slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
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:
... we hashed out that "colorless and odorless" only applied to vodka manufactured in the US so long ago. I doubt either of us would have figured that out had we not gone back and forth on it on that monstrous thread.
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:
Once fermentation is complete the resulting liquid is distilled four times to a strength of 96.4% ABV. This spirit is then diluted to bottling strength with more artesial well water which ultimately gives the vodka its smoothness. Finally it's filtered through quartz sand, then activated charcoal, and finally through woven cloth.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.'"
-
Does double-grinding make a big difference? When I make burgers, I single-grind through the small plate and they're great. Would they be even better if I bothered to double-grind?
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.
-
That said, I am interested to see what the Woodford bottle says. I am betting the TTB would not let it pass as just "Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey". Almost certainly, like the Jim Beam Masterpieces and the Buffalo Trace, it will say "Bourbon Whiskey aged in Sonoma-Cutrer Chardonay Casks". I am thinking adding the qualifier is the only thing that gets it by TTB label approval. I will let you know when it shows up in the shop!
"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.
-
The statement is worded to exclude any other type of aging outside of "charred new oak containers" by specifying exactly what bourbon can be aged in. Anything outside of new oak (read: anything that has previously held anything) is disallowed. We can play semantics all day, but the law means what I have just stated.
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.
-
The reason why is the segment of the law you posted that states "charred new oak barrels". I believe you may be misreading this as "newly charred oak barrels". Bourbon cannot be aged in oak that has held anything prior to bourbon.
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.
-
The answer to your question seems relatively easy. While you might be making three cocktails in an evening at home, I might be making 150 in an evening at work. And while I would love to have a dedicated closed-top refrigerated ice system, the reality is that I need continuous access to my ice bin in order to keep up with the bar volume. As result, my ice at home will always be colder than it is at work.
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
-
maybe it's all psych, but i swear nothing i've bought ground tastes as good as the results i get with my fp.
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.
-
One important thing to remember, is that many of the artisan pastas (Cavalieri, Martelli, and most other made in Gragnano) will go from just right al dente to overcooked much more quickly than your industrial Barilla type, so you have to be a bit more attentive.
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.
Having said that, the artisan pastas are quite a bit better, and if i could spend $6 /lb for pasta given the amount of it we eat, I would, but i would go broke:)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.
Can anyone explain how Cook's Illustrated always ranks the artisan pasta below everything else, and Ronzoni wins the tasting? That ranking alone makes me rethink my trust in their reviews.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.
-
Not to mention that you can't get "ground meat" out of a food processor. The best you can hope for is "minced" which is not quite the same thing. Bittman's no fool, I know, and I have to believe he knows that processor-minced meat is a poor substitute for the real thing. Nevertheless, it's a fact that a food processor is a ubiquitous piece of equipment in the American kitchen whereas a meat grinder (or grinder attachment) is not. In order that his article appeal and apply to the maximum readership, the responsible thing to do was give instructions for using the food processor.
My favorite KA grinder attachment anecdote is when Fat Guy and I were doing some hamburger formulation experiments over at his place. Steven and Momo picked me up with my KA grinder attachment, we shopped for meat and went over to Steven's to prepare a few dozen test burgers. Here's the thing: I had previously cleaned the grinder attachment and soaked it in bleach to make sure it was optimally clean. It looked clean enough to be a surgical instrument. Nevertheless, Momo's bulldog nose immediately detected meat, and he was interested in what was inside my bag from the moment I got in the car.
-
As far as I know, and my knowledge is by nio means all-encompassing in this respect, Pegu Club is the only bar that has a dedicated freezer for mixing glasses and glassware. It is also the place where I've had the coldest Martinis outside of my own home.
One thing I can never quite understand is why bars don't have refrigerated ice bins. Home cocktailians have a huge advantage over professionals because we're taking our cubes directly from the freezer whereas bartenders take their ice cubes out of open insulated bins. This results in a huge thermal advantage in favor of the home cocktailian. Surely it couldn't be all that hard to design aa reasonably accessible refrigerated ice bin that would keep the ice at -20C/-5F (and could be warmed up/drained/sanitized on a nightly basis).
Are there any professionals who keep a thermometer in their ice bins? I'd love to hear what temperature their ice is.
-
Andiesenji's story is interesting, but doesn't really tell us anything except that some people are sensitive to certain things in certain circumstances. Someone could report the same story with respect to caffeine, black peppercorns or even carrot juice -- it still doesn't mean that carrots are causing autism, giving us brain seizures and wrecking our hearts. It just means that that one person, and by logical extension an infinitesimal percentage of the population, has a bad reaction to carrot juice.
-
Interesting, Maureen. You learn something new every day. I'd swear that's not the impression I got of the way that word is used by my friends when I'm in Italy, but then again food isn't my primary focus when I'm there.
Steven: Interesting idea as well. Somehow, using 50% more fresh compared to dry seems like an awfully large increase. But maybe it isn't...
-
In Killer Cocktails Dave Wondrich says the original was the John Collins:
...John Collins, the waiter at London's Limmer's Hotel who brought the posh clientele round after round of the establishment's famous fizzy gin punch. Then came Tom, Dick and Harry. But forget them for now -- of all the Collinses, Old John is still the tastiest. Here's a pretty good stab at what he himself would have been handing around.2 ounces Bols genever gin
1/2 ounce lemon juice
1 1/2 teaspoons maraschino liqueur
To finish: chilled fizz water
Combine in a glass with 4 or 5 ice cubes, stir and top off with fizz water.
The Tom Collins is a less complex version of the same, substituting London dry gin for the genever and substituting sugar for the maraschino. Dave says it probably took its name from the use of old tom gin.
-
"Fair-net" is a reasonable American pronunciation of the word. You could roll the R, but I feel this is a little affected when incorporating such a word into American English. In much the same way, it's fine to pronounce "Rigoletto" as rih-go-leh-toe, whereas rrrrrrrree-goh-leyt-[pause on the "t"]-oh, while technically correct, is going a bit far unless you're speaking Italian.
-
Hmm. That might be the original derivation of pastasciutta but I've never ever heard tit used that way by my friends in Italy. You're suggesting that one would call tagliatelle Bolognese "pastasciutta" because it's in a sauce and not in a broth? I've never heard that usage. Rather, I have heard this word used interchangably with pasta secca (secca and asciutta both having the meaning "dry"). Indeed, the Italian Wikipedia page for pasta begins saying: "In Italia la pasta secca, o pastasciutta, costituisce i tre quarti dei consumi totali" -- which indicates that they are typically viewed as having the same meaning.
As for weight-to-weight conversion between fresh egg and dry semolina, that's harder to say. If I'm making fresh pasta, I generally go for one egg's worth of pasta per person, plus one extra egg. So I'd make 5 egg's worth of pasta for four people. If I were to buy fresh pasta, I'd go by eye.
-
Does Detroit have any strong culinary history? In places like Philadelphia, (and currently New Orleans) that went through hard economic times, at least I had the sense that there was a great culinary tradition there even if the economics weren't right at that moment for it to be a "great restaurant town."
-
slkinsey, I'm cooking thin crust pizza in a regular home oven. The oven is gas-fired and gets at least 550 degrees. Is that hot enough for uncooked sauce?
That's what I do for mine. Just use a nice thick pizza stone (or several stacked on top of each other for more thermal mass) on the bottom of the oven so the gas jets fire more-or-less directly into the stone, and make sure you preheat at least an hour.
Also, the best advice I can give you when it comes to making thin crust pizza in a home oven: use half as much topping (and this includes sauce) as you're inclined to use. There should be spots that are just sauce, there should be spots that are just cheese, and there should be spots that are just crust. This way, the sauce has a chance to cook in the heat of the oven before the crust burns. Something like this:
Making Butter!
in Cooking
Posted
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?