieces. How much flavor is that
going to give a gallon of water?

Lou

On Fri, 14 May 2010 16:29:02 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 May 2010 21:59:49 -0500, Lou Decruss wrote:

>> I've never seen that. Out of curiosity I'll keep an eye out but hocks
>> are only a buck a pound.
>>
>> Lou
>
>i know folks get tired of my bitching about meat price in maryland,

Naaaa...we're here for ya Blake.

>but i'm pretty sure they are around $2.80 a pound or so here.

I saw them for $1.59 awhile ago and passed and just bought a ham. I
don't even like paying a buck.

>ain't nothing for a buck, except maybe beef liver or heart, and i'm
>guessing that's higher as well.

That would depress me. The place we've been buying our sausage from
had basil breakfast sausage on sale for $.99 a pound. So for under a
buck a plate I can make 4 sausage links, 2 eggs, toast and a glass of
milk. Probably like 75 cents. 4 links are 1/4 pound uncooked and
nothing like the grocery store stuff.

Lou

On Mon, 17 May 2010 08:09:37 -0500, Lou Decruss wrote:

> On Fri, 14 May 2010 16:29:02 -0400, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 May 2010 21:59:49 -0500, Lou Decruss wrote:
>
>>> I've never seen that. Out of curiosity I'll keep an eye out but hocks
>>> are only a buck a pound.
>>>
>>> Lou
>>
>>i know folks get tired of my bitching about meat price in maryland,
>
> Naaaa...we're here for ya Blake.
>
>>but i'm pretty sure they are around $2.80 a pound or so here.
>
> I saw them for $1.59 awhile ago and passed and just bought a ham. I
> don't even like paying a buck.
>
>>ain't nothing for a buck, except maybe beef liver or heart, and i'm
>>guessing that's higher as well.
>
> That would depress me.

it is ****ing depressing. i sometimes have trouble keeping up my sunny
disposition.

your pal,
blake

Lou Decruss wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2010 15:28:40 -0700, gtr > wrote:
>
>> I'm using an electric stove-top. It's glass and pretty and all, but all
>> the burners working dramatically differently, and I am having a hell of
>> a time controlling heat without seeing a flame. I think I'm going in
>> there today and see if I can't do some measurements to find out what
>> these burners are doing.
>
> I've got a glass top at my cottage and it took me a few meals to get
> used to it. The burners cycle. They're either on or off for various
> lengths of time depending on what you have it set on. I've got gas in
> the city and for most things I like the glass top is better. Don't
> give up and you'll get the hang of it.
>
> Lou

I NEVER got used to those cycling burners. For one thing, food
burns because when the burner cycles off it settles to the bottom.
I am, however, getting an all-induction cooktop for the new
house. The 2 induction burners I have don't cycle. (And I have
access to a gas stove too.)

--
Jean B.