teonzo

I'm not sure if the firm you are referring is the same that sells "olio Carli" here in Italy. And we must consider that the same firm can sell products of different qualities in different countries. What I can say is that the "olio Carli" which is sold here in Italy is simply average. Teo

I had access to a physical copy only for some minutes a couple of years ago, so I gave a quick look and probably my memory is failing. Since you can get it from the library, I'd like to ask some things. Which edition is the copy of your library? As far as I know, there are 3 or 4 different editions: the first one had about 600 pages, then after each edition they added some contents, and the last edition has about 900 pages. I just gave a look to the version on google books of the last edition, and in the index there is a section on fruits starting at page 369. At page 374 starts a subchapter titled "candied and preserved fruits", but I can't read the following pages cause I reached the visualization limit. Is this the same edition as the one of your library, so this title is fake and there are no explanations on the candying process? Thanks for your help. I kept this book on my want list for a couple of reasons, and one of this was because it was the only source I found that talked about candying (at least that was I understood). If there are no explanations about this, then I can save 200 euro, which is not a bad thing. But each time I tried to give some look on google books I reached the visualization limit after 5 pages, then I tilt and forget about the book for some time. Teo

I strongly suggest to not parboil clementines when you candy them. If you parboil them then be sure almost all of them will collapse. About technical books, the best one is this: Bernard W. Minifie - "Chocolate, Cocoa and Confectionery: Science and Technology" I'm pretty sure it gives detailed explanations also on candying fruits. I don't own it, cause it's really expensive (200 euro) and I always postpone my idea to buy it. If I remember correctly, it's on google books and you can surf on a limited amount of pages for free (at least that was happened 2 years ago when I tried). Another good book on the science of sugar is this one: William P. Edwards - "The Science of Sugar Confectionery" This has a human price, but I don't think it covers candying fruits. Teo

I don't know if this machine is sold in the USA, but in my opinion it's the best of this kind: http://www.roboqbo.com/ It is really multifunctional: it can be used as high speed cutter; you can cook under vacuum; you can fast chill. So you can cook stuff under vacuum and chill it still under vacuum, in this way you lower the bacteria formation. I'm pretty sure it exceeds your budget of 10k, but the calculations are up to you since you know your estimations about the quantities you will produce. Teo

I agree with AAQuesada. When you are an apprentice, you must remember you are learning, so there is no shame in making something wrong. But the worst thing you can make is being silent with your chef. If you are unsure about something, then ask: you are there to learn, so your chef doesn't expect you already know how to do everything. If you made a mistake, tell it immediately to your chef: chefs run the global organization of the kitchen, so if there are mistakes they must be corrected as soon as possible. If an apprentice makes a mistake, then a chef got angry at level 1. If an apprentice makes a mistake AND doesn't tell it to the chef, then a chef got angry at level 10. You are not supposed to be perfect, but you are supposed to tell to your chef whatever is going wrong: this is an importal issue for working in a team. So, instead of coming here hoping for some assurances, it was much better going to your chef and tell him/her what went wrong. If a mistake were made, then being silent will not change it. But if you keep silent, then it's impossible to correct the error in time. When you are working as an apprentice, you must remember that you will make a lot of mistakes. The important thing is trying to limit them, the best way to succeed in this is asking to your chef and telling to your chef. If you are hoping to never get bad words from your chef, then it's just an illusion. You need to get used to it, and don't fear to face an angry chef telling him you made a mistake: if you keep silent, you make an other additional mistake, and this one is worse than the first, cause it affects the global organization of the kitchen. When a chef tells an apprentice to get faster, then he/she is meaning that you need to focus on your job to try to get better and better. Apprentices are always much slower than chefs, it's normal, but they need to speed up as soon as possible. He is not asking you to be as fast as him in few days, he is asking you to make your best efforts to learn this job. About the dough, if the butter surfaced, then for sure the final result won't be perfect. It depends on how much bigger are the spots with the surfaced butter. Once the butter surfaces it will always be visible. Teo

Don't worry if a clementine collapsed, it's quite normal. If you already candied other fruits, then you should know which is the required final density of the syrup. If the amount of syrup in your pot is not enough, then just make some other syrup on another pot, add it to the pot with the clementines, and continue candying them till reaching the correct thickness of the syrup. All candied fruit are better stored in their syrup, this to prevent crystalization. Teo

Quay (http://www.quay.com.au/) is considered one of the best restaurants in Australia and in the world. This book is even better. The layout and photographs are impressive. All dishes are interesting and personal. The recipes are detailed and well written. The dessert section is on par with the rest (the "guava snow egg" is stunning). Better if I stop here with the superlatives. If you love the Alinea and the Noma books, then consider this a blind buy, it's on par with those 2 books. On amazon.co.uk it costs 20£, a total bargain. Teo

Martin Bosley is the chef of his eponymous restaurant in New Zealand: http://www.martin-bosley.com/ I've never been to New Zealand, so unfortunately I don't have first hand experience on his food, but I read great comments, so when I heard he published his new book based on restaurant recipes (he published another book a couple of years ago, but more for the homecook), I bought it. This is the press release, with some images of the pages: http://www.randomhouse.co.nz/data/media/documents/press%20releases/Nov_2010/Martin%20Bosley_Media%20Release.pdf The book is divided in 2 sections: the first one is for Brasserie Flipp (the place where he worked before the new restaurant), the second one is for the eponymous restaurant, for a total of about 300 pages. I still haven't tried any recipe, but till now I'm really satisfied. There are many interesting ideas, recipes are detailed and well written, and the photographs are high quality. Even "simple" dishes, that could sound trivial to someone, are well thought and inspiring: for example there are a ton of fish tartares, each one with creative pairings. They put a lot of efforts also about the dessert sections. And I like the attitude of chef Bosley: his photo is not polished, and he included the photos of each person of his staff. You can buy the book directly from the restaurant. It costs 90 NZ$ plus shipping (I spent 60 NZ$ for shipping to Italy). A bit expensive, but if you are interested in books of high end restaurants, this is a good add to your collection. Teo

I'd like to point out another thing about this book, especially after reading all the comments related to the NYT review. Years ago reviews were a "necessary evil", they were almost the only way to get to know about something, and the potential buyer had to rely on the comments of the reviewer. But with MC there is almost no need for a review: everyone can simply go on their official website, and there are all the infos to understand if this book is worth to be bought based to the likes, needs and budgets of the potential buyer. The MC staff made a wonderful work about this: they put the complete index, a boatload of images and a lot of excerpts from the book. With the same amount of time you spend reading a review, you surf the MC website and make a first hand idea if the MC book is something you want/need/like or not. I like to buy cookbooks online, but most of the times it's difficult to understand exactly how a certain book is made, and what its contents are. With MC it's all so easy: on their website you find all the data you need to make your own idea on how it's made and what it's worth for you. So my point is: why caring about a review or another, while we can get our own idea based on our own way of thinking just looking at the MC website? Everybody is different, and neither the best reviewer in the world can be able to write a review that can explain to each reader if a book/CD/whatever is good for him (the reader): the only safe way is exposure on first person. So, besides all the like and dislikes about cooking styles and whatever, I think we should thank Mr Myhrvold and his staff for giving us, on their website, all the necessary and sufficient data to understand if their book deserves to be bought basing on our own way of life. In the cookbook market, this a rare chance, most of the times you can understand how a book is made only when you get it on your hands. So I thank the MC team for their intellectual honesty and for giving me the total freedom to understand which is the value of their book basing only on my criteria. People can like or dislike the book, but for sure everybody have the freedom to make this personal decision just basing on all the amount of free data on the MC website. I wish it was possible for all the cookbooks, but till now this is almost a unique case. Teo

If you are looking for dessert recipes, an easy solution is to take a recipe for a coffee dessert (ice-cream, mousse, bavarian, parfait, etc.), and replace the coffee with licorice: if the recipe asks for normal coffee, then you just have to dilute the licorice powder in water; if the recipe asks for "soluble coffee" (don't know is this product is on sale in the USA), then you just have to substitute the soluble coffee powder with licorice powder. Beware that licorice has a strong flavour, so if these are the first times you use it then it's better to start with few powder and then add more until you reach your desired strongness. About pairings, the most used here in Italy are mint, lemon and anise. You can try to surf this website for other pairings: http://www.foodpairing.be/ but they are compiling it, so maybe licorice is still to be added. Licorice powder can be used even for savory dishes. For example one of the signature dishes of Le Calandre (a 3 michelin star restaurant in Padua) is a risotto with saffron and licorice. You can find the recipe on their book "In.Gredienti". Teo

I would be interested to buy some Peruvian cookbooks, like the series named Nuestros Grandes Chef published by El Comercio, or some books published by the University of San Martin de Porres. I wrote to both editors, but never received any answer. Is there any forum user living in Peru and willing to help me? Of course I would pay something for the help. Thanks in advance. Teo

53.8% (as minimum cocoa solids) indicates the total amount of the ingredients derived from the cocoa fruit, which are cocoa butter and cocoa mass (not sure if "cocoa mass" is the correct definition in English, I'm meaning the dry part). So the sum of cocoa butter + cocoa mass is the 53.8% in this brand of chocolate. The remaining 46.2% is constituted by the other ingredients (mostly sugar, then usually vanilla and lecitine). So that 53.8% does not indicate the amount of cocoa fat in that chocolate, it indicates the total amount of ingredients coming from the cocoa fruit. The cocoa fat is a fraction of this 53.8%, usually the ratio of the cocoa fat ranges from about 55% to 60% on the total amount of cocoa parts. So in this case it should be about 57% * 53.8% = 30.7%, but this is just an estimation. To be sure you must look on the label for the specification about the nutritional contents (carbos, proteins and fats): the % of fat indicates the % of cocoa butter in that chocolate. We are talking about quality chocolate, where the only fat is the cocoa butter, no other crappy veg fats. Usually every producer writes the nutritional contents on their labels, so since Callebaut is a serious producer then I'm pretty sure you will find this info on the label. Personally I'm a Valrhona fanboy, so I can't be of any help about Callebaut. In the case you can't find that data on the label, I'm sure that writing an e-mail to Callebaut will provide you a quick and precise answer. Teo

First of all, I apologize for the confusion. I'm not fluent in English (I'm Italian and I've never been in an English speaking country, unfortunately just studied English on the books), so I'm not sure if what I write is exactly what I intend to write. And I just realized that in the USA you express ratios in a different way than in Italy: here in Italy if we say that the ratio between the product A and the product B is X%, then we mean that A/B = X. This is our only way to express ratio, so I never thought there would be another method, cause this is the only one I always saw during school and work. Now I learnt that outside Italy things work differently, so I'll try to keep it in mind and try to be more clear (hoping to succeed in this, as I said I'm not good with English language). I have to state in advance that I came to know this recipe from this article: http://bressanini-lescienze.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2008/06/06/le-ricette-scientifiche-il-cioccolato-chantilly/ it's written in Italian, and explains some chemistry behind the recipe. I bought the Herve This' book later, and didn't read the part about the chocolate chantilly. I base my experience only on that article of the link. Now, about the calculations. This is how I do it. Calculate the amount of cocoa butter you are using (usually it's written on the producer's label). Suppose you are using X grams. Then multiply per 3: 3X is the amount of water you need. Quick example: suppose you are using 50 grams of cocoa butter, then you need 150 grams of water. This is the recipe I use: - 300 grams of dark chocolate (Valrhona Guanaja 70%) - 350 grams of water Sorry for the mess I created, hope this time I've been able to write something clear to read. Teo

The second one, you need to add 68 grams of water for 23 grams of cocoa butter. Teo

I'm really disappointed by this book, and agree with the bad reviews on amazon.fr. I just don't get the sense behind publishing it, the only thing that comes to mind is that Herme had to fulfill a contract and didn't want to put much effort on it. The recipes are in the limbo between the professional world and the homecook world. Nothing complicated or innovative like on PH10, almost everything is too complicated for the average homecook, so I just don't understand who is the target of this book. As I don't understand the graphics of it: there are almost no photos, and half pages are simple colored pages with the title of the recipe (and here the graphics resemble more a children book than a professional book). Plus there are some "new" versions of the Hispahan concept: ok chef, we will always be grateful to you for giving us that masterpiece, but now it's enough, please stop before making a Hispahan risotto, a Hispahan cigarette and a Hispahan car. Overall it's a mediocre book, nothing really useful for the professional or for the homecook, most pages are wasted (it's ok for me to have few text, but then I want great photos). Considering that the author is Pierre Herme, this is just a huge disappointment. If PH10 was a Ferrari, then this is a Fiat Duna. Teo

I don't want to discourage you, to sound unpopular or whatever. But when you work with chocolate, it's virtually impossible to keep your table and your floor clean from drips. The important thing, as you already know, is cleaning everything between one batch and another. But while you are making a batch, it's almost sure you will drip some chocolate somewhere, no matter which equipment you have, nor how much attention you pay. Teo

Kitchen temperature is not a big problem when you whip the chocolate chantilly after having refrigerated the chocolate/water. It's just like whipping cream, not a long process, so it has not the time to go much higher than 4°C while whipping. I made it last summer while having 35°C in the kitchen, no problems at all. I don't know if this tool is sold in the USA: http://www.diunamaishop.it/catalogo/schede/13382_1257846998.jpg in my opinion it's the best for this preparation. The whip has the most thin wires of all the whips I've seen for sale, plus while whipping you can feel the changing thickness of the chocolate chantilly, so after 2-3 times you make it you just feel when it's done. If you use the kitchen-aid, I'd recommend to not make small quantities (at least 300g of chocolate). And I'd recommend to whip it at medium-low speed, and stop just while the whip starts to leave some light trails on the surface of the chocolate chantilly. Just think about the consistence of whipped cream before reaching soft peaks, while its volume has increased near the top, but the consistence of the cream is still almost liquid. This recipe has some valuable pros. For example it's good for people who have dairy intolerances, or people who follow the vegan philosophy. If you happen to have a good amount of these kinds of customers, then the chocolate chantilly is always a good solution, it satisfies almost everybody who can't / don't want to eat something. If any of your desserts are dairy-free, vegan, or whatsoever, then some chocolate chantilly plus some berries (or flambeed banana, or other fruits) is a good ace in the hole. The fact that it's not sweet like other mousses is a good help while balancing desserts with other sweet components. If you are making a dessert which include a dried meringue, the chocolate chantilly makes a better pair than any other kind of mousses. Or if you already have a sauce made with milk or cream on your dessert, then it's a good thing to use the chocolate chantilly, not to be redundant with dairy components. I think it's a good solution for a wide series of desserts. If you eat it alone, it's almost an acquired taste, because its taste is quite different from all the chocolate mousses people are used to eat (it's not "mass friendly"): the first time a person tastes it, usually he's a bit puzzled due to its "weirdness" (meaning quite different from his past experiences). But in the hands of a pastry chef, it gives a lot of new possibilities. I made a simple and basic dessert time ago (dried meringue with ground Sechuan pepper, chocolate chantilly and rosemary sauce), I could not balance it with any other chocolate mousse recipe. Plus you have a lot more possibilities (flavoured liquids, fruit juices, using cocoa butter and not dark chocolate, and so on), so I suggest to not dismiss this recipe after trying it for the first time, it can be really useful. Uhm, I think Herve This should owe me some money after writing this post. Teo

I did the chocolate chantilly various times, so I have a bit of experience. As someone wrote, this recipe works with the correct ratio between fat (cocoa butter) and water, the ideal ratio is 34%. It's important to check the percentage of cocoa butter in the chocolate you are using before making this recipe: just for example 70% dark chocolate can have different cocoa butter % in it depending on the producers. So it's always important to calculate how much cocoa butter there is on the amount of chocolate you are going to use, in order to use the correct amount of water. It's not mandatory to whip it just after adding the water to the melted chocolate, putting the bowl in an icy bath. You can simply add the water to the melted chocolate, put the bowl in the refrigerator, and then whip it when it reached the temperature of about 4°C. When you whip it, it's really important to not compare it with the appearance of whipped cream. If you whip the chocolate chantilly until getting soft peaks, you already whipped it too much. It must still have a bit of liquid appearance, because after some rest the cocoa butter will crystalize more, setting the chocolate chantilly more firm than the grade you got while whipping. If you don't overwhip it, then the result will be smooth; if it's grainy, you whipped it too much. You get the best result using a whip with thin wires. You can store it in the refrigerator up to 1 week, there are no problems about keeping the texture, once it sets it doesn't fall down. This chocolate chantilly will give a different result than any other mousses. It will be less airy, because the solid parts of the chocolate are an obstacle to the emulsion to reach the higher volume. So if you want it light and airy, you have better to use a recipe for a mousse with whipped cream or meringue. The best thing about the chocolate chantilly is that it tastes of pure chocolate, while with all other mousses you can taste the other components (cream, meringue, pate-a-bombe, and so on). So the choice between using chocolate chantilly or a chocolate mousse depends on the result you want to get in your dessert. Starting from this recipe, you can do a lot of variations. You can use flavoured liquids instead of water. You can use pure cocoa butter instead of chocolate, or even other fats (like foie gras). The important rule to remember is the correct ratio between fat and water. Teo

Hi, I'm a pastry chef from Italy, this is my first post on the forum. About a year ago some colleagues and I made something on these lines for the dinner buffet for the opening of a new art business. It was a flat and thin piece of sugarpaste, with the logo of the business on it made with sprayed cocoa butter (made with the help of a mold). The idea was this: give these white things to the guests in a room with normal lights (where they could see the logo only if they payed quite a bit of attention looking at it), ask them to move to another room with only a couple of black lights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_light), so they could see the logo, and we would tell them that those white things were edible. The trick was getting something that had the same appearance with normal lights (white), but difference appearance with black lights. So we had to play with the roughness of the surface. Sugar paste is white and lucid, sprayed cocoa butter is white but rough and opaque, so the two materials have two different appereances with the black lights (sugarpaste is fluorescent, sprayed cocoa butter is not much). I can't give more precise details on how these were realized, because I gave this idea at the creative meeting for setting up the "menu" for this buffet, but I was not the one who practically realized them, I had other duties. Sorry for my bad English, I hope I've been able to explain what we did. Teo