slkinsey

How can that be a margarita with no basil?

Instead of using whole wheat pasta in pasta salad, I think it's tastier to use wood shavings. Just make sure you shock them in cold water so they don't overcook.

I suppose it would depend somewhat on the technique employed in making the bitters. Some of them start out being steeped into alcohol and then the solids are strained out and simmered with some water which is later added into the infused alcohol. When using this technique, it would seem to make some sense to use 190 proof grain alcohol. You are extracting the alcohol-soluble compounds into the alcohol, and the water-soluble compounds into the water, then combining the two. If you are doing a straight infusion, it would make sense to use something at around 100 proof so you get equal extraction of the alcohol- and water-soluble compounds. Of course, perhaps you don't want the water-soluble compounds. That's a matter of choice. For sure, a single-stage infusion into grain alcohol that is then diluted down to 100 proof will taste different from a single-stage infusion into 100 proof alcohol.

Where did you get this idea about surface tension? As far as I know, solubility of a gas in a liquid depends on the gas, liquid, temperature and pressure. But since we're talking about dissolving carbon dioxide into water, for our purposes we can consider this a constant. Solubility, then, depends upon temperature and pressure. Lower temperatures and higher pressures correspond to greater solubility. Time can also be a variable, depending on the carbonation technique used, simply to allow the gas sufficient opportunity to dissolve into the liquid. We create fizzy liquids by dissolving carbon dioxide into water under increased pressure (chilling the liquid also helps, of course). The liquid fizzes because, when the liquid returns to regular atmospheric pressure, the gas comes out of solution, forms bubbles and we get effervescence. Actually, most of the carbon dioxide simply escapes from the surface of the liquid into the atmosphere without forming bubbles. In order to form bubbles within the liquid, nucleation sites are needed -- usually provided by microscopic pieces of cellulose or tiny points on the surface of the glass (little known fact: the best champagne classes are etched by the manufacturers to provide nucleation sites throughout the glass). Carbonated water in a perfectly clean, flawless glass would not form bubbles. The size and extent of the bubbles is largely determined by the amount of carbon dioxide dissolved into the liquid, with larger bubbles corresponding to greater amounts of dissolved gas. One reason why we consider small bubbles desirable in champagne is that a certain amount of carbon dioxide is lost through the cork as the wine ages and therefore an aged champagne containes less carbon dioxide compared to a young champagne. The chemical composition of the liquid can also have a minor effect on the characteristics of the bubbles, and of course on the formation and character of a "head" on the liquid as the bubbles rise to the surface. This, and a whole lot more, is explained well in the book Uncorked: The Science of Champagne by Gérard Liger-Belair. In the formation of persistent bubbles at the surface of the liquid, which is not the same thing as "keeping the gas from escaping the liquid," surface tension and other variables can be important. If you want a persistent foam like that, I would suggest including some egg white in the charger with your liquid. As for your grapefruit juice. . . so long as it is as cold as possible when carbonated and spends sufficient time under pressure, you shouldn't have any problems. An hour is a fairly short time period, however, if you're using a seltzer bottle. You should also consider that citrus juice is full of suspended particles. These make great nucleation sites and are likely to make the carbonated juice lose its fizz rather quickly. You might consider running the juice through a fine filter (perhaps experiment with a Büchner funnel filter) to remove these particles to the greatest extent possible. Adding some gum arabic could be interesting as well, as it should result in good head retension.

Yea. . . I don't quite understand the rationale behind eating whole wheat pasta. One serving of De Cecco whole wheat linguine is 180 calories, 35 grams of carbohydrates and 7 grams of dietary fiber. One serving of De Cecco regular linguine is 200 calories 41 grams of carbohydrates and 2 grams of dietary fiber. Personally, I'd rather have a small serving of steel-cut oats for breakfast to make up the difference in dietary fiber and eat the regular linguine.

What about the fact that perceptions of "saltiness" differ person-to-person and, among other variables, there appears to be a strong habituation effect?

I think it's because most of the money is invested up-front in growing the agave and the other things I outlined. Also, the reposado and añejo bottlings aren't aged as much as you might think. Reposado mezcal is only aged between two and twelve months, and añejo mezcal only needs to be older than one year to qualify for the designation. When you consider the entire production cycle starting with the growing of the agave, a joven mezcal might take 8 years and a reposado mezcal might take 8.5 years (aged 6 months) and an añejo mezcal 9.5 years (aged 1.5 years). These are only production time increases of 6.25% and 18.75% for reposado and añejo, respectively, versus joven mezcal. Looking at the Los Amantes mezcals, Astor Wines sells the joven for $60 and the reposado for 8.3% more at $65. So. . . it's not the same thing as, say, whiskey, where the vast majority of the production time and expense happens post-distillation. In contrast, an 18 year old single malt has a production time that is 50% longer than a 12 year -- not to mention that there are increased losses due to the "angel's share."

Whole wheat pasta sucks. There's no two ways about it. It's a waste of good salted water. I've had some pasta made out of emmer wheat -- pasta di grano farro in Italy -- that supposedly has many of the advantages of whole wheat pasta, but is reasonably similar to real pasta.

This depends on how one calculates the living wage. The living wage for Memphis for a single adult with no dependents is only $7.56 per hour. A single adult with a child dependent is $13.35 per hour. If it is a family of four with two working adults, they can do it for around $10.00 per hour each in Memphis. These living wages include medical expenses. Currently, the average Memphis-area compensation for "Food Preparation & Service-Related" is $7.87 per hour -- barely enough to get by if you don't have any dependents. I hope you're joking when you say this. It is disgusting and morally bankrupt that, in the one of the richest countries in the world, we have people who are forced to avail themselves of hospital emergency rooms for primary care -- which, of course, means that they won't get any primary care but are instead compelled by economics to take their chances that they won't need critical care later on down the road.

I have often remarked that tequila offers fairly low "quality per dollar" compared to other spirits. A decent bottle of 100% agave tequila will run you around 35 dollars, whereas excellent (I would even suggest objectively better) bottles of rum, whiskey and gin can be had at around $20 a bottle. The price point for good quality mezcal is even higher. For example, the excellent quality Los Amantes joven mezcal retails at around 60 dollars a bottle. That's right around the same as Highland Park 18 year old single malt scotch! As good as the Los Amantes mezcal may be, 18 year old orkney single malt it ain't. That said, there are some things that contribute to the high price of quality tequila and mezcal (it is, of course, entirely possible to buy cheap, crappy bottles of either product). Some of it is certainly a matter of supply and demand. This is undoubtedly especially true in the case of high-end mezcal. It's also extremely expensive to make a high-end mezcal. The agave plant has to grow for something like eight to ten years before the piñas can be harvested. That's a large initial investment of time, money and risk before the raw ingredient is even ready to be used, and there is really no comparison to other raw ingredients used for distillation such as grains, fruits and potatoes, all of which are ready to be used within one season. Finally, in order to make a mezcal worth drinking, the distiller has to lightly bake the piñas with wood in small ovens for several days, ferment a mash of 100% agave for a month or more and then do multiple small-batch runs through a pot still. Each one of these steps adds cost.

So . . . I picked up a bottle of the new-label Campari and pulled out a few of the other bottles I had lying around, which consisted of old-label imported and some Italian bottles. Tasted them all at full strength and room temperature. There is definitely a difference, I'd say. The older Campari had a more subdued middle-of-the-mouth bitterness whereas the new Campari has a more pronounced front-of-the-mouth bitterness with more intensity of flavor and a bit of a bite. Couldn't necessarily say that the newer stuff tasted fundamentally different from the older stuff so much as it tasted . . . well, "newer." The herbal components and bitterness were much more present, bright and up-front. Having tried bitter and herbal infusions at a variety of ages (some of them very old) this isn't a huge surprise. The up-front, bright bitterness of the new example I guess I'd say accords more with my sense memory of the Campari and Campari Soda I've consumed by the gallon during various trips to Italy. I'll need to go back and try them again both diluted and at colder temperature to see how my impressions line up. Whether it will be possible to tell the difference in a cocktail is hard to say. Other than making some adjustments as to proof (I should point out that Sertl is both incorrect as to the proof and labeling of American-market Campari) I don't believe there are any differences in the formula as Campari is distributed to different regions. Indeed, considering that the formula is known to such a restricted group of people, I have strong doubts that the company is tweaking the herbal infusion for different markets. It would take an corporate effort of such size and scope to target, evaluate and implement regiona-specific changes that I can't believe it wouldn't come out. It does not appear from the reading I have done that the specific coloring agent is considered part of the "secret recipe" -- which makes sense considering that natural carmine was the only ingredient about which the company was not entirely silent. Rather, it seems more likely to me that the "old label" bottles we have floating around the States are quite old and have lost some of their zing. These more subdued flavors do have their own appeal, but I like the brash upfront herbal bitterness as well. That said, I do prefer the older bottling -- albeit primarily because natural carmine has a stronger and deeper red than the coloring they are using now.

Now, if that's not an indication that spherified cocktails have joined Arthur Fonzarelli in mid-air, I don't know what is.

There is nothing wrong with eating a little PTFE (aka "Teflon"). So your only criterion should be how well the pan is working for you.

From a purely moral standpoint, I don't see how it is possible to defend job compensation at a rate so low that it is not possible for workers to maintain a standard of living that would be within reasonable minimums for our society. It seems wrong somehow to connect a living wage to the performance of skilled labor when one considers that unskilled workers are those most disadvantaged and therefore most in need of the protections that our society should be able to offer. Not to mention that skilled workers are in a much better position to demand higher wages and other benefits. There is a difference between a skilled worker who chooses to work without high compensation and medical benefits (as I have done for many years as a self-employed musician) but could obtain these things with relative ease, and an unskilled worker who has no choice other than to accept what is offered. I think the very least we can do is ensure that, within our borders, unskilled workers receive compensation and medical coverage within reasonable minimums for our society. Personally, I believe that some of these things (certainly medical coverage) could and should be provided by any modern, first world government. But, of course, they have to be paid for somehow. Some kind of reasonably progressive tax system that includes corporations seems like a logical solution. But if we don't have the political or moral will for that, then there is no recourse than to pass those costs along to employers and they to customers. I'd rather see restaurants simply raising stated prices by 5% (or a few percent more, if that's what it takes to make it through the slower periods) rather than sneaking the cost in via a surcharge. Of course, there's no reason restaurants shouldn't include the cost of tax in their posted prices either. My guess is that restaurants don't include tax and across-the-board surcharges like this in their posted prices because (a) that is the custom in the United States; and (b) it fools customers into thinking their meal is less expensive (e.g., $11 seems less expensive than $12).

That's something I can't answer for you. It depends on how much food you cook, the power of your stove, etc.

Sorry. No way am I giving up my source.

You are correct, so long as the food being cooked is in the center of the pan and 100% over the disk. Straight gauge is usually more convenient because you would like to take advantage of as much of the pan's surface area as possible. Since the sides of a frypan should be quite low and widely angled, you would like for the thermal material to cover every inch of the cooking surface. You don't want a situation where most of your chicken cutlet next to the side of the pan (or perhaps touching the side of the pan) is over thermal material but part of it is over "raw" stainless. In addition, since true frying involves letting the food sit without moving it around all that much, any uneven coverage of thermal material would be magnified. Finally, it's my experience that disk-bottom frypans don't have sides that are as low and angled as I would like. This may have something to do with limitations imposed by that design.

No worries, sygyzy. My recommendations were only examples of the kinds of things that could be found. I recommended certain brands and retailers because they were the ones with which I had personal experience. Most of my cookware -- which includes a smattering of Falk Culinair, Mauviel, Bourgat, De Buyer, Paderno, Sitram, All-Clad, Calphalon, Le Creuset, Staub, vintage Griswold, etc. -- was purchased back when prices were a lot lower. And a lot of it was picked up on occasional deep discount sales (e.g., "scratch and dent," closeout, loss leader, etc.) or, in the case of the Griswold, inherited. But it was always possible to get other brands that were just as good, and perhaps at a lower price too. There are great disk bottom stock pots for sale at places like Target at ridiculously low prices. I would always advise cookware hunters to have patience, to acquire their cookware piece-by-piece, to always be alert for a sale, and to have a willingness to compromise to take advantage of a sale (for example: I prefer MasterChef over the other All-Clad lines, but still didn't hesitate to pick up some 1 quart Stainless saucepans when they came up on a huge Amazon sale). Since the time when I purchased most of my stuff, the cookware landscape has changed a lot. There have even been some very interesting brands that have come and gone in the few years since 2003 (e.g., ScanPan Steel). So I'm less able to say to people: "Go out and buy brand XYZ. It has the best specifications for the lowest price." That's legwork I'm not prepared to do right now. On the other hand, as I said: the principles are all right there. For disk-bottom pans, for example, commercial stuff like this saucepan at Big Tray look pretty inviting. I couldn't say just what the composition of the base is, but it looks pretty thick and it looks like it covers the whole base. An email correspondence with either Big Tray or the manufacturer should enable someone looking for a disk bottom saucepan to get that information. If it is a heavy gauge stainless steel body with an encapsulated aluminum base that goes all the way to the edge and is 3 mm or more thick, I'd say it's a pretty good pan -- especially at 33 bucks for 4 quarts and a lid. It took me around 5 minutes of poking around on the internet to find that out and, applying the ideas from the class, decide that it looked good enough and was priced cheaply enough to warrant further investigation. If I was on the market for a disk bottom saucepan or stock pot, I would absolutely buy one of these if the specs checked out. In general, I wouldn't say that anything has become less expensive, and the technology is more or less the same. Indeed, the price of copper has made heavy copper cookware and cookware employing any copper as a thermal material rise in price quite a bit more relative to cookware overall. With the American economy and the weak Dollar, I would expect that it might be better to buy domestic cookware -- but I have no actual data to back that up. As for the eleven-inch pan... that is a size that is still quite common in imported professional cookware. This is because it's not really 11 inches -- it's 28 centimeters, which is a standard size. As you point out, American-made cookware (especially American cookware produced primarily for home cooks), is likely to be either 10 inches or 12 inches.

The reason the class can't be summarized in a chart is that different people cook in different ways, have different needs and different budgets. Just to make an example, if one really is using a saute pan just for true sauteing, why not get a heavy gauge carbon steel saute pan? Other people may not use the pan for true sauteing, but want to use a low wide pan for cooking things involving thick liquids. In this case, high heat capacity isn't needed but straight gauge design would help to prevent scorching at the sides. Someone who wants to be able to do true sauteing but also wants to be able to make quick sauces and finish pasta in the saute pan would do well with a thick disk-bottom design. Depending on the division of uses and the nature of the sauces, it may be worth the extra money to get a disk bottom that goes all the way to the sides. Someone else may have different needs and practices. The whole point of the class is to get you to think about what your needs really are. How do you cook? What is your budget? How important and how meaningful to you are the properties that come along with the different designs in the context of the things you cook, the way you like to cook, your stove, etc? Do you even need a saute pan? You'd be surprized how many people set their minds on a certain kind of pan for which they actually have no practical use (or suppose that they will suddenly start using a saute pan once they buy one). Once you think about these things, it shouldn't be rocket science to figure out what design would work best for you. After that, it's purely a matter ot budget. Of course, you could always be like me and have a stainless-lined heavy copper sauteuse, a heavy stainless body/aluminum disk bottom saute pan, and a heavy gauge carbon steel curved saute pan. Because... you know... I really need all of them.

I don't have the time to do an exhaustive search, but can probably make some examples. The principles outlined in the class still work, but many things have changed since 2003 that have changed the cookware market. Most important are inflation, the economic downturn in the United States, the Dollar's precipitous fall against the Euro (on February 19, 1993 $1 = €0.94; today $1 = €0.68) and the huge increase in the price of copper. So... looking at my suggested pieces and making a few examples: 1 to 1.5 quart straight gauge saucepan, sauteuse evasee or curved sauteuse evasee - I see an All-Clad MasterChef 2 1-quart "Saucier " at cookware and More or at Amazon for 45 bucks. My original recommendation in 2003 was for the same pan at $35, so the price has increased by ten dollars. That's roughly a 5% increase per year since 2003 for a total of 28.6%. 3.5 to 4.5 quart disk bottom tall saucepan - My original recommendation was for the 4.4 quart Paderno Grand Gourmet tall saucepan at Bridge Kitchenware which they were then selling for for 78 bucks. The same pan is now selling for 96, an increase of 18 dollars. That's roughly a 4.4% increase per year since 2003 for a total of 23.5%. - On the other hand, this 4 quart stainless saucepan at Big Tray looks like it has a reasonably thick disk bottom, and it only costs 32 bucks. 11" disk bottom saute pan - I originally recommended an has an 11" Sitram Profisserie saute pan that Bridge Kitchenware was selling for for 68 bucks. Bridge doesn't carry Profisserie any more, but the same pan can be found on Amazon for 90 -- 22 dollars more. That's an increase of around 6% per year since 2003 for a total of 32.5%. . . . I could go on, but it looks like the general trend is price increases of around 28%. These increases have outpaced inflation (15.59% from January 2003 to January 2008), but many of the products I recommended back in 2003 were imported and so additionally reflect a 27.6% decline of the Dollar against the Euro during the same time period. So, for example, Bridge was selling an 11" Sitram Profisserie saute pan for 68 dollars. Converting back to Euros, that gives us €63.92 in 2003. Now let's apply 15.59% inflation, which gives us €73.88 in 2008. Now, if we bring that pan back over to the States at the 2008 exchange rate, we get a price of $108.32. The pan at $90 from Amazon is actually 18 dollars cheaper than we might expect. The end result is that imported cookware is probably not a great deal right now, and the increase in materials is driving the price of certain cookware even higher compared to 2003. Good pieces are still to be found at good prices. But other sources should be explored. Amazon often has good deals. Big Tray and other restaurant supply businesses are also good sources.

If you think that an Italian amaro maker would cavalierly change the 140 year old formula of its product, it suggests that you're not sufficiently familiar with Italian culture. Changing the formula of Campari would create a blowback that would make the reaction to New Coke look like a few disgruntled fanatics. It took decades and decades for Southern Italians to adopt modern winemaking techniques, despite the fact that it was widely understood that certain traditional practices were responsible for an inferior product with low value. In contrast, Campari is the established worldwide leader in this category, with increasing sales. Exchanging one flavorless chemical coloring agent that happens to be derived from beetles and is a known allergen to some people for a manufactured flavorless chemical coloring agent is hardly the same as "meaningfully changing the formula of Campari." Considering that Campari, as it was already formulated, was hugely popular and succesful (and growing in popularity), the fact that there are numerous examples of herbal liqueurs and aromatized wines with formulae unchanged over centuries, and the fact that Campari and other amari derive a gret deal of their appeal and marketing through the maintenance of tradition, I have very hard time believing that Campari changed anything in their formula at all other than the substitution of artificial red coloring for natural carmine. If Campari were to make such a change, I have an equally hard time believing that (a) Campari would try to sneak this change under the table rather than announcing the "new Campari for the new millennium" (a la New Coke) and, (b) there wouldn't be huge public outcry in Italy or at least that the media would take note. On the other hand, the Campari in Italy is a lot "fresher" than the Campari in the US (more on this below). What I am suggesting is that if there truly is a notable difference between bottles of "natural carmine" Campari and botles of "artificial coloring" Campari sourced in America, and if that difference holds up in blind tasting, it's entirely possible (and indeed I assume this is the case) that a bottle of "old formula" Campari which was imported in 2000 and spent eight years sitting in a warehouse, basement and in the sun on the liquor store's shelves, has undergone certain changes. Therefore what differences may exist would not be attributable to the change in coloring agent or larger change in formula, but rather due to the effects of age. There is simply no telling how old a bottle of "old formula" Campari might be, especially depending on where it was bought. Considering that I am aware of liquor stores in Manhattan that still have bottles of Malacca Gin on the shelves, it doesn't strike me as unlikely that a bottle of "old Campari" purchased in Providence might have been bottled 8-10 years ago. ETA: The Gruppo Campari page for Campari says: "Campari is a contemporary classic. The recipe, which has remained unchanged, originated in Novara in 1860 and is the base for some of the most famous cocktails around the world." It seems fairly clear that they don't consider the coloring agent "part of the formula."

ghostrider, I believe you're thinking of a moka, which isn't exactly what I'd call an "Italian percolator." In a moka, as the temperature of the water in the bottom chamber rises, the increase in pressure forces water up a central tube, directly through the coffee grounds under pressure and then into an upper chamber where it is collected and consumed more or less immediately. The ratio of coffee grounds to water is quite high, somewhere in the same range as it is for espresso. In a percolator, the increase in temperature/pressure at the bottom of the put forces water up the tube where it sprays into the top and is distributed over a perforated basket of coffee grounds. At this point, there is very little difference between percolated coffee and drip coffee, considering that the coffee drips through the bottom of the perforated basket by gravity just as with drip coffee. What makes a percolator different is that the coffee grounds are continuously re-infused: As the coffee drips out of the bottom of the basket, it re-collects in the bottom of the percolator together with whatever liquid hasn't yet gone up the pipe. Since the percolator's heating element is still on, the already-brewed coffee is forced up the tube again where it is sprayed into the little clear cap, is distributed back over the perforated basket of coffee grounds, seeps through the basket and finds its way back to the bottom of the percolator. Repeat this continuous re-infusion cycle again and again and again, with the overall temperature of the liquid continuously rising towards the boiling point until it reaches a temperature near boiling and the percolator stops bubbling. At this point, the thirty-times-infused acidic brew is "ready" for drinking. One could, I suppose, mimic this process with a drip coffee machine by pouring the brewed coffee back in to the water reservoir and running it back through the same coffee grounds 20-30 times. If I want a super-rich cup of traditional coffee, I'll use a high ratio of coffee-to-water in my French press and have a rish cup of coffee that doesn't taste like I could use it to clean the tarnish off of copper.

All we know for sure is that Campari no longer uses carmine as a coloring agent, yes? We are not aware that any other change has been made to Campari? Considering the huge worldwide popularity of Campari and the fact that Italian's aren't exactly eager to change the formulae of their amari, I have my doubts as to whether there has been a substantive change in the formula for Campari. As far as I am aware, carmine does not have a flavor. So what we know is that, under relatively unscientifically controlled side-by-side tasting, recently-imported Campari seems to have a different flavor from multiple-years-old Campari. There could be any number of reasons for this observation that are entirely unrelated to a change in formula.

57C (135F) seems a bit low for tender pork, although I suppose it might do well depending on the quality of the pork. I've generally been very happy with 60C. Not sure there is any advantage to longer cooking times once the pork chops come up to temperature.

Daniel: As a general rule of thumb, I'd say that you don't want to cook-and-store fish (or anything, really) that you've cooked at such a low temperature. It's not safe. What you want to do is cook it for the shortest period of time possible for it to come up to your desired temperature (for this, Nathan's charts are invaluable) and then serve it immediately.