TheAlligator wrote:
> wrote:
> >Ok so you do advocate cornstarch for marinating, I thought you were
> >implying in that other message that it was a bad idea due to the
> >stickyness.
> >
> >Have you ever tried palm sugar instead of white/brown? I got into
that
> >with Thai curry but I noticed that some sweet soy sauce I bought per
a
> >recipe had it in the ingredients. Either the palm sugar or sweet
soy
> >sauce are both really nice if you like things on the sweeter side
(goes
> >well with heat of course).
> >
> >Jesse
> >
> OK, you're apparently way ahead of me - I don't enven know where to
> FIND palm sugar or sweet soy sauce. As far as the cornstarch - no,
> it's not stickiness. You just need to cook the meat last because of
> the bits of residue left behind when cooking the chicken. I think
> using CS in the marinade sort of ends up creating the well-known
> "velveting" process, commonly used for stir-frying shrimp. The
> chicken is so tender and moist, you really can't believe it.


Guess I'm lucky but we have a little Vietnese district near us and
there's a great place with helpful people there to guide me (although
they did try to sell me a teflon Wok, guess they didn't think I was
serious about this stuff). One of the things I found out they sell is
fresh lo mein, you just need to boil it for about a minute and then
throw into the wok.


Palm sugar is realy nice though, it's slightly brown and has a nice
smooth taste, not overly sweet and more savory.

Thanks for the tip on the CS, I've never tried it with shrimp, will
have to soon.

TheAlligator wrote:
> wrote:
> >TheAlligator wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >> >Interesting comment. I have a few asian cooking books that
suggest
> >> >marinating this way. What is the point of using cornstarch as a
> >> >marinade anyways? I've heard of a process called "looing" which
is
> >a
> >> >way to marinate but not sure what it entails yet. I did order
Gary
> >> >Lee's Wok book which is supposed to be really good so maybe I'll
> >learn
> >> >some tips from that.
> >> >
> >> Looing is long slow cooking in a very flavorful sauce and results
in
> >> very tender, rich meat. I have never tried to do it, but it is
quite
> >> easy.
> OK, here is a recipe for a basic looing sauce.
> 4 cups water, 1 cup light (not "lite") soy sauce, 1 cup dark soy
> sauce, 1 star anise, 1/2 cup chinese rice wine or dry sherry, 5
> tablespoons sugar, 4 slices ginger. Mix it all in a non-reactive
pot,
> add any meat (except fish of any kind). If you add fish, you'll have
> to throw the sauce out and start over, but with anything else, you
can
> strain, refrigerate and re-use the sauce many times, adding equal
> proportions of all ingredients as replacements when neccessary for
> volume.
> I don't have all the particulars down, but the sauce and the
following
> recipe for looed chicken are from the book "The Frugal Gourmet Cooks
> Three Ancient Cuisines". Yeah, I know, apparently most of you hate
> his guts, but I like him because he got me interested in cooking, not
> just surviving.
> LOOED CHICKEN
> Place the looing sauce in a 6-quart covered casserole large enough to
> hold a whole chicken. (OK, I would use a pile of my favorite select
> parts rather than a whole one). Bring the sauce to a boil and add
the
> chicken. Cook for 30 minutes and turn off the heat, leaving the pot
> on the burner for another hour. Hack up the bird, garnish with green
> onions and sesame oil and serve.


Is there really a difference between light and lite soy sauce? The
kind I have is called light, its some chinese brand, not what you'd
find at the supermarket. But I assumed it was just low sodium like the
lite ones. And is dark soy sauce different than the regular stuff?
Also does this recipe or process (looing) have any relation to the
"bourbon chicken" you see at many asian restruants (especially the ones
in a mall etc..)?

Jesse

wrote:
>Is there really a difference between light and lite soy sauce? The
>kind I have is called light, its some chinese brand, not what you'd
>find at the supermarket. But I assumed it was just low sodium like the
>lite ones. And is dark soy sauce different than the regular stuff?
>Also does this recipe or process (looing) have any relation to the
>"bourbon chicken" you see at many asian restruants (especially the ones
>in a mall etc..)?
>
>Jesse
"Lite" is just another term for lower-sodium. Actual "light" soy
sauce is soy sauce without the caramel coloring - I guess there are
other differences, but I'm not sure what they are, although I have a
number of recipes that specifically demand the use of light. As far
as dark soy, there is your answer, too. There is a much higher grade
of soy sauce, but the name escapes me at the moment. Someone gave us
a bottle, and it was wonderful. And yet again, you are luckier than
me with your location, as I have never actually been able to find even
light soy sauce here. If I wanted to make a day-trip, there is a
large Asian market within reach, but I've never been that ambitious
yet. There is also a Puerto Rican market that's closer that I've been
meaning to visit - hmmm . . . how's REAL oxtail grab you?

TheAlligator wrote:
>> >Jesse
> "Lite" is just another term for lower-sodium. Actual "light" soy
> sauce is soy sauce without the caramel coloring - I guess there are
> other differences, but I'm not sure what they are, although I have a
> number of recipes that specifically demand the use of light. As far
> as dark soy, there is your answer, too. There is a much higher grade
> of soy sauce, but the name escapes me at the moment. Someone gave us
> a bottle, and it was wonderful. And yet again, you are luckier than
> me with your location, as I have never actually been able to find
even
> light soy sauce here. If I wanted to make a day-trip, there is a
> large Asian market within reach, but I've never been that ambitious
> yet. There is also a Puerto Rican market that's closer that I've
been
> meaning to visit - hmmm . . . how's REAL oxtail grab you?

I went to BassPro Shop today and they had a line of gas cookers from
KingKooker. There is one that was basicaly a rectangular frame with
a burner in the middle and a hose attached. The burner was recessed
about
3 inches down from where you could lay a wok/pot etc... on it. Would
this
be close enough to the flame or do I need to get one of the burners you
showed me at that other link? The burner on this one was smaller in
diameter as well but the BTU was 30,000. The box showed a drawing of
flames emitting that looked good but that was just on their warning
section. It attrached me due to the fact that it has some sort of
support to it where as the "free standing" ones in the link you posted
seemed a little less convenient to setup.

https://secure.dogbark.com/kingkooker/turkey.php (the Hot Tub)

If you check that link it shows the overall design of what I saw
although
they dont show a close up. This one might be bigger as well, at least
it costs more, the one I saw was about $50. If you click on the
picture its actually harder to see what it looks like though so the one
on this link is actually easier to judge.

Anyways thought this device might have a little more use for me since I
can fry with it as well. Guess you can with the other burners but I
assume you need to add some sort of support to it.

As far as REAL oxtail I don't know the difference between real and
fake. I do know the place I go to has plenty of organs though as well
as other assorted pieces of meat I have no intention of trying.

Jesse

Here's a better photo of it

http://www.lalagniappe.com/mall/lobb...ry-hot-tub.htm

This one says 54,000 btu, I assume the burner is still only recessed
a few inches below the top.

Ok now I found the actual photo of the exact unit I saw at Outdoor
World

http://www.lalagniappe.com/mall/KK-camp-stove-cs1t.htm

wrote:

>Ok now I found the actual photo of the exact unit I saw at Outdoor
>World
>
>http://www.lalagniappe.com/mall/KK-camp-stove-cs1t.htm
>
I looked at the links, but I honestly don't know what to tell you.
Seems a little high priced for a burner, but I'm pretty sure it's
built better than the other $20 unit I told you about or even the
almost-$40 one.. The burner looks awfully far from the cooking
surface. But if it's really 54,000 btu, you're just this side of
nuclear fission and I guess the distance wouldn't matter much.

TheAlligator wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >Ok now I found the actual photo of the exact unit I saw at Outdoor
> >World
> >
> >http://www.lalagniappe.com/mall/KK-camp-stove-cs1t.htm
> >
> I looked at the links, but I honestly don't know what to tell you.
> Seems a little high priced for a burner, but I'm pretty sure it's
> built better than the other $20 unit I told you about or even the
> almost-$40 one.. The burner looks awfully far from the cooking
> surface. But if it's really 54,000 btu, you're just this side of
> nuclear fission and I guess the distance wouldn't matter much.

One thing to keep in mind is that this one includes the hose which I
belive costs extra for the one you showed me. In that case it actually
comes out a bit cheaper. The burner is really only about 2-3" from the
top grate where you set your cooking vessle down on.

Jesse

wrote:
>One thing to keep in mind is that this one includes the hose which I
>belive costs extra for the one you showed me. In that case it actually
>comes out a bit cheaper. The burner is really only about 2-3" from the
>top grate where you set your cooking vessle down on.
>
>Jesse
>
Yep. I think I paid close to another 30 bucks for a hose and
regulator.