slkinsey

I make veal stock whenever I can get plenty of veal bones. And I always make my stocks for sauce making... which is to say that I always reduce the stock to a glace and freeze it in cubes. So I can use the cubes for a sauce as-is, or I can add water to get a broth. It's really handy to have a bunch of glace cubes in the freezer, because you can always melt a few for a small sauce, to flavor rice/make risotto, etc.

I'd say yes. Just mix the syrup to order with vodka to get the right proof. See? I knew I'd find a use for vodka if I kept thinking about it long enough!

All the bones? Even the leg and thigh and back? Must be a large mouthed grinder... It's pretty decent-sized, yea. Chicken bones (I am usually making a white stock, so nothing is roasted) aren't all that big. I do tend to split the breast bones and backs in half.

Actually, even though it is not intuitive, I'd bet that a strong Manhattan has more calories than eggnog or a fruit juicey vodka cocktail. As my body keeps on telling me, alcohol is very caloric.

How did it turn out? Is this an improvement? I was pretty happy with it. The main thing is that by rapidly increasing surface area you get much more efficient extraction of flavors and other things. I could probably go for a shorter period of time at a higher temperature, but it's convenient to leave it steeping overnight. Needless to say, this is one way to get maximum gelatin. One of the great advantages of this method is that all the fat is liberated and floats to the surface right at the beginning before it even melts along with a prodigious amount of scum, all of which is easily skimmed off.

I've experimented with making chicken stock by running all the meat, bones and vegetables through a commercial grinder and then cooking it all substantially below the simmer (at around 80C) overnight. I don't like to use too many vegetables, and I've found that parsley in particulary can impart too much vegetal flavor if you aren't careful.

I believe that pastis was "invented" by Pernod and Ricard as a replacement for absinthe after the ban. Not sure I'd call pastis a liqueur, per se. I don't think it's sweet enough. Edited: I see I cross-posted with Marco. What he said. The absinthe ban went into effect in something like 1915. Why do we suppose it took Pernod an additional 11 years to start making pastis? I'd think they'd have gone over to pastis right away.

We had an okay discussion going on about lobsters & pain in the eG Forums a while back: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=61469 An informed understanding of what pain is (a psychological phenomenon) and lobster neurophysiology strongly suggests that boiling live lobsters isn't such a big deal.

What are you doing with the bread? Have you considered using a Pullman pan?

I think the whole "lighter roast for espresso/darker roast for cappuccino" idea is largely an American one. In Italy, if you're North of Rome you're going to get something lighter than what Americans think of as "espresso roast." And they sure aren't going to bother offering two different roast profiles, one for straight and one for milk. They're going to use their regular shot. Of course, the whole cappuccino thing is mostly an afterthought in Italy. Many people never take milk drinks at all. One thing I can certainly say is that people who have cappuccino at my house appreciate the mellower roast profile I use, and seem to prefer it to what I consider the over-roasted sharp profile most Americans associate with "espresso." I would also be willing to bet that any place that makes a truly outstanding cappuccino has these things in common: 1. lighter roast; 2. coffee component smooth and drinkable as espresso; 3. larger-than-usual amount of coffee in the mix; 4. wet, pourable, integrated foam/milk; 5. reasonable sized portion. These five points are almost diametrically opposed to the typical American cappuccino aesthetic.

I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone would want to pay 150 bucks for a cast aluminum pot from All-Clad when you can get one at a hardware store for 10 bucks.

this isn't really the traditional cappuccino ratio - just something of a well propagated myth. Most Italian cappuccinos are around 5 or 6 fluid ounces with only 1 fl oz of espresso. I agree with the myth part, but I am not at all sure I agree with this second part. As it so happens, I've got a number of friends who own or manage restaurants in Italy. And as it also so happens, I've got a Rancilio at home. Various friends in Italy have, over the years, given me matched pairs of their branded espresso and cappuccino cups (most restaurants and bars use branded cups from their espresso supplier). I just spent a few minutes pouring water into them. Most of the Italian cups came in at around 5 ounces total volume. This means an approximately 4 ounce fill, which comes out to an ounce of espresso and at most three ounces of steamed milk. I agree with the "myth statement" above because I believe that it isn't possible to separate foam from milk in properly steamed milk. It's all just wet, thickened, expanded, heated milk that pours out together. None of this raking the dry foam off the top of the pitcher. This all lines up with what kingseven says about the foaming technique. Another reason, I believe, is that espresso in Italy is produced with the primary idea that it will be consumed as a straight shot. As a result, it will be smoother and sweeter with none of that "Starbucks bite" to cut through too much milk. This is especially true in the North where the preference is for a lighter roast. In the South, they like a much darker roast (and much more sugar!). Finally, there is the simple fact that people in Italy care about it more, both the consumers and the producers. There are precious few places in America where you can get a first rate espresso -- hardly any in NYC. Maybe a handful. In Italy they're not all mind-blowing, but you'll find a pretty good caffè on just about every corner. Many people in Italy drink three or four shots of coffee every day, just stopping into a bar for a quick one. If the coffee isn't good, they will simply go down the street the next time. This is also dependent on a "foot traffic" kind of society. Italians aren't driving to a strip mall for coffee in a "to go" cup. It's the same kind of thing that keeps the ubiquitous neighborhood pizza joints at such a higher level in NYC than most other American cities: if the pizza is lame, people will simply walk to the pizzeria on the next block and the bad pizzeria will go out of business. Ultimately, if the place isn't selling espresso you'd like to drink, it's unlikely that the cappuccino is going to be very good (impossible, I'd say). So that right there tells you that there isn't much good espresso to be had over here. Who likes Starbuck's espresso? Yuck! When you combine good espresso with a proper milk foaming technique and a higher percentage of (better) coffee in the drink, you get a much better cappuccino. That's how I make 'em at my house.

The Jack Rose is also much, much better with Laird's bonded. Laird's didn't start making the blended stuff until the 70s sometime, so I think all the traditional applejack cocktails taste closer to what they were if made with the bonded stuff.

The winners: The Adult Film Starr (rum category) created by Sam Ross of Pegu Club 2 oz. Starr African Rum 1 oz. Fresh Lime Juice 1/2 oz. Licor 43 1/2 oz. Simple Syrup 3 pieces of cucumber Nutmeg In shaker, muddle cucumber, add all ingredients except for nutmeg and shake, strain over cracked ice in double rocks glass, garnish with cucumber spears and grated nutmeg. The 1838 (rhum category) created by Bobby "G" Gleason of Harrah's Rio All Suite Hotel & Casino 1 1/4 oz Neisson Rhum Agricole Reserve Speciale 1/2 oz Yellow Chartreuse 1 1/2 oz Pineapple Juice Juice of 1/2 Lime Shake all ingredients in a cocktail shaker with ice until well blended. Strain into a double highball glass over loosely packed crushed ice. Garnish with a sugar cane stir stick and a pineapple parrot. The Moda Martini (cachaça category) created by John Mautone of Dylan Prime 3 oz Beleza Pura Super Premium Cachaça 2 oz Cruzan Banana (or Raspberry) Rum 1 oz fresh lime juice 1/2 oz pineapple juice Chill a martini glass. Combine all ingredients in a shaker with ice. Shake and strain into a martini glass. Garnish with a large mint leaf in the center of glass. Lots of cool ingredients like Licor 42 and Yellow Chartreuse. The cachaça drink is gigantic, though: 6.5 ounces of liquid before shaking!

There's your problem: MB Orange curaçao is sweeter than Grand Marnier and balances the drink differently. Afaik, Pegu Club's formula isn't exactly 4:1:1 -- I think it's a touch higher on the curaçao and lime -- but it's close.

Chris, it sounds to me like it might have been created at your local.

If I had discovered a trove of nine extremely rare "near-extinct" single malts, the very last thing I would consider doing is blending them together. Now, I'm not a total single malt snob (Compass Box makes some amazing blends), but to my mind this is like finding an amazing rare old Bordeaux in good condition and deciding to make "the world's most expensive sangria" with it. Well, maybe not quite that bad... but that's the idea. Of course, if you only have 75 liters of these rare single malts all told, and you can blend them together along with 75 liters of neutral spirits and still charge twenty-seven large for 750 mils -- that's a pretty good racket.

Well... here's the thing: There are times you shouldn't have to pay attention to prevent burning. This is generally during the "low/slow" part of the cooking process. You shouldn't have to pay attention to your slowly simmering tomato sauce to avoid a burn ring on the bottom. If that happens, the cookware is flawed. On the other hand, high heat searing/browning is one of those things where you do have to pay attention. If she burned in the Staub and not in the Le Creuset it is only because the Le Creuset takes so much longer to brown.

With all due respect to Donna Deane of the LA Times, this comparison is so horribly flawed as to be worthless. Just to point out a few of the problems: 1. She did all the braising in the oven, which does much to mitigate Staub's advantage of having a heavier construction. It also more or less eliminates the function of the "basting spikes" by making the lid too hot (how will steam condense on a 225F hot metal lid?). 2. She compares a 5.5 quart Le Creuset against a 5 quart Staub and then "rewards" Le Creuset by saying that it has more surface area. Had she compared the 4.4 quart Le Creuset against a 5 quart Staub, of course, the advantage would have gone the other way. 3. She mentions nothing about the fact that Le Creuset is notoriously poor at browning and says that "against [staub's] dark interiors, our lamb shanks inadvertently went past searing and into burn territory." I use a special technique called "paying attention" to make sure that burning doesn't occur, but I would also suggest that this demonstrates that Staub is far superior at browning compared to Le Creuset. 4. She claims that Le Creuset has a tighter/better fitting lid. Not true in my experience, but I suppose there is some variation from piece to piece. 5. No mention is made of the fact that the knobs on Le Creuset's bakelite knobs are notoriously faulty, often falling off as one is trying to pick up a hot lid. Staub's brass knobs never have this problem. 6. Finally, she didn't cook the two dishes the same way. She somehow concludes that because Staub has "basting spikes" in the lid, she would leave that pot entirely alone. She does, however, "[pull] the Le Creuset out twice to baste and once to turn over the shanks" (emphasis mine). I doubt that her basting had much effect, but turning the shanks over will definitely have a big effect, and even if she decided to not baste the Staub shanks in order to evaluate the "basting spikes" she still should have turned the Staub shanks over at the same time she did the Le Creuset shanks. Later she observes that "the exposed parts of the lamb shanks were also quite dry" as a negative. If she had turned the shanks that wouldn't have happened. I'm not saying that there aren't reasons to prefer Le Creuset over Staub. Just that this "comparison" didn't do anything to enlighten.

This bit is interesting. I'm a little surprised that there is no test that can tell the difference. Wouldn't a test for IGF-1 show a difference, per our discussion above?

Eau de vies? Since I am not sure where you are from you will have to tell me what you mean here. I live in the US, so to me, eau de vie usually means very expensive fruit infused liquor.Cool looking stuff! This is from a while back, I see, but I thought I might as well offer a little clarification. Eaux de vie are not infused. An eau de vie is, rather, an unaged distillate of fruit: the fruit is pressed to extract the juice; the juice is fermented, and the fermented juice is distilled. A feature of eau de vie is that it is colorless and unaged. So Calvados, for example, which is an aged spirit, would not commonly be called an eau de vie. Common eaux de vie are cherry, pear, strawberry, raspberry and apricot.

Cool. Glad to see Philip Ward's drink there!

hungry for knowledge, I think it also has to do with the "organic" milk as well. Some organic milk comes from small, local farms where the cows are fed mostly grass, graze outdoors to the greatest extent possible, the milk is heat treated the minimum amount, etc. This milk is more costly to produce, for these reasons and also due to economies of scale, and the farmers likely need to charge more simply to stay in business. That said, it is also true that a large number of the best local farms doing this kind of thing (e.g., Ronnybrook) are actually not certified as "organic." This is because certification is expensive and also because they their sick with antibiotics if/when they get sick (they do not, however, give subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics). This milk also costs more than regular supermarket milk for reasons similar to those given above. There are also large organic megafarms. These places operate more or less along the same lines as conventional dairy megafarms, the main difference being that the cows eat "organic" feed and the cows are not given hormones or antibiotics. This is somewhat more expensive than making conventional milk, but with economies of scale and competitive pricing, this "organic" milk shouldn't be all that much more expensive at the grocery store. On the other hand, it also won't taste much better than the conventional stuff either.

While the tests were done on rats and not humans, it would seem reasonable to say that according to the best scientific evidence we have before us, there is no supportable reason to suppose that the amounts of IGF-1 likely to be consumed by humans in even the most dairy-centric diet pose a significant health risk. The data are not saying that a human would have to drink 5 liters of rBHG milk every day to approach the levels that were found to have no effect in rat studies... the data are saying that it would have to be over a million liters. Yes, I suppose we can say that IGF-1 may have some risks. But we can also say that aliens may live on the dark side of the moon. Neither one seems very likely according to the best data we seem to have (and rat studies have a long history of correlating highly with human outcomes).

John. Maybe next time blowtorch the pork before bagging it?