Pandora > wrote:

> Dear Victor, where is written that a risotto must be done only with white
> rice?

"White rice" probably nowhere, but surely you mean the typical,
short-grain "risotto rice", as exemplified by arborio, carnaroli and
vialone nano? If you do, then indeed I would venture that most every
traditional recipe calls for such a rice and that no such recipe calls
for parboiled one.

> I think that every rice dish ask for a particular kind of rice.

Heartily agreed, risotto being one such dish. :-)

> For example if you make the famous "Risotto ai porcini" (Risotto with
> boletus edulis), it's better use the parboiled rice, because you haven't
> whip it with butter. Same thing for "Risotto alla pescatora" (Risotto with
> shellfish") wich recipe doesn't need a whipping with butter and Reggiano.

Eh, who says so? A lot of recipes for these risotti call for butter
and/or parmesan. Using or omitting either is a detail, not anything
fundamental.

> In risotto with spinach, the presence of a lot of vegetable give a certain
> appearance of a mush to the rice; why underline it using white rice?
> Are only few examples: you will unerstand the difference only after you have
> tried to make in both ways!

Ah, I have made it both ways, i.e. both risotto and pilaff. You see,
risotto, to me at least, is something that is defined by both its major
component (a certain kind of rice) and the method of its preparation.
Once cooked, it is creamy rice grains clinging to each other while still
retaining their individual bite. This creamy effect is achieved by
gradual rubbing off the outside starch of rice grains during stirring
with only a small amount of liquid present. The texture and mouthfeel
of the resulting rice is unlike anything you can achieve by using other
types of rice or methods of preparation. You say you aim for an
"appearance of mush" by adding the vegetable or other component - that
is not the same thing, and the same effect can be achieved with a
pilaff. I notice that your recipe still calls for gradual adding of
broth and for constant stirring. Considering the hardened parboiled
rice walls and the resulting separated grains, the reason is lost on me.
You could as well add all the broth at once, let the rice absorb it and
forgo the stirring. You could also use any other kind of rice, such as
Basmati. BTW, from what I gather, parboiled rice is actually produced
from the so-called Patna rice, originally from Bihar in northeastern
India.

Consciously or unconsciously, you seem to fail to see the difference
between "risotto" and "pilaff" - or maybe it is not important to you. I
can sympathise - both are a kind of rice porridge, so wanting to use one
name for both is understandable. You might even want to add the Russian
rice kasha and the Chinese congee/jook to what you call "risotto".
However, names are given to dishes (as to most other things) to
facilitate communication. In such cases as this one, it helps if one
avoids blurring the distinctions.

> About pepper on Carbonara, nobody know, actually, which is the original
> recipe.

Most people know, however, the traditional recipe which seems to be
pretty uniform. The tradition in question may be relatively new, but it
is there nonetheless.

> In IHC I 've heard of people who put cream in eggs and People who use only
> Reggiano for this preparations.
> I'm sure, like you, that "The kind of rice used for a risotto" would be a
> good thread for every NG. But, you know, every people reason with his
> brain...

Maybe I don't. :-)

Victor