feedmec00kies

Fair enough but I'm fairly certain (as in I've read it and been told so in food safety classes but never actually went in a lab and tested it myself) that salmonella isn't destroyed by freezing. Not by the freezing that can be achieved in the average freezer anyway. Maybe there's some super-chilling method that will kill the little buggers, I don't know. Personally, I figure millions of sunny-side-up/over easy/soft-poached eggs are eaten everyday without any major outbreaks of egg related illness but everybody has to draw their own lines. ← Yes, you are correct: freezing does not kill the bacteria. The purpose of freezing -- storage below 40 degrees Farenheit -- is to stop the bacteria from multiplying. I don't know about Salmonella, but I know from my younger, nerdier days that E.coli bacterium multiply at a rate of once per 20 minutes. IIRC, at least most strains of Salmonella bacterium are a danger when consumed in large quantities (likes hundreds of those little buggers), so while freezing will not get rid of them, it will keep them at bay and make food that has them from becoming as dangerous as if it were left outside. (If you're curious, this page on Salmonella has a section entitled, "Pathogenesis of Salmomella Infections in Humans.")

I don't know, I find that small vegetables (and fruits) in general make me react that way; it's a pretty universal response. I like small, cute things too! Kumquats, small squashes, small varieties of tomatoes, potatoes... I also have a soft spot for the little baby peppers you find in full-sized bell peppers sometimes. When eating small produce, I like to eat them in multiple bites, as if they were really their "full-sized" cousins. But the thing that made me smile most of all wasn't quite an individual fruit or veggie, but a techique Jacques Pepin demonstrated in his PBS series, The Complete Pepin. These olive bunnies made me squeal. I have yet to try making them. As you can see from the random internet photo I found, he used canned olives, which are ok, but I'd love to try this with brine-cured olives instead. They might not have quite the right body, though, but I wouldn't mind having to eat my attempts!

My annual income isn't the one being used to support this beer habit, and it wouldn't be able to. My boyfriend (a flash programmer) is much more of a "collector" in general, so he does a good job of setting up trades and such, since he tries to rate and drink as many things as possible. I wouldn't do such a good job of seeking things out. I just like to drink good beer, as I like to eat good food. BTW, he mentioned why the liter bottle probably aged better. It actually has nothing to do with how it's capped (at least not in your example). Apparently larger bottles age better than small ones. He's not sure why, but he said that it might be that there is less oxidation; there's a smaller percent of beer actually exposed to the air in the bottle.

Certain kinds of beer can be aged, and can really improve with time. The higher ABV beers tend to fit this mold, along with lambics. This is why my apartment has a whole closet of beer to be drank at a later date -- whether it be a year from how or 10 (the lambics in particular are waiting for a while). On New Year's Eve, my boyfriend opened a bottle of Bass Kings Ale from 1902 that he had acquired, and though it was a bit much for me (and for most people), I was certainly impressed with how it held up all that time. You would have never guessed it had survived for 100+ years.

How about this: Earth Room It even gives the specs for the dirt! Now I'm tempted to bring a packet of basil seeds when I visit... Edit: Oh, and grow lights. You can't grow stuff in a dark room. ← Now that is a reason to have an extra room free! Man, I am certainly not imaginative on how I'd love to remodel for this thread. The compost and recycling sound like great ideas though; I'd love to have an easy way to cut down on waste like that!

Heck, I'd take an upstairs laundry room; anything's better than having to go to a laundromat. For reference: As you can see, space is the big thing for me. Space for storage, and space for appliances. I feel really restricted by my tiny apartment-sized fridge and stovetop. When I was in school, we had a nice large industrial-sized refrigerator in my building (it used to be a frat house) and a full-sized freezer. Although I had to share it (technically with 30 people, but effectively with 15), and could only use space within reason, I feel like I had more space there than I have now. This is mostly because if I really needed space, I could find some for the big pot or pan that I wanted to put in. So yeah, let's see... I'd like a full-sized refrigerator (maybe bigger!), and a separate refrigerator for beer set at optimal beer-serving temperature. I'd probably also get a larger, separate freezer if I found that I wanted to store a lot of things; for instance, I'd love to buy whole animal from a farm (and watch it being slaughtered at least once, as some eGers have done) and be able to just take out parts as I need them! A more "standard"-sized stovetop and oven would be great .I don't really bake or use the oven that much, so I don't know if I'd bother with more than one or a setup with two compartments at this point. I need a real storage space for pots and pans that doesn't require a chair to access, and which would free up the oven for... you know.. cooking. It's kind of a pain to have to take things out of the oven before I want to use it. I need more pantry and drawer space, without a question. I'd also want a considerable bit more counter space, so that I don't have to sit at the kitchen table to do prep work. I want to be able to stand at a counter that's at optimal height. Oh, and a real sink! OMG! A real sink with two compartments (with a low barrier and a high faucet so I can wash pots and pans easily). A dishwasher would be great, but honestly, I grew up without one, so until I have kids (which won't be for a while), I don't think it's worth it. I'd also like to have space for a real beer cellar for my boyfriend, since his 200+ bottles are taking valuable closet space. I'd also like to get into things like charcuterie, which obviously require some dedicated space. My boyfriend doesn't eat seafood (not for lack of trying), so although space for cleaning fish would be TOTALLY awesome, I probably will not need such a place. Fish rarely makes its way into our living space unless I have a craving for lox or herring (my herring purchases are the only time I've cleaned any kind of fish at home, since I prefer to buy Russian selodka whole and clean it myself), so I'm not about to take up fishing and bring in tons of it in, either. I'll probably keep dreaming things up and add to this later...

Arey, somehow I don't think that slug was placed there for eating.

I don't know about either of these, but infomercials make me think of the Blendtec series of videos: Will it Blend? With infomercials like these, it's hard to doubt the quality of the product.

I have no real answer for you, but here's what I found on the "interwebs": clicky Didn't know you could get meningitis from eating un/under-cooked slugs! Also, the Wikipedia entry for escargot mentions that some species of snails are just not tasty... maybe that's partly what the problem is. Maybe it's just that they have so much sliminess (which, according to the first link, makes them taste bad) for someone to deal with in order to prepare them.

My parents learned of Taci's Beyti from one of the Turkish maintenance workers in my dad's office building. It's right near my sister's apartment in Brooklyn, so my parents and sister have gone a lot (she works for my dad on Fridays, and they go for dinner and drive her back home on their way back out to LI), and I've gone about 10 times when I was still living at home. There is no atmosphere, if you care about such things, but the food is cheap and quite good. From Manhattan, it's about a 1/2 hour or so on the B (weekdays only, of course) or the Q to the Kings Highway station. If you go, make sure to get the pan-fried calf's liver. You'll understand why. (For 4 of us, my parents would usually get 2 orders of it.)

Figs are also a great fruit to grill, though you'll want to wait a bit for them to be in season. Mmmmmm... Bittman had a very simple recipe for grilled figs with goat cheese last September. Clicky!

Fat Guy, your observation reminds me of this article in the Times a few weeks ago. I think it's a lot harder for people to accept price increases in restaurant food, so restaurants have been avoiding it any way they can.

Hey, I personally do not have one, but I might be able to get one for you. I'll let you know.

Besides all the other reasons why I would never buy this... Am I incorrect, or wouldn't things stick easily to the grill plates? Wouldn't the water-cooled grates never get quite hot enough to sear the meat so things come off easily? I can't really figure out how cool the grill plates are going to be to keep from charring, so maybe this is an illegitimate concern. However, something about this whole thing seems so counterintuitive. In my opinion, there's only so far I can go to eliminate my exposure to (possible) carcinogens, because frankly, I will never completely eliminate them from my surroundings. I try to balance it out, and avoid them as much as I can, so that when something like a tasty piece of grilled meat comes around, I won't feel bad about it. There are just some things I cannot sacrifice! Besides... as one or two people pointed out in the comments on Gizmodo, if you want to avoid charring, you could be a little more careful... It might not fool-proof, but you'll keep the money you'd be spending on this thing (both the purchase and operation).

There's a "Little Penguin" wine that I buy from time to time, mostly because the penguin is cute (catches my eye, in addition to being inexpensive and drinkable). ←

Not just food, but if something has a cute penguin or is penguin-shaped, I tend to want it. Hasn't happened with food, yet... no penguin containers that have caught my eye.

Mmm, pm sent on those jams! Soba, does wrapping your ginger in foil help at all? I never seem to use mine fast enough, and I can't bring myself to freeze it or put it in alcohol (the methods of storage I've heard to use).

I'm enjoying your food blog! Especially the pictures of the Greenmarket. I am embarrassed to admit that I still haven't been there. Embarrassed especially since I live much closer to it, as I live in the East Village! It's hard to motivate oneself to wake up on Saturdays when the S/O won't wake up! (Ok, well, at least I can't get up myself since my boyfriend doesn't.) The pictures helped pique his interest though. It'll have to wait until next week (Brettanomyces beckons!) I look forward to more posts!

Oh dear, even Wal-Mart now, huh? Something about that worries me a bit, but it is interesting to hear how the trend has spread so much. My experience with such sushi (ie. the kind of stuff you see put together at supermarkets and such) was largely at my college. Around the end of sophomore year, my school decided to have something like that, provided by these people (Wegmans uses the same company). It was interesting to see the progression in quality. Keeping in mind that dining hall food leaves MUCH to be desired, the sushi started out pretty decent, since there were 2 or 3 people standing there and making rolls to order. Then, the school got cheap and/or wanted to reduce the wait time (knowing my school, both), and it very quickly changed for the next school year to 2 or 3 people making rolls to be put into the fridge with the others, where students could sort through what was there. Needless to say, sushi (particularly the vegetarian varieties like avocado rolls) were one of the few very edible and healthy things I could find, and I became sick of rolls by the middle of senior year because of all that refrigerated sushi rice. I think it contributes to my desire to eat only sashimi now... not that that's a bad thing! My (admittedly unimportant) worry is that some of the less open-minded folks who decide to be adventurous and try this sushi, having never eaten it before, will have a poor opinion and understanding as a result. To me, it's like Anheuser-Busch marketing craft beer, although unlike AB, I don't think Wal-Mart benefits from people thinking the "premium" stuff (sushi, in Wal-Mart's case; craft beer for AB) isn't worth the money. However, it can't hurt to turn people on to a new food who might not have tried it otherwise. Let's hope that they're careful with the fish, at least. And the horrible possibilities for even more overfishing. (edited for clarification)

Lior, I have one question about the Roquefort and pear patties. The pear is grated, I presume? This all sounds delicious, by the way.

Well put, andiesenji. I, on the other hand, am a first-gen American. So I got 11 out of 20, with most being educated guesses. All those ice cream implements!

Well, if this helps... DPReview comparison of the Fujifilm F31 and F100... clicky No review for the F100, but here's one for the F31.

...Using my meager math skills, I found that the shutter speed is 0.0357 seconds. Interesting--that's faster than they've calculated (right at the top of the EXIF page, they've got 0.026 seconds or 1/38. Uh yeah... I think I described my math skills as "meager" for a reason. But wouldn't you be using film rather than digital, then? Some of the professional photographers I know only use film when they want their shots to meet their "very high standards." When they, or their clients, aren't as particular about a particular job, they go with digital. ← Here's a point of reference I found for digital vs. film... except it's about 6 years old. Based on this article, the point is obviously that one is not purely better than the other, especially when you're dealing with 35mm film (and the equivalent in DSLRs). Large format probably still needs to be done with film. There really hasn't really been much in recent years, though, and it's because digital technology has kept improving and I think it's becoming more of an non-issue. Regardless if the facts the article cites are still as relevant now as they were in 2002, I have to say that, for my uses, I prefer digital. A large part of is that I can exercise a great amount of control with post-processing - resizing, cropping, editing colors, etc. in ways I wouldn't be able to with film.. both financially and skillwise (particularly in the dark room). Digital technology has had a huge effect on democratizing the art of photography. With the cost of a darkroom and its supplies, and the time and money needed to learn the intricacies of chemical developers and such, I would argue that my use of digital is actually about trying to meet my high standards, regardless if I am right or wrong in saying that there is no difference between digital and film. Now, if I can only get enough money together for a DSLR and a few good lenses, I'll be very happy... :sigh: I can't get any real depth-of-field (which, IMHO, is actually pretty important in food photography, but I digress...) for the life of me, due to the small issue of a small sensor.

(Err, assuming you were saying that to me, and not that I was the poster talking about looking for a camera...) I looked at the photographs, though, and did some calculations for shutter speed because I doubted they were hand-held. Take the first photo, for example. Looking at the EXIF data, it says the shutter speed is "529/100". I used the explanation from this page to convert the value to the shutter speed in seconds... ...Using my meager math skills, I found that the shutter speed is 0.0357 seconds. The second photo has a longer shutter speed: 0.0692 seconds. I decided to compare it to the the only macro+low light photo I have, which happens to be in a similar lighting condition as the first two. The shutter speed is 1/13 seconds (0.0769 seconds). I know that photo was taken in ISO 800, because it was taken when I first got my Canon Powershot S3 before I realized how much grainier photos became in the higher ISOs. I can see particularly in the bottom left corner. Maybe it is good enough for the usual user. I probably have very high standards. But I still see it as problematic. For photos of food for your own records, or for a 72dpi photo on the web, it's probably fine. (BTW, there was no EXIF data for the third, but I'm not sure whether or not it was taken with the camera hand-held.) FWIW, though, there is actually a pretty small degree of variation between the compact cameras on the market. A lot of it has to do with sensor size. Buy one that is generally highly recommended within the price range you're looking for, with the features (like manual settings, view finder, optical zoom capabilities) that you want. The previously-mentioned Fujifilm seems to be highly recommended specifically for it's low-light features, but I don't know much about it because I prefer to own a very well-rounded camera that allows for full manual control, rather than just something with more low-light capabilities.

The answer, in short, is no. Sorry, but a DSLR (with a good macro lens) is really the only way to get what you want (a camera for low light and flash-less conditions, especially hand-held). To answer your specific question about ISO, high ISO settings on compacts are really grainy - I have a Canon Powershot S3 IS and don't go over 400... and 400 is the maximum I'll go, and I try to avoid that at all costs. The sensor size is much too small to produce quality pictures at those settings. If you just want a good camera in general, check Digital Camera Resource Page . But, as I said, a compact is not going to give you very good pictures. Passable, maybe. But not good. And doubtfully any better than an older compact. And I say that as someone who owns one of the "higher end" compacts, one which is hardly "compact" anymore (the Powershot S5 IS listed is the successor to my camera).