slkinsey

I did a little etymological poking around. It seems that "highball" comes from "ball" meaning "a drink of spirits ("ball of fire" = "drink of brandy" circa 1820) and "high" referring to the height of the glass. So the first criteria of a highball would seem to be that it's served in a highball glass. The word "highball" referring to the drink dates back to the late 18C. Most classically it consists of nothing more than a slug of spirits, ice and fizz water in a tall glass, and its invention was claimed by none other than Patrick Gavin Duffy. Dave points out, however, that the English were drinking brandy and soda some 100 years earlier. He also points to the Splificator as a drink of contemporaneous naming and close similarlty to the Highball. Nevertheless, Highball seems to be the name that stuck and it seems to now describe a drink comprised of a slug of spirits, ice and a fizzy liquid of any kind (seltzer, ginger ale, cola, etc.) served in a tall glass. I'm not sure whether I'd include juice-lengthened tall drinks as Highballs or not -- probably not. I usually think of the great era of Highball proliferation as the mid-1940s to the mid-1950s. After prohibition and the War, there wasn't much in the way of aged spirits to go around. "Smooth" blends without much character were made more "easy-drinking" in this format.

I agree that it's not silly to inquire and explore. But I still think it has limited usefulness. That said, I am absolutely open to the possibility that I could be widely mistaken on this. So, in the spirit of inquiry, exploration and discussion. . . You're talking, then, about changing the temperature before the meat has had a chance to equilibrate. The meat will not be at thermal equilibrium until the temperature of the meat is equal to the temperature of the water bath. What this means is that the meat will be in a condition somewhat similar to what is obtained via traditional cooking: It will be warmer on the outside than it is in the center. The outside would be at 76C but the interior would be at only, say, 55C -- with a temperature gradient running from the exterior to the interior. I'm not sure why this would be desirable. When you lower the water bath temperature to, say, 68C, several things could happen, depending on how you lower the temperature of the water bath. If you simply turn down the set point on the water bath heater, the bath will come down to the new temperature quite slowly. In this case, the meat is likely to equilibrate at a temperature only a few degrees lower than the high temperature (say, 73C) before slowly coming down to the new set point along with the rest of the water bath. If you turn down the set point and manually cool the bath (e.g., with ice water) to the new set point, the meat will equilibrate at a lower temperature before coming to the new set point. It will depend on the thermal energy stored in the meat (determined by cooking time at the higher temperature) as to whether it temporarily equilibrates at a temperature higher or lower than the new set point. I'm not sure this is entirely correct. If a piece of beef is heated up to 76C for one second, it's going to be "well done." It may not have any of the other characteristics one would like to have from a piece of well done meat (e.g., the collagen and fat melting associated with braised or otherwise traditionally long-cooked meat) but it will be "well done." This makes some sense, but again I have to wonder whether there aren't better and more effective ways to do this. For example, external fat can be removed and rendered. Or the meat can be browned to start this fat softening (which has other beneficial effects, of course). And so on. What kind of meat can you think of that one might want to cook using sous vide techniques instead of traditional ones, where unequal doneness would be desired?

In terms of muscle fibers and "doneness" I believe that, once your meat equilibrates at the higher temperature, that's the level you're going to get. I don't know that anything would be accomplished by reducing the temperature thereafter, except that you would slow down certain other beneficial reactions (e.g., conversion of collagen to gelatin, melting of hard fat, etc.). If you're going to go as high as 170, might as well do it fast, no? All of which is to say that cooking to 170 for a few hours and then lowering to 140 for another 12 hours strikes me as still being likely to give you the level of doneness associated with 170 and probably the same amount of water loss, but with more retained fat and less conversion of collagen. The contraction of muscle fiber that is responsible for a lot of water loss starts at around 50C.

My understanding is that any redistribution of juices that may happen is due to temperature disequilibrium effects. If the meat has been cooked several hours, as did jackal10's mutton, and the meat and liquid are all at one equilibrated temperature, I don't believe there will be any uptake of the cooking liquid by the meat. Indeed, it's not clear to me that uptake of external liquid is something that happens at all (although I suppose it might happen to a minor extent if one were to cool a hot chunk of deep-fried beef in a container of liquid). e-monster, if you have any information to the contrary from Blumenthal's book that you would like to post, I'd be grateful if you would post it. Considering that jackal10 cooked his mutton for 12 hours, I don't think that resting the meat in the bag would have had any effect. Rather, it seems likely to me that, as others suggested upthread, his temperature of 76C was simply way too high. Granted, given the short timeframe, some compromises had to be made. Next time, I'd try suggest something more like 68C for 36 hours.

To clarify, I recommend a Büchner funnel filter for bitters because, depending on the spices used, they can often contain a suspension of microfine particles that causes a cloudy appearance. Unless the amount of bitters filtered is very small, I don't believe that there is any danger that the filter paper will absorb significant oils from the bitters. If this is a concern, I'd recommend sending the bitters through a fine sediment filter before it is diluted -- or in the case where there is an infused alcohol component and a boiled water component, they can be filtered separately before they are combined (most likely only the water component will need filtering anyway).

Hmm. The Third Degree cocktail recipes I'm used to seeing have dry vermouth and pastis. Mostly I'm wondering about the name, though.

Anyone know the origin of the name "Fourth Degree"?

Temperature can also affect solubility. Chill haze is caused by the precipitation of tannin and protein compounds at low temperature. These compounds can be filtered out without greatly effecting flavor, and most beers and whiskeys are "chill filtered." Unfiltered whiskeys (e.g., Booker's) throw a chill haze over ice. I'm not sure whether or to what extent chill haze is affected by rapidity of chilling. In Eric's slowly cooled and then chilled iced tea example, it's possible that the slow, gentle cooling simply allows many of the haze particles to settle to the bottom of the pitcher.

Certain spirits -- notably absinthe and pastis -- contain large amounts of dissolved oils that have good solubility only above a certain percent alcohol. When water is added to these spirits, it reduces the percent alcohol. Eventually the percent alcohol is reduced below the threshold of solubility, the oils precipitate out of solution and cause the liquid to go opaque. This precipitation and clouding as a result of a chance in percent alcohol is "louching." bostonapothecary, unless your vermouth is so high in proof that it would no longer qualify as a "vermouth" -- I don't think it's possible that it louches. Perhaps you are thinking of a chill haze? Under what conditions do you typically observe this change from clear to cloudy? Regardless, there is no amount of fining or filtering that can prevent a liquor from louching if this is what it does.

I love how these things change as they go further and further from the source. The story jumps over to Eater where Steven somehow becomes "Steve." Then, by the time it's on Gawker, he's "an Internet food writer." I also have to wonder whether either Eater or Gawker bothered to ask permission to use the photographs.

Extensive thread on White Manna here: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=4248 Includes pictures and video.

Well... saying that grappa is "moonshine made with the scunge left over from winemaking, invented by peasants looking for a cheap buzz" would be like saying that "bourbon is made from rotten corn, invented by back-woods shitkickers looking for a cheap buzz." And yet, there are plenty of bourbons for sale at well over $100 a bottle. Grappa, like many things alcoholic, is an acquired taste. But I've always loved it and found it fascinating. There is a wide range in grappa from delicate and floral to the more firey and basic grappas. I even have several vrey nice bottles of wood-aged grappa. It's always very interesting to have a bottle of wine for dinner and then finish the meal with a grappa made from the same wine. That said, I do agree that some grappas are prohibitively expensive. This is for a number of reasons. First, many of them are packaged in extremely expensive fancy bottles (this especially true of the Jacapo Poli products). Second, not only does importation raise the price of grappa as much as it does the price of other European distillates (ever buy a bottle ot single malt in Europe?), but I believe that importers selectively bring over mostly higher priced bottlings. I have brought back many excellent examples from Italy in the range of $25-30/Liter. Third, it's not entirely accurate to say that grappa is made from "the scunge left over from winemaking." Grappa is distilled from the pomace (mostly grape skins but also including some minor amount of seeds and stems) leftover after the fermented wine is pressed plus whatever wine remains behind with the pomace. This is a decision the wine and grappa maker has to decide. Press the pomace dry and you get a high yield of wine and a low yield of grappa -- both of which are likely to be somewhat low in quality. Leave behind a wet pomace and you get a low yield of higher quality wine and grappa. The quality of grappa is particularly sensitive to the amount of residual wine left behind with the pomace. This impacts price because the best grappa is made with a wet pomace, meaning that the wine/grappa maker has decided to go for quality over yield -- which in turn means that he must (and can) charge more for his wine and grappa. Fourth, it is significantly more difficult to make a drinkable unaged distillate like grappa than an aged one like cognac (try tasting some of that stuff right out of the still). This means that, among other things, grappa distillers have to go to a lot of expensive extra steps to make sure their products turn out right. For example, the pomace usually needs to be distilled on the same day the wine is pressed (or otherwise specially stored until distillation). These things all cost money. If the grappa you've tried has been too firey and unrefined-tasting for your palate, seek out a nice grappa di moscato -- they are usually delicate and floral.

I wonder whether this means that they run a custom blend exclusively for White Manna. Given WM's price point, I rather doubt this is the case. But it's entirely possible that the meat distributor has various options (e.g., 80/20 or 90/10; chuck or sirloin; coarse, medium or fine grind; etc.). That would offer a reasonable amount of customization in a "choose an option from the menu" kind of way.

Most likely you'll need to run it through a Büchner funnel filter if you want it to be clear.

I think this is all dependent on whether his intention was to have a blockbusting gourmet dinner or whether it was to have some people ove rand have some fun. I will have to disagree as to whether it's necessary for Alan Richman to be an accomplished gourmet cook in order to be a good food writer or to be a good restaurant critic. Plenty of amazing cooks are crappy writers/critics, and vice-versa. How many art critics are accomplished painters? How many opera critics can deliver a rousing rendition of Nessun dorma complete with full-voice high B? Not many, is the answer. Closer to none, in fact. Many of these people have a good understanding of what goes into painting and singing, but that doesn't mean they can do it themselves.

The recipe David linked to is still very heavy on the arrack. [NB. Lists of ingredients are fair use]

Doesn't look like rocket science. Mixed greens, Tuscan beans, oven-dried tomatoes and a Chianti vinaigrette. Plenty of recipes for Chianti vinaigrette around on the internets.

Heh. It's a mystery, then.

I hasten to add that I have not seen, much less done scientific studies of this. But I started doing it one particularly hot summer when I was having problems with my syrup (2:1) growing mold: out of 3 or 4 batches, at least two sprouted disgusting black flecks when stored at room temperature. Subsequent batches, prepared with a little Everclear, proved perfectly stable. Hence my suggestion. Interesting. Questions: How did you add the Everclear? Were you mixing the Everclear in completely, or were you topping the bottles with Everclear? Also, was this simple that you were using that went bad, or were these more or less "storage" batches? Open containers (e.g., with pouring spouts) or closed? I suppose it's possible that such a low concentration of alcohol would be enough to inhibit certain fungi, but I rather suspect that the answer is something else. I wonder if this has more to do with making sure the bottle is sanitized than anything else. . .

The beauty of sugar syrup is that sugar is a preservative. If you make the simple syrup concentrated enough, it will preserve itself. I've had extra gomme syrup sitting around warm in bottles for over a year, and nothing bad happened. I didn't add any alcohol to this gomme, but I did wash the bottles out with high proof alcohol before pouring in the gomme. This may have a greater effect. I've also been known to top thick simple syrup with a thin layer of high proof alcohol on the theory that it will act as a barrier to any airborne nastys getting into the syrup. Probably fanciful thinking on my part. Your instincts are good -- increase the sugar concentration and you won't have any problems. I make mine only around once a year. I do a 4- or 6-fold reduction of pomegranate juice, melt in as much sugar as the hot liquid can possibly take, let it come to room temperature and then dilute it down to the approximate sweetness of 2:1 simple syrup with fresh pomegranate juice (I use POM, because it's the easiest to find). This provides a nice balance between sweetness, a concentrated "cooked" flavor and the zip of fresh pomegranate. I never add alcohol to this, although I do keep it under refrigeration.

Well, let's do the math on a hypothetical example: Let's say that you have 15 ounces of simple syrup to which you add 1 ounce of absolute ethanol (in reality we are adding less alcohol than 1 ounce of 100% but this makes the math easier). You now have around a pint of liquid at 6.25% alcohol / 12.5 proof. Considering that all kinds of nasty things can grow in 6% beer, I have to believe that the addition of alcohol won't do much. As for the history, the first person I know who recommended adding booze to simple syrup in writing was Dave Wondrich. Not sure whether this was an original idea of his or not. I note that Esquire Drinks does not contain a recommendation for added alcohol as a preservative, whereas Killer Cocktails does (". . . add 1/2 ounce of grain alcohol or 151-proof rum to deter mold.").

That's certainly true. You also have to account for the fact that many of these fruits bring other things besides simply sugar, moisture and aromatics. Most fruit contains a certain amount of acid, which will change the impact of the resultant infusion's perceived sweetening power.

Doesn't it depend on what you mean by "dilute"? Unlike limes, pineapple juice is sweet. Is there more than one meaning of "dilute"? As far as I know, "dilute" means "to lessen the strength of a solution." To clarify what I wrote, I mean "dilute" as in: "the addition of juices from the pineapple chunks to the simple syrup will result in a pineapple-flavored simple syrup that has a lower concentration of sugar and lower 'sweetening power' compared to the uninfused simple syrup." Pineapple juice is nowhere near as sweet as simple syrup. The label on a can of Dole pineapple juice says that there are 22 grams of "sugars" in one 6 ounce serving. Six ounces of 1:1 simple syrup would contain around 106 grams of sucrose. Six ounces of 2:1 simple syrup would contain around 168 grams of sucrose. What this means is that any liquid that comes out of the pineapple will reduce the concentration of the simple syrup. If shelf life is desired (although, as above, I don't think it's really possible) this argues against infusing into a 1:1 simple syrup. 1:1 simple is already a little dicey when it comes to spoilage, and 1:<1 would be even more susceptible. Then again, if you use it up within a few days, as I recommend, it's probably not worth worrying about preventing spoilage.

How do you mean "drying your lasagne noodles"? Is this for long-term storage, or is it just keeping them ready for more or less immediate use?

The sugar solution should draw some liquid out of the pineapple (or any other fruit). This is important for a few reasons: First, the pineapple liquid has lots of pineapple flavor in it. This isn't like infusing lime zest into simple syrup. It's more like infusing whole lime slices into simple syrup. We're doing more than simply taking aromatic oils into solution. Second, the higher the saturation of the original simple syrup, the greater the volume of flavorful liquid should be pulled out of the pineapple. Third, as the flavorful liquid is pulled out of the pineapple, it will dilute the simple syrup. So a 1:1 simple syrup into which pineapple chunks are infused may end up as a 1:<1 simple syrup. All of these things argue in favor of a fairly concentrated simple syrup. One could, of course, simply cover thin pineapple chunks with dry sugar and let the sugar draw liquid out of the pineapple until the sugar is dissolved. Using a syrup may be easier. In the end, it's about finding the fight balance between flavor extraction and sweetness. It's possible that very concentrated syrups can't pull enough flavor to stand up to the sweetness. With respect to preservation. . . A very rich syrup should remain free of spoilage in the refrigerator because sugar in sufficient concentration acts as a preservative. As to the shelf-stability of the pineapple flavor -- even under refrigeration, I can't imagine that it keeps its nice flavors for very long without some losses due to degradation. This argues in favor of simply doing an overnight infusion of pineapple chunks into whatever simple syrup you happen to have around, and planning on using it up within a few days. Adding grain alcohol or overproof rum. . . I am not convinced that adding a half-ounce of 150 - 195 proof spirits to a pint of sugar syrup will have any increased preservative effect whatsoever. I'll ask a few microbiology types for a more definitive answer.