-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Everything posted by slkinsey
-
I have done this a number of times. For example, for Thanksgiving I made a turkey ballotine that consisted of turkey breast filled with a turkey mousse with foie gras and black truffles. To do this, I pounded out a large turkey breast to uniform thickness, put a line of turkey mousse down the middle and used plastic wrap to roll the whole thing up like a sushi roll. I then twisted the ends of the plastic wrap to tighten the whole thing up as much as possible, and then sealed the plastic-wrapped "turkey log" in a vacuum bag. I made similar "logs" of bacon-wrapped cornbread dressing and braised dark meat with Savoy cabbage wrapped in turkey skin -- all using plastic wrap to help form and hold the logs in place. These were all cooked sv to 60C. Here is an image of me cutting slices of turkey ballotine: And here is a closeup image of slices of the three different elements on the plate:
-
Interesting criteria, George. But it strikes me that, following your criteria, the most important Cobbler of all wouldn't qualify. I wonder it using Embury as a starting-off point makes much sense, considering that the Cobbler had long passed its heyday and been largely forgotten by the time Embury was writing (and, of course, Embury could be a bit iconoclastic).
-
The PDT/D&C combination is a good recommendation, because it's easy to experience two different styles of cocktailery and two different bars (albeit both of the "small/boutique variety") without traveling more than a few blocks. There are also plenty of good and interesting places nearby to eat at a wide variety of pricepoints. PDT and D&C are getting a lot of attention right now, and deservedly so (and also due to the fact that many of us at eG have friends who bartend there). But I would like to add my voice to Mayur and Nathan in pointing out that there are some very good and interesting things happening at both Pegu Club and Flatiron Lounge these days -- so much so that I have been meaning to make some new posts about the goings on at both of these establishments. I think both establishments went through a bit of a lull when the talent they had helped develop moved forward into other opportunities (PTD and D&C noteworthily among them). Identifying and nurturing talent, and offering chances for expression, exploration and growth is especially important in maintaining vitality and quality -- especially at larger bars such as we have in Flatiron Lounge and Pegu Club. Not for nothing are Audrey Saunders and Julie Reiner known as two of the most important figures in NYC cocktails and the cocktail revival in general. Another "next generation" of cocktailian bartenders is very much coming into its own at both Flatiron and Pegu, and I've had brilliant drinks at both places recently. If you really want an interesting drink, try Erin's "Kill Devil" at Pegu: white rhum agricole, Green Chartreuse, demerara syrup, bitters and, if you're there on a night when the bar isn't slammed, a burning disk of lime peel floating on the drink. Beware, though! It goes down silky-smooth, but it's very boozy.
-
Provocachic, what you should do is figure out the equivalent dry weight of your gum arabic and proceed from there.
-
There is also: Elke Scholten, Erik van der Linden, and Herve This. The Life of an Anise-Flavored Alcoholic Beverage: Does Its Stability Cloud or Confirm Theory? Langmuir, 24 (5), 1701 -1706, 2008.
-
So, I was just made aware of some new (to me) absinthe-related research. First is: Dirk W. Lachenmeier, David Nathan-Maister, Theodore A. Breaux, Eva-Maria Sohnius, Kerstin Schoeberl, and Thomas Kuballa Chemical Composition of Vintage Preban Absinthe with Special Reference to Thujone, Fenchone, Pinocamphone, Methanol, Copper, and Antimony Concentrations. J. Agric. Food Chem., 56 (9), 3073–3081, 2008 According to the article (login required) in Chemical & Engineering News which first brought this paper to my attention, this is the first study to look this closely at multiple preban, postban and modern examples via gas chromatography/mass spectrometry for the convulsants thujone (from wormwood), pinocamphone (from hyssop) and fenchone (from fennel) as well as methanol, other alcohols, and acetaldehyde. The authors also used atomic absorption spectroscopy to evaluate copper content and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry to evaluate antimony content. The paper has an excellent chart giving thujone, pinocamphone and fenchone results from their tests for all the samples. It's interesting to see that there are wide variations in thujone content even among samples from the same maker during the same period -- most likely, the authors felt, due to variability at the time of original distillation and bottling (regional and seasonal variations, herb chemotype, drying conditions, adjustments of recipes, etc.). They also point out that some of the preban makers of highest repute (Dechanet and Berger) had some of the lowest thujone levels measured, despite having all the organoleptic properties that are desirable in the highest quality absinthe. The authors say that they did not find "any evidentiary or investigative support for . . . the proposition that thujone content changes in the bottle, as a result of aging or other factors." Similar results were foind with respect to pinocamphone and fenchone. There is also a nice chart showing the results for methanol, acetalaldehyde, 1-propanol, 2-/3-methyl-1-butanol, isobutyl alcohol, ethyl acetate and copper. The preban examples "exhibited a very clean base spirit" and "obviously were manufactured using highly rectified alcohol." Only two preban Edouard Pernod samples exceeded the EU's maximum methanol concentrations for neutral alcohol, but the authors point out that these were made with wine spirit which has a higher legal limit than neutral alcohol. The only abnormally high methanol concentration was a bootleg Swiss example from 1953. The authors conclude that "this study did not reveal so much as one sample of preban absinthe that would be in jeopardy as a result of the quality of its base spirit." Copper and antimony are two other toxins that are commonly supposed to be present in preban absinthe as adulterants, the former to contribute a green color and the latter to simluate the "louche effect" (both on the cheap compared to using herbs). Results showed that both were inconspicuous or unmeasurable in all samples. The authors do concede that the bottles which were most likely to be saved were of the highest quality from the most reputable manufacturers, as opposed to "those dubious and short-lived marques, usually of Parisian origin, that represented the cheapest, most likely adulterated examples" which were often sold only in cask. They note that "the theoretical likelihood that some of these cheaper products contained significant concentrations of methanol, copper, antimony and/or other likely impurities and adulterants cannot be excluded, although it must be emphasized that no such samples have been discovered thus far."
-
Okay, so I just got off the phone with my father (this is he, if anyone is curious as to his qualifications). He says: 1. When the air is removed from a sous vide bag and the bag is subsequently exposed to normal atmospheric pressure, the contents of the bag are also under normal atmospheric pressure. This is because, for purposes of our consideration, the bag is infinitely flexible, and it deforms by reducing in size until the interior of the bag is at the same pressure as the exterior of the bag. 2. The only way to achieve lower pressure is with a rigid container. 3. There would be no significant difference as to oxidation reactions between a steak sealed in a bag using a FoodSaver and a steak sealed in a bag with a powerful chamber machine. The difference in the amount of oxygen available for reaction in the two examples is negligible, considering that the steak already contains oxygen.
-
The Ice Topic: Crushed, Cracked, Cubes, Balls, Alternatives
slkinsey replied to a topic in Spirits & Cocktails
Even the smallest size (55 mm) requires a very large cube of ice (55 mm = >2 inches). So it's not clear that this is any more practical than using spherical molds, considering that one is unlikely to have ready access to cubed ice on the order of 2 to 3.5 inches in size. -
Mike: Do you agree that putting these questions to a heavily credentialed (member of the National Academy of Sciences, etc.) physical chemist should settle these questions? I think this is important for more than deciding "who is right" on this question. First and foremost, it should clarify some material questions as to these cooking techniques. Second, it will allow us to move on to more important and stimulating discussions in this thread.
-
Hi Mike. Thanks for posting the quotes from Roca. I can see how some of that stuff may be confusing. Some quick thoughts below... As to the stuff on Page 76: I believe Roca must be talking about cooking food in a rigid container rather than a flexible container. As I and others have mentioned, it is possible to go under 14.7 psi in a rigid container -- it's just not possible in a container as flexible as a bag, because the container deforms until there is pressure equilibrium. As to the stuff on Page 84: Roca is correct that removing most of the oxygen can have an important effect. However, we should understand that even if we remove all the air from the bag, we have not removed all the oxygen from the cooking environment -- there is still oxygen in the meat itself. So the question is not whether we have removed all of the oxygen, because this is impossible. The question is how much oxygen we have removed. When we are considering vacuum machines of different strengths, there is a question as to whether the difference in the oxygen removed is large enough to make a significant difference on a chemical basis. My strong suspicion is that, so long as the vacuum machine is reasonably strong (say >25" Hg), there is not going to be a significant difference. More on this later. As to the stuff on Page 85: No one disagrees that sous vide bags support the ingredient's structure, help to exert equal pressure over the entire surface of the ingredient, help to prevent drying due to moisture loss (also significantly due to cooking at lower temperatures) and help to prevent aroma/flavor loss due to volatization. The question is how strong the vacuum machine has to be in order to accomplish these things. Certainly, a stronger machine may create a situation in which the bag material presses against the food more evenly, but this doesn't necessarily argue for a zillion dollar machine. As I have pointed out, I've been able to compress and support salmon steaks rolled up into a "salmon fillet mignon" very well with a run of the mill FoodSaver. For sure there are likely some effects that would be done better with a stronger machine (e.g., an extremely delicate food that does not want to cohere). Please take note: As you can see in the passages you quoted, when Roca talks about pressure, he is talking about the bag pressing on the food inside. This directly contradicts your earlier assertions that the contents of the bag are under less-than-normal pressure. Indeed, physics tells us that the bag is pressing inwards on the food with exactly the same force that is being applied externally on the bag. In this case, it is 14.7 psi when the bag is not in the water bath (normal atmospheric pressure), and slightly more than 14.7 psi when the bag is in the water bath (where pressure is higher due to the weight of the water). As to the "highlighted in gray" material on Page 85: This is true if the food is inside a rigid container. If it is in a bag, it is not true. I have a proposal: Let's come up with a series of questions about pressure and oxidation reactions as they apply to sous vide cooking. We'll agree on a list of questions, and I will send them to this guy, who I hope we can agree has a level of expertise that should provide for a definitive resolution to these questions. He is familiar with sous vide cooking, having had several examples prepared by me. Here are a few questions I propose: 1. A piece of steak is sealed inside an impermeable flexible plastic bag in a zero-atmosphere environment. The bag is exposed to normal atmospheric pressure, and the bag deforms to tightly cover the meat. Is the meat now under (1) normal atmospheric pressure; or (2) less than normal atmospheric pressure? 2. Let's suppose that the bag is sealed inside an environment that is somewhat less than zero-atmosphere. Let's say that the machine is capable of 25" Hg, so there is a tiny bit of air left inside the bag. Is this difference likely to have any significant effect as to oxidation reactions when the food is cooked at 60C?
-
The addition of Benedictine makes it a Bobby Burns.
-
I believe that Michel Bras is generally held to be the creator.
-
Mike, we're happy to have you share your experiences, and especially for you to share whatever you may have gleaned from books. But when you're making statements that are based on, e.g., Juan Roca's book -- especially statements which a reasonably informed person might hold to be incorrect from a scientific standpoint -- perhaps it would help to give context to your assertions if you would post the passages on which your assertions are based. This way other participants here can have some basis either to understand or critique your basis for making those assertions. The deal about pressure inside the bag once the bag has been sealed and collapsed, I believe must be based on a simple misunderstanding on your part. Perhaps this based on something you read in one of these books -- we have no way of knowing if you don't post the basis of your assertions and simply continue to assert that you are correct and everyone else is wrong. My own academic background is not as important in this case as the academic background of the parents who raised me. Both are chemists and my father is a noted physical chemist (member of the National Academy, festscrift edition of the Journal of Physical Chemistry, etc.) So not only did I literally grow up hearing about many of these basic principles (and really, the stuff we're discussing here is quite elementary) but I have a good basis for educating myself as to the topics that interest me and, perhaps most importantly, can count any number of famous scientists among family friends I could potentially ask to explain these things. My experience, however, is that things like this are at a basic-enough level that a simple query to a parent for support of my understanding or further explanation is sufficient.
-
May we entertain the idea that cellular structures (along with veins and capillaries) of proteins and vegetation, are semi rigid (elastic)? That would only be germane to this fork of the discussion if one were somehow able to lower the pressure inside the cells, veins and capillaries only, such that the walls of the cells, veins and capillaries represented the boundary between higher pressure on the outside and lower pressure on the inside without collapsing. As others have pointed out, the only way to have the food under less than 14.7 PSI is to put the food inside a rigid container and lower the pressure inside the container. In this case, following your idea that the cellular structures (along with veins and capillaries) of proteins and vegetation are semi rigid and thus somehow able to maintain pressure disequilibrium, the pressure inside these cells and inside these veins and capillaries would be higher than the pressure inside the chamber.
-
There are effects that are possible only with machines that can pull high inches of mercury. But they're not the effects that you're generally talking about. Having a super-strong vacuum machine is really not so important once you're actually cooking the food in the water bath. Rather, the interesting things that a strong machine are things like pressure "cooking" tender greens, compressing vegetables and fruits, sucking the air out of certain vegetables and fruits so that they "vacuum infuse" a liquid once the pressure is released, etc. This can be important for long cooking times. However, the bar is significantly lower than "total vacuum." Semipro bag sealers such as these can pull 28 inches of mercury, which is more than enough if you're concerned about oxidation. Air is only around 20% oxygen by volume. I wouldn't recommend cooking short ribs for 48 hours inside of a ziplock bag. But even a cheap FoodSaver whould be able to reduce the air in the bag to less than 3 to 5 cubic centimeters (this is a worst-case scenario). That's simply not enough oxygen to make a huge difference. Mike, you still misunderstand. So long as the bag is able to shrink to the point at which the inside of the bag and the outside of the bag are at pressure equilibrium (which will happen 100% of the time under normal conditions), the pressure inside the bag is normal atmospheric pressure. In actuality, once it goes into the water bath, the contents of the bag are under slightly higher than normal atmospheric pressure due to the weight of the water above the bag. As for preserving the shape of the food that is bring cooked, it is necessary to pull a reasonably strong vacuum before the bag is sealed, but nothing beyond the capabilities of a FoodSaver. Before I got my current semiprofessional bag sealer, I was able to do things like deboning and rolling up salmon steaks into a puck-shaped "salmon fillet mignon" -- and never had any difficulties with anything keeping its shape. This statement reflects several misunderstandings on your part. First, as I explained at a level I think would be understandable to a seventh-graded, the contents of the bag are not under lower pressure once the bag collapses. This happens instantly when the chamber is opened, or simultaneously with the air being evacuated from the bag when it is an edge-sealer machine. Second, as a result of the fact that the contents of the bag are not under less than 14.7 pounds per square inch of pressure ("normal" sea-level atmospheric pressure). But, let's say that it is under less than 14.7 PSI. How low do you suppose the pressure would have to be in order for the boiling point of water to be lowered to a temperature that would be significant to us? For the most part, we're cooking in the neighborhood of 60C. Water boils at 60.8C when it is at 3 PSI. Simple physics suggests that there is no way a steak inside of a collapsed bag and submerged under several inches of water is anywhere near as low as 3 PSI. Third, evaporation is not a significant issue when one is cooking in a closed bag significantly under the boiling point of water. Other factors, such as water loss due to contraction of muscle fibers, etc. are the primary reasons for water loss in sous vide cooking.
-
Your problem is that you're making the drink with single malt scotch. The Rob Roy (and, indeed, almost all cocktails) calls for blended scotch. Try The Famous Grouse.
-
Hasn't that always been true?
-
Re gum Arabic and gomme syrup, buy the gum Arabic from these guys and make the syrup according to the instructions in this thread.
-
The bag only collapses because there is a temporary pressure disequilibrium. Once the bag collapses (which happens almost instantly), the inside and outside of the bag are in pressure equilibrium. This is only relevant with respect to a chamber sealer. For edge-sealer type machines, the inside and outside are always at pressure equilibrium. Perhaps these graphics can explain. Here is a piece of meat inside of a bag. The bag is full of air. You can see by the air molecules that the inside and outside of the bag are at pressure equilibrium and the meat is under regular atmospheric pressure. Now we have sucked most of the air out of the bag in a chamber vacuum and sealed the bag. The graphic below shows the conditions right after the chamber is opened. As you can see, the inside of the bag is at lower pressure than the outside of the bag (illustrated by showing that there are far fewer air molecules per square inch inside the bag compared to outside the bag). There is pressure disequilibrium, and the meat is not under regular atmospheric pressure (note that the pressure arrow is not touching the meat). A split second later, the flexible bag material has responded to the pressure disequilibrium by bending under the atmospheric pressure. As a result, the bag is much smaller now, and close to the exterior of the meat. The external atmospheric pressure will continue to crush the bag material towards the meat until such time as the inside of the bag and the outside of the bag are at pressure equilibrium (illustrated by showing that the number of air molecules per square inch are the same inside and outside the bag). The meat inside the bag is now at regular atmospheric pressure. What if you remove 100% of the air from the bag? Well, much the same thing happens. You go from this situation when the chamber is opened: To this situation a split second later: The only difference is that there is a small amount of air remaining in the bag in the first example, and no air remaining in the bag in the second example. In both cases, the steak is under regular atmospheric pressure once the bag collapses. The only way to have the steak under low pressure after the chamber is opened is to have the steak inside a rigid container. If the walls of the chamber cannot contract, then there can be no pressure equilibrium and the steak will remain under lower pressure. You end up with this situation:
-
Mike, I'm afraid you are incorrect about the items inside a vacuum sealed bag being below atmospheric presure. Think about it: What is atmospheric pressure? Atmospheric pressure can be simply described as approximately the hydrostatic pressure caused by the weight of the atmosphere. A more simple way of putting it is that atmospheric pressure is the combined weight of the air above us "pressing down." If you reduce gravity, weight is reduced and atmospheric pressure goes down. When elevation increases the mass of air molecules above is reduced, and atmospheric pressure goes down. If climactic conditions create a "low pressure condition" the mass of air molecules above is reduced, and pressure goes down (the opposite is true for a "high pressure condition"). So, what happens with respect to pressure when we put a piece of beef in a bag and suck all the extra air out of the bag? Nothing, really. The mass of air molecules "pressing down" on the steak through the bag is exactly the same as the mass of air molecules "pressing down" on the steak before it was in the bag. In both conditions, the steak is under regular atmospheric pressure. If we would like for the steak to be under reduced pressure, we must put the steak into a rigid container and evacuate the air from the rigid container. At this point, the mass of air molecules "pressing down" on the steak is very small, and the steak is under less-than-atmospheric pressure. Another way to think about it is this: Suppose you took the steak in the vacuum-sealed bag and put it at the bottom of the ocean. Would the steak be at low pressure or high pressure? Now, suppose you took the steak in the vacuum-evacuated rigid container and put it at the bottom of the ocean. Would that steak be at low pressure or high pressure? (Answer: steak #1 = high pressure; steak #2 = low pressure.)
-
Oh, totally. Outside the context of a bar or restaurant, there are plenty of places a machine like this could potentially work. Although I think it will be substantially trickier than dispensing beer from a keg if the idea is to include fresh juices, etc. Japan, of course, is also a culture where people buy all sorts of foods from machines (e.g., french fries).
-
Yea, it could work as a novelty item in certain frat-boy-heavy contexts. Still, though, why go to all the trouble of coming up with a machine that mixes the drinks to order? Why not just have five internal tanks of premixed cocktails inside? Or, better yet, why not have a cart with iced premix in bottles wheeled around by a surgically enhanced blonde in a halter top? I guarantee she'll be able to generate more revenues for the business than any credit-card operated cocktail machine.
-
To be clear: You're not observing that the strip loins retain more moisture than the tenderloins, you are observing that the strip loins exhibit more moisture loss compared to the strip loins. How about this question: Perhaps the tenderloins had more moisture to begin with?
-
Proper dilution can be achieved by the addition of water. I assume chilling would be accomplished by running the liquids through some kind of heat exchanger. Keeping it clean will certainly be a challenge. Residue is one of the things that makes the unfortunately ubiquitous "soda gun" so disgusting. I don't disagree that theoretically a cocktail machine could be interesting. I do disagree, however, that it could be economical. It seems like you have two choices here: (1) You have a place that doesn't have a particularly cocktailian clientele or staff. You don't want to spend very much money on the machine, which means that it's going to be fairly limited as to the number and kind of drinks it can make. The limited repertoire of drinks is okay, because you're not selling to cocktail sophisticated. The main questions would be: (i) whether your clientele is likely to want any of the more cocktailian offerings the machine makes; and (ii) whether it wouldn't be easier and more economical for the barman to make whatever drinks are ordered (especially in consideration of the fact that the drinks most likely to be ordered are either easily batched like an LIT or Cosmo, or simple highballs). or (2) You have a cocktailian place. In this scenario, you would potentially be interested in spending significant money on a machine with the flexibility to make a wide variety of drinks. The question of economics still comes into play, because in this case it is going to be more economical and still more flexible to simply hire and train staff. Roger is clearly going after the first scenario, and success of his scheme would seem to depend entirely on the clientele of a non-cocktailian bar deciding that they want a Daiquiri or Gin Sour served out of a machine. The problem I have with his proposed model is that five bottles (let's say 4 spirits and 1 liqueur) plus two juices and two syrups #1 doesn't make for a very interesting or wide variety of cocktails, and #2 doesn't offer the ability to make any cocktails beyond those that are fairly easy for even a minimally talented bartender to make. If it's a beer-centric venue four deep at the bar, it's not clear that the ability to serve the occasional White Lady out of a machine is going to add to their bottom line. Certainly over here, their money would be better spend on a frozen drink machine.
-
The Japanese "hard shake" has been discussed here before. Whether this technique would be replicable by a machine is debatable. Indeed, whether any of the claimed benefits of the hard shake would stand up under rigorous examination is, in my opinion, highly debatable. What it does do, in my observation, is result in rounded-off "leftover" ice cubes in the shaker, and perhaps a larger volume of more uniformly small ice chips in the drink. Whether a profusion of ice chips in the drink is highly questionable, and if I've shaken a drink extra hard I like to double strain it so as to remove any ice chips from the final drink. You want a colder cocktail? Start with colder ice, and use lots of it. Even starting with the same amount of identical ice, I find it highly unlikely that the hard shake produces a colder drink. Getting back to Roger's cocktail machine... Roger, the first thing I would do if I were you is create a spec and cost for the machine, then do some market studies to determine if there would be any demand for such a machine. I very mucn doubt there would be, but you never know. Although MikeInSacto may be an exception, I believe that the vast majority of people who care about a well-crafted cocktail would not buy a cocktail that came out of a machine. Beyond that, if your "killer app" cocktail is the Long Island Iced Tea, it seems clear to me that you're not projecting this machine to be placed into venues with a cocktail enthusiast crowd. (Again, I'll point out that it is very simple to mix together one bottle each of the required spirits for a Long Island Iced Tea and then pour the pre-mix back into bottles, which will keep indefinitely for little cost. All that is then required to make the drink is filling a glass with ice, pouring in some of the pre-mix and topping with sour mix and a dash of cola. Most any bartender worth his salt could to it in 10 seconds.)