Mjx

To me it looks like rolled fondant with chocolate worked into it very slightly before it was rolled out. But this should be easy to tell; pull off a bit, and taste it... how does it taste, what's the texture like? Fondant taste of sugar/corn syrup, and usually, little else (although there's no reason it shouldn't). White chocolate ganache would taste of cocoa butter/chocolate.

At least as great a percentage of self-described mixologists will leave no more legacy than most bartenders; if there was the slightest indication of a correlation between creativity and job title, I could see the point, but let's face it, in any field the percentage of genuinely creative people is tiny, while those who at least sweat the details and do their best to produce something of high quality is only slightly larger. Still not sold.

Mixologist?! GRRRRRRRRR. That's bad news, right there, and when the bartender describes or herself a 'mixologist' ('Hiiii, I'm Ocean, and I'll be your mixologist!'), I get the hell out of there (unless I'm with a group that makes it an impossibility). I think those have been my only really unpleasant bartender-related experiences in bars. Seriously, WHY 'mixologist'?! It sounds ridiculous. It doesn't suggest ANYthing specific about drink (any substances can be mixed, which I discovered when I was about two, and brought joy to my parents by carefully dipping water out of the toilet and mixing in all the odds and ends a toddler is so well-equipped to find laying about), merely the desire to come up with a new word at all costs, and that's more about ego than the desire to mix and serve drinks. It just sounds like a setup for a wretched experience. eh. I think I need a holiday.

Something tart, like not-over-ripe mango or pineapple, or citrus would probably be good, and not too overwhelming. Tomatoes, too (if you're willing to regard them as fruit), although you've already been there.

When I've added a anything with a distinct colour to fondant (or any other icing), part way into the mixing process, before it's completely blended and even, it's had that marbled look.

In case anyone else is geeking out over this as badly as I am, oracvalues.com lists antioxidant levels for a variety of foods in μ mol of Trolox Equivalents (TE)/100g, and indicates that cacao has 55,653 μ mol TE/100g, 40,200 μ mol TE/100g if Dutched (Wikipedia is listed as a source, which does make the accuracy open to question, but this can be checked; it also includes this statement: The Linus Pauling Institute and European Food Safety Authority state that dietary anthocyanins and other flavonoids have little or no direct antioxidant food value following digestion. Unlike controlled test tube conditions, the fate of anthocyanins in vivo shows they are poorly conserved (less than 5%), with most of what is absorbed existing as chemically modified metabolites destined for rapid excretion. [source: Wikipedia]). A standard dark devil's food cake I make uses 50g cacao (27,827 μ mol antioxidants, using un-Dutched cacao). If no one is looking, I might eat an entire 1/8 (two embarrassingly generous slices) of the cake at one go (3478 μ mol, from the cake layers alone); if you're smaller than Andre the Giant, half that is a more typical, sane serving, since this is a pretty rich cake, what with flavoured whipped cream on it and all (1739 μ mol antioxidants). Of the items listed, pecans are a fairly common thing to eat 100 g of in one go, and from that you'd get 17,940 μ mol TE/100g (about 10× what you'd get from that chocolate cake). Clearly, the thing to do is have a honking huge slice of cake, than assuage any nutritional concerns by eating a bunch of pecans (followed by a half-marathon, if one's figure is a concern). ------ Getting back to the OP, I've found that the key to getting a rich, full flavour from whatever chocolate I'm using is to bloom it in boiling water (I often tweak recipes just so I can do this, since my choices of cacao are not generally than fantastic where I am); this has given me good results even from the cheap, iffy crap I've occasionally picked up at ALDI.

Source: http://www.livestrong.com/article/539346-dutch-processed-cocoa-powder-vs-unsweetened-cocoa-powder/ YMMV since it is the Hershey Center Hm, yes. I tracked down the original research article cited in the Hershey report sheet, and what I'm reading for now is how much cacao offers in terms of antioxidants, in the best-case scenario. Guess what I'm saying is not that I disagree with what you say, but that the total original amounts of antioxidants, in even a generous serving of something cacao-heavy, is so small, neither its presence nor its loss can be described as nutritionally significant.

I'm not getting the 'vinegar to soften' thing; generally, to tenderize something, it goes in a mildly basic solution, since acids tend to have to have an opposite effect (although they can break down meat surfaces and turn them mushy). How is this working out, compared to soaking it in a non-acidic bath?

It seems unlikely that Dutch processing has that much effect on any lingering nutritional value in processed cacao, which undergoes enough heat processing to break down antioxidants, not to mention, even if you're eating something that has lashings of cacao in it, it's still not going to be so much that it's bringing significant nutrient value to the table (I freely admit that I do not specifically eat chocolate-containing things for their health value ) The other way around: 'Dutched' involves treating the cacao with a base (it will usually say 'processed/treated with alkali' on the packet), which makes it less red and less acidic.

The protein percentage will matter any time you have a specific texture in mind. If you want chewy, rugged, open-structured bread, you want a high percentage of gluten; if you want a finer, more delicate crumb, you want a lower percentage (although adding fat will move the texture in that direction, too); if your goal is more general (e.g. texture not of particular importance), protein content isn't such a huge deal.

That is so lovely, and somehow baroque-looking! Regarding the thickness of the pasta, I'm wondering whether relatively thin, but rough-surfaced tagliatelle would work with this.

I'm really sorry, I don't know how I missed your post from well over a year ago, but (although I'm certain you now have a scale) I have the CJ4000 model. Still love it. I now have my heart set on the JSVG20 unit.

Just curious; are pasteurized eggs (yolks, whites, whole) just a Danish thing? I've never thought to actively look for these when I've been in shops in various countries, but in Denmark, pretty much any time raw eggs are required, most people reach for pasteurized, which are found in every supermarket. By the way, I'm trying to figure out how to make a tiny, one or two serving batch of mayonnaise. Anyone pull this off?

I did once find myself in a situation where courtesy demanded that I eat chocolate cheesecake. It was a horrific and nauseating experience (because I don't care for cheese, and admittedly find the entire concept of cheese in sweets appalling). I'm clearly the wrong person to ask about this. Yep, that's brilliant stuff (it's not individually wrapped, by the way, but in packets). I once tried some with licorice in it, at Keflavik airport, I believe, and that wasn't so great, although the fact that I like both licorice and chocolate kept it from being a true End Times experience for me.

I've noticed the flour mix tends to affect the length of time it takes to get everything well-blended. Incidentally, not only do I mix however long it takes for full mixing, but I do it with a mixer (Yes. I know. Some regard this as heresy. But I started using a mixer ever since I broke my dough loop, and never switched back).

Yes, please!

Orange flower water does vary considerably in strength/quality. I've come across orange flower waters that made me feel like I'd been slapped across the eyes with a plastic flower, but the ones that are actual waters (hydrosols), as opposed to water or water/alcohol blends with scent added, are lovely (assuming you care for the scent of the flower in question in the first place), although you do need to keep them refrigerated, and use them within a month or so of opening the bottle. I use the orange flower water I have (which has a distinct but not very powerful scent) by the spoonful, and it isn't always teaspoons, either: Wednesday night I felt the distinct need for something margarita-ish, and what I made included a tablespoonful of the stuff. Much as I love the scent of orange flower, heavy perfuminess makes me queasy and headache-y, but this smelled wonderful.

Would using a heated wire to cut it help reduce breakage?

There's a discussion of these units in the VacMaster VP210 vs. VacMaster VP112 topic (yep, the 215, too).

If you know/calculate the cubic capacity of your tray, and you have have an accurate measuring container (e.g. marked lab beaker), you can then translate the milliletres into cubic inches or centimetres (e.g. 50 mL = 50 cc/3.051 cubic inches). From the two measurements, you can determine how the chocolate is going to fit into the tray. You can you use this conversion calculator: http://www.onlineconversion.com/weight_volume_cooking.htm

When I've had more garlic than I was likely to use before it started going off or sprouting, I've frozen it in various forms and states (whole, sliced, minced, put through a press; raw, browned in various ways). For cooking purposes, it works out fine, and takes up very little space in the freezer. I put it in a small bags, and press it as flat as possible, so taking a out just little out is nice and simple. Freezing ruins up the texture, so I wouldn't use it for fresh applications (apart from the pressed garlic, possibly). I've never looked for frozen garlic, but it probably exists. The jarred stuff has a texture I find unappealing (which would no doubt vanish in cooking, however), and takes up more room and costs a more than freezing your own; the occasional botulism issues associated with it pretty much put me off it all together.

Food companies are all about making money, it's no surprise that they're having R&D and marketing do their damndest to create something irresistible. And feeding children significant amounts of food that's going to damage their health is clearly irresponsible, unless it happens to be the only alternative to starvation. The thing is, if someone decides to have children, they're responsible for prioritizing their well-being, even if it involves a hell of lot of frequently thankless work. Regardless of what food companies do, parents, not food manufacturers, are responsible for most of what their kids eat. No one want to see their kid's eyes well up with tears, or have a screaming meltdown (depending on the kid's preferred negotiating style) because they want to eat a bucketload of crap and the parent is saying NO, but that's just part of being parent. Can I see decent parents caving in and letting a kid eat maybe one of these a month? Sure. Nothing wrong with occasional crap. If these showed up in a kid's lunch box several times a week, I'd start wondering about the parents (Are they silly/weak enough to really believe their kid when she says 'I hate you!' because of the lunch choices? Do they simply not think their kid's health is worth the hassle of arguing about lunch?) For Lunchables to be cheaper than making an analogous lunch from scratch, the quality is just not going to be good. Plus, the ones with fruit are only ones that don't look guaranteed to to give Junior a promising head start on chronic constipation.

I use this one (http://www.amazon.com/American-Weigh-Signature-Series-Digital/dp/B002SC3LLS) I don't believe that scale would have the precision for MC@H gelato though. I ended up spending several hours last night looking at scales. I found one that would measure 0.01 gram up to a kg. It was about $200 however. And for that I could get a pressure cooker. But it would let me use one scale for all my kitchen needs. I gave up on the idea of mg scales as they are too expensive. I'm looking to get my hands on one of the Jenning models, which are priced very comfortably; definitely not $200! I have one of their models, and it's extremely accurate (I just need another with greater precision, for really small amounts).

I've heard of, but don't think I've ever seen them, and from the silly name I thought they were already for kids... no? And I could look at the company's web site, but it's more fun for me to think that rather than water, Lunchables previously included little bottles of Four Roses or Thunderbird.

Hm, that seems pretty close to what you can find in the US too. The particoloured mayhem that you find is in some places is just gimmick (to my mind, like ice cream shops that feature bubble gum and Smarties flavours), but doesn't define US doughnuts; in their basic forms, they're what you describe.