slkinsey

Unless you're a real bitterphile, you can do quite nicely with Angostura (still the greatest bitters there is), Peychaud's and an orange bitters of your choosing. Most other bitters tend to fall into one of three basic categories: 1. "Angostura alternatives" with warm spices such as clove, cinnamon, allspice, etc. prevalent. Almost every bitters maker has one (Bitter Truth, Fee's, Hermes, etc.). 2. Citrus bitters such as grapefruit, lemon, etc. Fee's makes orange, grapefruit and lemon bitters; Bitter Truth makes lemon and orange bitters. 3. Ecclectic bitters such as celery, "mole," mint, peach, etc. These are frequently impossible to get, and some that are available (Fee's Mint Bitters, I'm looking at you) are unadvisable. Once you have the "big three" of Angostura, Peychaud's and orange, that's all you really need. Anything more is a luxury. You want 5 different kinds of orange bitters? I do! But you don't "need" more than one. For some of these other styles, if you find yourself enjoying bitters that much, you might consider making your own. There are the "Angostura alternatives" such as Hess House and Abbott's bitters, among others. You could make your own citrus bitters. Or whatever.

Made a good one last night, the Savoy Tango Cocktail. Half bonded applejack, half Plymouth sloe gin. Stir. Strain. Up.

I think they have a "lemon and lime" adapter kit for the machine. But you may be right about the bitterness. Still, I've got to believe there is a decent automatic machine that could do 100 liters each of lemon, lime, orange and grapefruit in less than an hour.

All that juicing sounds like a beast! Maybe next time it would make sense to rent something like one of these. Actually, I would think that most cocktail bars might find something like this a worthwhile investment.

I've had some pretty great experiences with miso butter.

Now, if we could only find ample amounts of Laird's Bonded... I just picked up two bottles down at Astor!

Interesting, although it's not clear to me that filtering with activated charcoal is actually all that widespread, and also that it may be through such small amounts of charcoal that it amounts mostly to an enhanced sediment/chill filtration. I found this interesting:

Neither the Corpse Reviver #2 (one spirit, one liqueur, one aromatized wine, one juice) nor the Negroni (one spirit, one amaro, one aromatized wine) contain two spirits in more or less equal balance. The spirit is the high-proof stuff: whiskey, rum, gin, tequila, brandy, etc.

The Vieux Carré has two spirits (rye and cognac) with equal billing, plus vermouth and herbal liqueur. And there are dozens of variations on this formula around the NYC cocktail scene. The Saratoga has whiskey and cognac as well. In particular, there seem to be a lot of cocktails around NYC bars in which Laird's bonded is blended in equal parts with another spirit, as it is a particularly felicitous combination with either whiskey or cognac. Toby's 41 Jane Does contains equal amounts of Calvados and Poire William. Of course, many tiki drinks contain combinations of different rums (not sure if that counts).

This is why you want to get an aspirator. The hand pump thing makes no sense to me. He may (probably does) have a point there. I guess the proof would be in doing side-by-side blind comparisons between unfiltered and filtered bitters. But what kind of filters? There are many different kinds of filters. A sediment filter, for example, is not the same thing as an adsorption filter like you get from activated charcoal. Indeed, I would be extremely surprised of any bourbon is filtered through activated charcoal at any point during the process, especially since this would be a kind of Lincoln County Process, which is what distinguishes bourbon from Tennessee whiskey. Rather, it is likely that bourbons such as Woodford Reserve are sediment filtered, then chilled down to a few degrees above zero and run through a filter with 40 layers of paper. This does remove some flavor (many scotch distilleries refuse to do it) but nowhere near the amount of volatile aromatics that would be removed by an adsorption filter like activated charcoal. I would be fairly shocked to learn that any spirit other than vodka is filtered through activated charcoal prior to bottling. Indeed, I would be fairly surprised to learn that any spirit other than vodka and Tennessee whiskey and the occasional rum which is having the color stripped out is filtered through charcoal at all.

This is the recipe aonis appears to be using.

It's hard for any of us to give you any advice unless you describe your process completely, including where you heard about this process and what result you hope to accomplish.

If you don't add water but continue adding sugar and ginger, eventually the alcohol content (and probably sugar content as well) will get up to a point where the yeast (and bacteria, since this is naturally fermented) are inhibited.

Could you explain where you got this information. It is not consistent with the information I have. For example, Food Chemistry by Hans-Dieter Belitz, et al. says on page 561: "Egg white begins to coagulate at 62C and egg yolk at 65C." In fact. I don't think I've ever read anything saying that yolks coagulate at a lower temperature than whites. Plenty of us have made "spring eggs" with set whites and liquid yolks using a temperature controlled water bath.

"Crash out" = come out of solution as a precipitate. This might potentially happen to some of the dissolved substances as the proof is drastically reduced where the solution contacts the water-soaked filter paper.

Sorry you couldn't understand my post, Dean. It seems clear to me and others. But, what the heck -- I've got the most recent edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. Let's bring out the Big Book... I think it's a reasonable extension to suppose that the art and science of good eating includes the selection and preparation of good things to be eaten. Many dictionaries (although not the OED) add a secondary meaning along the lines of "culinary customs or style." The definition of "gastronomy" you prefer is furthered by... well, you and wikipedia.

Chad, I wonder if you care to digress a bit on the santoku. In reading kitchenmage's post up there, I was reminded that hardly anyone I know really likes these knives to use -- not in Western cooking, anyway. Rather, most people who have one seem to like the way they look[i/] and buy one on that basis.

I don't disagree that there is a difference between the quasi-scientific exploration of cooking and the application of the knowledge so gained. This is a fairly minor nit you're picking here. But, if you want to pick nits... "Gastronomy" has many possible definitions, including: The art and practice of choosing and preparing and eating good food A particular style of cookery (e.g., "Southern gastronomy") The study of the relationship between food and culture "Molecular" ("relating to, produced by or consisting of molecules") makes some sense, in consideration of the fact that people seek to understand how food behaves and interacts on a molecular level, and to apply that knowledge to produce new and unexpected effects. Slap these two words together, and what do you get? Well, I'll tell you what you don't get. You don't get your definition, which seems to be: "the scientific exploration of the chemical and physical properties, relationships and reactions of food items, including the first-time application by the investigator of the knowledge thus gained in a new and unexpected expression of the ingredients in a culinary preparation." Rather, you get something like: "a style of cooking based upon an understanding of the molecular properties of food" -- which one could differentiate from regular gastronomy by adding "applied to produce effects not possible with traditional cooking techniques." So, despite your protestations, the appellation "gastronomy" is misapplied to the scientific investigation and not so much to the style of cooking. A better way to describe what you think is the only thing that should be called "molecular gastronomy" is plain old "food science," and the people you would call "molecular gastronomists" are more appropriately called "food scientists." "Gastronomy," on the other hand, is a word that is appropriately applied to a style of cooking. I would argue that it is only when food science is applied to the preparation of food to produce a new and unexpected effect that it becomes "molecular gastronomy."

Cane sugar is simply sugar that comes from sugar cane as opposed to sugar that comes from , e.g., sugar beets. Different levels of refinement. Raw sugar can be used to describe any sugar prior to chemical refining to make the sugar white (although there are other kinds of processing, such as washing, etc.). Demerara, turbinado, musdovado, etc. are all raw sugars. Demerara sugar is an partly-refined cane sugar with a pale golden color. It's not clear to me that there is any definitive difference between demerara and tirbinado sugar. Muscovado is unrefined brown sugar made from sugar cane. Different from regular brown sugar, which is ultrarefined white sugar to which molasses has been added. The lighter version probably has more processing than the darker version. Sucanat is an unrefined cane sugar with no processing.

I'm sure you could dilute it into a syrup if you wanted. Often times it comes in a hard cone, in which case you'd need to do something to soften it anyway. No reason not to just go all the way to syrup. We use ours primarily for Thai cooking, so I didn't bother. I just use the paste in similar amounts to 2:1 syrup. It has a subtle flavor. I couldn't say that I "tasted" the jaggery in the drink as a distinctive flavor the way one might detect maple syrup. But, then again, I can't say that I "taste" the distinctive flavor of agave syrup in a cocktail either. What we did notice was a "creamy" aspect and somewhat richer mouthfeel that was not present in the same drink made with rich cane syrup.

"Molecular gastronomy" is a term that was coined by Nicholas Kurti back in the 1990s to describe an examination of the science behind cooking (on the molecular level). This doesn't seem to be a terribly inappropriate usage of the term, although some people prefer "molecular and physical gastronomy." This term later came to be associated not only with the examination of the science behind cooking, but with the application in cooking of the knowledge so gained in novel and unexpected ways. In other words: the application of molegular gastronomy the scientific investigation gave rise to molecular gastronomy the cooking school. I can see the logic behind the use of this term, but it does fairly well summarize a certain approach to cooking and food. And while we can quibble that "all cooking has molecules," at some point we devolve into the kind of reasoning that says "all behavior is just biology, but all biology is just chemistry, but all chemistry is just physics (etc.)" when there are good and logical reasons not only to maintain chemistry and physics as separate disciplines, but also to have both physical chemistry and chemical physics! Perhaps something like "scientifically informed new cuisine" might be a more accurate term, but "molecular gastronomy" is hardly the least appropriately applied cooking term. How about sauté?

Lately I've experimented with using jaggery (the palm sap kind) as the sweetener in cocktails. What I'm working with isn't so much a syrup as it is a paste. What we've noticed is a definite "creamy" quality that jaggery seems to contribute to cocktails. Not great for stirred libations, however, as it's quite cloudy.

Exactly. In fact, I just did the same thing as part of my "semi-sous vide" fried chicken: sealed chicken thighs with buttermilk and seasonings; cooked to 60.5C for a few hours; chilled; next I'm going to do a 3-stage coating of white flour, then reduced bag liquid (buttermilk and chicken juices), then a combination of panko and corn flake crumbs; then flash fry.

Our microwave lives on top of the refrigerator. No counter space used.

Stroh 80 is not very good, IMO. Nothing I'd use in a cocktail.