<snip>
SOME time ago, as I emptied a big pot of pasta water into the sink and waited for the fog to lift from my glasses, a simple question occurred to me. Why boil so much more water than pasta actually absorbs, only to pour it down the drain? Couldn’t we cook pasta just as well with much less water and energy? Another question quickly followed: if we could, what would the defenders of Italian tradition say?
After some experiments, I’ve found that we can indeed make pasta in just a few cups of water and save a good deal of energy. Not that much in your kitchen or mine — just the amount needed to keep a burner on high for a few more minutes. But Americans cook something like a billion pounds of pasta a year, so those minutes could add up.....
....There’s one other dividend to cooking pasta in minimal water that I hadn’t anticipated: the leftover pasta water. It’s thick, but you can still easily ladle it out by tilting the pan. And it’s very pleasant tasting: not too salty, lots of body, and lots of semolina flavor. Whole-wheat pasta water is surprisingly delicious.
Italian recipes often suggest adding pasta water to adjust the consistency of a sauce, but this thick water is almost a sauce in itself. When I anointed a batch of spaghetti with olive oil and then tossed it with a couple of ladles-full, the oil dispersed into tiny droplets in the liquid, and the oily coating became an especially creamy one.
<snip>
Here's the full, very interesting NYT article (by the curious cook):
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/dining/25curi.html?pagewanted=all------------------
Hat tip to no-hypocrisy's thread here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=236x67991I followed one of the links (curious cook ~
http://www.curiouscook.com/cook/home.php ~ on docsconz blog and found this very interesting article. Thought I would share.
Peace, love, good food, and happy cooking my fellow foodies! And "thanks" to no-hypocrisy for sharing your food-loving friend's excellent blog site :hi:
M_Y_H