slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
I think you miss the point of these legislations. I agree that bans on things like trans fats are going too far. And I would also agree that an outright ban on smoking would be going too far. But that's not what this is. This legislation isn't preventing you from smoking. It's only telling you that you can't do it in a public building or workplace, where your smoking has a negative impact on the health of other people.
So, this is legislation that offers protection to people against the negative effect that your smoking has on them. This would be like enacting legislation that offers protection to people against the negative effect that your drinking has on them. Hey, wait a minute! We do have legislation that offers people protection against the effect of your drinking on them! It's called drunk-driving laws! See, the law doesn't care about your drinking in restaurants and bars, because when you drink in restaurants and bars your drinking doesn't have a negative impact on the health of the workers in the restaurant or bar -- only, potentially, on you. The law does care about your drinking, on the other hand, as soon as it does have a negative impact on the health of other people: to make one example, the minute you get behind the wheel of a car. Similarly, the law doesn't care about your smoking when it doesn't have a negative impact on workers in their workplace, like in the privacy of your own car or your own home. It does care about your smoking as soon as it does have a negative impact on the health of workers in their workplace, like when you are in a restaurant or bar.
I'm sorry you're losing the ability to have a cigar with your dinner. Really, I am. But I bet most restaurant and bar workers aren't -- or, if they are, they won't be sorry about it once the bans becomd more widespread and the business self-corrects. Similarly, there were an awful lot of people who got all up in arms about losing the "right" to sip an open beer while driving their cars (something that was legal in Texas until September, 2001), and maybe for some people this would have coninued to be okay. But I think most of us would agree that on balance it's a good thing that it's not allowed anymore.
I'm curious: Do you not care about the health of restaurant and bar workers, or do you care mostly about your ability to smoke a cigar? This is to say, if there were a way that you could enjoy your cigar in such a way so that the restaurant workers were not exposed to your secondhand smoke, would you prefer to do it that way? I'm thinking of something like a clear plastic, externally vented "tent" that could be lowered over you and your table for a reasonable markup. Would you want to do this? How about dining in a sealed, externally ventilated smoking room, and served by waitstaff with respirators -- again, for a reasonable markup? Do you think something like this would be reasonable and fair? Would you be willing to pay more?
-
No, that's not correct. The ban does not say that workers cannot smoke inside while they are on the job. The ban says that no one can smoke in the workplace. The reason no one can smoke in the workplace is that smoking in the workplace creates secondhand smoke in the workplace. The effect of the legislation is to say: "Secondhand smoke is a danger in the workplace, therefore there will be no secondhand smoke in the workplace. Since secondhand smoke is created by smoking, there will be no smoking in the workplace." The purpose of the legislation is to protect workers from inhaling secondhand smoke at their place of work. If people want to expose themselves to secondhand smoke outside the workplace on their own time, that's their own business. No one has anything to say about that.
The government has determined that secondhand smoke is a sufficiently dangerous workplace hazard that it should not be allowed in the workplace. Similarly, the government has determined that fires in restaurant kitchens are a sufficiently dangerous workplace hazard that restaurant kitchens must have fire extinguishers. If people would like to expose themselves to firsthand or secondhand smoke outside of the workplace, or if they would like to cook without protection of a fire extinguisher outside of the workplace, that is their own decision to make.
Your "secondhand smoke in the car" example does not follow, becase the car is not the employee's workplace. In the cases where it is the employee's workplace, I think that certain exemptions might apply (e.g., if the employee is the only person to use the car, smoking might be allowed). Your "making the employees clock out on a smoke break" also does not follow. Employees are provided (again, by the exact kinds of workplace regulations you don't like) with a certain amount of paid break time per shift.
-
Ricotta Cheese. Easy. MUCH cheaper than you buy. Definitely tastier.
Hmm. I'm not sure about this. Of course, I live in New York City and have access to amazing quality ricotta -- way better than I've had homemade -- at places like Fairway. I'd also argue against homemade being much cheaper than bought. A half-gallon of milk is going to run around 2 bucks, and at best will result in something like 2 cups of curd cheese (homemade "ricotta" isn't actually real ricotta cheese). So, we're talking about something like another buck fifty for an equivalent amount of much better ricotta. And it's a pretty big pain in the butt to make for what you get.
I might feel differently if all I could get were Polly-O.
-
Daniel, I don't object to smoking in principle (in fact, I feel very strongly that cannabis should be legalized). Also, it's a fact that 99% of the places I'd want to go don't, didn't and wouldn't allow smoking anyway. So it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other, because it doesn't affect me. You just seem to have an attitude about this that says, "they're the owners and therefore they should be able to do whatever they want in their business." All I'm saying is that this is not only unrealistic but incongruous with the known history of workplace and public health legislation. The facts are that the government can and has made legislations and rules of this kind to protect workers in the workplace. I think you will find that there has not been a single successful lawsuit protesting a workplace and public space smoking ban.
So, no... you haven't made the case. Not at all. Let's go back to my earlier example of an analogous situation: The law requires that restaurant kitchens be equipped with a portable fire extinguisher suitable for a Class K fire, with a maximum travel distance of thirty feet. That fire extinguisher must be serviced by a certified fire extinguisher servicing company. This extinguisher is there for the protection of the employees. Let's say we have an outdoor restaurant like Shake Shack where the structure contains only the kitchen, and let's further say that the only people working in this kitchen are owners of the restaurant.
Now, keep in mind that it is legal for individuals to be in their own kitchen without a fire extinguisher. Plenty of people do this in their own homes every day. What you are suggesting is that the owners of that restaurant, because they are the only kitchen employees, should be able to decide that they don't want this government-mandated workplace protection. It's their restaurant, right? And if they're only endangering themselves and no one else by not having a fire extinguisher, they should be able to make that choice, right? This is analogous to the argument you're making. Do you think you can make this case?
If sole proprietors should be able to decide to forego the workplace protection of a smoking ban, then it follows logically that sole proprietors should be able to forego the workplace protection of having a fire extinguisher or certain kinds of ventilation, the requirement that employees not operate machinery under the influence of narcotics and alcohol -- well, pretty much any workplace safety protections they want. You're saying: "they're sole proprietors, and as long as no non-owner employees are affected, they should be able to do whatever they want." Well, guess what: they can't. They're subject to the same laws, regulations and rules as business owners who have employees. If you're not happy about that... hey, I feel you. Take it up with the Supreme Court, not me. I'm not telling you how it should be, I'm explaining how it is. Going back to my example of an analogous situation, the restaurant would still be required by law to have a fire extinguisher.
-
Daniel, I get that you feel that way. But the fact remains that you simply haven't made a case that this legislation is meaningfully different from any other piece of workplace safety and public safety legislation.
-
...not to mention that there is no way homemade dry pasta (which is to say, extruded semolina-and-water pasta) can compete with artisinal dry pasta on either a price or quality basis.
Plenty of condiments like ketchup are probably better than one can reasonably make at home.
-
Since we are talking in the New Jersey forum, I am assuming we are speaking about the New Jersey smoking act.. This bans smoking in public places regardless of who works there.. So you are incorrect to say this ban is to protect the workers.. If a bar or restaurant is operated by a group of owners who smoke, they still would be unable to smoke in THEIR PROPERTY.. If the slaw was so concerned with the workers in the business, the law would take into account a situation where there are no workers besides the owner or owners.
The New Jersey legislation does not appear to have exemptions for businesses in which owners are the sole employees and all are smokers. This seems like it would be a somewhat reasonable exemption, although I can think of plenty of cases that could cause problems. For example, let's say that three smokers are partners in a bar and decide to have a smoking workplace. They are the sole employees and they take turns tending bar. One of the partners quits smoking for health reasons. So, now what happens? He has to give up his partnership in the bar, and his livelihood because he isn't a smoker anymore? Or would it be the case that any partner at any time would have the right under the law to decide to make the business non-smoking at any time? At some point, one gets into a situation where there are a million individual cases and a million would-be exceptions. It is not unusual for laws of this kind to apply to all workplaces, regardless of whether they are operated only by the owners.
But, let's be honest here, the number of establishments where the sole employees are both owners and smokers are minimal. And where they do exist, there is very little the law can do to affect their business. If those three bar owners were instead partners in an accounting business who wanted to have a smoking office, the police wouldn't be breaking their door down to arrest them.
For what it's worth, the New Jersey legislation does give exemptions to "any cigar bar or cigar lounge that ... generated 15% or more of its total annual gross income from the on-site sale of tobacco products and the rental of on-site humidors" and "any tobacco retail establishment, or any area the tobacco retail establishment provides for the purposes of smoking," as well as the casinos (this last one being purely political, of course).
I havent checked the New Jersey Mining Law Books but I dont think there would be a huge fuss if some guy owned his own coal mine and decided to work there by himself with out an oxygen tank..Let's use an example that is easier to understand: If workplace law says that a restaurant has to have a certain kind of fire extinguisher on the premises, I believe that even a small restaurant where the owner is the sole operator would be subject to that law.
The law does contain this exemption"
The provisions of this act shall not be construed to apply to a place or building owned and operated by a social or fraternal organization when used by the members of the organization and their guests or families, in which all of the duties with respect to the operation of the organization, including, but not limited to, the preparation of food and beverages, the service of food and beverages, reception and secretarial work, and the security services of the organization are performed by members of the organization who do not receive compensation of any kind from the organization or any other entity for the performance of the duties.As for smoking being a legal activity, this is a fallacious argument. There are plenty of activities that are legal in certain contexts and not legal in others, sexual acts being the most obvious exampleYou also mention like strip clubs, sex shows, whore houses, peep booths.. All these take place in public businesses provided proper zoning and permits.. Why can't people provide permits for smoking establishments.. It is incredibly unfair to not offer the other side an alternative. You could provide a small percentage of the restaurants and bars in a given area a smoking permit.. Thus allowing these starving waitresses a larger pool of non smoking restaurants to work at.
These are not analogous situations. Public nudity and sexual acts are a fundamental part of the business for strip clubs, sex shows, whore houses, peep booths. This is what they sell: public nudity and sexual acts. Smoking is not a fundamental part of the business for restaurants and bars. What they sell is food and drink. For the small percentage of businesses where tobacco smoke is a fundamental part of the business (i.e., cigar bars and tobacconists) there is a provision in the New Jersey Smoke-Free Air Act that allows smoking in these establishments. A cigar bar would bt the smoking analogue to someplace like Roberto's (the steakhouse at the Penthouse Club in NYC).
-
I have gone through a half a dozen different sealers over the last four years.
I have finally found one that is nearly commercial grade at a reasonable price, nicely sized and that is well designed and great to use.
http://www.vacuumsealerpros.com/
He sells on ebay.
In the interest of capitalism I'll add that the machine shown from this vendor is available from many vendors. It's a generic unit and rebranded by many companies. The vendor linked is a reseller in a large group of reselleers using the same videos etc. Many versions are branded 'Weston'.
Other examples:
rmillman and pounce: What's the advantage of these units over something like a Foodsaver Professional? Do they pull a harder vacuum?
-
So when dictators preach how the ban is "helping" the industry, I think of our $650 tab and our $130 tip that we no longer spend at Les Halles and know that it's a bunch of baloney.
That's only half of the question you should be asking. The second part you should be asking is: How many people are going to Les Halles who previously would not have gone due to the smoke, and how much money are they spending there?
If NYC is any indication (and, of course, there are always going to be individual counterexamples) the answer seems to be that, on balance, the economics are equal or, if anything, perhaps a little better after the ban.
But, even if we accept the premise that the economics are worse for business owners (which would still not mean that the overall economics are worse, because one would have to figure in things like the societal savings associated with a healthier bar and restaurant workforce) there is still a further question we should ask: What economic price is worth paying in order to protect these workers? When the government mandated guards on all moving parts of factory machinery, that cost the factory owners money they weren't spending before. Overall, it was not to their economic advantage, and they wouldn't have done it if the government hadn't made them do it. But I hope we all agree that taking this step to protect workers in the workplace was worth a certain economic hit to the factory owners.
-
I am all for personal freedoms being taken away by the government. Obviously, the owners of a business should not have the right to determine what can take place in there own establishment regardless if its a legal activity.
I really don't get why so many people have a hard tims understanding this. Bar and restaurant smoking bans (just like airplane and office building smoking bans) are not there to protect customers. They are there to protect the workers. If you believe that the government shouldn't be able to regulate smoking in the workplace, then you also believe that OSHA shouldn't exist and that the government shouldn't be able to regulate anything having to do with workplace safety. What the heck, those miners can always get a job working at another mine if they don't like working without respirators, right? The Occupational Safety and Health Act has been around for over 35 years, and it is firmly established that not only can the government enact workplace regulations to protect workers, but indeed this is a responsibility of a good government. History has clearly shown us that business owners aren't going to inconvenience themselves or spend money to protect their workers unless the government makes them do it.
As for smoking being a legal activity, this is a fallacious argument. There are plenty of activities that are legal in certain contexts and not legal in others, sexual acts being the most obvious example. I should point out that there is no law preventing citizens from the legal act of dosing themselves with nicotine in the workplace. Nicotine patches, nicotine gum, chewing tobacco and snuff are all legal. What is banned is a way of ingesting nicotine that negatively impacts the health of workers in their place of work (and the evidence is too overwhelming at this point to suggest that secondhand smoke is not a health hazard). Or, more to the point, the real effect of these legislations is not to ban smoking in the workplace, but rather to ban secondhand smoke from the workplace. If smokers were willing to envelop themselves in plastic spacesuits while they were smoking, I imagine this might be allowed. But, on the other hand, I think most any smoker would rather just step outside for a few minutes.
Well, to repeat once again- this is deja vu all over again for us from NY state (although I spend a good amount of time in NJ). After an initial sorting out, since our smoking ban has been in place, if you ask many restaurant owners (including independents) - the general feeling is that the ban has been, in fact, very good for business (besides the health protection of workers, etc.).Some places have suffered, it's true. Of course, some places are going to suffer from any change in the marketplace. This would be especially true for businesses that don't have much more to offer beyond a place to smoke while someone sells you a bottle of overpriced beer and a watered shot, and a place like this that was in borderline financial shape would have been especially hard hit by the temporary dip in business during the "sorting out" period. Some of these places closed. It's too bad, but the bar and restaurant business is a ruthless one. Places close all the time for all kinds of reasons. In terms of the overall business, my friends in both the bar and restaurant world all tell me that the effect of the NYC and NYS bans has been good for business. I believe that there is economic data to back this up, perhaps in the thread on the New York ban.
It can be temporarily difficult for businesses under a ban that are conveniently close to businesses that are not under a ban, as in Kim WB's example. I say "temporarily" because it seems clear to me that the country at large is moving in the direction of smoking bans for bars and restaurants, and soon these disparities won't exist. Similarly, bars and liquor stores near the border of a state with a lower drinking age lost business when legal age in their state was raised to 21. Some of these businesses, if they depended heavily on 19 and 20 year olds for business, suffered greatly. Some of them were unable to adjust, and they closed. But, eventually, the other state went up to 21 and the disparity ceased to exist.
-
Interesting. Two things come to mind: First, is there any way there's enough vanillin in Bourbon (or dark rum, which also seems to have that vanilla oak flavor) for it to be relevant to vanilla extract? In other words, if you put actual vanilla beans in Bourbon, won't it overwhelm the small amount of vanillin in Bourbon by a factor of like a villion to one
Well, that's hard to say. Certainly it's true that it will become way more vanilla flavored. The reason bourbon seems like a good candiate for a vanilla-infusion, I think, is simply because it's already clear that vanilla flavors go well with the other flavors bourbon brings to the table.
Second, I wonder how important the non-vanillin flavors of vanilla are. Since you can make an exact chemical copy of vanillin in a lab, there's no reason to bother with all this vanilla bean stuff unless there are other important flavors that are harder to produce artificially. I'll have to try to get some good artificial vanillin for tasting later on.I don't remember where I read this, but I seem to recall an experiment where tasters evaluated artificial versus several forms of natural vanilla in baked goods, and either the artificial vanilla came out ahead or there was no meaningful difference. I can see how real vanilla would make a difference in a sauce or someting like creme brulee or panna cotta. It's less clear that it would make a big difference in the context of a chocolate chip cookie.
When they're not obscurred or cooked off, the non-vanillan chemicals in natural vanilla make a huge difference in terms of complexity. Something like 130 flavor compounds have been isolated in natural vanilla.
-
I also wonder if people just think Bourbon will go well with vanilla because there are vanilla beans out there called "Bourbon." I don't think there's any real connection between Bourbon the spirit and Bourbon the vanilla.
Bourbon whiskey is aged in charred new oak barrels, where it picks up plenty of vanillin (aka 4-Hydroxy-3-methoxybenzaldehyde, the primary flavor of vanilla) from the wood. Among all the wood-aged spirits, bourbon seems to have the most vanilla flavor. Many other wood-aged spirits (scotch, cognac, etc.) are aged in used wood barrels -- often used bourbon barrels, which are in good supply since they can only be used once for making bourbon -- precisely to limit the infusion of vanilla flavors. Rye is also aged in new charred oak barrels, but for some reason does not seem to have as much vanilla flavor.
-
I've found bonded applejack to be a good substitute in most any drink that works with bourbon or rye.
Indeed, at a recent multi-course offal tasting dinner, johnder brought along a flask of Laird's bonded to sip just in case our courage flagged at the prospect of eating pan fried sheep testicles.LOL!
And did your courage flag, Sam?
To quite Wilfred Owen: "Our eyes wept, but our courage didn’t writhe."
-
Here's what I'd do for white beans and shrimp:
Cook the beans to just tender and cool in their liquid. Put a lot (like a cup) of good quality extra virgin olive oil into a frypan or saute pan. Bring up to temperature, throw in the beans and cook them in the oil. Toss in some finely sliced garlic. After everything is warm, add the shrimp, a big fistfull of chopped parsley, maybe a little chopped fresh rosemary and a good pinch of red pepper flakes. Toss on the heat for maybe a minute until the shrimp is barely cooked through. Turn out into a serving bowl, sprinkle with coarse sea salt to taste and drizzle with a little raw extra virgin olive oil. Basta.
-
A few things on David's observations...
First, if you're expecting applejack to be calvados-like, you're missing the point. Calvados is suave and smooth with a brandy-like character. I'd call it "apple cognac." Applejack, on the other hand, is rough and sharp with a whiskey-like character. I'd call it "apple whiskey." It's supposed to be like that. If what you want is a smooth, suave brandy-like product, you're probably better off with calvados than applejack. Try a good, reasonably priced brand like Busnel, and I bet you'd like that. I'd guess that part of the reason you prefer the 7.5 year Laird's is because, at the lower proof and with more age, it has more of a brandy-like calvados character and less of a whiskey-like applejack character.
Second, your Jack Rose recipe seems odd to me. Do I have this right? You're doing 24 parts applejack, 4 parts lemon juice and 3 parts grenadine? What does that come out to, something like 3 ounces of applejack, a half ounce of lemon juice and a teaspoon of grenadine? If you don't like drinks that are rough around the edges, I can understand why you wouldn't like bonded applejack in that formula. It's very far from the traditional formula, and I'm not sure I'd like it either. Again, if you don't appreciate a spirit that's a little rough around the edges, your formula is only going to make it worse. A spirit would have to be quite smooth to succeed with your ratios. More traditional and balanced would be something like 2.5 ounces of applejack, 1 ounce of lemon or lime juice and somewhere between 1/2 and 3/4 ounce of grenadine, depending on the sweetness of the grenadine. This is all to say that while your subjective experiences are your own, it's hard to accept your evaluations as to the quality of the respective spirits with such an unorthodox recipe. You might also try 2 ounces of applejack, a teaspoon to a half-ounce of 2:1 demerara syrup and a few dashes of Peychaud's bitters stirred with cracked ice and strained. This might give you a better basis for comparison.
Third, I suppose this all comes down to individual preferences, but I don't have any trouble sipping Laird's bonded. No, it's not something I'd sip out of a snifter, nor do I think it compares to something like cognac or calvados on that basis. Comparing it to that kind of spirit is missing the point. It's plenty sippable out of a flask, and that's how I'm likely to be taking it. Actually, on reflection, I'd say it was every bit as sippable as, say, Wild Turkey 101, which is a quality product in anyone's book. Indeed, at a recent multi-course offal tasting dinner, johnder brought along a flask of Laird's bonded to sip just in case our courage flagged at the prospect of eating pan fried sheep testicles.
Finally, maybe you just prefer smoother, more aged spirits.
-
this is interesting. have you ever compared diamond crystal and morton's kosher salts? there is a big difference in the size of the flake, but perhaps that difference is more of degree. i don't recall morton's being quite as fine as table salt, but nearly so (i haven't bought it in several years, so i'm going by memory).
As chance would have it, I happen to have both Diamond and Morton kosher salt at home. Morton is a little smaller in size than Diamond. Morton also includes an anticaking agent, because they still want to make sure that "when it rains, it pours" (although I am not sure this would be an issue with coarse salt). But both are substantially larger in size than table salt. I don't think there are any laws as to specific size -- e.g., must be not less than ___ in diameter -- just that it has to be "coarse" salt.
I'm not sure if that's the Alberger process mentioned above.Wikipedia says: "It involves mechanical evaporation, and uses an open evaporating pan and steam energy. It results in a unique, three-dimensional flake salt of extremely light bulk density."
-
this is something i deal with a lot. it's also important to note that "kosher" and "coarse" are not synonymous, though i think most people assume something like diamond crystal. there are fine kosher salts, too. so it's more like "table salt" and "coarse salt".
I think this is not entirely correct. It is not called "kosher salt" to mean that the salt is kosher. Rather, it is the salt that is used in the process of koshering. It should be called "koshering salt" rather than kosher salt. Kashrus specifies coarse salt for koshering. Here is a description from the Orthodox Union:
The Torah forbids the consumption of the blood of an animal. The two Torah accepted methods of extracting blood from meat, a process referred to as “koshering”, are either salting or broiling.Meat should not be placed in warm water before it has been “koshered”. Once meat is cooked prior to koshering, it cannot be made kosher.
1. Salting:
The meat must first be soaked for a half hour in cool (not ice) water in a utensil designated only for that purpose. After allowing for excess water to drip off the meat, the meat is thoroughly salted so that the entire surface is covered with a thin layer of salt. Only coarse salt should be used. Both sides of meat and poultry must be salted. All inside loose sections of poultry must be removed before the koshering process begins. Each part must be soaked and salted individually.
The emphasis is mine. This is all to say that if one were to take kosher salt and grind it to a fine powder, it would no longer be kosher salt (it would still be pareve, however).
-
Scott Campbell at @SQC used to serve warm potato chips dusted with spices and sometimes with a bit of cheese melted onto them. I loved them.
-
How was this re-distillation accomplished? Tony had a still with him?
-
If we're talking about a straight, simple tomato sauce, I swear by the Hazan recipe I learned from Joe Bavuso: One large can of San Marzano tomatoes either lightly crushed by hand or, as I prefer, through the food mill with the coarse disk; one medium peeled onion, cut in half; one big lump of butter; salt.
Put all ingredients into a cold saucepan. Turn on low heat. Slowly bring up to temperature until the butter is emulsified, the sauce is gently bubbling, and the onion has softened and given up its flavor. Discard the onion and use the sauce. Add fresh herbs at the end, if you like, but I usually don't. This is my go-to tomato sauce for fresh pasta.
Looks like this:
I did an experiment once making this same sauce in side-by-side batches, one with butter and one with good quality extra virgin olive oil. The butter version was so far superior that there was no comparison.
For a more involved sauce, I'll sometimes do s sauce that turns out to be quite similar to Mario Batali's "basic tomato sauce."
Sweat a medium diced onion, one medium grated carrot and a few thinly sliced cloves of garlic in extra virgin olive oil until soft. Add one large can of San Marzano tomatoes crushed or milled. Simmer maybe 30 minutes. Add fresh thyme and maybe a pinch of red pepper at the end. The carrot is for sweetness, and I'd rather use that than sugar, because it brings other flavors along with the sweetness that I like. My personal experience is that butter brings out the sweetness of tomatoes far more than olive oil, which is why this recipe incorporates carrot and the recipe above does not.
Sometimes, depending on the flavor I'm going for, I'll add celery, keep all the vegetables in large chunks and run the whole works through a food mill when it's finished cooking. Something like this:
-
what are all your thoughts on grappa & metaxa, and using one or the other in brandy-based cocktails, like in a Sidecar?
I love grappa. But most any grappa worth drinking will be lost in a cocktail. They also tend to be quite expensive. I could see using a reasonably priced white grappa like Nardini, but even that's fairly expensive for a use where you're not getting much mileage out of the spirit.
-
. . . either Ronnybrook or Organic Cow. . .
Compared to any of the other brands available in the NYC area Ronnybrook is such a quantum leap in quality over the other stuff, it's almost another product entirely. I only wish it were easier to find.
-
You know what? The extra couple of bucks for a tube of tomato paste is more than worth it to me if I can avoid measuring out tablespoon-sized scoops of tomato paste, freezing them and then bagging them.
... not that I have that kind of space in my freezer anyway.
-
Does anyone know how tomato paste is made? Is it cooked down, or is it a product of a vacuum evaporation process like concentrated orange juice?
Tomato paste is something that's been around for quite a while as a homemade product, albeit in somewhat different form than the industrial product with which we are familiar today. These days tomato paste is made by evaporating tomato pulp puree under vacuum, usually under a four- or five-stage evaporation process. As far as I know there is no meaningful "cooking" of the tomato product other than what is required for sterilization, and this likely means a quick ramp up to sterilization temperature, minimum time at temperature, and a quick ramp back down to room temperature. The essential "uncooked-ness" of industrial tomato paste is readily apparent in its flavor.
I've never done a side-by-side test -- indeed I've never really tasted tomato paste straight, except while licking my fingers -- so I don't know if the tubes taste better. But I've never found them to be economical. One 4.5-ounce tube of Amore paste costs as much as something like six 6-ounce cans of whatever tomato paste is on sale two-for-a-dollar (about $3, either way). So even if every time you open up a can you only use a quarter of it and throw the rest in the trash (an unlikely scenario), you still come out ahead. I've now reached the limits of my mathematical skills, but even if you take Amore's "double concentrated" claim at face value and assume that means an ounce of Amore has twice as much tomato power as an ounce of Contadina, it still doesn't seem worth it. Heck, I was just out this morning and even the organic tomato paste cans only cost 89 cents, and there was a deal on little trays of 12 cans of regular tomato paste that worked out to a hair under 42 cents a can. Meanwhile I think the Amore tubes were $3.29.The "double concentrated" thing is a translation of the Italian way of classifying reduced tomato products. Going in order with dry weight ("residuo secco") in parentheses, there is semi-concentrato di pomodoro (12%); concentrato di pomdodo (18%); doppio concentrato di pomodoro (28%); triplo concentrato di pomdoro (36%); and sestuplo concentrato di pomodoro (55%). Semi-concentrato and concentrato would be considered tomato puree in the US. The United States Standards for Grades of Canned Tomato Paste §52.5041(a) says: "Tomato Paste is the clean sound, wholesome product as defined in the Standard of Identity for Tomato Paste (21 CFR 155.191) issued pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and contains not less than 24.0 percent of natural tomato soluble solids." As far as I know, the tomato paste available for consumer purchase in American supermarkets is generally in the area of this minimum concentration requirement, which would make it right around the same thing as doppio concentrato (aka "double concentrated"). As you can see from the Italian classifications, however, there are tomato pastes that are much more concentrated than usual American supermarket tomato paste. I have some artisinal tomato paste from Sicily that is so concentrated it will not freeze solid.
I like to have both canned and tubed tomato paste on hand -- but I'm not really using them for the same things. I'm not likely to use a half-tube of Amore or Mutti (which I've seen sold in lots of six for as little as ten bucks) all in one go. Sometimes I really only want to use a teaspoon of tomato paste, and for this the tube comes in handy. I'm willing to pay the price increase for the convenience and reduction in waste. If I want to use as much as a third of a can, I'm likely to break out the can opener. I've experimented with freezing the rest of the can, but have found this to be an unsatisfactory solution because it's a huge pain in the butt when all you want is just another tablespoon of tomato paste. If I could get ahold of sextuple concentrated tomato paste in cans, which would most likely not freeze solid, I'd stick with that and just scoop spoonfulls out of a container in the freezer whenever I wanted some.
In my experience, quality of tomato paste can be very noticable and can make a huge difference, but it's not something one is likely to experience in every context and every recipe. If you're painting it on beef bones prior to roasting for a brown stock, or if you're using it in an Italian-American red sauce with tons of garlic and dried oregano, you're unlikely to taste a difference. If, on the other hand, you're making a sauce with nothing more than tomato paste, quality pork sausage and a little fresh parsley, the added depth of flavor the good stuff brings to the game can be noticable in my opinion.
Cocktail Historiography
in Spirits & Cocktails
Posted
One hopes that there will be some effort made to scan all these microfilms with OCR at some point. Maybe someone will invent a fast and economic method of doing so.