Topic: Another Book

[natterjak]

Texting Az as I know he often cooks 3 or 4 portions in 1 pan if a table orders multiples of the same dish.

Was there an answer from Az...? I'm intrigued to know which side of this, uh, discussion[1] is correct.



[1] argument

[Secret Santa]

Not this old chestnut again!

Consider this.

If I make two identical curries and then mix them together in a single pan does the new double sized curry become magically ovespiced? Of course it doesn't, it'll tatse exactly the same as a single portion and yet there can be no disputing that there is exactly twice as much spice in it as in a single portion.

And, to take this crackpot theory to its logical conclusion, if I make, for example, a pot of curry that is about a hundred times the recipe volume of a single curry I wouldn't have to use any spices at all (well maybe a few grains!).

If you believe that increasing the recipe volume increases the potency of spices the answer is simple; you've changed the cooking method, whether you know it or not.

Madness.

[Peripatetic Phil]

Not this old chestnut again!  Consider this :  If I make two identical curries and then mix them together in a single pan does the new double sized curry become magically ovespiced?

Making two identical curries and then mixing them together in a single pan is NOT the same as cooking a double-size portion.  That seems so abundantly clear that no-one could fail to appreciate it, yet this same weak argument gets trotted out again and again and again ...

** Phil.

[Secret Santa]

Not this old chestnut again!  Consider this :  If I make two identical curries and then mix them together in a single pan does the new double sized curry become magically ovespiced?

Making two identical curries and then mixing them together in a single pan is NOT the same as cooking a double-size portion...

Precisely my point. If you make two separate curries and adding them together doesn't change the result (obviously) but making double the volume in one pan does, then you've changed the cooking method, unwittingly or otherwise.

I've cooked double and treble quantities with no resulting difference in the final dish to that of a single portion and with exact doubling and trebling of quantities. And that's because I'm careful to regulate the heat to achieve the same cooking technique for the larger volumes.

To say that the spicing quantity needs to be reduced if you double or treble the volume is pure fiction, although Phil, I'd be interested in your scientific analysis of why the spice needs reducing if that's your stance.

What is it exactly that draws out more spiciness from the ingredients just by by increasing the volume of curry being made?

[George]

I agree with SS here. I always pro-rata every ingredient in the same way. Anything else seems irrational to my way of thinking.

I make the same curry gravy most of the time. It uses just two onions and is something like 1/24th the original recipe posted on this forum. I reduced every ingredient to 1/24th as far as I could gauge. The spicing seems near-perfect to me, whereas it would presumably be way out, if the other way of thinking was correct.

[Peripatetic Phil]

I agree with SS here. I always pro-rata every ingredient in the same way. Anything else seems irrational to my way of thinking.

Well, I normally pride myself on being a rational person, and behaving rationally, so when I recommend reducing the spicing (pro rata) if one doubles or triples the size of a portion, then I do so on what I regard as a rational basis : that basis is "experience has taught me, and others whose judgements I value concur, that if the spices (and particularly the hot spices such as chilli) are increased pro rata, then the resulting dish is too hot".  I do not claim to be able to explain this : I simply report it as a fact.

** Phil.