slkinsey

FOr an optimal experience, see if you can get ahold of one of the boutique tonics like Fever Tree Tonic or Q Tonic. These have a more complex flavor, and won't overwhelm with sweetness.

on a tangent to water boiling, adding salt will raise the boiling temperature of the water so it will take longer for the water to reach a boil but the temperature would be higher and take less time for the substance to cook. no? Adding salt to water will raise the boiling point less than 0.1 degrees and, in the amounts one is likely to add in the kitchen, shouldn't meaningfully affect the length of time it takes for the water to come to a full boil. Depending on when you add the salt it may, however, help to create the impression that it is taking longer. This is because the salt crystals act as nucleation points and can release a fair amount of dissolved gas if the salt is added at just the right temperature. The result is that it takes longer for bubbles to appear, but the length of time it takes for the water to come up to 100C is not meaningfully changed.

Pink Gins and Martinis are just right, of course. My suggestion is that you hoard the bottle of Malacca and use it only in drinks like these that highlight its unique qualities. I've got around a half-bottle left myself, and wouldn't use it for anything but Martinis. This is not to say that it wouldn't be good in a G&T. In fact, it's more emphatic flavors work very well with tonic water. So, if Tanqueray were still making Malacca I'd certainly suggest trying it with tonic water if you are a G&T lover. But considering that you may never come across another bottle of Malacca again, using it in drinks that don't highlight its "specialness" seems like a shame.

Gin & Tonics with Malacca?! That's a real waste of this gin. Once it's gone, there won't be any more to be had. Why not make it with something where you can really taste the gin?

Yea, that's what the Standard of Identity for vodka seems to indicate. If "neutral spirits" has to be distilled to 190 proof and "vodka" has to be made from "neutral spirits," then logic tells us that "vodka" has to be distilled to 190 proof. If you have any examples of spirits sold as "vodka" in the United States that are distilled to less than 190 proof, I'd be interested to know about it. Presumably, it shouldn't be too difficult to find such examples if there are dozens of vodkas distilled to lower proofs. I suppose it's possible, even probable, that there does exist a small percentage of spirits distilled to lower-than-190-proof and traditionally called "vodka" in their place of origin, but that are not sold in the United States as "vodka". However, I have to wonder whether such spirits are called "vodka" under a local custom that calls all distilled spirits "vodka" (i.e., it's their word for "spirits"). Two things here: 1. Although I can understand your philosophical and etymological reasons for calling any spirit "whiskey," it strikes me that it's not a particularly useful practice when engaging in discussions about spirits. This is because the commonly-accepted meaning of "whiskey" is "spirit distilled to medium-proof and not highly rectified from the fermented mash of grains and (almost always) aged in wood." So, if based on this commonly-accepted meaning people are having a discussion about whiskey, as they are wont to do, and you join the discussion making points having to do with products distilled from molasses, based on your personal expanded definition of "whiskey" meaning "all distilled spirits = uisge = whiskey"... well, confusion and misunderstanding are bound to follow. I could say similar things about making points based on a personal definition of vodka that means "all unaged spirits." 2. I would agree with you that any unaged spirit that has been highly rectified can be called "vodka." The important part of that definition would be the "highly rectified" part, and part and parcel of "highly rectified" is the aforementioned "selective reduction of organoleptic characteristics of the raw materials" (aka, making the spirit, to the greatest extent possible, without "distinctive character, aroma, taste, or color"). Edited: Spelling.

I, too, decided to move away from the KA grinder attachment. But, since I needed to grind up whole chickens, including the bones, to make food for my ferrets, I went for horsepower rather than hand cranking. Here's mine:

Thanks for the clarification! That makes much more sense.

I believe that the current EU proposal is to limit the raw materials that may be used in "vodka" to potatoes and grains. This is, IMO, kind of silly considering that vodka is a spirit that is better defined by its production methods and aesthetic goals (i.e., the "selective reduction of organoleptic characteristics of the raw materials" mentioned above) than the raw materials. In my opinion, if you distill fermented molasses to 190 proof, rectify it 3 times and filter it through activated charcoal, you end up with vodka, not rum. Bison grass vodka is simply vodka that has been flavored with an infusion of bison grass. Bison grass, and thus bison grass vodka, contains coumarin, which is a blood-thinning compound that is banned by the FDA. Any "bison grass vodka" sold in the United States is artificially flavored and colored, and contains a "neutralized" blade of bison grass in the bottle.

Lindacakes, keep in mind that the buttermilk produced from home butter-making is real buttermilk, and not necessarily all that similar to the cultured "buttermilk" one finds in grocery stores.

I've been thinking about doing this myself. Have also been wondering how it would turn out if I "soured" the cream first. Wouldn't that give me "cultured butter" and tangy-er buttermilk?

This is something that has come up a number of times over the years in various vodka-related discussions, and I was recently reminded of it by mickblueeyes in a thread about bourbon where we were discussing the Code of Federal Regulations governing the Standard of Identity for bourbon and how it related to a new bottling by Woodford Reserve that is "finished" in used chardonnay casks (that fork in the discussion starts here, if you're curious). So, in that discussion, mick said the following: As you can see from reading this thread, there has historically been some disagreement over the description of vodka as "colorless, tasteless and odorless." Some vodkaphiles have asserted that there are many examples of Eastern European vodkas that are anything but colorless, tasteless and odorless. This line of argument asserts, more or less, that "vodka" can be interpreted as an Eastern European catch-all term for any and all (unaged?) distilled spirits. Many of us have observed that this usage is not particularly useful insofar as the word "vodka" is commonly used and understood in Western Europe and America, where it describes a significantly narrower range of distilled spirits. Indeed, the spirit called "vodka" in Western Europe and America (not to mention most Eastern European examples) seems to conform fairly closely to the aforementioned "colorless, tasteless and odorless" definition. Now we come to the concept of the Standard of Identity. In the United States, a Standard of Identity is a government regulation which establishes certain criteria which must be met before foods can be labeled in a certain way. For example, the Standard of Identity for bourbon states, among other requirements, that it must be made from a mash bill of not less than 51% corn or it may not be labeled "bourbon." 27 CFR 5.22(a), the Standard of Identity for Neutral Spirits, defines "neutral spirits" as being "produced from any material at or above 190 deg. proof, and, if bottled, bottled at not less than 80 deg. proof." 27 CFR 5.22(a)(1), the Standard of Identity for Vodka (which is a subset of Neutral Spirits), defines "vodka" as "neutral spirits so distilled, or so treated after distillation with charcoal or other materials, as to be without distinctive character, aroma, taste, or color." This Standard of Identity is not, as has been suggested, only applicable to spirits manufactured in the United States. Rather, it applies to any spirits sold in the United States and labeled as "vodka." Spirits not conforming to this standard may not be labeled "vodka." I was just reading the wikipedia entry for Stolichnaya, which is probably the most influential brand with respect to the international image of vodka, which seems to describe a process and aesthetic remarkably similar to what is specified by the US Standard of Identity for vodka: Having traveled fairly extensively throughout Western Europe, my experience is that this definition accords well with the commonly understood meaning of "vodka" there as well. Part of the (somewhat controversial as to allowed ingredients) EU definition of vodka states that it is produced (rectified, filtered, etc.) "so that the organoleptic characteristics of the raw materials used are selectively reduced." And here is an interesting letter from the European Vodka Alliance protesting the then-proposed restriction of base ingredients allowed in making vodka to grains and potatoes, which says: "...vodka is a neutral spirit. The purpose of its distillation process is the removal of taste (cf Encyclopaedia Britannica definition above). Indeed the current definition of vodka in Regulation 1576/89 recognises this historic fact of production when it refers to vodka's distillation process 'so that the organoleptic characteristics of the raw materials are selectively reduced.'"

It really depends on how tough the stuff is that you are grinding, the size of the disk you're using and how you are going to cook the ground meat. If you're grinding something like chuck steak, which has plenty of connective tissue and large pockets of hard fat, single-grinding on the coarse disk will often result in a tough gristly hamburger. If you're making a long-cooked ragu or something like that, you're not likely to notice as much of a difference. If, on the other hand, you're grinding something with practically no tough connective tissue, like chicken or rabbit, or something with relatively small amounts, like Melkor's short rib and hanger steak hamburger blend, it may not make as much of a difference and you may appreciate the coarser texture of single-ground meat. Personally, I almost always double grind on a very coarse disk.

"Bourbon whiskey aged in Sonoma-Cutrer chardonnay casks" seems appropriate to me (although I would suggest "finished" instead of "aged"). However, that still makes it "bourbon" and not "whisky distilled from bourbon mash" as in 27 CFR 5.22(b)(2). It will be interesting to see how they label it, I agree. Certainly in their PR materials they're calling it "bourbon." This much we can see. So whatever they actually put on the bottle may or may not be reflective of what they might be allowed to put on the bottle. Clearly the chardonnay finishing is the main selling point (as would be any unique or unusual treatment by Jim Beam or Buffalo Trace) and one would expect this to be emphasized in their marketing and labeling. I don't see why they would want to label it simply "Kentucky straight bourbon whiskey," even if they might be allowed to do so. We should also consider that companies like Jim Beam and Woodford Reserve may feel that their brands are so firmly established as "bourbon" that there is little need to make this a point of emphasis in marketing "special bourbons," preferring to play up the "special" part instead. It's worthy of note that the word "bourbon" is not displayed prominently on bottles of Woodford Reserve's regular bottling (the main logo says "Labrot & Graham / Woodford Reserve / Distiller's Select" and the words "Kentucky straight bourbon whiskey" are on a small paper label near the bottom of the bottle).

I should start by pointing out that I am not arguing for or against the use of "finishing" barrels for bourbon or rye, etc. Mick, your hierarchy makes some logical sense to me as a lover of American spirits. Although, I do have to disagree with your characterization of used barrels as an "inferior trait" to using charred new oak barrels (I have the feeling there are quite a few over in Scotland who would agree with me on that count). I also don't see where, in your logic, one finds the notion of "exclusively aged in..." I think the code is clear that a spirit that is exclusively aged in used barrels may not be called "bourbon" -- the question is whether the code or some official interpretation of the code specifically disallows the name "bourbon" for a spirit primarily aged in charred new oak and then finished in a used barrel (I suspect this is the case, but I'd like to see where it is the case). So, while your logic makes some intuitive sense to me, I am not convinced that your logic and the logic of the code are the same logic unless I can see an official legal ruling or qualified legal opinion to that effect. I'm actually fine with the idea that bourbon can only be aged in charred new oak and never finished in used barrels. I'm just not entirely satisfied that that's what the law says. I have some lawyer friends who work with spirits companies. I'll see what they have to say. Edited to add: According to this press release "Bourbon, by definition, must be matured in charred oak barrels, but the distiller is free to 'finish' the bourbon in a second barrel type once it has met its maturation requirements."

The language in 27 CFR 5.22(b)(1)(i) does not, by itself, appear sufficient to say that something aged in charred new oak barrels and then transferred to used oak barrels is not "bourbon." It only specifies that bourbon is aged in charred new oak barrels for some period of time. I don't see anything in the code that specifically says that bourbon is aged only in charred new oak barrels. 27 CFR 5.22(b)(2) says anything that would ordinarily be considered bourbon (i.e., >51% corn, distilled to <160 proof, etc.) that is aged in used barrels is not bourbon but, instead, is called "whisky distilled from bourbon mash." So far, so good. I'm with the program insofar as a spirit aged in used barrels instead of charred new oak barrels is not bourbon. There is still an problem, as I see it, in that the code seems to assume that each of the two kinds of spirit are aged exclusively in one kind of barrel: bourbon being aged in charred new oak and "whisky distilled from bourbon mash" being aged in used wood. The code does not seem to consider whiskies that are aged in one kind of barrel and then further aged in a different kind of barrel. You are suggesting that a bourbon aged, say, 8 years in charred new oak and then 6 months in a used wine barrel is, by definition, no longer "bourbon" but must now be considered "whisky distilled from bourbon mash." I assume, for the sake of furthering the discussion, that you would also argue that a spirit that is aged 8 years in used barrels and 6 months in charred new oak would not be considered "bourbon." So, you're suggesting that it's an entirely one-way proposition: anything that deviates from 100% charred new oak is not bourbon. I'm saying that there is nothing in the code, as I read it, suggesting that such an automatic one-way exclusion exists. If "finishing with used wood" makes a spirit that was previously "bourbon" into "whisky distilled from bourbon mash," then the opposite should also be true and "finishing with charred new oak" should make a spirit that was previously "whisky distilled from bourbon mash" into "bourbon." Unless I'm missing something and there's something explicit in the code that says this isn't so. Most likely, this is simply a situation that is not contemplated by the code. It strikes me that there could/should be reasonable modifications or additions to the code to provide for reasonable "finishing" of bourbon (etc.) in used barrels, provided it falls within certain ratios of aging (e.g., 10:1 new oak to used oak). Question: rye whiskey is subject to the same code. Do you think that a rye finished in a used wine barrel should not be called "rye whiskey"? Second question: Isn't Old Potrero 18th Century Style Whiskey aged in toasted new oak barrels as opposed to charred new oak barrels? And this is why they call it "Single Malt 18th Century Style Whiskey" (leaving out the "rye" part) as opposed to "rye whiskey" as they do Old Potrero Single Malt Straight Rye Whiskey 19th Century Style?

Update: I just rechecked the code and see the following. Apparently 27 CFR 5.22(b)(1)(i) is not sufficient to disallow whiskies stored in used barrels, as mickblueeyes suggests. However, there is an additional provision which covers just that: 27 CFR 5.22(b)(2) says: "Whisky distilled from bourbon (rye, wheat, malt, or rye malt) mash" is whisky produced in the United States at not exceeding 160 deg. proof from a fermented mash of not less than 51 percent corn, rye, wheat, malted barley, or malted rye grain, respectively, and stored in used oak containers; and also includes mixtures of such whiskies of the same type.

Well, says you. I'm not saying you're wrong or you're right. But I am saying that you're not an expert in this kind of law. I'd like to see the case law on this before I'm willing to believe that interpretation is 100% correct. I've got some friends who practice in this area. Maybe they can offer an opinion.

Chuck has a lot of gristle? I'd say you might trim out big pieces of sinew and things like that, but you want to keep the fat.

No, I understand what "new oak barrels" means. The "new" means, as you say, that nothing has previously been aged in the barrels. What I see here in the law is that, in order for the spirit to be called "bourbon" it has to be aged in charred new oak barrels. In actuality, it could literally be poured into charred new oak barrels, aged for one minute, poured back out and still labeled as "bourbon." There is a two year minimum aging time only if the product is going to be labeled "straight whiskey." So, this establishes the fact that a mash bill of >51% corn, distilled to <160 proof and aged in charred new oak barrels at <125 proof for 1 minute or more can be called "bourbon" (provided it is bottled at >80 proof). Understanding that, I don't see anything in the law saying that if you take this bourbon and dump it into a used wine barrel for a period of time it is somehow transformed into "not bourbon." Now, if the law said, "stored at not more than 125° proof in charred new oak containers and in no other kind of wood container" that would be different (I assume it's okay for the aged spirit to spend some time in stainless steel tanks before bottling).

Why wouldn't they be able to label it "bourbon"? As far as I can tell, the relevant law says: 27 CFR 5.22(b)(1)(i) "Bourbon whisky","‘rye whisky", "wheat whisky", "malt whisky", or "rye malt whisky" is whisky produced at not exceeding 160° proof from a fermented mash of not less than 51 percent corn, rye, wheat, malted barley, or malted rye grain, respectively, and stored at not more than 125° proof in charred new oak containers; and also includes mixtures of such whiskies of the same type. Subparagraph (iii) says: Whiskies conforming to the standards prescribed in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, which have been stored in the type of oak containers prescribed, for a period of 2 years or more shall be further designated as "straight"; for example, "straight bourbon whisky", "straight corn whisky", and whisky conforming to the standards prescribed in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, except that it was produced from a fermented mash of less than 51 percent of any one type of grain, and stored for a period of 2 years or more in charred new oak containers shall be designated merely as "straight whisky". No other whiskies may be designated "straight". "Straight whisky" includes mixtures of straight whiskies of the same type produced in the same State. There's nothing I see in there that says an otherwise normal bourbon can't spend a few years (or, indeed, all years after the second year in new charred oak) in a used wine barrel and still be called "straight bourbon whiskey."

Am I the only one who finds Latini long strand pasta difficult to cook without having it turn out a bit gummy?

For hamburgers: beef chuck. I like it with some short rib meat in there, too.

I think it should be possible to design an open-top ice bin that provides both easy and convenient access to the ice as well as refrigeration to keep the temperature low. A few things that come to mind: - The sides of the bin can be refrigerated - There can be "cooling fins" sticking up through the ice every foot or so - The top opening of the ice bin can be 10% smaller than the actual size of the bin

It's absolutely not psychological. There is a huge difference between meat ground fresh and pre-ground meat that was ground God knows when. When Steven and I did the hamburger experiments I mentioned above, we bought a "control" package of just-out-of-the-grinder meat from the same (very high quality) grocery store where we bought the whole pieces of meat we were grinding to order. By the time we tested a hamburger made from the pre-ground meat, our palates had become adjusted to the taste of fresh-ground meat. We both spit out the bite we took from the pre-ground beef hamburger and started laughing. It was not a subtle difference. This difference is, I think, primarily due to oxidation. But it's also a fact that you really have no idea what meat they're putting into ground beef. This is especially true if the meat is ground in a big processing plant somewhere instead of on-site at the grocery store. All this is to say that I'm not surprised that you're seeing a huge difference between pre-ground meat and minced meat from your food processor. But I bet you'd see an even bigger difference if you were able to make double-ground meat in a home meat grinder.

Interesting. I've found the opposite to be true of both Setaro and Latini, both of which seem to have a wider window of "perfect" cooking times. Alas, I don't eat as much pasta as I once did. But I am still reliably able to source Setaro for around $5 per kilo, which I think is a reasonable price. I never trust their reviews. CI's method is to establish a set of criteria, which most often do not coincide with my criteria, and then judge against that. Another common problem is that their tasting panels may not have the same tastes, preferences and experience as I. My overall impression is that their panels have somewhat pedestrian taste. I do think there is some value in having "regular people" do tastings like this, but that's not who I want evaluating my products. I want people with experience and expertise. After all, the same "regular people" tend to prefer Miller Genuine Draft and Pizza Hut over Anchor Steam and Grimaldi's.