jamiemaw

Memories flooded back, Gary. From this side of the pond, it’s interesting to remember that The Ivy was seemingly born out of the new meritocracy of the 70’s and 80’s. It happened in many cities. Gone: imperious head waiters, menus in French and gloppy sauces. Arrived: luvvies like us—painters, actors, publishers, media tyrants, musicians and film directors (all of whom sought the see-and-be-scene), who began to replace the professionals, bureaucrats and Colonel Blimps as customers for fine dining restaurants. London restaurants, such as Joe Allen (1977), Langan’s Brasserie (1976?) and even San Lorenzo (1963—although their no credit card policy demanded an impressive roll of £50 notes) got it, and, just as in many cities, the movement away the fusty nostalgia parlours of grand (often hotel) dining began. These were restaurants that replaced the exclusive, formal dining rooms, but still threw up their own exclusions and outright embargoes: tough reservations being just the most obvious. But curiously, The Ivy itself now seems nostalgic, as if recalling another time, even though its current revival only really began around 1990 (although it first began life in 1917, shortly after The Coburg Hotel was renamed The Connaught for obvious reasons)—when it was renovated and relaunched under Corbin and King. As I recall they'd previously wrested away Le Caprice and instituted the kind of cosy, idiosyncratic menus that you might find in a decent country house— kitchen food raised up to the ironic. I haven’t been back since they sold it, but have very fond memories of post-theatre suppers, of Eggs Benedict (£10.50 in the mid-nineties, only £12.50 now), or The Ivy Hamburger (£8.50 then, £9.75 now—a relative steal). And the Sunday lunch still seems a pretty decent bargain at £21.50 for a starter, rib of beef and Yorkshire pudding, and sweet. But what I always found most interesting about it was that like many of its patrons who worked one nightly, The Ivy always seemed a stage: slightly theatrical and spiked with a frisson of drama amusingly sponsored by its players.

And rather better value, especially for those of us born with fish hooks in their pockets. The prices auggest that this is a rather fancy spot--true?

Thanks for the update, Lesley--we'll look forward to a progress report. We're definite fans of Darren's: he developed a good deal of the Feenie's (Lumiere's downstream brasserie) menu and is a very talented chef. He acquited himself particularly well during the Relais convocation in France--under hefty pressure. And Chris Stearns is an extrordinary maker of cocktails. Last night at the enRoute reception at Chambar, his DC-8 cocktail (gin, white rum, white vermouth, and Regan's orange bitters) was featured. Jet fuel indeed. As to the name, carswell was absolutely right in surmising it's a play on 10, as in their address, and it is ALL CAPS, at least on their business card. Of course Decca Records' vinyl jazz 78's were famously 10" too, but now I'm truly dating myself. Jamie

I've heard that the food is quite good: from Darren Bergeron, one of yours but ex-Lumière and Feenie's, Vancouver; and the cocktails, from Chris Stearns, also ex-Lumière, aussi. Any early reports? I understand that they're in the 1000-block Drummond--any reviews appreciated. Jamie

Absolutely keep the venerable Weber for back-up. I did and I'm glad. I started in the food business as a grillman (well, grillboy, truth be known) in a steakhouse and prize the quality of my fire. I've had both Weber Genesis and DCS barbecues. A close friend bought a Viking last week. The DCS is all-stainless, which is a real benefit as we live on the ocean. But its real advantage is a very skookum rotisserie that can be confidently left unattended, although I wouldn't leave the prperty with it spinning. We've roasted 20 pound-plus beasts on it (the grills and main porcelain briquets are removed, the back tray banked up and a drip tray placed beneath the roast). I wouldn't bother buying a barbecue without a rotisserie, and a sideburner can be very handy. There are several other important considerations: the quality of calibration and separation of heat (i.e being able to cook 'low and slow') for real barbecue, and the newer infrared backburner technology for rotisseries. A 30-inch Viking, which incorporates all of these features, is about $3,000 with a sideburner; a 30" DCS runs about the same. The best time to buy them is typically at the end of September or just before Easter when the model year changes. My experience is that the more you spend, the more even the heat and better its control. Inexpensive barbecues can have hot and cool areas, which are manageable when you get used to them. Another factor is the longevity of the ignition device and the Venturi tubes; again, typically the more you pay, the longer they'll both last. I also find that my $7 investment in a chip box pays smokey dividends. Lastly, our barbecue is plumbed into the house with natural gas, which runs a little cooler than propane but is hugely convenient. My DCS is now 10 years old and with regular maintenance, runs like a top. It's not as feature-laden as the newer models (it cost about $1,000 at that time) but has served thousands. Another brand that I would consider is called Capital--beautifully built and a pleasure to use. I have my eye on one for the cottage, about the size that requires a trailer hitch. Good luck, Jamie

If you read the Globe 7 section this Friday, much will be revealed.

Yeah, I'd be tempted to vote for the revolution in information technology and its effects on transportation. The recent New Yorker article about UPS makes a good case, using the specific example of lobsters: they're now available anywhere, anytime, with good quality and at a reasonable price. ← The New Yorker article was indeed fascinating, especially the section about the 'resting' depot (the time the lobsters are given between their trucking in from Canada and their final distribution via UPS) that ensures they arrive in peak condition. The process is incredibly complex (and just one example of a vast number of solutions in the logistics/distribution industry), and all to satisfy that long distance foodstuffs arrive at our doorsteps painlessly.

I'm goin to nominate the Universal Bar Code. Although not food-specific it is certainly food-relevant, especially with regard to how it has speeded the logistics and efficiency (and thereby the cost effectiveness) of delivery of foodstuffs to consumers.

What's it to be folks? What are the greatest inventions of the past century or so that turned the culinary world upside down? Is it the restaurant POS terminal? The food processor, or the Messermeister chef's knife with recessed Granton pockets? Ju-Jubes? Adolph Rempp's Meat Tenderizer? Brown 'n' serve dinner rolls? Caesar Gardini's eponymous salad? Worcestershire Sauce? Keith Kellogg's Corn Flakes? Clarence Birdseye's frozen food technology? Or maybe it really is sliced bread.

"And so we marked the time of summers, until in late August the setting sun, moving farther south each night, would finally set between the two Popham islands—it might light a boil of late-run herring through the narrow passage—and the cooling nights reminded us of that school was near. None of us dared mention it because certain miseries are best left unsaid. And because boys who mess about in boats all day should know no time, no time at all: Just the smell of the ocean, the cut of the wind, the angle of their hull as it takes the sea, and that the only thing that can hurt them here is themselves . . ." Big Pete’s Salmon 12-14 portions Astound your friends and family with amazing pyrotechnics in the privacy of your own home. We like the delicacy of baked or poached salmon (ballontine), but at summer cottages and on boats, sometimes the grill just screams out for action. You might find the collision of ingredients here looks more like a train wreck than delicious—so you'll just have to trust us, and the thousands served. 1. Secure whole-fish fillets from a fresh, firm-fleshed wild six- to seven-pound spring or sockeye salmon from a reliable fishmonger. Have the fillets cut in front of you and have them wrapped flesh to flesh with waxed paper in between. Do not allow the fillets to be folded while they’re being wrapped. 2. Place the fillets on a flat surface. Run your fingers from tail to gill to make the pin bones surface and with your wife’s best eyebrow tweezers pluck the wee blighters carefully so as not to disturb the flesh. 3. With a very sharp knife trim the fillets removing the bottom half inch of belly meat and any fin joints. 4. Cut the fillets into serving portions on the bias in line with the angle of the gill. You’ll get about six to seven portions per side. 5. Prepare a marinade by placing the following ingredients in a food processor fitted with a steel blade (or blender or with a whisk) and pulse until the mixture is thoroughly emulsified: 1 ¼ cups vegetable oil 1/3 cup good soy sauce 2 oz. rye or Scotch whiskey 3 garlic cloves 2 Tbsp demerara sugar 2 scallions In a non-aluminum shallow pan or dish, douse the salmon pieces in ¾ of the marinade, letting them rest flesh side down. Reserve the balance of the marinade. Cover pan with plastic wrap and refrigerate for two to three hours. 6. A half hour before firing the grill, remove salmon from fridge to a cool place. 7. Grill salmon skin side down over a medium hot fire for four to five minutes. Using a sharp steel spatula and chef’s tongs, turn for two minutes. The skin will remove easily and can be cooked further, then diced for a crackly topping (or salad topping) later. Splash a little of the reserved marinade over the finished fish. 8. Feign modesty as guests heap praise. But remember cardinal rule: Practice on family before friends, friends before clients. 9. Reserve at least two prime pieces for sandwiches the next day. You will need only salmon, pepper, mayonnaise and crusty bread. 10. Keep a friend by rinsing your mate’s eyebrow tweezers thoroughly. 11. Serve with buttered new potatoes, roasted young carrots, corn and a crisp salad. This marinade also works well for snapper, halibut etc. with the addition of ginger and more scallions.

Arne, I think it's uncommonly decent of you to treat the Seattle/PNW Forum to drinks at The Sitting Room next Friday evening from 5:30 to 9 sharp. Especially given our emasculated currency et al. You're probably feeling guilty about the sound thrashing we gave the US at the World Cup Hockey tournament today--very Canadian of you. Hell, I might even drive down to join you. The Vancouver Forum's shopping list for Sur la Table (including my new Bradley smoker) and Salumi follows. Better take the van.

While strolling the neighbourhood last evening we noticed that the o;d lobster space adjacent to Adesso is under renovation. It will be called The Burrito Brothers and promises fast Mexicali with a patio and some stools. Fish tacos? Stay tuned.

I certainly don’t walk into foreign restaurants with the insouciant swagger of a big-time chef like Neil, but I have to ask what the deal is about Palace Kitchen. The big deal that is. Sure, it was alright for a quick beer and a snack at the bar (although we’ve done that much better in Seattle too), but the several meals I’ve eaten there were completely indifferent—both in service and food. Am I missing something? You see, I was seeking swagger, but got only beige. Anyway, Arne, one of the answers to your question is to give Jonathan Sundstrom a call at Lark--one of the cleanest chefs cooking in the PNW.

Thank you both Brenda and Paul for memories of the Crow and Gate. It is indeed an exemplar of what a good pub should be: relaxed surroundings, quality taps and substantial, unaffected food. A slightly blurry memory reminds that darts were available too. One particularly memorable afternoon, following the two hour voluntary blood donation of playing rugby against Cowichan, then off to the C&G for restorative ales. I believe that lewd anthems were enjoined, and that the local punters who frequent it joined in both with fervour and additional verses. Thanks for the memories, J.

Hmmm. Terrific question, Paul. I reckon you could take a pub menu (blackboard?) from one pub to another right across the province and order from it with complete confidence: chicken wings (hot, killer hot, Buffalo, Uncle Fred's BBQ or Cajun honey mustard), wedding ring calamari, artichoke/cheese dip, nachos (with those particularly nasty sliced black olives) in regular and party size, cheese quesadillas (chicken, add $2.75), mozzarella stix, jalapeno poppers, chicken fingers (as I recall, chicken don't actually have fingers), a 'sampler basket' (two x three of the above with curly McCain fries), Cajun wrap, a burger named after the cook's mom, and, of course, 'fresh garden salad' or 'legendary Caesar'. In addition to an unnatural reliance on the deep fryer, there's an urgent if predictable co-dependency on cheap vulcanized cheese and pre-portioned Lilydale frozen chicken parts. Which is kind of a surprise, seeing as how pubs have had to compete on a more level playing field for the past two years. I mean since they allowed us to order a drink in a restaurant without 'intention to eat' and all. I thought maybe the competition might have sparked a renovation of pub menus. Instead, most that I trip over are proforma, lowest common-denominator excuses for instant colon rot. Although I haven't been there in a while, one pub that I thought used to make an effort with its food program was the John B in Coquitlam. It had (has?) a cracking good wine list too.

Yes, I get ideas, Jason, but typically in the spirit of culinary collaboration. So the real challenge lies in scanning the groceries (belonging to the retired lingerie model just ahead) even faster than the cashier. Then positing, "I believe my asparagus are begging to cohabit with your Freybe brand Bavarian Meat Loaf." Or simply, "My rutabagas seek direction." However experience directs me to advise of several possible reactions: 1. Security has been called and arrest is imminent; 2. A stunned silence, in keeping with lingerie modelling in general, will follow; or 3. A cheerful discussion of the rutabaga and its foibles ensues. The trick, almost needless to say, is to advance beyond Level One and share tips and techniques openly and generously. Anyway that's how it's done up here and I sure hope it helps. Jamie

Yeah. Just remeber that KD cheese dust infestation two summers ago when a well-meaning tourist sneezed and infected the entire output of Cheshire.

As at April 9th, supply and prices at Granville Island, quoted by Dave Moorehead of Longliner Seafoods, were: Most of the wild Spring (King) salmon is coming via reefer from Oregon. Moorehead estimates about a 48-hour turnaround. Sockeye in April is local-FAS (frozen at sea). There is no shame in FAS, as long as you admire the ‘quick-freeze, slow-thaw principle’; it’s barely indistinguishable from fresh product if properly handled. Pricing: Wild Spring at CDN $11 per pound (US $8.99) FAS Sockeye $7.50 per pound (US $6.14) In the summer, these prices will drop as local salmon comes to market. According to Moorehead, that fish will usually be less than 24 hours old by the time it hits the ice at Longliner and may even still be in rigor mortis. Some of the northern river-run salmon is brought live to market. Like a growing number of responsible fishmongers, Moorhead stopped selling farmed product some time ago. But it is currently selling in the range of $6 to $7 per pound (US $5.72), slightly less than FAS sockeye. So the decision is a relatively easy one: With a little foresight, budget salmon-lovers can order FAS product for pennies more per serving than farmed and thaw it slowly in the refrigerator.

← Lee, As it appears that you may not have had the opportunity yet to read about the methodology of the study, herewith a useful brief. As to your 'devil's advocate' position on the issue, we've yet to see any refutation--scientific or otherwise--from the farming lobby, who are usually quick to respond. Have you? Salmon farms teeming with lice threaten wild fish Tim Radford, science editor Wednesday March 30, 2005 The Guardian Canadian scientists have confirmed that salmon farms are a threat to wild salmon. Researchers monitored 5,500 baby salmon along a 37-mile long migration route past a fish farm, to find the juveniles exposed to 30,000 times the normal risk of parasitic infection. Sea lice are a hazard for all salmon. But freshly hatched salmon heading for the sea - no bigger than a little finger - are particularly at risk. If there are enough of the parasites, sea lice can quite literally eat their host alive. Environmentalists have argued for years that farmed salmon spread disease to the highly prized wild fish. Now new research in British Columbia - published today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society - has underlined the scale of the hazard. "Our research shows that the impact of a single farm is far reaching," said Martin Krkosek of the University of Alberta. "Sea lice production from the farm we studied was four orders of magnitude, 30,000 times, higher than natural [levels]. "Infection of juvenile wild salmon was 73 times higher than ambient levels near the farm and exceeded ambient levels for 30km [19 miles] of the wild migration route." The team followed baby pink and chum salmon, 3cm long and some weighing only half a gram, on their journey to the sea. They caught them every one to two and a half miles, looked for parasites, and returned them to the water. The fish had to pass through a long, narrow fjord, packed with anchored cages of captive salmon. The team found almost no sea lice on the juveniles before the farm - but heavy infections as they approached it. The researchers then found a second danger. The outward bound school of wild juveniles became a moving cloud of contagion. Sea lice larvae matured on the young salmon, to produce up to 800 eggs each. "The lice will attack other species, not only salmon but other fish such as herring which are the spark plugs of entire ecosystems - everything depends on them, from salmon to seabirds to whales," said John Volpe of the University of Victoria, another of the team. "Every commercially important fish is either directly or indirectly dependent on herring." Aquaculture is the fastest growing sector of the food business. Farmed Scottish salmon now brings in £700m a year over shop counters. Salmon farming in Scotland is bigger than the Highland beef and lamb industries combined. Scottish salmon farmers have been under pressure from environmentalists. A study published in Science last year reported that Scottish farmed salmon had greater concentrations of toxic pollutants than wild salmon. I disagree with you that the numbers are 'probably biased'. The methodology was seemingly sound (qualified bioligists from two accredited universities and published by the Royal Society), the funding independent of its stakeholders, and, unlike salmon farms themselves, the conclusions inescapable. First, farmed salmon is not significantly less expensive than wild salmon, especially during the summer months. Second, and using your own argument, how do you know that farmed salmon constitutes 'a healthier diet'? You might retract that statement if you were able to see firsthand the concentration of pollutants nearby salmon farms, or to study the evidence in Canada and other nations as noted above. PS: As you learn more about these and other related issues, it may well provide an excellent opportunity for you to knit left and right brains and compile a photographic study of the evidence at hand. Do you have a scuba certificate? edited for postscript

Thomas Haas Chocolates (from Senses or his new shop in North Vancouver); C Salt (I like the smoked version), and 8 dozen chilled Nanaimo bars.

Lee, Although I'm not sure that this discussion belongs in the realm of killer bees, it certainly does in a forum of well-researched analysis. In fact, I agree with you that it's entirely appropriate to be sceptical of government reports on various fisheries, if only because the data is notoriously difficult to retrieve. But the preponderance of evidence suggests that we are highly efficient predators and that as our fishing technologies have become more efficient we have over-fished many global stocks. Bear in mind that Fisheries Canada turned a blind eye both to its own data retrieval and to onshore fishermen 15 years ago with regard to the severe depletion of the Atlantic Cod. Had they acted on that information, the fishery might well have been saved. French fishermen, who began the orange roughy fishery in one of the most aggressively fished areas of the world--the waters surrounding the British Isles--have since moved on to other species. The blue fin tuna is now severely threatened. The wild Atlantic salmon is as rare as a sense of humour in an environmentalist. Chilean sea bass sales took off after it was rebranded from Patagonian Toothfish. Then they plummeted. Do you disagree with any of these statements? As the topic header portends, just how many species have to be depleted before education and action are undertaken by governments and consumers? Secondly, do you have time to wait for the 'science to become reliable and accurate' before you will take action? As these other fisheries strongly suggest, probably not: Counting fish populations is notoriously inexact and is reliant on the anecdotal evidence of those who have the most to lose: the fishing industry. So while we should always be critical and even sceptical when analyzing this sort of information (we are certainly reliant on the research of others), I would ask you this: Have you read any reports recently that suggest that bluefin, orange roughy, Chilean sea bass, sturgeon, Atlantic cod, Atlantic salmon, hoki, rockfish, ling cod, swordfish, turbot, or grouper stocks are stable or improving? If so, I'd like to be made aware of them. Throughout your posts you mention your relative ignorance of the status of the global and local fisheries. So I hope that you read the reports compiled by journalists for The Guardian (I posted the link upthread). I consider them well researched and dispassionate. But going beyond that, the issue is important and is not going to go away. And that's precisely why I helped organize the lunch at C: to help educate ourselves and then to take appropriate action. I'll be bringing $40 and an open mind. I look forward to seeing you there. Jamie

I'll be the first guy to admit that I know virtually nothing about fish farming or the sustainability of fish stocks in our oceans. I don't know who is right, and who is wrong. But anytime I hear someone say things like: "The worldwide fishery has been depleted by as much as 90% in her generation (she looked about 60). Blame the Sushi Generation if you will, but she chooses to eat no fish at all" ...my "hyperbole and bullsh!t" detector goes off. ← Unfortunately, Lee, it's too bad that--about 15 years ago--Fisheries Canada didn't believe their own data in the face of what had become obvious to local onshore fishermen: That the Atlantic Cod was indeed commercially extinct. Then the information got worse--the biomass was so depleted (including the web of food that the cod fed upon), that it currently appears unlikely that the Atlantic Cod will ever recover in any meaningful way. Today another bell tolls for the bluefin tuna. In an article last week in The Guardian, science editor Tim Radford quoted Stanford scientist Barbara Block: Scientists call for urgent action to save Atlantic tuna Scientists warn today that the Atlantic bluefin tuna faces extinction unless urgent action is taken. "In my lifetime we've bought this majestic species to the doorstep of ecological extinction in the western Atlantic Ocean," said Barbara Block of Stanford University in California. Radford says "There are two populations, (including) a western one that has declined by 80% in the past 30 years." Access the special series on the global fishery crisis from The Guardian here. But it sounds to me as if you think that the biologist interviewed on CBS Sunday Morning yesterday might have been exaggerating in her claim of 90% depletion. At first blush it does sound like an extraordinary claim. So, a question for you. What do you think the global depletion figure actually is? 10%? 50%? 70%? And further, if the figure could be substantiated at more than, say 50%, would you agree that this is a serious issue? One study that I found helpful was carried out by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization. It reported that 70% of global fish stocks are "fully exploited, overfished, depleted, or rebuilding from previous over-fishing." There's other interesting math at work. Due to government subsidy, of the approximately $82 billion of fish annually harvested (globally), it's estimated to have cost more than $100 million to extract the harvest. This may help explain why some species do not sharply spike in price just before the fishery is completely depleted and fishermen move on to other species. The orange roughy is a case in point. There are a number of studies out there--of all manners of veracity and bias. But I think that if you study those of reliable organizations (such as those cited above), that you will come to a considered conclusion. I know that I did--at least thus far. I hope that you'll find the discussion on June 25th both interesting and informative. Jamie

See? More eco doomsaying that makes anyone that is on the fence, or takes a middle road position say to themselves, "screw these loonies, pass the negitoro rolls." No fish? Sea lice look no worse than oysters, maybe they're delicious with a nice tart mignonette and crisp steely chablis. ← Nice try, Keith. But really, how much time have you spent on the farms? Thought so. Now, If you'd care to debate these and other points, swim by on June 25th. Yours, etc., Jamie

There was also an excellent interview on CBS Sunday Morning early this am; I didn't catch the name of the biologist because I was only watching with one eye. But she very articulately made a strong point: The worldwide fishery has been depleted by as much as 90% in her generation (she looked about 60). Blame the Sushi Generation if you will, but she chooses to eat no fish at all. Fish farming is not a new technology--it's been practiced globally for eons and almost as long as land-based farming. On the Big Island, I've stayed several times beside the ancient fish ponds (the ancient Hawaiiian's equivalent of a 7-11) at Mauna Lani. What is new is the size, pollution and disease that has been created during the 'learning curve'. In the face of rapidly mounting eveidence, especially with regard to the rapacious effect of concentrated sea lice populations on wild stock migrating near fish farms, I no longer buy the argument that the 'development and perfection of techniques' (i.e. deployng 'Slice' to remove sea lice) promoted by farm lobby associations is an option. Although I've tried to come at this issue with an open mind over the past decade (and certainly realize that David Suzuki and Rafe Mair are biased), after reading the best research that I can find, as well as interviewing a number of the players and visiting affected areas, I've come to the conclusion that the farming of Atlantic salmon on this coastline is devastating and in many different ways. Further, I think that if more consumers could visit fish farms they would draw the same conclusion. Let me put it this way: fish farms benefit from being largely invisible. If the cow you were about to consume was covered with leeches, would you be eating quite as much steak? But on June 25th, you'll have the chance to make up your own mind, when we convene our Sustainability Lunch with well- and hopefully neutrally-researched guest speakers. Watch this space. We'll be posting the details as early as next week. Cheers, Jamie

I’m afraid that this is exactly the problem, Andy. Few of the ‘judges’ if any have eaten in many more than a dozen of these restaurants in the past year—so how do they know that they’ve touched the ‘fifty best’. Simply put, they don’t. All subjective awards programs are flawed; this one fatally so. It would be more appropriately titled ‘A Survey of Fifty of the Best Restaurants in Great Britain, parts of Europe and the Coasts of the United States with a look in on the Antipodes.’ In short, it’s culinary chauvinism at its most parochial--a mile wide, if that, and an inch deep. Without belabouring how very hidebound it is, and what a plaintive yelp to sell more magazines, some of its more egregious faults: • The list ignores four-fifths of the world’s population, including some outstanding culinary capitals and several sub-continents. • Take just one city, say Chicago. Charlie Trotter places 14th yet there is no mention of TRU. • In New York, Daniel Boulud fails any mention. • The Wolseley, where many of the home team judges have dined in the past year, places, but a stellar, relaxed and modern three-macaron restaurant such as L’Arnsbourg does not. Further, even in London there are many other restaurants that would logically be placed well ahead of The Wolseley. I'm sure you would agree that these types of awards--through a corrupted methodology--dilute the impact of more seriously organized and calibrated ones. Further, although they can get away with it for a few years, sooner or later they will attract fewer column inches, even from unknowing general-interest periodicals. The convenor has only one choice: Dramatically (I suspect by a minimum factor of five) expand the reach and depth of judges, and then perform the hard work involved in organizing teams of same in each country. Then call it what it is (see above). Enough said. Cheers, Jamie