slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
I believe Gary's recipe calls for purchased dried (bitter?) orange peel, not homemade. I don't believe it's quite the same thing to use homemade citrus zest.
-
Right. I'm with Paul on this one. Mercury is a cumulative poison. It's not like eating donuts or porterhouse steak where you can largely mitigate any potential negative health impact with a few days of low-fat salads. Furthermore, not all that many people are eating fried chicken for dinner 3 times a week, and most everyone understands that it's unhealthy. Plenty of people eat bluefin tuna 3-5 times a week -- in significant part, because it is perceived as healthy. I certainly wouldn't want to be eating 5 pieces of Japonica's tuna sushi every Monday, Wednesday and Friday -- and I am quite sure there are people who do just that.
-
That's probably true of any place associated with Batali -- except, interestingly, Esca (which I think is one of the top 2-3 fish places in the city).
-
Who cares?
If I worried about every single foodstuff that was supposed to negatively impact my health I wouldn't have time to eat or even sleep!
Um... did you read the article? Some of this fish had mercury levels high enough that the government could take it off the market. One of the sushi places had fish with enough mercury (and pieces large enough) that the RfD would be exceeded by eating only two pieces of sushi. Would you care if it were lead instead or mercury?
Mercury isn't something that is "connected to health problems" like eating lots of saturated fat. Mercury is a cumulative heavy metal poison that has a well-understood affect on the body, and eating a dozen pieces of high mercury tuna sushi three times a week would definitely be dangerous.
-
[...]
In general -- and someone like Dave is undoubtedly better informed on this than I -- I believe that most historical cocktails calling for "scotch" are calling for blended scotch.[...]
Not Mr. Wondrich (I assume that is the "Dave" yer referring to...) but I can quote from his book, "Imbibe":
For Scotch Whisky, you'll want something strong and smoky and single-malty. The Laphroaig cask-strength and the Talisker both fit the bill. For drinks from the very end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, though, you'll want a blended Scotch. I like White Horse or Johnnie Walker.In my copy this is from page 61, in the section discussing ingredients. I believe the recommendation for intense single malts is primarily with an eye for Toddies (more on this below). In any event, the Rob Roy dates to circa 1895, which would put it in the "blended era" for Scotch in America according to the passage you quoted above. Having looked over my copy, I think this passage from the section on the Rob Roy is more apropos:
In the 1900s and '10s, Scotch whisky was all the rage. In the past it had been imported in smallish quantities in its pure malt form and generally consumed hot (see the Hot toddy, page 137). With the introduction of golf into America in the 1890s, there was a new interest in all things Scottish. The whisky salesmen, real pioneers in the black arts of marketing, did not let this slip by thenm, and before you knew it Tommy Dewar and his ilk were sluicing the American provinces with liberal amounts of the new blended whiskies.Considering the paucity of Scotch cocktails, it would seem that the non-Toddy types were designed post-1890 and therefore call for blended scotch. Like Dave, I love an intense (and hopefully high proof) Islay malt for my Toddies, but I have to wonder whether this was particularly common given what is presumed to be rather scarse availability of Scotch whisky in America prior to the introduction of blended Scotch whiskies. Needless to say, Dave will have better data on this than I.
Interesting to see that Scotch's popularity in America was driven by the popularity of golf. I've always considered myself a strict traditionalist when it comes to golf, and I insist on only playing golf in its original form: tanked out of my gourd on Scotch and wearing a kilt.
I was gonna say, getting a Rob Roy in America any time in the last 50 years made from anything other than Johnnie Walker Red (or maybe Black) would probably have been pretty unusual.I haven't been alive for 50 years, but coming from a Scotch-drinking American family of Scottish extraction, I've never noticed that it was any trouble getting brands like Famous Grouse (the top-seller in Scotland), Dewar's, Cutty Sark, etc.
-
Maraska is a good maraschino, but it's a bit mild compared to Luxardo. This explains why the CdV was taking over the drink.
-
Well, there's your trouble right there. Maraska doesn't have the same funky intensity as Luxardo. More to the point, Rangpur is a an unusual citrus-forward/juniper-in-the-back gin that I wouldn't think works well for an all-around mixing gin as regular Tanqueray does.
-
"New fiesta ware" resulted in plenty of hits on eBay.
-
Good point... That said, I think one could make the argument that tiki drinks belong to a separate category with a unique aesthetic. One could also argue that all of the combining of multiple rums in tiki drinks is intended to create the impression of a single rum. And, of course, one could argue that tiki drinks don't represent the pinnacle of the cocktailian craft.
-
What about eBay?
-
I'm a three -four ingredient girl. I guess I just want my delicious hooch, whether it be gin, bourbon, scotch or rum. I love you guys, appreciate what you do, but having to parse six ingredients before dinner is exhausting.
I think most cocktailians would agree that the three- or four-ingredient cocktail is the pinnacle of the craft. In fact, most of the very best more-than-four-ingredient cocktails can be understood as blending two spirits (e.g., calvados and cognac) to make a single "new" ingredient (e.g., "apple cognac").
-
As far as I know, the Rob Roy is a blended whisky cocktail. It's not too surprising that it doesn't work well with an assertive, peaty, smoky, briny Islay single malt like Bowmore. I assume Chris used Bowmore Legend, which is an 8 year whisky. At this young age especially, it won't have the smoothess to cooperate with other ingredients in a cocktail like the Rob Roy.
Personally, I think that Famous Grouse is an excellent choice for a Rob Roy, not to mention being an oustanding product. Compass Box's Asyla is a great choice as well.
I'm not sure that Islay whiskies are a good choice for something like a Rob Roy in any substantial amount. I note that Toby's examples include only a mere rinse of Peat Monster (a Compass Box blend including both Islay whiskies and highland whiskies which is less assertive than a full-on Islay single malt) in the first version and a 50/50 blend of Famous Grouse and The Macallan 12 (a smooth, malty Highlands malt that does not have much in the way of peat and smoke) in the second version. Neither of these will even approach the rough-and-tumble assertiveness of a young Islay single malt.
In general -- and someone like Dave is undoubtedly better informed on this than I -- I believe that most historical cocktails calling for "scotch" are calling for blended scotch. Even today, something like 90% of scotch is used for blends, and single malts have exploded in popularity only in the last 20 years or so. Single malts can be so distinctive and different that I note that the few modern cocktails employing a single malt whisky always specifies the brand and age.
-
I believe magnetic stainless steel is Series 400, not Series 300.
I have some 304 stainless that is capable. I have also seen 18/10 that is induction compatible-to my understanding it has to do with a layer of ferritic steel(which has more carbon) in the bottom layer.
It's not the 304 stainless that is magnetic but, as you say, a layer of a different (series 400) magnetic steel that makes this possible.
The higher grades of stainless can make a difference when cooking acidic foods-some say that lower grades of stainless can leech into foods while cooking.Meh. I don't believe this is true. Perhaps 18/0 steel?
-
I believe magnetic stainless steel is Series 400, not Series 300.
-
My understanding is that there is no real difference between 18/8 and 18/10, and that the two designations are only meaningful for marketing purposes.
All this stuff is actually made from Type 304 stainless steel -- which is technically supposed to be 18/8, but in fact comes in between 18-20% chromium and between 8-10% nickel. My understanding is that a common trick by manufacturers is to include a touch over 8% nickel (say, 8.3%) in their Type 304, which allows them to legally call it 18/10. Why anyone would care is beyond me. Perhaps people have the idea that 10 ie better than 8?
Anyway, ignore these designations.
-
Chris says its his last day at the Library Lounge? Say it isn't so! Anyone have the scoop on this?
-
Hmmm. If we're talking about stirred drinks and not shaken drinks (which have different requirements when it comes to ice), I'm not sure I entirely agree with Toby as to these effects.
The four most important considerations when chilling a drink are:
1. Chilling technique (i.g., shaking, stirring, julep, old fashioned, rocks, etc.)
2. The composition and temperature of the hardware.
3. The ratio of ice to liquid.
4. The size and shape of the ice.
5. The temperature of the ice.
For the purposes of this particular fork in the discussion, we are pulling out considerations 1 and 2: the chilling technique is stirring/straining and, for the purpose of considering the effect of ice alone, we should make the assumption that the composition and temperature of the shaker and glass are constant (we can consider their effects separately).
Consideration #5 is very important in an absolute sense, but in the vast majority of situations it is also removed from consideration. Most home cocktailians have ice at one temperature from their freezer (usually -18C/0F, which is much colder than the ice at most any bar); and very few bars have a freezer reserved for special "extra cold" ice. One possibility would be for bars to maintain a slurry of dry ice and high proof grain alcohol, which can get as low as -70C. Water ice cubes could be stored or tempered in the slurry for extra-cold ice.
Anyway... fundamentally what we're concerned with is the ratio of ice to liquid and the size/shape of the ice.
As a general rule of thumb, we would like to have a lot of ice and a small amount of liquid. This creates the largest thermal disequilibrium and will result in liquid that is closest to the temperature of the ice.
Assuming a reasonably good ratio of ice to liquid, most important is the size and the shape of the ice -- although size and shape of ice has an effect on the ratio of ice to liquid because it is possible to pack a greater volume of ice into a given container if the ice is in smaller pieces and shapes that fit together relatively well. Again, as a general rule of thumb, pieces of ice with a greater surface area to volume ratio will have more efficient thermal transfer, resulting in faster/lower chilling and, to a lesser extent, also faster dilution. It we are talking about chunk-shaped ice, a greater surface to volume ratio is associated with a smaller size (eight 1x1 ice cubes have double the surface area available for thermal transfer compared to one 2x2 ice cube).
It is quite possible to make a properly chilled and diluted stirred drink using crushed ice: you just have to use very cold crushed ice (most crushed ice at bars is wet and warm), you have to use a lot of crushed ice, and you have to get the liquid on and off the ice very quickly -- stir it once and strain it immediately. Of course this is not a particularly easy technique, and not one that is well suited to the environment of a professional bar.
Large chunks of ice are not so great for stirred drinks. They have a large thermal capacity, but ultimately they do not have a particularly good surface area to volume ratio which means that they do not conduct thermal energy particularly efficiently. This is actually good when you want to be able to shake the drink for a long time without overly diluting the drink. It's also good for a drink where you want the ice to sit in the glass for a long time without melting very much, in which case it is a good idea to "pre-chill" and strain the drink into the glass over the large chunk of ice (spherical ice, which has the lowest surface area to volume ratio, is the best for this). But, if you're doing a straight stirred drink, by the time the drink is stirred long enough to be sufficiently diluted, it won't be as cold as it would be using smaller pieces of ice at the same temperature and a shorter stirring time. This is further complicated because their large size makes it difficult to pack the mixing vessel and get a high ratio of ice to liquid. Of course, if Toby's big chunk ice is at a special lower temperature, this can make a difference. But the difference would be even greater if he were to keep medium cracked ice in the same freezer with the big chunk ice (or if he hand-cracked the special cold chunk ice for stirring).
As a number of people have demonstrated (myself and Dave Wondrich among them, although it's an easy experiment to do for yourself), the best and most practical size/shape for optimal chilling with between 20%-25% dilution in a stirred/strained drink, assuming ice at a given temperature, is medium cracked ice of approximately the size obtained by hand-cracking Kold Draft or standard home freezer ice tray cubes. This is assuming that one is in a situation in which is is possible to give full attention to the preparation of that drink. In circumstances where the drink will "cook" while the bartender turns his/her attention to the multitasking preparation of other libations, it makes sense to adjust the size of the ice (or, rather, the particular mixture of sizes of ice) in the mixing vessel so that the drink is not overly diluted by the wait. This will come down to experience, preferences and familiarity with the materials employed (temperature/quality/sizes the ice available, etc.). An experienced cocktailian bartender like Toby knows exactly how to mix his various ice sizes to obtain a consistent effect in a variety of circumstances. There is little reason to "cook" the cockail on the ice in a home context, unless one is also multitasking. This is a compromise technique -- stirring with plenty of cold ice and straining directly will always obtain the coldest drink with the most control.
-
What makes you think that mushrooms/garlic/onions/etc. don't contain proteins? Almost everything contains proteins, and there are certainly plenty of people who are allergic to, e.g., mushrooms.
I'm also not sure I buy the idea that "a food allergy is an immunologic response to a food protein" and only a protein. All that is required is for the food to contain an something that produces an allergic response (I believe, e.g., some polysaccharides can act as antigens). If one were eating a dish dusted with ragweed pollen, that could produce an allergic response and would therefore constitute a food allergy.
-
. . . I wanted something I could put food directly in if I wanted to. The technique of pre-cooking potatoes at 70C is really great, and I wanted to be able to just toss the potatoes in the water bath instead of some rusty metal thing.
I've thought about this a bit with my setup, and decided against putting food directly into the waterbath. Ultimately I was swayed by two factors:
1. I didn't want to get potato starch (or any other bits of organic material) on my circulator. This seems like asking for trouble and a maintenance hassle.
2. It's perfectly easy to dump a bunch of sliced potatoes (or whatever) and water into an open bag or a rigid container, and then clip the bag or container to the side of the water bath. There is no need to seal the bag or the container in this context.
-
Right. Dash technique makes a difference, as does the fullness of the bottle. It's also the case that different dasher bottles have a different dash volume.
I've found my Hazel Atlas bitters bottles have a consistent dash volume so long as the bottle is not filled into the neck. Angostura, in my experience, can have an especially large dash volume if it is aggressively dashed "ketchup bottle style" (as opposed to the "quick tip" dashing technique).
-
Also, I've been SVing chicken breast at 160F, but I noticed people doing it as low as 140F on these boards. Is that safe?
I have found that chicken breasts work best for my family at 153F for 2 hrs (wrapped individually), but you can certainly go down to 140F if you want to.
67C for chicken breast? That's too high for me. I mean, it's good at that temperature compared to the usual dried-out cottony whole chicken breast cooked by conventional means (which is why I only do scallopini if cooking chicken breast conventionally), but I vastly prefer 60C. I just follow the timetables and cook to sterilization.
-
Katie, iirc, there is an Improved [spirit] Cocktail "master recipe" in Imbibe!
-
I love parsley! It's my favorite herb.
One great use of parsley is a variation of spaghetti aglio e olio. Just add a fistful of finely minced parsley at the end (and, if you're me, a hefty pinch of crushed red pepper).
-
I probably wasn't clear: It goes something like this:
You start off with cracked ice, a mixing glass and a cocktail glass, all at -18C. You have spirits at 21C. You introduce the ice and spirits into the mixing glass and stir. Thermal transfer ensues, and the temperature of the liquid goes to, say, -3C. At this point, the liquid inside the mixing glass isn't getting any colder. Ideed, if you left the spirits sitting on the ice until the mixture reached thermal equilibrium, the temperature wouild likely be higher than the current temperature. At this point, you strain the liquid out of the mixing glass into your -18C cocktail glass. Thermal transfer once again ensues -- this time between the (already cold) liquid and the (even colder) glass -- further reducing the temperature of the liquid an aditional 1 - 1.5 degrees C.
Sous Vide: Recipes, Techniques & Equipment (Part 3)
in Cooking
Posted
I don't quite recall where it was posted (not in this thread), but at least one person using the Auber/rice cooker combination reported very good stability throughout the water bath when nothing was in there, but once the food was added and various parts of the bath were sampled with a separate thermometer, there was temperature variation on the order of several degrees.
Whether or not this is important to someone is a matter of personal preference. Fundamentally we're talking about (usually) wrapping food in an impermeable covering of some kind, sucking (some/most of) the air out of the covering and then cooking it at a (reasonably) precise temperature. Each one of these variables is associated with a certain cost, and also with a certain range of possible effects. It is, of course, possible to make "sous vide-style" (I would argue that it's not properly called "sous vide" without any "vide") using a stock pot over a conventional gas burner, lots of plastic wrap and a thermometer. One can, and plenty of people have, obtain very tasty results this way. On the other hand, there is a certain amount of control, and a range of effects that are available to the cook using a precision recirculating water bath and a chamber vacuum that are not available to the guy using the stock pot and thermometer. In between those two extremes there exists a variety of different price points and associated ranges of possible effects. One simply has to choose. Fundamentally this is not that different from choosing conventional cookware: It is perfectly possible to create an amazing dish using a $10 thin stainless steel pan. You don't need a $200 stainless-lined heavy copper pan. But the $200 pan is capable of doing some things that the $10 pan cannot do, and it offers greater reliability and predictability.
I think the Auber PID/rice cooker combination is a great solution for those who don't mind spending $150 on a setup but aren't comfortable with snagging a circulator off eBay for $400 or more. It's ridiculous to say that sous vide cooking isn't possible with this setup. At the same time, it's not correct to say that the PID/rice cooker setup offers the same range of effects, reliability, predictability and flexibility as using a precision recirculating water bath heater. But, so long as the rig you have allows you to do all the things you want to do within your price point, and you're happy with it -- who cares?