More on Stick / Immersion Blenders

Our George Foreman. Whisk, Wand, Food Processor
and Blade, Plastic Container for Pulverising and
The Bit that holds the Motor!

In our kitchen, we presently use a George Foreman Immersion. or Stick Blender that we got through  a points programme.  It seems OK,  although because of our travelling ways, we have not used it a great deal.  We did return to discover that there had been a re-call on it because of a faulty blade connection, but fortunately,  ours was not one of the 'baddies'.

We use it mainly for chopping nuts,  making pesto and curry pastes, chopping onions etc for salsa,  for whipping cream and pureeing soups, fruits and vegetables.   All but the cream and the soups  are  processed in the super mini-processor supplied, which we find a fantastic device for when we have only  small quantities of ingredients to handle.  I am sure that, as time goes by, we will find plenty of other uses, too. At present, I am thinking of hummus and a pate, that at present I make in my food processor and blender respectfully, purely out of habit.

In the meantime, thinking about the Bamix (see last post) sparked my interest in Immersion Blenders in general so I started to do a bit of research on the subject. First - a little bit of history.  The Bamix is the original.  It was invented in Switzerland and patented in 1950. The name comes from two French words, "battre et mixer" i.e. beat and mix.  These blenders first appeared in American kitchens in the 1980s.  Obviously,  I can attest that English cooks were able to enjoy the experience somewhat earlier - the 

early 60s, in fact

Now there are heaps of immersion (stick) blenders on the market.  They come in all price ranges and all promise slightly different things.  The most expensive domestic model I found (at current prices) was the top-of-the-range Bamix at $400 and the cheapest, the Betty Crocker at $12.72......  Each brand has its loyal followers and its vehement detractors regardless of price. Often the cheapest have the most glowing reviews while the most expensive can only grovel under the burden of some consumer's rage.

Q 1.  How do they differ from other tools developed for mixing and blending? 

A.  They do their job in the container in which the food has been, or will be, prepared.

The obvious advantage here is that this mostly cuts out the need to transfer food from one container to another. This often messy and protracted operation  always entails further washing of dishes and extra 'stuff' strewn across the kitchen. Murder in a small area and the opportunity for chaos in a large one. 

For example, when I make pate, I cook everything in a glass dish, then, when it is somewhat cooled,  I ladle it into the blender, in batches, for processing.  As each batch is processed, it gets poured into a single clean bowl.  When all the batches are amalgamated, the mix gets thoroughly stirred so that any textural differences in each batch disappear.

For washing up - Bowl from cooking, ladle, spatula, blender jug and base, blades, gasket, large spoon, bowl from mixing.  Benches are usually decorated with drips of pate and/or melted butter from careless use of utensils, sundry accidents and life's little surprises!

I figure, if I use an IB (note - I am learning the jargon) the following should be the case,

For washing up - Bowl from cooking, spatula, wand from stick-blender and clean benches.  - Result!

More later.................