Dave the Cook

The second part of your statement is sensible, but the first isn't. There's no controversy over the survivability of salmonella in an environment with a ph of <4.0, (lemon juice is typically pH 2.4 to 2.6; mayonnaise is ~ 4.0). It's at least as, if not more, likely that you would contract salmonellosis (or an e. Coli infection) from raw fruits and vegetables, anyway.

I use the same technique (with a hard rubber mallet rather than a sledge), though you need a heavy-duty bag to pull it off. I think Sam recommended a leather bag, and that makes sense. The dog issue has me considering a mechanical crusher, though.

Thanks for doing the sensible thing! I assume that Emeril isn't trying to duplicate L&P, though, and that Steen's is part of his twist. But I struck out again. I did find a syrup made by Roddenberry that said it was 35% cane syrup (the rest was invert sugar syrup), so I took it. In the end, I did boil down a cup of cachaca, and used some dark molasses, too. I checked the flavor at five hours, and it was mostly sweet, with a salty background. An hour later, it was all sugary heat -- mostly from the jalapenos, but with the horseradish and vinegar in supporting roles. It was done at six and a half hours. It's very sharp; I'm hoping that two weeks' aging mellows it a bit. And yes, Varmint, this is nascent LSD.

I'm sure some Pastry & Baking peeps will be along shortly with specific advice. In the meantime, you could start here: the eGullet Culinary Institute.

Bayou blather.

Lyle's and Steen's are about as far apart as two things can be and still fit in the same category. The former is sweet, light and sunny; the latter is unctuous, dark and funky. It might be that reducing Lyle's before adding it would get in the neighborhood, but I'm dubious. No Albertson's here, and Winn-Dixie evaporated a couple of years ago. Publix used to carry it (some of them; you're right abot managerial discretion), but the appearance of Lyle's that Erik notes coincides mysteriously with the disappearance of Steen's. I'll make one last tour of the area. I am too impatient to wait for mail-order. The recipe calls for a six-hour reduction, and then it has to be canned and aged for two weeks. I've got time today and tomorrow. Yes. The recipe makes three pints, so perhaps some friends will get lucky, too. What do people think about a reduction of a good dark rum, cachaca or pisco added to molasses?

I want to make Emeril's worcestershire sauce. Along with 6 cups of onions, four jalapenos, two cans of anchovies, two lemons, two quarts of vinegar, 3/4 pound of horseradish and a mess of other stuff, he calls for four cups of dark corn syrup and two cups of Steen's. I've scoured the likely (and some unlikely) parts of the city for Steen's, and I'm giving up until I can get closer to the source. I know there isn't any such thing as a real substitute, of course, so don't bring on that bayou blather. What's my best shot in this circumstance? Molasses?

Hey, I love legs, too. Oh. We're talking about chickens. Never mind. Except to say that the tendon-snipping thing is a good tip.

Maybe it's me, but the alcoholic strength of a finished cocktail doesn't concern me very much. It's going to be what it's going to be, and almost all cocktails have enough alcohol in them to promote conviviality. My main concern is something that tastes good. Maybe I can check my understanding with a couple of examples. Take a Twentieth Century: 1.50 ounce gin 0.75 ounce Lillet 0.75 ounce lemon juice 0.50 ounce white crème de cacao To me, this cocktail is all about balance. You don't want to numb the palate with high-proof gin or you'll miss the chocolate follow-up. Also, the more pronounced gin flavor would drown the Lillet. On the other hand, a French 75: 1.00 ounce gin 0.25 ounce lemon juice 0.125 ounce simple syrup 5.0 ounces champagne is hardly worth making with 80-proof gin. I know this because I've got one in front of me now (and I cheated on the champagne, using only about four ounces). Am I making sense yet, or do I need another drink?

Is there some reason you can't do both?

Thanks -- this discussion is what I was after. But if I'm standing in front of a shelf of liquor at the store, all I know is the bottled proof. How am I supposed to know the distillation proof? Ick.

The yellow tint, which sometimes manifests as a rainbow, will definitely come out with BKF; I think that's even on the All-Clad site. Often scorch marks come out, too. I would try soaking in a slurry of water and automatic dishwashing detergent before resorting to oven cleaner, but I'm a wimp.

I'm trying to put this information to work in making cocktails and figuring out how they work. Tell me if I've got this wrong, keeping in mind that I've done nothing with whiskey, and I've not tested my assertions with brandy/cognac. So this is pretty much about gin and rum (and only white rum at that). - While proof is a measure of alcoholic strength, perhaps it's more useful to relate proof to flavor strength. Up to a point, assuming you're working with a well-made product, bottled proof gives you some indication of how well the essential flavor of the spirit will show through. - This doesn't necessarily mean that a Brand A 90 proof spirit is unequivocally better than Brand B at 80 proof, because many things contribute to flavor. Also, flavor isn't everything -- you have texture, mouthfeel and olfactory considerations, too. - Even though higher proof = higher flavor, you shouldn't always choose higher proof, because more oftne than not, you don't want the flavor of the base spirit to dominate. You're after a balance between the ingredients. - On the other hand, other things being equal, higher proof can give the base spirit enough strength to withstand the power of flavor modifiers and dilution. I realize that mostly I've just paraphrased what others have said, but putting it in my own words helps me. Have I got it right?

Have you looked at the eGCI courses and discussions here and here?

The versions of Kit Kat bars available in the States and Canada used to be different -- Canada had the UK offering, and the US got only the milk chocolate. These days, I think the product line is the same almost worldwide.

I believe you. The copper mug is traditional for a Moscow Mule, so that makes sense. On the other hand, the history of (and recipe for) the cocktail is particularly well documented. Confusing, isn't it?

I think you're thinking of a Bloody Bull, which I suppose could be made with Clamato, although it's giving me a headache thinking about it. The Moscow Mule is something else altogether.

I agree that the original daiquiri is a great drink. The other day, I was looking around for something to make that would use up an oversupply of oranges, and came across the Floridian Cocktail #2. Even with the gin, it struck me as too sweet, so I came up with the Bitter Floridian: 3/4 ounce gin 3/4 ounce white rum 3/4 ounce orange juice 1/4 ounce falernum 1/4 ounce lime juice 7 drops orange bitters Shake with ice and pour into a chilled cocktail glass. Unfortunately, one orange makes four of these, so I didn't make a big dent in my surplusage.

Clamato has been around for a long time. I know (good) bartenders who make their Bloody Marys with it and just don't tell their customers why the drink is so good. And clam juice is available everywhere -- look on the shelf above the canned tuna, in close proximity to the smoked oysters. As for the blank stare, these days you can invoke that by asking for any number of cocktails that aren't highballs, basic sours, or extruded from a slushy machine.

My bad. But they're still not Canadian.

Smarties? These? If so, I beg to differ on their Canadiality. Canadianity. Canadianess.

One of my favorite eG Forums topics, and one full of Canadian-only eats: Newfies.

Erm. Who's Jerry Thomas?

Is cleaning that big an issue? If you've got an automatic diswasher, don't you just throw everything in there?

There's a topic over here that discusses high-proof spirits and (mainly) the small number of them that are worth drinking straight. There are many other topics where the idea of proof comes up in singular instances. What I want to talk about here is the meaning of proof in the broader context of cocktails. What impact does proof have on the quality of the cocktail experience? (Boy, does that sound pretentious.) In the Vacation Bar topic, for instance, Libationgoddess implies that there is a significant difference between a drink made with 80-proof gin and one made with 92-proof: I don't believe people who are serious about cocktails are equally serious about getting drunk faster by consuming higher levels of alcohol. In a cocktail, the difference in absolute volume isn't much, anyway. So what's the deal?