Doesn't the layer of fat on top create
the anaerobic conditions ideal for botulism?
Even though the confit is thoroughly cooked,
a fat layer seems like an unreliable method
for maintaining sterility of the meat.
Doesn't that also mean that once the fat
layer is broken (to remove a serving),
the whole thing should be eaten fairly soon?

Also, I've seen it mentioned that duck confit
can keep for months under refrigeration.
Here, it says 6 months:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_confit

That seems like an awful long time for
meat to be kept in the refrigerator.
I have a hard time believing that it
would still be safe to eat, much less
palatable, after six months.

This recipe says to cook it for 12 to 14
hours:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbookuck_confit

That seems like an awfully long time,
although the recommended temperature (200 F)
is quite low. I'm tempted to try this just
to find out how the meat is affected by
such long and low cooking.

Mark Thorson wrote:

> Doesn't the layer of fat on top create
> the anaerobic conditions ideal for botulism?
> Even though the confit is thoroughly cooked,
> a fat layer seems like an unreliable method
> for maintaining sterility of the meat.
> Doesn't that also mean that once the fat
> layer is broken (to remove a serving),
> the whole thing should be eaten fairly soon?

If you have had good confit you would think it was worth the
risk :-)

Mark Thorson wrote:

> Doesn't the layer of fat on top create
> the anaerobic conditions ideal for botulism?
> Even though the confit is thoroughly cooked,
> a fat layer seems like an unreliable method
> for maintaining sterility of the meat.
> Doesn't that also mean that once the fat
> layer is broken (to remove a serving),
> the whole thing should be eaten fairly soon?
>

Botulism only grows within a specific temperature
range regardless of other conditions. Kept in a
cool enough place there's no risk of botulism. In
the old days confit was kept in a cool part of a
cellar, only during the proper seasons. Now it's
kept in the fridge.

> Also, I've seen it mentioned that duck confit
> can keep for months under refrigeration.
> Here, it says 6 months:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_confit
>
> That seems like an awful long time for
> meat to be kept in the refrigerator.
> I have a hard time believing that it
> would still be safe to eat, much less
> palatable, after six months.
>

That's one of the reasons confit is cured before
cooking. The time limit has more to do with the
oxidation and resulting rancidity of the fat
layer than anything else.

> This recipe says to cook it for 12 to 14
> hours:
>
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbookuck_confit
>
> That seems like an awfully long time,
> although the recommended temperature (200 F)
> is quite low. I'm tempted to try this just
> to find out how the meat is affected by
> such long and low cooking.

Long cooking makes it melty and tender. The fat helps
keep it from completely drying out, though you can go
too far. At some point it will become overcooked and
irreversibly dry. My cooking time for duck confit is
about half that.

--
Reg

Steve Wertz wrote:
>
> What stops me is the inability to obtain raw duck legs without
> buying the whole duck, and the lack of duck fat. And of course,
> the safety issues.

Huh? Every Asian supermarket with a butcher section
I've ever seen offers raw duck legs. If I'm not mistaken,
you've described your own visits to such establishments.
Have you just not investigated the meat counter goods?

> I've been tempted to try it with chicken, but I though that duck
> and goose fat had some sort of natural antibacterial agents in it
> that helped preserve the meat. Also evidenced by the French
> farmhouse-style method of hanging your goose or duck for several
> days (weeks?) at room temp before cooking.

I seriously doubt that there is any kind of special
antimicrobial protection in duck, however (like certain
other bird meats such as squab) duck is all dark meat.
Dark meat is dark because it contains a higher density
of mitochondria (and therefore the cytochrome enzymes)
for extra capacity to convert the energy in glucose
to ATP bond energy. I don't see any reason why this
difference would contribute toward antimicrobial
properties. (But I could be mistaken.)

> (Also I should note that Dean and Deluca recommend pouring
> veggie oil over the hardened duck fat to "improve longevity")

That makes no sense. Polyunsaturated oils such as
most vegetable oils will go rancid (i.e. oxidize)
faster than the more highly saturated animal fats.
Pouring pork lard or beef fat over the confit would
be more likely to have protective value.

Adding an oil-soluble antioxidant, such as the
contents of a vitamin E capsule, probably would
increase longevity, if that were an issue.

> I'd hate to wait 3 months to try something that
> cost me $100 and went bad 2.5 months ago.

I don't know that duck confit has a _minimum_ time
before consumption. It is my impression that the
6 month figure is a _maximum_ time. But I may be
mistaken. I've only just started to research this.
The more I learn, the more intriguing it becomes.

In article >, ost
says...
> Duck Confit is something I've always wanted to try. The recipe
> from Dean & Deluca (one of my favorite cookbooks - great,
> researched recipes mixed with narrative and culinary facts)
> states that the saltpeter is optional, and stored at 50-55F for
> up to 4 months. They are still covered with salt, which is
> scraped off before initial cooking/preserving.
>
> What stops me is the inability to obtain raw duck legs without
> buying the whole duck, and the lack of duck fat. And of course,
> the safety issues.
>
>

I bought 3 whole ducks and froze the breasts for another use. I trimmed
as much fat as possible off the carcasses and rendered it. I simmered
the carcasses for stock and skimmed the fat. This got me about 2/3 of
the fat I needed, and I made up the rest with lard (perfectly OK
according to the Charcuterie cookbook). The results were well worth the
effort. Most of the fat remained after the legs were eater - I strained
and froze it for next time.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Steve Wertz wrote:

> > I've been tempted to try it with chicken, but I though that duck
> > and goose fat had some sort of natural antibacterial agents in it
> > that helped preserve the meat.

> I seriously doubt that there is any kind of special
> antimicrobial protection in duck

I've wondered about hanging foods for years. I live in an Italian
neighborhood and they hang up EVERYTHING, from cheese to salami to
hunks of uncooked meat, right in the middle of the shops, at room
temperature. I've never been able to figure out why something that
would rot in my apartment is actually "aging" in a store.

In article >, ost
says...
> What was the rest of your prep? How long and at what temp did it
> age? Did you use any Instacure? Etc..
>
>

I followed the recipe in Charcuterie exactly - I don't remember the
details.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:42:00 GMT, Steve Wertz wrote:

> What was the rest of your prep? How long and at what temp did it
> age? Did you use any Instacure? Etc..

It's too bad we have to travel back East to find confit that doesn't
cost a small fortune.

Duck Confit
Recipe Courtesy of Emeril Lagasse


Recipe Summary
Difficulty: Easy


4 duck leg portions with thighs attached, excess fat trimmed and
reserved (about 2 pounds)
1 tablespoon plus 1/8 teaspoon kosher salt
1/2 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper
10 garlic cloves
4 bay leaves
4 sprigs fresh thyme
1 1/2 teaspoons black peppercorns
1/2 teaspoon table salt
4 cups olive oil

Lay the leg portions on a platter, skin side down. Sprinkle with 1
tablespoon of the kosher salt and black pepper. Place the garlic
cloves, bay leaves, and sprigs of thyme on each of 2 leg portions. Lay
the remaining 2 leg portions, flesh to flesh, on top. put the reserved
fat from the ducks in the bottom of a glass or plastic container. Top
with the sandwiched leg portions. Sprinkle with the remaining 1/8
teaspoon kosher salt. Cover and refrigerate for 12 hours.

Preheat the oven to 200 degrees F.

Remove the duck from the refrigerator. Remove the garlic, bay leaves,
thyme, and duck fat and reserve. Rinse the duck with cool water,
rubbing off some of the salt and pepper. Pat dry with paper towels.

Put the reserved garlic, bay leaves, thyme, and duck fat in the bottom
of an enameled cast-iron pot. Sprinkle evenly with the peppercorns and
salt. Lay the duck on top, skin side down. Add the olive oil. Cover
and bake for 12 to 14 hours, or until the meat pulls away from the
bone.

Remove the duck from the fat. Strain the fat and reserve. Pick the
meat from the bones and place it in a stoneware container. Cover the
meat with some of the strained fat, making a 1/4-inch layer. The duck
confit can be stored in the refrigerator for up to one month.

The excess oil can be stored in an airtight container in the
refrigerator and used like butter for cooking. The tinge of duck taste
in the oil is wonderful and I use the oil to roast potatoes, cook
green beans, and pan-fry veal


Copyright © 2003 Television Food Network, G.P., All Rights Reserved
--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for a chicken, a lifetime commitment for a pig.

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:18:13 GMT, Steve Wertz wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:31:38 GMT, Peter A wrote:
>
> > In article >, ost
> > says...
> >> What was the rest of your prep? How long and at what temp did it
> >> age? Did you use any Instacure? Etc..
> >
> > I followed the recipe in Charcuterie exactly - I don't remember the
> > details.
>
> Hmm. I'd remember exactly what I did - especially how long I let
> it aged and whether I used curing salt, especially.
>
> I guess that's just me though.
>
The salt is Kosher. I have an annecdotal version of the Charcuterie
recipe too. If you want it, email me... it came from Chris D.

The Emeril recipe I posted earlier says you can store confit a month.
--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for a chicken, a lifetime commitment for a pig.

sf wrote:
>
> The Emeril recipe I posted earlier says you can store confit a month.

This seems to contradict other advice which suggests
that storage for a couple weeks or a month is a
minimum time to develop flavor. What's going on here?

AFAIK, confit is not a fermented meat product like
salami. I can understand a certain amount of flavor
melding taking place, but that shouldn't require
more than a few days at most. There must be some
chemical process taking place, like the aging of wine.
I suppose this could be the oxidation of the fat,
because for certain foods a little bit of oxidation
may be desirable for best flavor. Is that what's
going on here? That would explain adding a vegetable
oil, because it would oxidize faster than pure animal
fat, and it would seed the oxidation of the animal
fat (by providing free radicals).

In article >, ost
says...
> Don't shoot the messenger. This is Emeril. Shoot him (and his
> producers) instead.
>
>
>

I am sure that the bullets would be deflected by his Bad English shield.
But leave the producers alone. If they can make $$ off the saps who
think Emeril is great, more power to them.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:33:32 -0700, Mark Thorson wrote:

> sf wrote:
> >
> > The Emeril recipe I posted earlier says you can store confit a month.
>
> This seems to contradict other advice which suggests
> that storage for a couple weeks or a month is a
> minimum time to develop flavor. What's going on here?
>
You don't honestly think that the confit served up in restaurants is
more than a day old, do you?

> AFAIK, confit is not a fermented meat product like
> salami. I can understand a certain amount of flavor
> melding taking place, but that shouldn't require
> more than a few days at most.

Emeril's recipe didn't say confit *must* be stored a month, it said it
*can* be stored for a month. AFAIC: it means confit will survive
(covered properly with duck fat) in the refrigerator for a month, if
you don't eat it first.

> There must be some
> chemical process taking place, like the aging of wine.
> I suppose this could be the oxidation of the fat,
> because for certain foods a little bit of oxidation
> may be desirable for best flavor. Is that what's
> going on here?

The only chemical process I see is that of preservation. If you look
at more than one confit recipe, there is a step where they immerse or
coat the meat in salt for a few hours. I suspect during the days of
no refrigeration, that part was probably days instead of the hours
given by our modern recipes. Storage of the meat, covered by fat, was
probably longer too... if the weather allowed.

http://www.cuisine-french.com/cgi/md...anard_ill.html
--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for a chicken, a lifetime commitment for a pig.

http://www.ochef.com/593.htm

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> Doesn't the layer of fat on top create
> the anaerobic conditions ideal for botulism?
> Even though the confit is thoroughly cooked,
> a fat layer seems like an unreliable method
> for maintaining sterility of the meat.
> Doesn't that also mean that once the fat
> layer is broken (to remove a serving),
> the whole thing should be eaten fairly soon?
>
> Also, I've seen it mentioned that duck confit
> can keep for months under refrigeration.
> Here, it says 6 months:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_confit
>
> That seems like an awful long time for
> meat to be kept in the refrigerator.
> I have a hard time believing that it
> would still be safe to eat, much less
> palatable, after six months.
>
> This recipe says to cook it for 12 to 14
> hours:
>
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbookuck_confit
>
> That seems like an awfully long time,
> although the recommended temperature (200 F)
> is quite low. I'm tempted to try this just
> to find out how the meat is affected by
> such long and low cooking.

sf <sfpipeline_at_gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:33:32 -0700, Mark Thorson wrote:

>> sf wrote:

>> > The Emeril recipe I posted earlier says you can store confit a month.

>> This seems to contradict other advice which suggests
>> that storage for a couple weeks or a month is a
>> minimum time to develop flavor. What's going on here?

>You don't honestly think that the confit served up in restaurants is
>more than a day old, do you?

If it's real confit, yes. Somewhere between a few weeks and
a few months. Otherwise it's just duck meat.

Steve

In article >, says...
> >You don't honestly think that the confit served up in restaurants is
> >more than a day old, do you?
>
> If it's real confit, yes. Somewhere between a few weeks and
> a few months. Otherwise it's just duck meat.
>
>

I don't think that's true. Confit can be aged but does not need to be.
None of the many recipes I have read has mentioned aging as a
requirement.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

Peter A > wrote:

says...

>> >You don't honestly think that the confit served up in restaurants is
>> >more than a day old, do you?

>> If it's real confit, yes. Somewhere between a few weeks and
>> a few months. Otherwise it's just duck meat.

>I don't think that's true. Confit can be aged but does not need to be.
>None of the many recipes I have read has mentioned aging as a
>requirement.

So then what makes it confit? If you put a cucumber in
pickling solution for 5 seconds that does not make it a pickle.

Steve

In article >, ost
says...
> True confit is aged. There's no doubt about that.
>
>

There most certainly is doubt. Both Charcuterie and Julia say that
confit can be served immediately. The former mentions that a week or so
of aging is thought by some to improve texture and flavor. So, confit
often is aged but the notion that is must be ages is BS.


--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Doesn't the layer of fat on top create
> the anaerobic conditions ideal for botulism?
> Even though the confit is thoroughly cooked,
> a fat layer seems like an unreliable method
> for maintaining sterility of the meat.

You're right, Mark. Thousands, maybe millions, have died from botulism
after eating duck confit. Even if botulism weren't an issue, just think
of all the cholesterol in all that fat. And think of the poor duck.

-bwg

Steve Wertz > wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:55:21 GMT, Peter A wrote:

>> There most certainly is doubt. Both Charcuterie and Julia say that
>> confit can be served immediately. The former mentions that a week or so
>> of aging is thought by some to improve texture and flavor. So, confit
>> often is aged but the notion that is must be ages is BS.

>Confit D¢oie, by DEFINITION, means "preserved goose" (in that
>order of words). This day in age, we will probably find
>definitions of the dish that omit "preserved", but historically,
>it's a method of preserving meat. What they've done to the term
>recently out of laziness and economics sake is their problem.

>Sure it can be eaten right away, but it's just duck cooked in fat,
>not confit. And I'm sure even Julia would wholeheartedly
>recommend letting it age like a true confit. And I'm sure her
>recipe says that.

Elizabeth David specifies 5 to 6 days curing in a terrine with salt,
after which is it washed and cooked in fat, put back in a terrine,
and covered with fat and a cloth.

It is good then for several months. She doesn't specifically give a
minimum on this last interval, but there was still the 5 to 6 days
of initial curing in any event.

I really doubt that shortcut methods give the same result.

Steve

In article >, ost
says...
> Confit D=3Foie, by DEFINITION, means "preserved goose" (in that
> order of words).

Yes, "preserved" and not "aged." Don't you see the difference?

> This day in age, we will probably find
> definitions of the dish that omit "preserved", but historically,
> it's a method of preserving meat. What they've done to the term
> recently out of laziness and economics sake is their problem.
>

Now you are just being silly. Yes, it is a method of preservation - but
that does not mean it HAS to sit around, just that it CAN sit around.

> Sure it can be eaten right away, but it's just duck cooked in fat,
> not confit. And I'm sure even Julia would wholeheartedly
> recommend letting it age like a true confit. And I'm sure her
> recipe says that.

Wrong twice.

Why are you so resistant to learning anything? You have no basis for
your opinion, you cite no chefs or cookbooks, it's just some incorrect
notion that you have picked up. Rather than actually learning something
you choose to defend your incorrect opinion to the death. Do you want to
remain as ignorant as you are now for the rest of your life?

Silly question - you have already given us the answer.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

In article >, says...
> Elizabeth David specifies 5 to 6 days curing in a terrine with salt,
> after which is it washed and cooked in fat, put back in a terrine,
> and covered with fat and a cloth.
>
> It is good then for several months. She doesn't specifically give a
> minimum on this last interval, but there was still the 5 to 6 days
> of initial curing in any event.
>
> I really doubt that shortcut methods give the same result.
>
>

Yes, the initial cure in salt is essential - but that's not the point.
The question is whether after the preparation is complete, after cooking
in fat and covering with fat, the confit has to age in order to be
"true" confit. No one has presented any source, reliable or not, to say
that this is the case.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

Peter A > wrote:

>In article >, ost
>says...
>> Confit D=3Foie, by DEFINITION, means "preserved goose" (in that
>> order of words).

>Yes, "preserved" and not "aged." Don't you see the difference?

>> This day in age, we will probably find
>> definitions of the dish that omit "preserved", but historically,
>> it's a method of preserving meat. What they've done to the term
>> recently out of laziness and economics sake is their problem.

>Now you are just being silly. Yes, it is a method of preservation - but
>that does not mean it HAS to sit around, just that it CAN sit around.

>> Sure it can be eaten right away, but it's just duck cooked in fat,
>> not confit. And I'm sure even Julia would wholeheartedly
>> recommend letting it age like a true confit. And I'm sure her
>> recipe says that.

>Wrong twice.

>Why are you so resistant to learning anything? You have no basis for
>your opinion, you cite no chefs or cookbooks, it's just some incorrect
>notion that you have picked up.

He's right; see my reference to Elizabeth David, which both pre-dates
and is more reliable than anything you've cited.

Steve

Peter A > wrote:

>In article >, says...
>> Elizabeth David specifies 5 to 6 days curing in a terrine with salt,
>> after which is it washed and cooked in fat, put back in a terrine,
>> and covered with fat and a cloth.

>> It is good then for several months. She doesn't specifically give a
>> minimum on this last interval, but there was still the 5 to 6 days
>> of initial curing in any event.

>> I really doubt that shortcut methods give the same result.

>Yes, the initial cure in salt is essential - but that's not the point.
>The question is whether after the preparation is complete, after cooking
>in fat and covering with fat, the confit has to age in order to be
>"true" confit.

No, the question was whether confit could be as little as a day
old. The answer is no.

You're re-stating the original question to fit it to your version
of the facts.

Steve

Steve Pope wrote:

> >> It is good then for several months. She doesn't specifically give a
> >> minimum on this last interval, but there was still the 5 to 6 days
> >> of initial curing in any event.
>
> >> I really doubt that shortcut methods give the same result.
>
> >Yes, the initial cure in salt is essential - but that's not the point.
> >The question is whether after the preparation is complete, after cooking
> >in fat and covering with fat, the confit has to age in order to be
> >"true" confit.
>
> No, the question was whether confit could be as little as a day
> old. The answer is no.
>
> You're re-stating the original question to fit it to your version
> of the facts.

My gawd you guys are confusing this. Confit means preserve. It is a process
of conserving duck to be consumed later. Salt curing can be done in less than
5-6 days. One recipe I looked at said overnight. Another said 36 hours.
Another says 45 minutes, but that appears to be more of a quick recipe to get
some saltiness, or to affect the texture of the meat rather than salt curing
for preservation. At any rate, the process of salting, cooking slowly in fat
and then packing it away in fat is for preservation. It keeps for several
months. Like many other preserved foods, it has a shelf limited life, but
once preserved, it is ready to eat.

FWIW.... I made some strawberry jam today. It is a preserving process. I
finished it this afternoon. It will keep for a year or two. There was some
left over after the preserving jars were filled, so I had some toast and jam
tonight. It didn't need to age.

Steve Wertz wrote:

> Confit D¢oie, by DEFINITION, means "preserved goose" (in that
> order of words). This day in age, we will probably find
> definitions of the dish that omit "preserved", but historically,
> it's a method of preserving meat. What they've done to the term
> recently out of laziness and economics sake is their problem.

There is no lower limit on when a preserved food can be consumed. Once it is
prepared and preserved it can be eaten any time before it goes bad.

> Sure it can be eaten right away, but it's just duck cooked in fat,
> not confit. And I'm sure even Julia would wholeheartedly
> recommend letting it age like a true confit. And I'm sure her
> recipe says that.

It is still confit. It has been preserved. It is a true confit once it has
gone through the process. It is not a cheese or a wine that needs to age.
It went through a process that is supposed to stop further changes.

Steve Pope wrote:

>
> So then what makes it confit? If you put a cucumber in
> pickling solution for 5 seconds that does not make it a pickle.

What makes it confit is salting it to remove the moisture which would
provide a medium for nasty stuff to grow and ruin the meat and then cooking
it slowly in fat for two hours. It is then allowed to cool with a coating
of fat to seal it. Once that is done it is confit.... preserved. It will
last several months before it goes bad. Just take it out and heat it in a
pan until it is browned on both sides.

Steve Wertz wrote:

>
>
> <sigh> And confit needs to age to get it's full flavor.
>
> BTW Peter, I did make an authorative cite way back in the thread,
> but you're blindness had apparently already kicked in.

Sighing loudly will not prove your point any better than pouting. I am not Peter,
but I went back through your post on the topic and saw no authoritative cite.

> Unfortunately I can't find the Julia recipe online, but are
> seriously telling us she mentions nothing about letting it age
> for flavor? I find references to the contrary, but nothing
> definitive.

There are lots of recipes and lots of them online. They all give upper limits for
using the confit, but not one I read even hinted at any benefit to ageing it. This
is different from recipes for things that need to age, in which case they will
specify the time period for it to sit. It is a method of preservation. Once it is
cured in salt and cooked in the oil it will keep for month. While you think there
is some reason to age it, the difficulty with finding a definitive reference to
it having to sit for a given period of time is likely because there is not such
thing. It is preserved. Think of it being like salt cod, smoked salmon or bacon.
They have undergone a curing process that extends their life, but once it is done,
they are ready to eat.

Steve Wertz > wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:31:54 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

>> There is no lower limit on when a preserved food can be consumed. Once it is
>> prepared and preserved it can be eaten any time before it goes bad.

>Maybe in American cuisine, with your little jellies and
>preserves, but in Asian and European cuisine, it is imperative
>that certain preserved foods be aged for them to be authentic (or
>even edible in many cases).

>I'm sure you can think of several examples without me having to
>list the most obvious ones. No? Start with Asia, if yoiu even
>know that cuisine.

I'll list some of the obvious ones. There are shortcut methods
for all preserved foods (from preserved lemons to corned beef).
These methods often replace brining/curing time with additional
cooking time. (In the case of preserved lemons, the authentic
method involves no cooking, the quick method does.) It appears
Emeril's confit recipe does this.

I draw the line at calling such methods authentic. Popular,
acceptable to some diners, sure, but not authentic. This is not
how these items were made in their place of origin. It is
instead adapted for mass-marketing.

Steve

Steve Wertz wrote:

>
> >> Confit D¢oie, by DEFINITION, means "preserved goose" (in that
> >> order of words). This day in age, we will probably find
> >> definitions of the dish that omit "preserved", but historically,
> >> it's a method of preserving meat. What they've done to the term
> >> recently out of laziness and economics sake is their problem.
> >
> > There is no lower limit on when a preserved food can be consumed. Once it is
> > prepared and preserved it can be eaten any time before it goes bad.
>
> Maybe in American cuisine, with your little jellies and
> preserves, but in Asian and European cuisine, it is imperative
> that certain preserved foods be aged for them to be authentic (or
> even edible in many cases).

Am I supposed to be insulted with the American comment? I am not American, but I
have to admit that I never thought of jams and jellies as being little. I am well
aware that some foods and condiments need to be aged. Some cheeses are aged, but
not all. Some liquors are aged, but not all. Some wines are aged, but some wines
are made to be consumed as soon as the fermentation process is completed and some
are made to be consumed within a short period of time. Some sauces are aged. The
recipes for foods like that generally indicate that there should be some minimum
period of time for it to sit before using it. Then there are preserving
techniques like brining and smoking, or confit, where there food is preserved to
extend it's shelf life. It is good to go as soon as the preservation process is
complete but has a limited life.


> I'm sure you can think of several examples without me having to
> list the most obvious ones. No? Start with Asia, if yoiu even
> know that cuisine.

No need for a hissy fit. You said yourself that you could not find a definitive
reference to say there was some minimum amount of ageing for this preserved duck.

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 01:58:16 GMT, Steve Wertz wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:31:54 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> > Steve Wertz wrote:
> >
> >> Confit D¢oie, by DEFINITION, means "preserved goose" (in that
> >> order of words). This day in age, we will probably find
> >> definitions of the dish that omit "preserved", but historically,
> >> it's a method of preserving meat. What they've done to the term
> >> recently out of laziness and economics sake is their problem.
> >
> > There is no lower limit on when a preserved food can be consumed. Once it is
> > prepared and preserved it can be eaten any time before it goes bad.
>
> Maybe in American cuisine, with your little jellies and
> preserves, but in Asian and European cuisine, it is imperative
> that certain preserved foods be aged for them to be authentic (or
> even edible in many cases).

Please give me some European examples (not comfit). I can think of
things that are better the next day, like tomato sauce and cassoulet,
but it's not imperative to let them age.
>
> I'm sure you can think of several examples without me having to
> list the most obvious ones. No? Start with Asia, if you even
> know that cuisine.

well, I can't come up with anything at the spur of the moment... so
please enlighten me.

In any case, we are discussing whether confit does or doesn't need to
be aged an appreciable amount of time to be consumed and still have a
wonderful flavor (I will testify that I absolutely loved all the
confit I've ever eaten). My guess about the way most (North American)
restaurants prepare confit is that they let it sit in salt overnight
and finish it the following day. I'll try to find out if restaurants
in Paris do it differently, when I'm there in July.
--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for a chicken, a lifetime commitment for a pig.

Steve Wertz wrote:

>
> >> <sigh> And confit needs to age to get it's full flavor.
> >>
> >> BTW Peter, I did make an authorative cite way back in the thread,
> >> but you're blindness had apparently already kicked in.
> >
> > Sighing loudly will not prove your point any better than pouting. I am not Peter,
>
> If I was talking just to you, I would have emailed you, dumbass.

You responded to my post.

>
>
> > but I went back through your post on the topic and saw no authoritative cite.
>
> Maybe you need to look a little harder. It was my first post in
> the thread, dumbass.

That may be, but it isn't showing up on my list. I have been having trouble with things
disappearing since I had to switch news servers last week.


>
>
> Dean and Delucca reccomend 3-4 months. Though it can be eaten
> after a couple weeks, let it get age for at least 3 months.
>
> And I think Dean and Delucca know more about food then you or I.
>
> This thread has gone beyond it's useful lifetime and has expired.
> If anybody else has prep ideas, suggestions or references, I'm all
> ears, but arguing over how long it should be aged or the
> definition of preserved is pointless.

That is simply because you refuse to accept that this method of preserving meat
involves ageing it, while chefs around the world are making it fresh all the time.

Naomi wrote:

>
> Steve Wertz wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 20:35:04 -0700, sf wrote:
> >
> > >> Maybe in American cuisine, with your little jellies and
> > >> preserves, but in Asian and European cuisine, it is imperative
> > >> that certain preserved foods be aged for them to be authentic (or
> > >> even edible in many cases).
> > >
> > > Please give me some European examples (not comfit).
> >
> > Wine and beer.
> >
> > -sw
>
> Wine and beer? Neither of these two products are wine and beer at the
> moment they are put up. They have to ferment. Are you saying that duck
> confit is supposed to ferment?
>

Beer and wine were bad examples for another reason. Beer is ready to be
consumed as soon as it is bottled. Beer is not meant to be aged. Some
wines improve with age. Vin Nouveau is bottled and ready to drink
immediately. Some wines are aged before bottling and are then ready to
drink at any time. Others are aged for longer periods and designed to be
bottled aged for even longer.

> I can well believe that some written recipes call for keeping the
> confit around to let the flavors mature, since it is a common practice.
> However neither JC (THE WAY TO COOK) nor Anthony Bourdain (LES HALLES
> COOKEBOOK) even recommend it in the recipes I looked at.
>
> Why don't you just cite the part of the D&D recipe that calls for
> aging? I'd like to see what they say. I'm sure that quoting a sentence
> or two for the purposes of this kind of discussion is fair use.

That might involve admitting that he was wrong. Once a food product is
preserved it is ready to go at any time. Confit is a preservation process.

Naomi > wrote:

>I have JC's THE WAY TO COOK in front of me. On pages 180-181she gives
>instructions for making the duck confit, the last sentence being,
>"Drain on paper towels and keep warm until serving time." Another
>recipe of hers somewhere else may tell you to "age" it but clearly she
>thought it was OK to make the stuff and use immediately.

Julia Child is well known for ignoring the traditional ways
that the French cook in order to aim recipes at the American
market. (Perhaps the best example being her recipe for
French bread.)

Steve

Dave Smith > wrote:

>Beer and wine were bad examples for another reason. Beer is ready to be
>consumed as soon as it is bottled. Beer is not meant to be aged.

Huh? Real beer is cask-conditioned for several weeks.
Bottle conditioning is an acceptable alternative.

Steve

"sf" > wrote in message
...

>
> Please give me some European examples (not comfit). I can think of
> things that are better the next day, like tomato sauce and cassoulet,
> but it's not imperative to let them age.
>>
>> I'm sure you can think of several examples without me having to
>> list the most obvious ones. No? Start with Asia, if you even
>> know that cuisine.
>
> well, I can't come up with anything at the spur of the moment... so
> please enlighten me.
>

Sauerkraut. Ham. Smoked sausage.


--Rich

Naomi > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> Naomi writes,

>> >I have JC's THE WAY TO COOK in front of me. On pages 180-181she gives
>> >instructions for making the duck confit, the last sentence being,
>> >"Drain on paper towels and keep warm until serving time." Another
>> >recipe of hers somewhere else may tell you to "age" it but clearly she
>> >thought it was OK to make the stuff and use immediately.

>> Julia Child is well known for ignoring the traditional ways
>> that the French cook in order to aim recipes at the American
>> market.
>>
>Just so you know, I was not citing JC out of a belief that her works
>were definitive, but only in response to the person who said they were
>sure her recipe for confit involved letting it age.

Ah. Thanks, I had missed that.

Steve

Naomi wrote:

>
> Charming. Look, I am not going to check this reference for you and then
> apologize. If you have the book, why can't you cite a line or two? You
> haven't provided a quote or even a reliable cite, just a mention of the
> book with your summary, and you were already apparently unreliable with
> regard to JC (although you said you were *sure*).

I found lots of sites that indicated it could be eaten right away. There was
never a lower time limit for "ageing" just a maximum storage time. It seems
that the problem is that anything that disagrees with him is not an acceptable
source.

> This is very strange with the name-calling. What's your problem,
> anyway?

He has to live with Steve Wertz...
THAT's his problem...

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:19:41 -0700, sf >
wrote:

>You don't honestly think that the confit served up in restaurants is
>more than a day old, do you?

In the US I don't know, but in France yes, sure, it's much more cost
effective that way. And no, it doesn't keep a month, it keeps *years*.
And not refrigerated either, as long as it has been properly canned.
Every single French supermarket carries duck confit, canned, in the
non-refrigerated "canned goods" section.

Nathalie in Switzerland

Nathalie Chiva > wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:19:41 -0700, sf >
>wrote:

>>You don't honestly think that the confit served up in restaurants is
>>more than a day old, do you?

>In the US I don't know, but in France yes, sure, it's much more cost
>effective that way. And no, it doesn't keep a month, it keeps *years*.
>And not refrigerated either, as long as it has been properly canned.
>Every single French supermarket carries duck confit, canned, in the
>non-refrigerated "canned goods" section.

Is the canned stuff worth trying?

The best confit I've had (I've probably said this before)
was at the Guildsman Hall, Shrewsbury, U.K. for lunch one
day. It had developed a deep flavor that was remarkable.
Some restaurants in the U.S. do a good job, for others it's
indistinguishable from roast duck leg that is salted and
re-warmed in fat.

I do think that either way, confit is a way to use up
the leg meat from ducks whose breast was served as a main
course.

Steve