slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
Sloe gin falls is defined under 27 CFR 5.22(h)(1), which says simply that sloe gin is "a cordial or liqueur with the main characteristic flavor derived from sloe berries." There is no further specification as to proof. As it turns out, Plymouth's sloe gin is sold at something like 26% ABV. Plymouth's sloe gin is produced by steeping sloe berries in low proof Plymouth gin and a touch of sugar for several months, then bottled.
If you've never had Plymouth's sloe gin, it is remarkably different from any brand available in the United States -- primarily because (i) it is much more "natural" tasting; (ii) it is much less sweet; and (iii) it has much more intensity of actual sloe flavor.
-
What does "economically sugared" mean?
ETA: 27 CFR 5.22(h) defines the Standard of Identity for "Class 8; cordials and liqueurs" as "products obtained by mixing or redistilling distilled spirits with or over fruits, flowers, plants, or pure juices therefrom, or other natural flavoring materials, or with extracts derived from infusions, percolation, or maceration of such materials, and containing sugar, dextrose, or levulose, or a combination thereof, in an amount not less than 2.5 percent by weight of the finished product." 2.5% sugar by weight is not all that much sweetening, when you consider that plenty of liqueurs are over 20% sugar by weight. So there's no reason Plymouth couldn't make their sloe gin relatively dry and still qualify as a "liqueur" under 27 CFR 5.22(h).
-
Plymouth's sloe gin is not particularly sweet. There is some sugar added, but not much more than is required to balance out the sloes.
-
A saute pan can be excellent with a heavy stainless body and extra thick disk bottom. That said, I am personally not super-fond of Paderno's saute pan design. The sides are too tall for mty liking. Sitram Catering has a better saute pan design, IMO. You may also want to poke around some restaurant equipment sites to see if you can get a good deal on a heavy disk-bottom saute pan with an encapsulated "all the way to the sides" base.
For a fry pan, I'd say you want straight gauge and not disk bottom. You also want something with short flared sides. A lot of frypans I find have sides that are too tall and too steep, making them more like curved saute pans.
If you want a curved sauteuse, then straight gauge is the way to go. Either stainless lined copper or the thickest aluminum you can find. It's up to you and your budget. If you do go ahead and get one of these, you might consider buying the saute pan in extra heavy carbon steel, since you could use the saute pan for dry-only applications (i.e., real sauteing) and the curved sauteuse for dry/wet applications.
As for the saucepan, it really depends on the intended use for the pan. I find that very few people actually use their saucepans in a way that demands a fancy design.
-
Why not just put the avocado flesh into the blender with some of the tequila, liquify, infuse, chuck the whole works into the freezer, and filter off the alcohol as usual?
-
I picked up a bottle myself on Wednesday. Haven't had a chance to play with it much yet. I wonder if this means they're going to put it into regular production?
-
Above a certain level, each additional dollar buys an increasingly smaller improvement in quality. This is true of all things. Bob, would you say that a $1,500 custom made Japanese kitchen knife is ten times better than one you can get for $150? Is it three times better than one you can get for $500? 33% better than one you can get for $1,000?
In my experience, there is no substitute for dry aged superprime beef. Whether or not it is worth it will depend on the skill/experience of the cook and the taste/experience of the diner. A $35/lb dry-aged superprime porterhouse that is charcoal-grilled at home is not likely to seem "worth it" -- especially if you don't have much basis of knowing what you're tasting for. Budget is, of course, also a major consideration. This beef is going to cost right around the same amount of money no matter where it is sold, but income and cost-of-living levels vary quite widely. What this means is that $35/lb is not as expensive to someone working and living in New York City as it is to someone working and living in, say, Lubbock. This is among the reasons that most of the superprime beef that stays in America finds its way to NYC.
-
Well, I certainly do think that, when one is discussing the different formulae for, say, a Sidecar or a Margarita, then ratios make a good basis for discussion. But when it comes down to codifying a formula, that's when I think it makes the most sense to go to actual amounts.
-
Sweet.
I happened to run into the new American rep for Bols last week, and apparently they would like to bring Bols Genever back to the US.
-
Although I understand the argument that scaling up an individual drink would change it, do you think scaling up a recipe to make multiple drinks at once changes the taste of the individual cocktail?
Yes, I do think it makes a difference, unless you happen to have an oversized shaker you can use for making 2-3 drinks at once (and even this usually will not result in a drink that is exactly like an individually made drink). This depends somewhat on the drink. If you can get a large enough mixing vessel with a large enough amount of ice, stirred drinks seem to come out more or less the same. For shaken drinks, however, it is generally the case that two individually-shaken drinks will come out better than if they were shaken together. Think about it: Unless you have a shaker that is twice the size of your usual shaker, there is no way you can get the same ratio of ice to liquid (which will change the thermal transfer quite a lot) and there is not likely to be as much air space (which affects aeration, etc.). Even with a shaker that is twice the size of your usual shaker, it's not going to be quite the same. But don't take my word for it... try it yourself. It's pretty obvious, IMO.
There may be some confusion over the idea of there being a UK ounce and a US ounce. In the UK, ounces are only ever used as a measurement of weight, not volume. So yes, whilst our nations have different ounces, it's because they have completely different referends.Whether or not the UK liquid ounce is actually used in practice, there does in fact exist a "British Imperial" liquid ounce, which comes out at 1/20th of an Imperial Pint (making it somewhat less than an American liquid ounce).
Secondly, the standard UK shot is not 25ml. This is the standard English shot and, I think, Welsh. Here in Northern Ireland, we serve 35ml as a standard measure, always served from a Government-approved measure (whether jigger or optic). It's a legal requirement to do so, unless in a mixed drink with 3 or more ingredients (this is where the law gets complicated, so I won't go into it too much).What's interesting is that these standard measures are right around the same as an American fluid ounce, which comes in at 29.57 ml.
What is the standard shot in Scotland?
As for how UK tenders give recipes, I've only ever given them in metric form and have only ever received them in metric form. It avoids the confusion that might arise from the belief that there is such a thing as "a standard shot". . . . It just means that I know exactly how much I'm pouring, which is critical to the formula of a drink, as well as allowing tabs to be kept on booze control. . .This accords with what I know of most bartenders: they give recipes in actual amounts. As you suggest, this probably has much to do with costing drinks, booze control, government regulations, etc.
-
I'm not so concerned about the total volume of the finished drink. And not everyone wants the same sized drink or uses the same sized glassed. I can tell people to make a margarita 3:2:1 and they will get a drink just like I make. It may be bigger or smaller, but it will taste the same. (assuming they use the same tequila and triple sec). And to me, getting it to taste "right" matters more than finished volume.
You may not be concerned about the total volume of a drink, but I certainly am! I'd just as soon pass on that 6 ounce Pegu Club, thank you very much.
I'd also dispute that a 3:2:1 Margarita will be "just like you make it" or will "taste the same" at any size. A Margarita made with 1.5 ounces of tequila, 1 ounce of Cointreau and a half-ounce of lime juice will be bracing, cold and refreshing at three ounces. A Margarita made with 3 ounces of tequila, 2 ounces of Cointreau and one ounce of lime juice -- even assuming that your shaker was twice the size of the one you used for the 3 ounce drink, and that you were able to chill/dilute the drink to the same degree (neither of which is likely to be true) won't be the same at six ounces. For one, by the time you get to the bottom of the three ounce drink, it's likely to still be cold and you're likely to be ready for another. By the time you get to the bottom of the six ounce drink, it's going to be warm and cloyingly sweet.
I agree that anything beyond a simple drink can become a complicated mess of ratios.I wonder, though, if maybe we shouldn't think of two kinds of recipes. There are recipes designed for basic consumers who want to create the drink (or anything, really) straight from the text. For this group, it seems to make more sense to use common measurements and replace 1/4 oz with 1/2 tablespoon (or even 1.5 teaspoons), etc. For a more sophisticated audience, perhaps ratios work better but with the author suggesting his or her preferred size for the base ratio (e.g. "where 1=1 ounce"). You might need to actually translate the ratios to make the drink.
I agree that there are different sorts of recipes. A simple drink like a Martini, that has wide variation in formula all the way from 1:1 to 20:1 is usefully discussed in ratios. But still, if I were going to give someone a recipe for my Martini formula, I'd size the drink to 3-4 ounces. For most other drinks, I think it makes the most sense to offer the drink the same way the vast majority of drink formulae have been given going all the way back to Jerry Thomas: in the actual volumes in which the author or mixologist expects the drink to be made. When I'm filpping through cocktail books, I automatically skip over books that specify recipes by parts. It's just too much trouble and, not for nothing is my experience that "parts" recipes don't tend to be very good ones.
I'm not sure I follow your idea about substituting a half-tablespoon for a quarter-ounce. Is a half-tablespoon measure a common kitchen measure? I've got probably three or four sets of measuring spoons around, and I'm not sure any one of them has a "half tablespoon" measure. You can either use something like the OXO graduated measure (which I find perfectly fine for home use, especially when I can't use a speed-pourer) or all you need is two jiggers: a 2 : 1 jigger and a 1 : 1/2 jigger. If you like, you can precisely measure 1/4 and 3/4 ounces into the two sides of the 1: 1/2 jigger and make a scratch mark on the inside. Another good thing to have for <1/2 ounce amounts is this adjustable tablespoon measure from KitchenArt.
-
But then how are you going to translate 3:1:1 easily into a drink that is not either a 5 ounce drink or a 2.5 ounce drink? I can easily say to someone, "this drink is three-quarters, three-quarters, two -- lime, MB orange curaçao and Tanqueray, plus a dash each of orange and Angostura bitters" and they can bang out the drink with the right proportions and in the right size without using a calculator.
Using actual amounts is even more important as formulae become more complicated (I would not want to figure out the Tantris Sidecar from a "parts formula"), and for drinks that involve a top or lengthening of any kind (Fizzes, Daisys, etc.).
-
The problem with listing a drink in parts is that it becomes very complicated unless you have fairly simple ratios. For example, how are you going to list a drink that has 2 ounces of spirit, 3/4 ounce of liqueur and 3/4 ounce of citrus? 8 parts spirit, 3 parts liqueur, 3 parts citrus? That starts to become cumbersome. It would be challenging to free pour this drink with any real accuracy, and you end up having to do math to scale the recipe into actual amounts.
The other benefit to listing a drink's formula in actual volumes (and given the American provenance of the cocktail, I think ounces make perfect sense) is that it also specifies the actual volume of the drink -- which is important, in my view.
-
Actually, it's the other way around. The thicker the aluminum, the less prone to warping it is.
-
No, it isn't. That was debunked years ago. So, no worries on that front.
-
I think the key is to simply aim for a different style of burger. Why jump through hoops trying to make a decent steakhouse-style thick burger, when that style depends on a luscious medium rare interior for its beefy flavor? Instead, go for a thinner burger in the style of Shake Shack, where the beefy flavor comes from the crisp exterior of maillardized reduced meat juices. Since the burger is relatively thin (and assuming a decently fatty mix), sufficient moisture to make the hamburger sandwich juicy can easily be supplied with things like a slice of cheese, tomato and/or pickle, a schmear of ketchup and/or mayonnaise, etc.
-
Although we both agree that some sort of subjective experience is likely to be necessary to experience pain, I think we disagree on whether an animal like a lobster "experiences" (in the sense of a subjective experience) anything. Since we don't even know why humans experience anything, I think it's premature to exclude a rough analogue for lobsters. Certainly all the elements of consciousness are found in various degrees throughout the animal kingdom, so it might not be that crazy to suppose that consciousness itself is also experienced to varying degrees. Obviously shrimp don't "think", but I find it difficult to believe that an organism can experience relatively complex social behavior (including mating behavior, social/territorial behavior, formulating foraging strategies), without incorporating some sort of model of "self" in its perception of the world.
I think that these behaviors can be performed by organisms that to not possess sentience and the ability to have a meaningfully subjective experience. Indeed, I think that behaviors similar to these can be performed by fairly rudimentary machines -- like the Roomba robotic vacuum cleaner that leaves its base station, "forages" around my apartment for cat hair, and returns to its base station "mate" every afternoon. As I said before, higher functions such as self-awareness, the ability to think and experience emotions, etc. are associable with a certain level of neurological complexity.
In Marsden CD. The emotion of pain and its chemistry. Ciba Found Symp. 1979;(69):305-13, the author writes: "Pain is not an electrical impulse derived from tissue injury but an emotional experience arising when a nervous input is interpreted in the light of experience and emotional context as being 'painful' ". This says to me that, whatever it might be that a lobster experiences when it experiences tissue damage, it is not "pain."
As for your other question:On what basis can we assert that killing them one way causes more or less pain than any other way?I think that a simple but potentially useful rule of thumb is that the method which terminates sensory activity in the fastest way with the least stimulation is likely to cause the least pain (I don't know what the tradeoff should be, surely it varies with each species). I don't know enough to really say which method does this for lobsters, but since lobsters have a fairly diffuse nervous system which some high-level functions spread throughout, I think a whole-body dispatching method (like boiling or electrocution) is the most promising.
I think so too... and yet a lot of foodies seem to think this is the worst possible way.
I also found this summary interesting (2005)The largest of decapod crustaceans are complex in behaviour and appear to have some degree of awareness. They have a pain system and considerable learning ability. As a consequence of this evidence, it is concluded that cyclostomes, all Cephalopoda and decapod crustaceans fall into the same category of animals as those that are at present protected.The EFSA is a quasi-political organization that has a strong bias to be extra-careful about these things. This is proper and as it should be. We should, I think, try to be as humane as reasonably possible.
That said, I should point out that:
(1) The report on which the EFSA's recommendations are based is for laboratory animals, not food animals. The bar for lab animals is an incredibly high bar (for example, they aren't willing to say whether or not ants deserve special protection).
(2) The EFSA's recommended methods for killing decapod crustaceans is hardly practical in the real world. They say you can chill in air or an ice/water slurry, but on what basis are we to know whether and when the lobster has expired? They can you can immerse the lobster in clove oil. Um... no, thanks. Or you can electrocute. So, we have chilling, where the home cook has no way of knowing when or whether the lobster is actually dead, or we have two other methods that are impossible at home.
(3) It may give some indication of the level of care expected by the EFSA to think about their recommended methods for killing fish. Listed as "acceptable" are MS-222, benzocaine, etomidate and metomidate (killing them by anaesthesia). Electrical is acceptable "for some species." "Maceration" is okay for "fish less than 2 cm in length." One step further down the "okay list" is concussion, which is only to be performed by "experienced personnel" and death must be confirmed. Sodium pentobarbitone is also sort-of okay for larger fish, via intraperitoneal injection. And so on. Nowhere is "dragging through the water by a hook penetrating the lip, then thumping on the head followed by gutting " mentioned as an acceptable way to kill fish. Keep in mind that this is a generally accepted way to kill fish, and fish have brains. What fish don't have is more easily anthromorphized legs and hand/claws that lobsters have.
-
Martin, there is a third question: Assuming that lobsters experience something like what we would identify as "pain" (I would argue that they can't, for which see * below), on what basis can we assert that killing them one way causes more or less pain than any other way?
* Here are some tidbits from the wikipedia article on pain: "Pain . . . is the unpleasant sensory and emotional experience an individual has when they perceive actual or potential tissue damage to their body. Pain is highly subjective to the individual experiencing it . . . Pain is defined as a subjective conscious experience."
Without sentience and consciousness, I would argue that there is no such thing as "pain." This is why, for example, when someone is horribly burned and would be experiencing excruciating pain, we put them into a medically-induced coma. No consciousness = no pain. I would further argue that an organism that does not even have a brain cannot be called sentient and possessing of consciousness, and therefore cannot have a subjective experience -- all of which are necessary to have "pain." Things like "consciousness" and "sentience" and "ability to experience emotion" are associable with a certain level of neurological complexity. Shrimp don't "think."
This is not to say that lobsters don't have enough processing power to generate a message that says something like "Negative sensation! Move away!" under certain circumstances. But I wouldn't put that under the same name as the subjective experience we call "pain." It goes without saying that lobsters do not have a cerebral cortex.
Meanwhile, as others have observed, you can see a lobster in the wild have one of his legs or claws torn off -- something I think we all agree would be "painful" to us -- and there is no negative response or avoidance behavior. But there is some question in my mind as to whether avoidance behavior, which is all the lobster evidence we have, is a great indicator of sentience, consciousness and pain. For example, scallops have eyes and will swim away from a predator. And yet, we slice their shells open with a knife, sever their main muscle at both ends and eviscerate them -- all while they are still alive. And it takes a lot more scallops to make a meal than it does lobsters. Does this mean we shouldn't eat scallops any more?
All of which is to say that I think we ALL agree that, operating on the assumption that lobsters can experience pain, we would like to treat them in a way that minimizes that experience to the greatest extent possible. No one is disagreeing with that. The question as to whether they can experience pain is more or less a side discussion. What IS important is whether, given the assumption that lobsters can experience pain, we have any basis whatsoever for choosing the least painful method of killing them. I haven't seen anyone offer a reasoned and informed position that convincingly argues against submerging in boiling water compared to any other method. "It seems like it should be that way" just isn't good enough -- it certainly isn't good enough to point the finger at someone else who is choosing a different method from you. Myself, I think that it's unlikely that any way is particularly painful to the lobster, and in consideration of the fact that it's impossible to definitively choose one method over the other on the basis of inflicted pain, I choose whatever method best suits what I am doing with the lobster.
-
. . .Next up is a decent stock pot and a 11" saute or saucier (which seems to be fairly expensive here in Canada). I notice that some ppl suggested Paderno and was wondering if this deal seems good for a stock pot:
http://www.paderno.com/products/product.cfm?ID=188
I saw another deal on that site that seemed pretty ridiculous:
http://www.paderno.com/products/product.cfm?ID=918
Is there something sucky about that particular line or product? Seems really cheap...
The question about Padero is something I answered back in 2003:
. . . I then saw a Paderno fry pan and noticed it had a base that was just as thick as the one on the sitram profisserrie pan. However, the Paderno pan didn't say anything like "Paderno Grand Gourmet"; it had nothing on it except a tag that said "Paderno".I'm wondering , is this just a plain paderno pan that uses a simple 2mm aluminum base, or is this a very good Paderno pan - since its base looks almost identical to the one on the sitram profisserrie? Any sure way of knowing? Perhaps the paderno's base looks as good as sitram's, but really isn't.. I'm not sure. The Paderno was definitely cheaper, so I wanted to buy it, but wasn't sure if I'd regret it.
Was this store by any chance Bridge Kitchenware in NYC? If you were in the US and it wasn't Bridge, then you weren't seeing Paderno Grand Gourmet. Bridge Kitchenware the exclusive US distributor of Paderno, and the only line they carry is Grand Gourmet. Paderno Grand Gourmet has the same thickness of aluminum as Sitram Profisserie.
That said... and to complicate matters somewhat, there are two manufacturers making "Paderno" cookware. There is a Canadian company that makes cookware called "Paderno" in Canada. Here is an excerpt from an email discussion I had with their marketing and development director a few years ago:
slkinsey: I am a little confused about the naming of your products. I've spent a lot of time in Italy and am quite familiar with the Paderno cookware manufactured there. I was a bit surprised to see that you also manufacture a line called "Paderno," although I note that you only use the name "Paderno" in Canada. Could you explain this to me? Does your company have any relationship with the Italian company?marketing guy: The company in Italy actually started our company in 1979. After being close to bankruptcy, they sold it to the current President. We have rights to the name Paderno in Canada, but no other country. We kept the name primarly since there was already some brand recognition established.
[NB. The Italian company has since rebounded and is doing quite well.]
The Canadian company, Padinox, Inc., makes several lines of cookware. Their lower level line, called "Paderno" in Canada and "Chaudier 1000" elsewhere, has 0.8 mm thick stainless steel and a 3/16" (~4.5 mm) aluminum base. Their high level line, called "Chaudier" in Canada and "Chaudier 5000" elsewhere, has 2 mm thick stainless steel and a 1/4" (~6.25 mm) aluminum base. Chaudier 5000 is awesome stuff. Used on Air Force One.
If you have seen cookware named "Paderno" with an aluminum base of less than 7 mm thickness, you were either looking at Canadian-branded cookware or one of the lower lines from the Italian manufacturer (Paderno Serie 1000, Gourmet Serie 1100, Gourmet Serie 2000).
Paderno.com is the web side of the Canadian manufacturer, Padinox Incorporated. Note that visitors to the web side have to indicate whether they are Canadian or American. If you compare between the two "sides" of the site, you will notice how the product names are different -- with the "Paderno" name only being used in Canada.
Paderno.it is the web site of the Italian manufacturer, Sambonet Paderno Industrie Spa.
A last question for any experts out there: What sort of pot is best suited for roasting something like a chicken?You don't want a "pot" for roasting a chicken. What you want is a roasting pan. This is not stovetop cookware, and so isn't really covered in the eGCI class. Fundamentally, you can roast on just about anything you want -- from a pre-heated cast iron skillet to an aluminum sheet pan. You just want something that exposes the roasting meat to maximum radiant and convection heat. This means shallow sides.
There is an extensive thread on roasting pans here that you may find has some useful information.
-
And I agree with docsconz or whomever that you can't say Salieri actually is better than Mozart ... by extension, you also can't say Salieri is objectively worse as a factual matter.
Yes, actually you can say that. Not that there was anything wrong with Salieri, mind you. But the strength of a classical tradition is that there is some basis for making more, if not entirely objective comparisons. More to the point, however, is the fact that no one with any real basis for understanding the arguments one would make in demonstrating the inspirational and musical superiority of Mozart's compositions over Salieri's would make the counter-argument. So it's a debate that would never happen.
I would say that fine-dining is perhaps a quasi-classical tradition. As Steven points out, there are certain commonly-accepted criteria for what constitutes excellence in a fine dining experience. And while those criteria do evolve over time, they do so within the context and against the backdrop of the history of the tradition that has come before. What does this mean? It means that, while one may of course prefer, say, Balthazar (or even Dinosaur Barbeque) over Per Se -- it is still possible to say that Per Se is an objectively superior restaurant within the tradition of fine dining. I would also suggest that, in comparing Per Se to Momofuku Ko, the anologue in classical music is not Mozart and Salieri, both of whom were clearly operating within the tradition. Rather one might compare, say, the orchestral compositions of Benjamin Britten to those of Paul McCartney. Paul McCartney is a brilliant musician, and turns out very good music. But his music is simply inferior to Brittens when considered within the context of the classical tradition. Not that I think McCartney cares one whit. He's bringing his popular style into the orchestral concert hall and blending it with the classical tradition. But I think it was always meant to be what was ultimately popular music elevated to the classical concert arena. In a sense, that is what Chang et al are doing with Momofuku Ko. I don't think it makes sense to think of their work there as fine dining that has been "casualed-down" so much as it is their street-haute fusion food that has been "fine-dininged-up." Chang himself, I believe, has said that it's ridiculous to assert that Ko is better than Per Se. And I am quite sure that Sir Paul would say that it's ridiculous to assert that Ecce Cor Meum is superior to the War Requiem.
-
Momofuku Ko seems to me to be a unique restaurant -- on a lot of levels, of course, but some that perhaps make Platt's one-visit review more appropriate.
First, there is no a-la-carte ordering at all. You have whatever it is that they are making that day. I'm sure that the offerings will change over time, but it doesn't seem as though Ko will be one of these places where the menu changes on a weekly or nightly basis. Indeed, the menu seems more or less the same as it was when they first started serving around a month ago. There is no indication that the menu will be radically different in another month, although I suppose it could be (in which case Platt could always re-visit the place).
Second, part of Platt's thesis seems to be that everyone except the most fanatical Momofuku fan is likely to visit Ko no more than once, and so his one-visit review reflects that experience.
If this were a restaurant where one would like to taste lots of other dishes and wines in different combinations with different party sizes and at different hours, and if this were a restaurant one could reasonably expect to visit many times -- then a multiple visit review makes more sense.
-
I wouldn't say that there is any codified or generally accepted terminology for shaking the ingredients together without the ice. Not sure I've heard anyone say "mime shake" before. I simply inferred the meaning from Toby's recipe (which includes an egg white) and the instructions.
-
"Mime shake" means to shake the liquid ingredients without any ice (sometimes also called "dry shaking" or "pre-shaking"). This helps with egg drinks to emulsify the eggs and whip air into them. After you do this, you add the ice and shake again.
"KD" = Kold Draft ice cubes. At home, you can use regular ice cube trays, or you can buy trays that will make actual cubic ice cubes that are similar in size to Kold Draft cubes. Or, what I like best, is one cube of "big ice" (approximately 2x2) and several KD-sized cubes. I find that this works best, especially for egg drinks.
-
Did you use the blender ball for the pre-shake, or together with the ice? I have a hard time understanding how it would work with the ice.
Sloe Gin?
in Spirits & Cocktails
Posted
Mirto is the Italian word for "myrtle." It is also the name of two drinks made from the myrtle plant, famously in Sardinia. Mirto rosso is made with the berries, and mirto bianco is made with the leaves. Zedda Piras makes both a red and white mirto di Sardegna.