Mjx

After looking in vain for ostie, I went ahead and made panforte (really more of a pampepato) anyway: This is clearly more rustic-looking than pretty, but it tasted amazingly good, although sweeter than the ones I've bought. I surveyed about a dozen recipes, and decided to use David Lebovitz's recipe as a point of departure, but used rice flour instead of wheat flour. The fruit included some quince that I'd candied, and candied citron, ginger, and orange peal; with the exception of the last, I cut everything in fairly large chunks. The spices included cinnamon, cardamom, nutmeg, black pepper, and a pinch of salt. I heavily dusted the buttered parchment (and afterwards, when it was cooled, the top) with cacao powder, which offset the sweetness nicely.

Have you considered poaching in oil? Much gentler and more gradual than poaching in water or broth, and very recommended for delicate fish, so likely a good choice for the liver, too.

Panini doesn't mean roll or sandwich, it means a sandwich that's been toasted on a panini press and panini is the most succinct word for it. If I'm going to be ordering at an American restaurant, I'm going to say "give me one chicken panini and two ham paninis". I'm not going to say "give me one chicken panino and two ham panini" because I care more about the other person understanding me than trying to follow the grammar rules of a language that I'm not currently speaking. That's a 'toast'! (as I said, other nations muck about with foreign terms, too) In Italian, a panino is a roll. The word is also used to describe a sandwich made with a roll. Not toasted. If someone doesn't care what a word actually means, why even use it? The things called 'paninis' in the US seldom resemple what you'd get in Italy, why not call it a toasted sandwich? Seriously, this makes no sense, unless it's just a question of thinking it sounds fancier if a foreign languge is used. Which is pretty silly. Indeed, hence why "on mange les sushis" in French. Pluralizing "sushi" always makes me cringe, but it is perfectly grammatically correct French! The 's' pronounced, then? I'm a little surprised, since there are French words that sound the same in plural form as they do in the singular, even if they're written differently.

It's at times like this I wish you Americans would find another word for the language you use and abuse. "Au jus" is not an English word (or even a word) it's a phrase... Well, to be fair, the tendency to misuse/mispronounce foreign lanaguage terms isn't unique, or even most pronounced in the US, it's prevalent the world over (e.g. upthread, I mentioned the use of the word 'grape' for 'grapefruit' in Denmark; I could also mention 'expresso' pronounced as 'exPRAHso', and heaps of other misuses and mispronunciations... and don't get me started on the things that happen to foreign language terms in Italy). But for better or worse, the American language is still English.

Saying 'paninis' if you know it's incorrect is ridiculous (what's wrong with the words 'roll' or 'sandwich'?); so is 'with au jus'. There may be no way to get people to get their shit together about these things, but they're incorrect. It all makes me think of Miss Piggy using 'moi'. Absurd.

But the US is not the only island where 'au jus' crops up (for example, there are entire countries where they speak French correctly), it isn't even your own language you're mucking about with. There's a substantial difference between trying to freeze a language at a point in time (a few countries have made that effort), and avoiding the perpetration of wilful mistakes. I'm a copyeditor, so I hear the argument you've made all the time; it's as though people believe that no nation exists other than their own. You might argue that with the many idiotic terms that are are tolerated in the culinary world, this is nothing, but if you visit France, and ask for your whatever 'with au jus', and your waiter rolls his or her eyes, are you then going to complain the French are rude and arrogant? Language shifts, it's natural. But if you know that something is incorrect, it just makes no sense to defend the mistake, you suck it up, and avoid it in the future. I know what I'm talking about, because for a lot of my life, I've been learning one new language or another. Some of my mistakes (e.g. 'snot papir' to mean tissues) have been adopted by friends in a joking way, because they're funny and communicate clearly; most are dinner stories (my confusing the Danish for 'bra' and 'necessity'). Most countries do odd things to culinary terms from other languages, I've heard some beauts in Italy (I once spent most of a day trying to figure out 'peenat batr') and Denmark (Danes use 'grape' to mean 'grapefruit', which makes for some confusion when they travel outside DK); this isn't unique to the US. But regardless of where you are, or whose language you are attempting to use/incorporate into your own, it just makes no sense to run with what you know to be incorrect, then say 'Eeverybody is doing it' (unless you're 14 or so, then you get a pass ). That's not an argument: It's a really weak excuse for laziness.

It is incorrect usage, no matter how common it may be, as documented in Common Errors in English Usage.

In a French restaurant that might be a faux pas, but in American English "au jus" is thought of as a side sauce, not its literal French meaning. If you are at a deli and the waitress asked you "would you like jus, with your sandwich?", you would think her an idiot or pretentious. She is going to ask, "would you like au jus, with your sandwich?" You can buy packets of "au jus" in any supermarket in the U.S., you are not buying a packet labeled "jus". If a waitress knows enough to ask whether I want something with jus, she'll ask whether I want it 'au jus'; this isn't idiotic or pretentious, it's acknowledging a well-recognized convention. I haven't seen packets of any substance marked 'au jus' in US supermarkets; where does this happen? Mass misuse doesn't make something okay. If someone can't wrangle terms in other language, better to stick with what they know; there's nothing so damn special about being multilingual, so attempting it, only to fail, is silly.

Your diligence is admirable. But I'll trust my grandchildren to the folks with the lab coats. It's not a new science, and it feeds millions. I get your point about the folks with the lab coats knowing what they're doing when it comes to the science of producing edible meat. The ammonia solution used as an antimicrobial is "generally recognized as safe" by the USDA, and clearly scores of people have been eating meat containing pink slime and not getting sick (i.e. there is no epidemic of illness resulting from using it). . . . . The accumulation of toxins (such as ammonia) or their effects in the body can take a number of years to be clearly evident/identifiable, if it posed a problem; you wouldn't be that likely to see a sudden outbreak of acute illness. As for the people in lab coats knowing what they're doing, well, maybe, but they're working for enormous industries, and the profits these businesses make from producing cheap product offsets the costs of reimbursing even several thousand parents for potential harmed/dead kids. A few heads might roll, but... that's it. I personally wouldn't care to take for granted the level of safety involved in producing something that massively profitable (I can't get too worked up about the 'ick' factor, the components don't sound that different from what is in a lot of hot dogs, which don't seem to have experienced a massive downswing in popularity).

Is this an example of inverted inverted snobbery? Nope. Just straight-up snobbery, at worst

What I'm loving about this thread is the way it really brings out the inverted snobbery, self-righteous justifications of indifference, truly entertaining lack of historical perspective, and complete failure to cite credible sources, generously dusted with an unwitting credulousness. My heretical statement: I'm a bit tired of every conceivable venue offering a tasting menu, since frankly, most places don't do anything that original or effective with it, certainly not enough to justify the prices they usually see fit to ask. In the hands of a few, it impresses; when everybody does it, it just makes the whole concept look silly (N.B. my subjective opinion, it should go without saying). would that be ground grandmother, freeze dried grandmother, or made into stock? Oh, sustainably, locally-sourced grandmother, it goes without saying: you know, toenail and miscellaneous hair trimmings, ground fine, and sold at only three exclusive venues, globally (one is in Greenland; the other two are actually shifting locations, and can only be located via encrypted Tweets).

Artful. Not a food term, but one I see increasingly used in descriptions of food presentation to mean 'artistic'. Just say 'artistic', already; arranging your figs and prosciutto in the shape of a daisy may meet strike you as artistic, but by no stretch of the imagination is it particularly clever or skilful (i.e. 'artful').

You have some points, but... it's easy for this to slide rapidly to the other end of the spectrum, into inverted snobbery; it's something I see a lot, and defending myself against that is as much of a bore as pointing out that my drinking instant coffee when I'm too lazy to fire up the Silvia does not make me one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse. A sense of humour tends to be hard to hold onto, for some reason (part of it – and please understand I'm not suggesting you're doing this – has to do with the fact that that a popular, sleazy strategy is for someone to insult someone else, then accuse them of lacking a sense of humour). I haven't got the equipment for a lot of modernist cuisine (haven't got the books, either), but I do browse the related forums, and honestly, they seem pretty level-headed to me. Who doesn't like experimenting with science in the kitchen? Taken to an extreme, any concept is goofy; getting produce that is easily grown locally from nearby is a good idea for reasons that go beyond the distance travelled: I like like having an idea of who's grown my food, and under what circumstances. This is self-evident (essentially, what I said previously, regarding the problem with taking things to extremes). When it comes to combating disease, I'm right with you. On the other hand, if a small producer is willing to commit to keeping a really, really clean herd, and have the veterinary supervision to ensure this, I'm also behind being able to get my hands on raw milk. I don't love dairy, and see no point in humans drinking the milk of a large grazing animal (don't get me started with the calcium argument, unless you've thoroughly read and can cite at least three recent academic articles published in reputable journals, discussing osteoporosis/rickets and milk consumption in the Western world), but have to admit that there is a distinct difference between the pasteurized and the unpasteurized product. FDA-approved doesn't mean a hell of a lot, since the FDA has made plenty of nightmarishly stupid calls. On the other hand, no, there isn't anything horribly wrong with a bit of artificial this and that, although the creeping advance of dubious synthetics where I don't expect them is kind of getting my goat. . . . . Might could be... not one of the threads I turn to often, since it isn't I'm not very knife focused, but if I was, and the tone struck me as unduly macho, I'd just give it a miss. While I don't think it's a heretical view, I do think that the surprise/entertainment aspects of food have become a bit overemphasized in some places. I love a beautiful presentation, but honestly, my life is pretty interesting, so if the food is simply well made, I'm happy with that, and I'm actually fine with my main of beef not being artistically presented in the form of an orchid.

Dinner may not be an occasion to Tweet or text, but the tradition of taking pictures in restaurants goes back to the 1920s, at least (think of all the groups you can find, taken at various restaurants). I feel uncomfortable taking pictures at restaurants (I also reflexively apologize to inanimate objects if I back into them), but have done it on a few occasions, when the food was so lovely that I wanted to be able to show friends/family who were not present at the meal. The quality tends to be so-so, because the meal is about the food, and the pictures are not intended for a large audience, so I don't fiddle with settings and such. Depending on the venue, I may ask whether it is okay to take pictures of my food (no one has ever said No, although on a few occasions, the waiter or other staff wanted to be photographed, too). I think that if people are courteous about it, and keep in mind that in some places/situations even asking is likely to be inappropriate (e.g. if there are highly-strung celebrities anywhere in the room), taking pictures shouldn't really be a problem.

Frankly, I caught a sardonic tone (something about the reference to where she was seated), but I may be mistaken. What's not making sense to me about the reactions to her review are a) the sort of dumb sniggering most people would never dare indulge in, if the same article were written by an 85-year-old woman in Somalia, and b) the disingenuous 'I just cannot believe people don't realize chain restaurant food is rubbish' tone of so many, apparently intended to make the commenters appear sophisticated and discerning; the actual effect is incredibly provincial and gauche (not to mention, her writing is far better than that of most of the imbeciles who see fit to air their views online). Compared to many places, Grand Forks is relatively small and isolated. The opening of a restaurant of any sort is, not surprisingly, an event. Since the local demographic is not dominated by Italians or those who travel extensively and have a nuanced appreciation of any of the Italian cuisines, the Olive Garden clearly provides an attractive combination of 'otherness' and accessibility. Ms. Hagerty is probably far more satisfied with her life than plenty of people I know, who have easy access to fine examples of nearly every cuisine under the sun. Why patronize her by feeling sad about the limited options that surround her, when she manages to make the most of the options she does have?

I occasionally find myself fretting over the fact that I haven't got a stand mixer or food processor, but I use a hand-held mixer instead (a Bosch model), even for kneading dough, and the results have been excellent (and anyone who knows me will testify to the fact that I'm aggravatingly picky about outcome). I've heard good things about the Kenwood models, although my boyfriend's passion for acquiring large/commercial-grade units makes it likely we'll end up with a Hobart, or something of that sort.

What Chris said. I have a Jennings CJ 4000 scale that measures half gram increments and goes up to 4 kg, but when it comes to small quantities of fluids, I still prefer to roll with approach used by several million lab workers, than that of the couple hundred thousand bakers Essentially, I don't want to delude myself about the degree of accuracy involved.

We can't all be real classy-like, and appreciate that herb-licorice flavour! Apparently in an effort to hasten the End of Days, Coors' will be debuting iced tea flavoured beer in April. If you find this depressing, Cupcake vodka (mentioned in this same article), is there to help you kill enough brain cells to enable you to forget that people have evidently lost track of the fact that booze is for grownups.

I'm still not seeing how a slow cooker would make for a step back from home cooking, or an easy way out: As far as I know, they're only used in homes, never commercially, and although using one does mean that once you've put the food in to cook you simply leave it, this is also true of traditional (and very venerable) braising, and prep can be substantial, it's extent inevitably reflecting the cook's disposition, coupled with the time available.

Easy peasy. Say for example almond ess. that's going into a cookie dough. I scale out my sugar in the mixing bowl, tare off, add in my butter, tare off, add in my almond ess. and/or vanilla--usually 3-5 grams per kg of finished product.c Hm, I don't know: If I'm going for accuracy, I want to be really accurate, and therefore wouldn't rely on a scale that weighs such large amounts to be as accurate as I want for smaller amounts.

I could swear I've come across several nut crusts that were held together principally by fat, and honey or golden syrup, and that eggs, substitute or authentic, don't even come into the equation. But if you want a strong almond flavour, you'll need to add a little almond extract, since regular almonds don't have that distinct almond flavour, just a sort of nutty one.

Prunes (sorry, 'dried plums'... and stop laughing ) in dark chocolate are amazing. I first came across them at La Maison du Chocolat, and every time I get back to NYC, I head there almost first thing off the plane, specifically for their chocolate-covered prunes. Figs and preserved ginger are also terrific in dark chocolate.

This is something I have great difficulty in understanding. Everything has weight, even aircraft measure their fuel not by volume but by weight. Production bakers scale out their water, they don't measure it A kilogram of water is exactly one liter, or a liter is exactly one kilo. Folks, it doesn't get much simpler than that. If your scale is accurate to 1 gram, then you'll be very accurate with measuring liquids on a scale. All my recipies list liquids by weight. Eggs, milk, water, oil, booze, all by weight. It's simpler, faster, easier to read, and no graduated beakers to wash or to fall over and break. Just curious: What weights do your recipes give for amounts of ingredients such the quantity of almond essence used in a cake? What vessels do you use when weighing these quantities? I use a scale for dry ingredients things, and have for a long time, regardless of which side of the Atlantic I've happened to be on, but even in the EU, small quantities of ingredients (both liquid and solid, in fact) are, without any exceptions that I've come across, given as 'spoon' measures (I don't think they even refer to actual measuring spoons, but that's another story). I prefer volume measures for small quantities of liquids, because if measured out into a container significantly larger than a measuring spoon, the amount of fluid retained by the inside of the measuring vessel when pouring into the mixing bowl mitigates any posited increased accuracy you might obtain by the use of weight as opposed to volume. I'm all for precision, but for this purpose, a graduated pipette is at least as accurate as a scale (presumably the reason labs use them), even if it only used preliminarily as a calibration tool (much easier to clean the olive oil off a tablespoon, than from the inside of a pipette).

!00% in agreement about the importance of [a] scale(s), but for liquids, especially small quantities, I prefer volume measure (I think I just got used to this during endless bio labs as an undergrad), and I recommend a graduated pipette (you can either use it instead of measuring spoons, or simply to determine whether or not they are accurate; if they aren't, bring them back to the shop, and try another make).

This was popular in NYC in the mid-90s. Although for all I know, City Bakery is still decorating its cakes with dots (I have to admit, I kind of liked this minimalism).