slkinsey

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.

Is that one of Phil's drinks? He's been playing around with jalapeno-infused tequila for almost as long as I've known him, and with very good and interesting results.

As far as I am concerned, the microwave is for three things only: 1. reheating leftovers, etc; 2. speedy defrosting; 3. popcorn. But it's crucial for those three things.

All of these things can be presumed to add unique flavors. Certainly the flavor of quinine (not to mention the flavor of chinchona bark) is different from the flavor of quassin (not to mention the flavor of quassia).

Quassia containes quassin, the most bitter substance in nature. It's 50 times more bitter than quinine. Speaking of quinine, chinchona is another possibility. There's also wormwood. It might be interesting to use the pith of citrus fruits. Hops is another possibility. If you to someplacel like Rain Tree Nutrition you can get extracts of potential bittering agents such as artichoke, Baccharis genistelloides and Simarouba amara.

For digging deeper, there's Straight Up or On the Rocks: The Story of the American Cocktail by William Grimes, and of course there's Dave Wondrich's Imbibe!. Not sure if there is a 20-pager with references available.

It also seems true, to my admittedly less-than-expert taste, that price is often a very poor indicator of quality.

I happened upon an interesting working paper from the American Association of Wine Economists today entitled Do More Expensive Wines Taste Better? : Evidence from a Large Sample of Blind Tastings. Here is the abstract:

It "maillardizes" the bread. As Wolke points out in What Einstein Told His Cook: Kitchen Science Explained, "strictly speaking, caramelizing means the heat-induced browning of a food that contains sugars, but no proteins." When sugars or starches are heated up in the presence of proteins or amino acids, you get Maillard reactions, not caramelization reactions. Some free sugars are liberated as a result of some Maillard reactions, and can then undergo true caramelization, but unless you add sugar this is not likely to be a huge component of the reaction product. When proteins are nearby, the majority of the reaction is Maillard.

Both of those dates seem odd to me, considering that Harrington's "Cocktail: The Drinks Bible for the 21st Century" published in 1998, and the drink was presumably crafted at least a year prior to publication.

http://www.andiamnotlying.com/2008/murky-c...een-your-knees/ Interesting conflict. On the one hand, I applaud the coffee shop for insisting on high standards. On the other hand, it's a coffee shop, not Le Bernadin, and this is an order that they could reasonably predict would be made. It's a bit like a high-end cocktail bar refusing to mix a Cosmopolitan. Maybe you don't like it, but suck it up and figure out a way to make an iced espresso (Cosmo, etc.) that's up to your standards. Thoughts?

This is going to be a tough one, because America and, to a lesser extent, the UK are the only countries with a significant cocktail culture. It's never been clear to me that drinks such as the Margarita and Pisco Sour particularly reflect cocktail culture by and for the citizens of the countries normally associated with them. Speaking of the UK, might the national cocktail be the true Gimlet ("true" meaning that it uses Rose's Lime Juice and a high proof gin such as Plymouth Navy Strength)? France could be pastis and water, or a Tomate (add grenadine) or a Mauresque (add orgeat).

Alex, how much are you willing to spend? The easiest way to make this much yogurt would be to put containers of inoculated milk into a temperature-controlled water bath. The easiest way to get a temperature-controlled water bath: drop 500 bucks on a used/reconditioned recirculating laboratory water bath heater. This you can clip to a hotel pan of sufficient depth or other vessel (you want the water bath at least as deep as your milk containers), fill with water, heat to set point, insert your containers of inoculated milk and you're good to go. Your volume is limited only by the size of your water bath. As an added benefit, all you need to do is purchase an edge-sealing vacuum machine and you've got a sous vide setup as well.

This is a nice drink.