nickrey

Still not sure of how you want to use it but have you considered cheese knives, which use cutouts in the place of the dimples? An example is http://www.amazon.com/Swissmar-Cheese-Knif...20425758&sr=8-4

I can see where you are coming from Chris and it's a bit like the 1982 Chateau de whatever that only has one bottling but is talked about long after it's gone. Mind you, I still get my favourite single malts as well as the occasional special bottle. They include diverse tasting whiskies ranging from Glenmorangie through Oban and Highland Park to Laphroaig. Attending a whisky tasting event with Jim McEwan has also seen me convert to being an adherent of Bruichladdich, which is an Islay without the heavy peat. Some of the larger distillers are putting out special releases (done in Sherry casks, Port casks, Bourbon casks, from a Quarter cask, etc) which allows experience of some additional dimensions without the extra expense of the single cask bottlings.

It varies. I looked at the latest US bottling list and the range is from around $85 to $140. The older whiskies are more expensive: one bottle was $250 but this was from a 38 year old cask. Web site is www.smws.com (click on your country)

Warning Warning. The following information could spark an obsession. The more you get into scotches, the more avenues open up to you. Normal whiskies (even single malts) are blends of a number of casks. As for single appelation wines, this allows the blender to give a consistent product that wears the label they work for and guarantees a common taste across different batches (much like McDonalds tastes the same the world over). There is another side to malt whiskies.... I've recently joined the Scotch Malt Whisky Society. They have chapters all over the world. What they do is purchase a cask from one of the distillers and bottle it at cask strength for their members. Cask strength is around 60% alcohol or more, compared to the 40% of normal strength malts. They do not have water added, no chill filtering, and no coloring (caramel). Coming from one cask, the whisky may come from the single malt but does not have the blending to make it identifiable as a Highland Park, Laphroaig, etc. The casks are tasted and quality tested before purchase and tasting notes are created that echo some of the excesses seen in wine tasting notes: Warm fruitcake, slightly burnt You would be hard pressed to guess the cask type here, since the whisky displays characteristics from both European and American oak. In fact it is an American refill hoggie. Our ‘Distillery No. 1’ is proudly independent: one of only two established in the 19th century which is still in the ownership of its founding family. Full gold in colour, the first nose is reminiscent of custard, crème brulee, vanilla fudge, melted sugar, moist fruit loaf and beeswax – in approximately that order! The taste is pleasantly sweet (tablet) and slightly burnt: weighty. It takes water well, and holds its weight, the aromas combining into warm fruitcake, and this comes through in the taste, slightly burnt: full bodied and creamy, with a longish finish. Anyway you get the idea. Because the distillery blenders have not made the whisky to their specifications, the distilleries request not to be identified on the bottles, although the areas where the whisky comes from are (Speyside, Islay, etc.). A number substitutes for the distillery name. The bottom line is that single malt, single cask whisky is an experience that once tried will make it very hard to go back to "normal" single malts. I warned you earlier

I tried sous vide chicken breasts for the first time today. Followed Douglas Baldwin's recommendation of brining in a 5% salt solution for an hour. Added salt and pepper to one side of the meat then sealed it in a bag with an ice cube worth of frozen chicken stock. I cooked it at 60 degrees celsius for what actually turned out to be four hours (much more than minimum recommended time but it was to target temperature so it didn't really matter). Saw a video on you-tube by David Myers who had a good idea on how to serve it. I mixed some yoghurt with a ready made Bombay sandwich spread: a coriander and mint type pesto and spooned it on the plate in a leaf vein type pattern. Filled this in with flash fried baby spinach that had home-made lime pickle mixed through it. Flash fried the chicken to brown it and sliced it into serving pieces. Poured the contents of the bag into a saucepan, added another ice cube of chicken stock and reduced it to around a tablespoon worth of sauce which I drizzled over the chicken. Also prepared some glazed baby carrots (with onion, garlic, sherry vinegar, honey, saffron, salt pepper). The finished dish looked like this: The meat was extremely moist and flavorful.

You could also try an Italian grocer.

Now we've got most of the semantics out of the way, I'd like to ask a somewhat controversial question. If you look at a number of the top chefs around the globe (eg. Trotter, Blumenthal, Tetsuya), they have all been essentially self taught rather than coming up through a conventional training regime. Is there something about conventional training that leads people to execute techniques very well but potentially not be as creative?

"Einstein (in my mind one of the very few people in history that should be considered as geniuses)" I agree with you that some of the early posts put the bar for genius a little low; but this raises it, shall we say, considerably. I read a review by a journalist of a discussion between Susan Sontag and Jonathan Miller. He said that it was "pseudo intellectual." These two would impress me and many others as intellectuals of a considerably high order. Which leads to the question of what would constitute an intellectual discussion and, perhaps an even better question, would this journalist have recognized it if he saw it? Perhaps the more a phrase is used, the more temptation there is to refine the definition to exclude people. Trouble is you can wind up defining something to exclude virtually everyone. If this happens, we define genius as "Albert Einstein." As he already has a name that we are free to use, this leads to semantic redundancy. In this case, we might as well drop the term genius from our vocabulary as it becomes a hollow concept. Perhaps we may need to agree to disagree and just admire some of the fine work that has been created in the field and those who are truly original in their concepts, approach, and execution.

Squid ink is used in Italian cooking to give a black color to pasta. Not too sure how flavor neutral it is but it's worth a try.

Being in Australia, where it is also not seen, I've been wondering about Kosher salt myself. Looking at the Wikipedia article on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_salt , it appears that Kosher salt is not "kosher" as such (all salt is) but is rather a form of salt without additives (ie. no iodine, etc) that comes in larger grains than normal. This means that it doesn't dissolve as easily and stays in contact longer with the meat that is being "Koshered." Perhaps it should be called "koshering" salt? My reading of this is that any salt without additives of a particular size is likely to have the same effect. But there lies the catch: If you have never seen kosher salt, how do you know what grain size is appropriate?

I've been looking at this forum with interest for a while as it reflects people's stereotypes of what a genius is. I am a psychologist by profession and have looked at this issue from various angles. In a technical sense, genius has been defined as a score on an IQ type test above a certain level. This definition is simplistic and far too narrow to embrace the concept of genius. In a societal sense, it tends to represent anyone who comes up with truly original ideas, often combining disparate elements to create something that others could not approach at that time (once the breakthrough has been made others may elaborate on it, leading to the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants"). Genius is not restricted to one area (eg. physics, music, etc), although the pervasiveness and approachability of artistic endeavors mean that it often is associated with composers, artists, etc. Because of the nuances and technicalities of many fields, it is only a person who understands the field fully who can recognize what true genius is. In many cases, therefore, we will not be exposed to ideas of this calibre and will thus not know that something is work of genius until someone tells us that it is. Without physicists telling us that relativity was a work of genius, most of us would never had known. When someone looks at what they have been told is genius, they will often develop stereotypes as to what genius is (eg. has to be the areas in Art, Music, or Physics). This unnecessarily restricts what we think of as genius. Interestingly genius is sometimes so far in advance of what anyone else is doing that it is often not seen as such in the person's lifetime (most of us can only appreciate genius in retrospect). It is not the imitators or those who come up with minor variants who display the genius, but rather those who were the originators. Also, it doesn't matter if the techniques have been used before in another area; it is the use of them for the new purpose that indicates the presence of originality: genius is an extreme expression of this. Cooking is an artistic endeavor. It is when the art goes into truly original areas that we come across genius. To my mind, we have seen a number of examples of this in recent times, many of which are outlined above.

I know you excluded him but have you tried Shannon Bennett's My French Vue (Bistro Cooking at Home)? He deliberately made it much more accessible and approachable than his other cookbook.

Matt Moran's eponymous book was just released in June. He adapts his recipes from Aria and before for the home cook. It is a good one.

Try this thread, it may be of interest:

As an Australian, where boxed [cask] wine was invented (and where else?), I'd like to be supportive. However, I agree that quality wines are unlikely to appear in this medium unless there is a huge change of heart. Here in Oz we've got to that stage with screw caps (advertised quite rightly as tasting the wine as the winemaker intended it to be; not the Russian roulette you tend to get with corks) but boxed wine it still the playing field of the mass market. Scientifically and taste wise, you get what was put in there ... but that's the catch, unless the winemakers decide to put quality wines in boxes, you won't tend to get quality.

I've done this a few times (two to be precise) and thought I'd share it with you. The basic premise came from Michel Guerard who did a Lamb charlotte in his Cuisine Gourmande cookbook (a blast from the past). Anyway, I do the basic recipe in individual ramekin dishes, which is rather appealing aesthetically. So, an eggplant shell became the outside for individual ratatouille. Here is the finished product And this is how we get there. First peel the eggplant and slice very thinly using a mandoline: Next, fry the eggplant in olive oil: You will smell when it is ready for turning. Next drain the fried eggplant slices on kitchen paper. Then start lining the ramekin: Continue with the remainder of the fried slices: I always do one or two more than are necessary to cut off bits to cover holes. Next fry in olive oil the individual components (eggplant at top, sliced zucchini next clockwise, sliced tomato next then diced onion. Note, you could use baked half cherry tomatoes but given it is winter here, the quality today was not good. The start layering the elements of the dish: Then fold the eggplant slices over the contents: Next put in a bain marie: Cook at 180 degrees Celsius, or 350 degrees farenheit for around 40 minutes (check to see if it looks cooked [see below]) Take out of the pan, dry it off, put the plate on top of it and invert (tap the top a few times). The product is: Voila. ps. I seasoned the contents during cooking. Yes, you can add garlic (oops, I omitted it tonight). Basil leaves would be nice between the layers. Enjoy

Not having read the paper, which is gated, I note that the authors say in the article that "we controlled for physical activity, total calorie intake and other possible explanations for the difference in body mass." This would presumably account for most of the extrinsic factors such as socioeconomics. ← I too only got the abstract but it has the words: With adjustment for potential confounders including physical activity and total energy intake, MSG intake was positively related to BMI They appear to have partialled out the effect of physical activity and total energy intake. This is typically based on an assumption of a linear relationship, which may not be the case. I'd simply caution that one non-replicated correlation study makes a hypothesis, not proof. Unfortunately once the media gets a hold of something like this it often becomes folklore.

First year statistics: a strong correlation does not equal causality. Let's create our own headline: Ice cream sales and shark attacks are strongly correlated: headline = Eating ice cream causes shark attacks. We must ask is there a third factor that led the group to use more MSG that caused the group to be overweight? For example, is MSG used only by the wealthier people who can afford more food? I'm with Chris, let's run an experiment: preferably with control groups, random allocation to treatments, and researchers who do not know who is in which group.

It must be an old cookbook. The conversion trick with the metric system (which Australia has use since the late 1960s) is that one ml of water weighs 1 g (hence 1 liter = 1 kg). 160ml of water weighs 160g. Milk has a slightly higher density than water with one liter (1000 ml) = (depending on level of fat) 1020 - 1050 gram. Hope that helps

Latest update: the pink salt/prague powder cleared Customs. The package was opened and resealed (and subject to all sort of investigations I daresay) but it is here. Now for purchasing the pork belly for my bacon; I'm heading up to Auburn to the Chinese butcher where I saw some nice pieces a while back. Have also found a sausage skin wholesaler who will sell to the public (Belrose casing suppliers at Matraville) In piggy heaven

If anyone wants a copy of Wyvern's Culinary Jottings cookbook, here's a link to an e-version of it. http://www.archive.org/details/culinaryjottings00kenn

Hi Mike! I bought myself one of these about 2 months ago. Living in Australia, we basically have a choice between 2 vacuum sealers. Sunbeam or crappy ebay ones. I tried an ebay one first and threw it in the trash after the second use. Don't even go there. I then figured that there are so many in the USA and so many people swear by Foodsavers that I would give it a go. So, I purchased it from the site you linked and also included enough accessories, spare bags, bag rolls and other goodies to last me a life time. I can tell you that I am EXTREMELY please with it. It looks great, stores easily in the cupboard, and best of all, makes air tight seals that work a treat for sousvide and frozen goods. Sure I haven't tried any of the other brands, but I don't need to - this one works great. The only honest downside I can mention is the first few times I had some trouble feeding the bag into the vacuum channel properly. Hope that helps! ← Hi, I read the accompanying documentation on the product and can't see if it has variable voltage. Can it take 240 V directly or do you use a transformer? Thanks

Thanks, I also want to do some smoked salmon as well, which I'm sure will need cold smoking, so I'll try both.

Once my Prague salt arrives from the US, I'm looking at making some bacon. Living in a townhouse, I don't really have room to get or store a cold smoker. I do have a Weber BBQ Kettle though and have "cold" smoked food, including cheese, in there previously (one briquette over the other side of the BBQ with wood chips on top of it). I found this idea on the Internet, which is basically a tin containing the smoking material with a soldering iron in it as the heat source (video clip is at this link) Any ideas as to whether this will be successful? Has anyone tried it or something similar? Thanks

Thought I'd add a cooking comment just to balance the science with a more practical orientation. I've been cooking sous vide salmon (using nathanm's temperatures and times, thank you) and love the moistness but felt it was missing something in texture. On opening the sous vide parcel, the skin is easily removed. The first time I did this, I just discarded the skin but felt this was perhaps removing a good part of the fish. What I've been doing is removing the skin and frying it skin side down first to crisp it up and then turning it over so the fatty side of the skin is on the heat. Like with pork skin, the fat expands and it produces a type of salmon crackling which I then serve over the top of the fish. The crunchiness contrasts with the soft salmon to give a nice eating experience.