slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
Yea, like I said, it does sound like something probably does happen.
I'd be interested to see what results we would get in comparing VeggieWash to a very weak solution of water and some high-end organic dishwashing liquid.
-
I'd also like to see some more serious studies. This is a situation where common sense says the stuff should work, so I'll need more convincing. In terms of analogies, if these produce washes work on the same principles as soap, then are the studies saying washing with water is just as effective as washing with soap? That seems hard to swallow.
There are a few issues here. First, you're right of course that one would like to see more serious studies. However, failing that it seems like there are some things you can do at home to evaluate their claims. For example, as to the wax removal, there are several common fruits and vegetables that typically come with a relatively thick outer coating of wax. Cucumbers, for example. So, buy a bunch of really waxy cucumbers. Wash them three ways: one using VeggieWash, one using Dawn dishwashing liquid and one using nothing but water. It's relatively easy to tell when a cucumber is waxed or not, so one should have little trouble making comparisons.
Second, this is not a situation where my common sense says there should be a meaningful difference.
Third, your comparison to soap is an interesting one, and brings up a few thoughts. For example, the kind of soap, and how it is formulated makes a big difference. Some soaps contain perfumes, some contain antibacterial agents, some aren't even "soap" (which is a specific product derived from fat) and are instead based on sodium laureth sulfate, etc. These things all make a big difference in how the soap works. Another issue is whether washing with soap is better than washing with just water. Well, assuming we're not talking about antibacterial soap, the answer is "it depends on what you have to clean." Soap and detergents are effective cleaners primarily because they work as surfactants and facilitate emulsion of oil and water. This is important because dirt and bacteria like to stick to oil. So, if you can remove the oil, you're removing most of the dirt and bacteria. If there's no oil on the thing you're trying to clean, washing with soap will not necessarily be better than washing with water alone (in some cases, e.g., using a sponge that is less than brand-new to apply the soap, it's actually worse to use soap). So... if VeggieWash works mostly because of its surfactant and emulsifier properties, then it should only make a big difference where oil is present.
Fourth, assuming that there is enough oil present for VeggieWash's surfactant/emulsifier propertys to make a difference, I would like to understand how using VeggieWash is a step up from using an extremely low concentration solution of water and dishwashing liquid, and rinsing thoroughly (something that is also recommended for VeggieWash).
Also, it's plainly visible to the eye that these products get stuff cleaner than water does. So I'd have to see some information as to where that gray stuff comes from if it's not from the surface of the produce -- someone would have to explain that it's a chemical reaction of some sort and not actual grime.I'm curious: Is it plainly visible to the eye that the vegetables are cleaner by looking at the vegetables (i.e., does a cucumber given the VeggieWash treatment look more clean than one washed in water)? Or are you basing this on the gray stuff? Because that sounds an awful lot like a chemical reaction to me. There are a lot of things that make people think something is happening, when in fact nothing is happening. For example, ear candling. This is where people stick a special, long hollow-wound candle in their ears and light the other end. Supposedly the warmth and mild vacuum created by doing this extracts all manner of nastiness from your ear. And when you're finished, you can unravel the last bit of the candle and see how it has turned brown and yucky inside. This is irrefutable evidence of all the toxins that were removed from your body! Except that when you test them, it's clear that no vacuum is created (which is a good thing, as it would burst your eardrum) and the insude looks yucky at the end even when it's not stuck in anyone's ear. The point of this is to say that, just because there is an apparent effect doesn't mean something is happening.
My thinking is that something probably does happen, and that the produce does end up a little bit cleaner. However, I'm not sold on things like VeggieWash being better than a spray bottle filled with water, a little vinegar and a few drops of dishwashing liquid. Now that I think of it, VeggieWash's ingredients -- water, natural cleaners made from corn and coconut, lemon oil, sodium citrate (a natural derivative of citrus fruit), glycerin (from coconut oil), and grapefruit seed extract -- don't sound all that different from the ingredients for this organic dishwashing soap -- coconut surfactant, conditioner and degreaser from coconut, orange peel extract, grapefruit seed and pulp extract, aloe, vitamin E, linear sulfonate, filtered spring water -- except that VeggieWash contains a lot more water.
-
Some ideas:
- brandade (puree of salt cod, potato, cream, olive oil and garlic)
- lightly crushed chick peas tossed with olive oil, lemon juice, raw garlic, mint, sea salt, red pepper flakes
- cannellini, finely diced red onion, tuna canned in olive oil, parsley
-
Strangely, I find the idea of egg salad revolting. Too squishy.
On the other hand, I love a sandwich made with sliced hard boiled eggs in the middle and lots of mayonnaise spread on each slice of bread.
-
Yea, I know there are places that can do it. They're professionals, and I'm sure they have the equipment to do a good job. It's just that a) it' impractical and hardly possible to effectively sharpen serrations at home, and b) it's hardly worth it, since serrated knifes are so inexpensive (a professional resharpening costs not much less than a replacement knife).
-
That's got to be one heck of a sweet cocktail! For example, 1/2 ounce of St. Germain and 2 ounces of gin is too sweet for my taste. Also, is there no strong spirit in that cocktail? It sounds like "sweet-sour fruit juice, sweet liqueur, splash of a different sweet liqueur."
-
In NYC, you might be able to source it at DiPaolo's on Grand St.
In NYC, the source for guanciale is Salumeria Biellese. They make their own, and it's as good as any I've had anywhere.
-
You can't really sharpen a serrated knife unless you go in to each scallop with a sharpening rod (perhaps the only good use for diamond sharpening rods!). The serrated edge sharpening you can do with the EdgePro more or less consists of sharpening the points a little bit. Effective in the short term, but ultimately repeated treatment will sharpen the serrations right off.
This is why it doesn't make sense to spend a lot of money on a serrated bread knife. First of all, there is no reason a serrated knife needs to be made of fancy forged steel. Second of all it's impossible-to-dificult to resharpen effectively. Third, you can get good-to-great serrated bread knives for under 20 bucks bucks (I like the curved ones and the offset ones) -- when your knife gets dull, toss it out and get another one.
-
If you're worried about getting scratches on the blade (they come from particles of metal that get on to the knife "deck" and scratch the blade as you move it across, not from the stones themselves) you can just put a strip of clear packing tape on each side of the blade when you sharpen.
If the tolerance between the stone and the knife is that small to cause scratches from the metal particles by themselves wouldn't a piece of tape get in the way of trying to sharpen at that acute angle? I used to use blue painters tape on my knives when learning on stones and I kept scuffing the tape rather than the knife (which is a good thing) but I could never get the angle I wanted as a result. I always had to raise the angle ever so slightly to keep from hitting the tape. Definately a good training tool. Does this happen with the Apex?
If you look at the large picture on this page you get a good idea of the EdgePro setup (there's a pretty good video there as well). The flat part of the blade sits on the black "deck" with a good bit of the knife sticking out over the edge. What ends up happening is that water, including metal particles from sharpening, drips off of the stone and on to the deck. This can scratch the part of the blade that rests on the deck. You can protect your knife from this scratching by putting tape on the blade. I trim the tape so that it ends right around a centimeter before the edge. I'm not sure how acute the angle would have to be before the tape began to interfere, but I've never come close to having that problem.
-
If you're worried about getting scratches on the blade (they come from particles of metal that get on to the knife "deck" and scratch the blade as you move it across, not from the stones themselves) you can just put a strip of clear packing tape on each side of the blade when you sharpen.
-
I've been experimenting a bit with St. Germain to see if I could come up with something. I've also been on a bit of a julep kick lately, so...
Elderflower Gin Julep
3 oz : Tanqueray
1/2 oz : St. Germain
8-10 fresh mint leaves
Lightly muddle the mint leaves with the St. Germain in the bottom of a pre-chilled julep cup or similarly-sized glass. Add crushed ice and Tanqueray and prepare using your favorite Julep method. Decorate with plenty of fresh mint on top. I've been wondering about an aromatic garnish. Have dashed on some absinthe, but maybe something else will come to mind.
-
It seems like there are two questions here:
1. Was the guy really socking away $170 super-Tuscan wine over the Summer. This seems unlikely to me. I also think a question like "what are you drinking this Summer?" isn't asking after the wines a sommelier may be tasting as part of his job. But really, this question isn't too terribly important. For the sake or agument, let's assume it's true.
2. Was it good service for the sommelier, upon being asked for his recommendation, to suggest a wine more than double the customers previously-stated target price range? Again, let's assume that he was telling the truth and really is drinking a $170 super-Tuscan evern night after work this Summer. My feeling is that no, it's not good service. It's an upsell. If the sommelier is asked for a personal recommendation, he ought to be able to make one that is roughly in line with what the customer had been discussing. That should be his first recommendation. If the customer had been looking at $50 bottles of wine and the sommelier had recommended an $70 bottle, that's not so bad. Or he could have recommended a $60 bottle or two and then said something like: "...or, if you're in the mood to splurge on your birthday, we've got this amazing super-Tuscan that I've been drinking this Summer. It's $170, but I think you'll really love it." But to triple the price and jump straight to $170? That's not good service in my book. Assuming it's true that the sommelier had been drinking $170 wine all Summer, good service would have been to tell a white lie and recommend a favorite from among what the OP describes as over 100 bottles in his original price range.
-
If burning at a higher temperature produces more nitrogen dioxide, which in turn leads to formation of the "smoke ring" -- this would argue in favor of offset-smokers where the actual burning takes place in a side-chamber and the hot smoke is then piped through a larger smoking chamber. Since the meat is not exposed to the radiant heat of the fire (and also because the smoke presumably loses some heat on its way through the smoking chamber) the fire can burn at a higher, nitrogen dioxide-producing temperature without cooking the meat too quickly.
-
Yea, I think it depends on what you're going for. In Italy, for example, the dressing most often seems to be the oil -- that's what people want to taste. The vinegar or lemon juice is just there to provide a bit of contrast. But, of course, this works best with very good extra virgin olive oil and nice bright vegetables. The whole salad might be given a thin coating of oil and only a little squeeze of lemon juice. I do this sometimes, when I have excellent quality extra virgin olive oil. But more often than not I go for a higher amount of acid like Fat Guy does.
I can't stand the too-sweet-for-me dressings that have been taking over America with the popularity of sweet balsamic vinegar, but that's another story.
-
I think it's disingenuous at best for a sommelier to imply that his "everyday drinking wine" of the summer (which I believe is the most reasonable interpretation of the question "what are you drinking this Summer?") is a $170 super-Tuscan. In fact, I have a hard time believing it could possibly be true unless he's getting the wine at cost or for free.
Regardless, I don't see how suggesting a wine that is more than double the customer's previously-stated target price range could be seen as anything other than a huge upsell. My experience with good sommeliers is that if I talk with them about what I'm eating and kind of wine I like, indicate a price range and even point out specific bottles on the list that might interest me, and then ask for a recommendation (e.g., "what do you like?") I more often than not get a recommendation for a special favorite wine on the list that turns out to be slightly under my suggested price point. I don't think I've ever had a sommelier suggest a bottle twice the price of what we've been discussing. The only times something like that happens is at restaurants with no real "wine program" where the waiter clearly thinks the best way to increase the tip is to recommend the most expensive wine in each category. These are unlikely to be places that have $170 wines on the list.
-
If that isn't the dumbest bottle you've ever seen, I defy you to show us a dumber one!
-
The 310 calorie Mission 12-inch "chili-herb wrap" weighs in at 104 grams, or 3.67 ounces. That's about 84.5 calories per ounce.
The 170 calorie Thomas's Sahara wraps weigh only 59 grams, or 2.08 ounces. That's about 81.7 valories per ounce. No idea on size, but they've got to be considerably smaller.
-
I think they appeal to the "healthy eating" phenomenon; but when the wraps are commonly the circumfrence of some crop circles, are they really that much lower in carbs than a couple modest slices of bread?
It would be typical for a large wrap -- the bread product itself -- to have 170 calories. A slice of standard commercial bread is usually around 80 calories.
Mission is a common brand in NYC supermarkets. Their 12-inch wrap tortilla has between 310 and 330 calories, depending on what kind it is. Their "reduced carb" 12-inch tortilla is 270 calories. Their 12-inch "stretched style" flour tortilla is 240 calories. I was shocked at how caloric they were compared to bread.
Now, there's some question in my mind as to whether it's reasable to compare the caloric value of a 12-inch wrap with two slices of bread. A wrap isn't usually substituting for something that small. You could never fit the amount of filling between two slices of rye bread that you can fit into a 12-inch wrap. Really, we should be comparing them to "hero" rolls.
-
Yes, I would say that all national cuisines need to be contiguous or relatively contiguous (e.g., mainland Italy and Sicily -- which, I should point out, has many absolutely unique features that distinguish it from mainland Italian cooking and culture).
Unless it's the case of an outlying and relatively isolated "colony" that is heavily culturally invested in maintaining strong cultural ties to the "mother country" -- as was the case with the (failed) Norse colony in Greenland that continued to raise and eat cattle instead of fish. The food in your hypothetical North African Italian colony might atart out as "Italian cooking" -- but after a hundred years or so, it wouldn't be "Italian cooking" any more than Brazilian food is "Portugese cooking."
This is becoming less and less so as the "world becomes smaller" due the effects of mass media, rapid transportation, the internet, etc. Lines between different cuisines are increasingly blurred and we are headed towards a great sameness. Even upstart regional American cooking is becoming less distinctive as mediocre white clam chowder and pulled pork are available coast to coast. But most, if not all national/regional cuisines grew up around contiguous peoples. I'm not sure what non-restaurant, pre-20C "cuisine" exists that did not arise from a contiguous people (and, per other discussions, although one can make the argument that they represent their own distinct category of "cuisine," I don't think things like "haute restaurant" or "general menu" are "cuisines" the same way that French cuisine and Indian cuisine are).
You still haven't answered my question about Cajun cooking (there is no such thing as "Cajun-Creole food" -- Cajun and Creole cooking historically come from distinctly different populations with different influences and histories, and they are quite different).
Anyway... this is all getting pretty far afield from the thread subject, and probably not interestingly so.
-
"French haute cuisine" is a separate category unto itself. I don't believe it is appropriate to extend this concept to other kinds of cooking. Indeed, I would argue that much of what we think of as "French haute cuisine" is hardly French at all. And yes, I would argue that Daniel does not make "authentic French food" under this idea of "authentic." What's so French about this menu? Yuzu marinated tai snapper with shiso cream, shaved crudités and lemon balm oil is French? Daniel, and other haute cuisine restaurants, make "haute cuisine food," with "haute cuisine" being a restaurant concept that was born in France (where restaurant culture itself was born) but has for a long time not necessarily been tied to France, French culture or French people. It can be tied to France, French culture and French people, but it's not required.
I also think you're stretching the points I made to absurdity. There's a difference between someone in Thailand using ketchup in making a sauce for what is otherwise a straightforward Thai noodle dish (which is what I assume is happening) and someone in an American Thai restaurant making "Southern fried chicken pad thai." You gave an example of something that was clearly not within the broad culinary tradition of Thai cooking, so I clarified. Your example would be like saying: England has a lot of restaurants making cheap carry-out curry, therefore curry should be considered "authentic English food." Maybe some day 100 years from now, this will be true. But the fact is that, right now, English people do not consider curry to be within the broad tradition of English cooking. And that's the bar.
I also didn't say that everyone in Thailand had to consider the dish "authentic Thai cuisine" to use ketchup. First of all, this is not consistent with the usage of "authentic" as I have proposed if for this situation (it is more in line with my usage of "traditional"). But more to the point is the question as to how the ketchup is used, and whether it is incorporated into the food in a way that is more-or-less consistent with the Thai culinary tradition. Of course there will be people in Thailand who argue for or against using it. But at some point there is a preponderance of usage of the ingredient by Thai people in a way that is more-or-less consistent with the Thai culinary tradition, and a Thai restaurant located outside of Thailand attempting to give customers an "authentic Thai cooking experience" (not the same as a "traditional Thai experience" or perhaps an "authentic traditional Thai experience) would want to include this ingredient usage. I mean, what ties Thai cooking together if not Thai culture and, well, Thailand?!
You're right that you're in the minority in considering Italian-American cooking to be a regional Italian cuisine with America being a region. Looking at it that way, the whole idea of what allows certain culinary traditions to hang together completely breaks down. There are any number of things in Italian-American cooking that are simply not recognizable to Italians as "Italian food." I'd say this idea fails on that basis alone. I also don't understand how you can make the argument that Italian-American cooking is a "regional Italian cuisine" and not use the same logic to argue that Cajun cooking is a "regional French cuisine"? Or would you argue that Cajun cooking is a "regional French cuisine"?
-
Oh, I'm sorry. You're trying to be clever and amusing. I thought maybe this was a real discussion. Carry on.
-
"Authentic" has to do with the extent to which the food duplicates what is currently being done in the cuisine's culture of origin.
I'm not so sure a pure geographic definition of authenticity makes sense, especially not when you're talking about cultures where not just a few people but millions are living in the diaspora.
When you have a diasporic people, you get diasporic cooking. I don't think anyone would (or could) argue that Italian-American cooking is "authentic Italian cooking." Rather, it is "authentic Italian-American cooking" or, if you like "authentic diasporic Italian (in America) cooking."
But assuming a geographic definition, to put it in context one has to note that today's Asia is incredibly modern and international.There are people with names like Max Levy making things like sashimi with truffles in on Cape Cod, but that still doesn't make it "New England food." I think you still have to look at the culture of origin and see what the people there think. I think you would find that the sashimi with truffles prepared by Max Levy in Shanghai would not be considered "Shanghaiese food" by Shanghaiese people. However, over time, these things may change the tradition of what is considered "Shanghaiese cooking." That's a different story.
Clearly there comes a point where the disasporic food evolves in a direction so that it is not reasonably within that geography-based tradition. Take, for example, Cajun cooking. What is this? Well, if you boil it down to its bones, it's extremely old-fashioned French provincial cooking with too much chili pepper and some local ingredients. It is not "authentic French provincial cooking." And the fact is, of course, that French provincial cooking has moved on from where it was in the 17th century when the Acadians left France for the New World -- and that is the true "authentic French Provincial cooking." Now, it's possible -- if highly unlikely -- that a chili pepper craze could have swept through regional France at some time and produced "authentic French Provincial cooking" that is very similar to Cajun cooking. But it didn't and so that's that.
-
Dr. Teeth, I don't buy wraps. I make them. I know what goes inside them, and there's no bland filler in mine. What you may get from a caterer (loaded with mayonnaise, etc.) or in an airport sandwich shop is another story -- in which case I agree that they're often the Devil's spawn.
-
WRT "authentic" and "traditional" it seems to me that there is an easy way to look at this if it is an American restaurant serving non-American food.
"Authentic" has to do with the extent to which the food duplicates what is currently being done in the cuisine's culture of origin. If Thai people in Thailand are using ketchup, then it would be "authentic" to do so in a restaurant here. If Japanese restaurants tend to feature one dish or style of food only, then to feature many dishes or styles of food would be "inauthentic." Whether this is good or bad on either count is a matter of opinion. "Authentic" doesn't necessarily equal "good" nor does "inauthentic" necessarily equal "bad." There can also be different ways to consider the "authenticity" of what a restaurant is doing and serving. General Tso's Chicken is "inauthentic" if one is using Chinese-in-China cooking as the measuring stick. However, as Steven points out, it can be considered "authentic" on the basis of being Chinese-in-America cooking. Similar things could be said about much of Italian-American cooking. Part of looking at it this way is understanding that "authentic" changes with the times. The Thai cooking that is happening in Thailand is always going to be "authentic" on this basis. When Thai people began using ketchup with any frequency, it immediately became "authentic."
"Traditional," on the other hand, moves a lot more slowly than "authentic" -- although it, too, evolves. "Traditional" in this context could be taken to mean "what has historically been done." So, looking at the introduction of .e.g., chili peppers into Asian cooking, tomatoes into Italian cooking, potatoes into Eastern European cooking... when they first began to be used, they were not "traditional." But, after a couple hundred years of use the tradition had changed and they became "traditional." Looking at it this way, using ketchup in Thai cooking would be "authentic" but not yet "traditional." Maybe 50 or 100 years from now, it will be "traditional."
Braised Lamb Croquette
in Cooking
Posted · Edited by slkinsey (log)
Dean, he probably used methylcellulose. eG threads here and here.