On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 18:29:31 -0400, Travis McGee >
wrote:
>http://www.latimes.com/food/la-fo-ca...018-story.html
>
>Soaking beans? In most cases, you don't need to
>
>By Russ Parsons contact the reporter
>
>Rich, earthy, hearty — there's nothing quite so reassuring as having a
>pot of beans simmering in the oven when cool weather comes along. So why
>don't more people cook them? One of the main reasons is the planning
>that's required to soak them overnight before you start. I know the look
>— the idea that some people have meals planned a day in advance
>continues to astonish me.
>
>But here's the thing: In most cases you don't need to. Many years ago I
>set out to discover if there wasn't some way to shortcut the soaking and
>cooking process. What I learned surprised me. And it has allowed me to
>fix up a pot of beans for dinner whenever I like.
>
>"Almost every recipe in every cookbook you've ever read says you must
>soak dried beans before you cook them. In almost every case that advice
>is wrong." That's what I wrote when I first ran the experiments 20 years
>ago. And it's true.
>lRelated The Persimmon Paradox: Two very different fruits, same sweet flavor
>
>For most dried beans, you can simply put them straight into a pot and
>simmer them until tender without any soaking at all. Not only is it more
>convenient, it actually improves them. A lot. Beans cooked without
>soaking have a richer, fuller flavor. They taste more "beany." And the
>cooking broth is rich and thick as well.
>
>I can't claim this as my discovery, not when it's the way many Mexican
>cooks have been fixing beans for centuries. It's just knowledge that
>somehow had fallen by the wayside (just as we've forgotten that, as
>every Indian and Persian cook knows, we should soak long-grain rice for
>an hour or so before cooking).
>Beans cooked without soaking have a richer, fuller flavor. They taste
>more 'beany.' - Russ Parsons
>
>Doing without soaking does increase beans' cooking time — but for most
>varieties that's only by a matter of 20 to 30 minutes, and that's
>unaccompanied time anyway. Black beans, pinto beans, Great Northern
>beans, cannellini beans, navy beans, they all cook without a whiff of
>trouble.
>
>There are a couple of caveats. First, if you're using very old beans —
>ones that have been in the back of your pantry for a year or so, or that
>you bought from a store that doesn't turn over its stock — then they
>might have dried out so much that soaking is advisable.
>
>And there are some types of beans that do require soaking. I still soak
>chickpeas, of course (not technically a bean but a legume, so there you
>are).
>
>I also talked to my favorite bean expert, Steve Sando of Rancho Gordo
>(if you haven't tried its specialty beans, you're missing something). He
>said that, in general, he recommends always soaking beans from the
>runner species, Phaseolus coccineus. These are extremely large, dense
>beans that will become beautifully creamy when cooked — but they do need
>soaking to soften in a reasonable manner of time.
>
>Also, not soaking works best for beans for soups or stews. If you're
>going to be using the beans in salads or other dishes in which you want
>them to be separate and distinct, you should either soak them or at the
>very least give them a rinse after they've cooked.
>
>You want proof? Cook these black beans soaked and unsoaked and compare
>the two. Whenever I serve this recipe, people ask me what the secret
>ingredient is. And since cooking it without soaking requires all of 10
>minutes to put together, it's actually something you can fix all the time.
>
>Imagine that. An everyday pot of beans.
Maybe, but they come out the way I like them when I soak them.
I soak at least 4 or 5 hours, sometimes overnight, then rinse, cook 15
or 20mins or until tender, then combine with my ingredients for my
"baked beans".
John Kuthe...
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com