slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
I think moral arguments are also relevent, provided they are identified as such. If rBGH is making the world a worse (but not more dangerous) place then that is a valid reason to criticize the practice.
Yes, I agree. Any one of the thee points I mentioned (and I am sure there are others worth considering) can of course be approached from a scientific as well as moral or political standpoint. And let us not forget the culinary standpoint, which is the basis on which I stand against rBGH milk. Not because I believe that the use of rBGH necessarily produces milk that doesn't taste as good, but rather because I believe that the goals of those who use rBGH do not commonly align with the goal of making a milk with superior taste.
I personally feel that there is no convincing evidence that drinking milk from cows treated with rBGH can be associated with any health risks that would not be associated with drinking milk from cows that were not treated with rBGH, all other things being equal. I further feel that making a choice to drink organic milk based solely upon the use or non-use of rBGH is not an informed decision. This is not to say, however, that there aren't plenty of good reasons to drink organic milk -- mostly having to do with the fact that these cows often have a better diet (perhaps even grass) and are likely to be on a smaller, more slocal farm, etc. But, I think there would be no meaningful difference between milk from a small local, grass-fed dairy farm that used rBGH and the identical farm next door that did not.
-
There has been some interesting discussion here, and I'd like to see it continue. In the hope of fostering better and more interesting discussion, I would like to offer the following moderator's note and ask you all to read and understand what I am saying before continuing here:
One goal of the eG Forums is to engender a free and lively exchange of thoughts and ideas relating to the subject of food. To this end, Society members are expected to comport themselves with all due civility when engaging in discussion and debate in the eG Forums. In particular, members are cautioned to address the substance of a counterpart's arguments in a debate, and never to make ad hominem arguments or personal attacks.
That said, not all opinions and arguments are equal or equally well-supported in the eyes of science. This is something that should be considered before throwing one's hat into the ring. We should understand that questioning the foundation of a counterpart's arguments is not necessarily a personal attack if there is a reasonable basis for that assertion, and endeavor to meet the challenge rather than taking offense. Likewise, we should take pains to frame our challenges and comments in language that is respectful and not inappropriately confrontational, and to make sure that we are not putting words into our counterpart's mouth. At the same time, we should own up to the logical implications and extensions of the arguments we are making.
Scientific discussions can be a little rough-and-tumble, and strong points are often made that might offend those who are not used to this style of debate. Those who are not used to this style of debate should keep this in mind and try not to take things personally. Those who are should keep this in mind and try to tone it down just a bit.
Now, let's get back to rBGH. At this point I will take just a moment to frame the discussion. When we are talking about rBGH, there are several aspects that may be considered:
- The direct impact on human health. "Is drinking milk from cows treated with rBGH bad for me?"
- The effect of using rBGH on the health and welfare of the cow. "Is rBGH bad for the cow?"
- The other effects of using rBGH on the environment. "Is rBGH contributing to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, etc?"
I've seen many of these separate arguments combined in this thread in ways that confuse the core issues, and I think we would be well-served to keep in mind that they are not connected.
- The direct impact on human health. "Is drinking milk from cows treated with rBGH bad for me?"
-
Redbreast pot distilled Irish
This stuff is the bomb! I was introduced to it by Patrick O'Sullivan, who runs the bar at Seppi's in the Parker Meridien. He is one of the City's foremost experts on Irish whiskey, and a stop at Seppi's will always be profitable for someone with an interest.
-
I was able to taste the full range of Van Winkle bourbons at a press event for the Big Apple Barbecue Block Party, including an 18 year they make special for Blue Smoke.
My favorite was the 15 year. They bottle it at something like 107 proof, and the extra intensity of flavor makes a big difference.
-
One of the many stories my mom told me about growing up in New York's Lower East Side in the 1930s was about eating schmaltz on spaghetti
This is actually really tasty. I have a couple of good books on Italian Jewish cooking (believe it or not, there was a time when Italy was a center of European Judaism). One of the best recipes in the Italian Jewish tradition was one where you would roast a chicken for the meat course, and for the pasta course you would simply deglaze the roasting pan and toss the drippings with fresh pasta and a little parsley. I have often made this either as two separate dishes or by pulling the chicken meat apart and tossing it together with the fresh pasta and drippings.
Im curious, how long does schmaltz last? I have some in the fridge from about 6 months ago. Do you think its still good?The best place to keep it is in a tightly covered jar in the freezer. There, it will keep more or less forever.
I'm like the king of rendered animal fats. In my freezer at the moment can be found jars of rendered duck fat, goose fat, chicken fat, beef fat, bacon fat and lard. All of these I have rendered myself except for the lard (it's difficult to get enough pork fat to be worth rendering, and Faicco's pork store renders some beautiful lard). I have in the past kept rendered lamb fat (too strong flavored to be useful) and rendered ham fat (tasty!). This, of course, in addition to the various un-rendered animal fats I have stuck back there in the form of guanciale, fat back, etc.
-
Well, there is some question in my mind as to whether we, with our modern palates, would have found a JT-style whiskey cocktail circa 1875 palatable. There are, of course, plenty of cooking techniques that were developed to mitigate the taste of meat that had turned, but I think most of us would agree today that fresh, unspoiled meat is necessary for making a good dish of food.
-
Non mi rompere i coglioni.
I agree that it's likely to be closer to 20F in a cocktail right out of the shaker. I just thought 30 or 35 would be a compromise temperature. What would be really interesting would be to re-taste the gins after they were stirred with ice. The problem with that is that it's impossible to ensure that they would all be diluted and chilled the same amount. Better would probably be to add 20% filtered water to each sample of gin and then bed down the glasses in a container of crushed ice to chill (the ice bath can be made colder by adding either salt or some cheap alcohol like 91% rubbing alcohol from the drug store).
-
Interesting stuff, TallDrinkOfWater. I assume you've tasted these all at room temperature? I'd be interested to hear your impressions of the same gins at a temperature closer to the temperature at which you'd be likely to actually drink gin -- which is to say, cold. There are a lot of things that come out at room temperature (both good and bad) that are entirely different down at 35F.
Same thing is true once the spirit is diluted, which would also make an interesting experiment. Higher proof gins like Junìpero, Tanqueray and Navy Strength Plymouth that finish hot at room temperature/full strength can completely lose that (usually negative) characteristis when diluted and/or chilled.
-
Certainly no reason to use something expensive. But you might also want to stay away from the super-cheap stuff, as it tends to be way too sweet. I find that Cava works fairly well, and isn't too expensive.
-
I recently threw a party and served old-fashioneds (it was a New Orleans theme) and I was surprised how much people LOVED them. Everybody, from college age on up was gulping them down like no tomorrow. There are lots of recipes online and it's probably on the classics page, but I just mixed up equal parts bourbon and club soda with sugar water (or sugar) to taste, a dash of bitters and a maraschino cherry was added as people poured their drinks. Easy, tasty, a hit.
Well... I'm not so sure I'd call this a Bourbon Old Fashioned. With all that soda (equal parts!) it's really a highball: a sweet Bourbon & Soda with a little bitters. An Old Fashioned goes something like this: muddle sugar and bitters in the bottom of a glass, add two ounces of strong booze (I like 100 proof rye, but I've had good ones based on applejack, bourbon, gin, rum, etc.) and stir to finish dissolving the sugar, add a big lump of ice or several large cubes, stir to chill, toss in one or two fat strips of lemon peel.
As a fellow student, let me just say that cost is a big factor when it comes to drinks. If it's something that requires a half-dozen separate (and expensive) ingredients, it's probably not going to happen. Not to say that these aren't great ideas - I'd love to go to a party where the options aren't whatever was cheapest at the offlicense.That's why the classics are often going to be the best. They're usually two- or three-ingredient drinks, and one of those ingredients is likely to be something cheap (vermouth) or really cheap (lime juice). None of the ones I listed calls for more than three ingredients. So it's certainly possible to go to the store and see whatever is on sale and choose drinks based on that. I also think lostmyshape's idea of choosing an expensive ingredient like Cointreau that is used in smaller amounts and doing several weeks of Cointreau drinks is a good one. And it could start with a discussion of what triple sec is, what Cointreau is, what less expensive alternatives exist (Marie Brizard) and where it is appropriate to use a less expensive alternative, etc.
The fact is, of course, that there is no such thing as a good cocktail made from shitty cheap booze. This may be why few college students get into home mixology. No amount of clever mixology can disguise a Margarita made with five dollar industrial tequila and Leroux triple sec. There is, of course, a whole family of mixed drinks (I hesitate to call them "cocktails") that was more or less invented to mitigate the pernicious effect of lower quality liquor: the highball. But I don't think a column on mixing a Whiskey & Ginger would be very interesting.
-
The major criterion in the nutritional value of produce is freshness.
This, of course, inevitably brings me to the fact that humans in First World societies don't really need to worry that much about nutrition. We're not undernourished, we're overnourished. Thus, the problem with obesity, which could be described as a "health disorder resulting from overnourishment." All this is to say that, at the levels consumed in First World societies, it's a wash as to whether the produce comes from next door or halfway around the world. Whoever is eating the stuff is probably going to be eating enough of it to get more than enough of whatever nutrients there are to be had from that food. That is perhaps for another topic. I only add it here to lend further support to the idea of buying whatever tastes best.
-
As I have pointed out elsewhere, "organic" definitely does not mean "more healthy" when it comes to food. There are plenty of "organic" pesticides, for example, that are far worse for humans and the environment than the common "not organic" ones. And, as others have pointed out above, it is also the case that dairy cows already have elevated levels of BGH due to selective breeding and it is further the case that rBGH will simply be digested if it is in the milk you drink anyway. How much more these levels are raised by rBGH is an interesting question.
I have parents and friends who are chemists and medical researchers, and I've heard enough from them that I am not concerned about rBGH in my milk. And, as others have pointed out, Pasteurization is taking care of many of the other things we might be worried about. I don't agree that things like the increase in diabetes (much of which I believe can be traced to better diagnosis), obesity and other things can be traced or even significantly associated with rBGH. Increases of things like obesity can also be positively correlated with things like number of telephone poles per capita and other indicators of a modern, first world lifestyle. If anything, it's a fact that children in America drink far less milk than they did 30, 40, 50 years ago. I know that when I was a child it was milk, water or nothing. We weren't drinking all the sweet fruit juices -- never mind sugared soft drinks -- that kids drink today. Go into a third grade classroom and see how many kids are drinking milk compared to juice. Back in the 70s it would have been 100% milk.
All this is to say that I don't believe there is sufficient evidence -- or really any convincing evidence at all -- to begin thinking that humans are substantially and negatively affected directly by drinking milk from cows that have been treated by rBGH. Where there is some cause for concern, in my opinion, is in the secondary effects that come from using rBGH. Primary among these is that rBGH is associated with higher use of antibiotics, and a higher use of antibiotics will lead to the development of more antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria and strains of bacteria with greater resistance. That, in my opinion, is the real concern.
As for what kind of milk to buy. . . just buy the kind that tastes the best. I like to buy Ronnybrook, which doesn't use rBGH but also does not market itself as dogmatically "organic" either. And it's 100 times better than any supermarket organic milk I've ever had. It is often going to be the case that the smaller producers who are making the best-tasting milk will also be organic or anyway won't use rBGH. But I'd still rather drink great tasting milk from a small local farmer who is not organic and maybe even uses a touch of rBGH than pedestrian organic milk from a megafarm in California.
-
Bryan, to be honest most of the very best and most classic drinks are not complicated at all. To wit:
- Margarita: 2 oz silver tequilla, 1 oz Cointreau, 1 oz fresh lime juice (shake/strain)
- Daiquiri: 2 oz white rum, 0.5 oz fresh lime juice, 0.5 tsp superfine sugar (shake/strain)
- Mojito: 2 oz white rum, 0.5 oz fresh lime juice, 1 tsp superfine sugar, mint leaves (lightly muddle mint and sugar; add rum, lime juice and ice; top with fizz water)
- Sidecar: 2 oz Cognac, 1 oz Cointreau, 1 oz fresh lemon juice (shake/strain)
- Martini (old style): 1.5 oz Tanqueray, 1.5 oz Noilly Pratt, 1 dash orange bitters (stir/strain)
- Manhattan: 2 oz rye whiskey, 1 oz red vermouth, 2 dashes Angostura bitters (stir/strain)
- Pegu Club: 2 oz gin, 0.75 oz orange curaçao, 0.75 oz fresh lime juice, 1 dash each Angostura and orange bitters (or 2 of Angostura) (shake strain)
- Aviation: 2 oz gin, 0.5 oz maraschino, 0.5 oz fresh lemon juice (shake/strain)
These are all three ingredient drinks, easy to make and classics every one.
I'd suggest purchasing Dave's book Killer Cocktails : An Intoxicating Guide to Sophisticated Drinking, which has lots of funky easy-to-make drinks and explains the cocktail craft perfectly for someone new to cocktails; Gary's book The Joy of Mixology : The Consummate Guide to the Bartender's Craft, which has some good information on how drinks are constructed and can be grouped into families; and Ted's book Vintage Spirits & Forgotten Cocktails: From the Alamagoozlum Cocktail to the Zombie, which has a lot of . . . (wait for it) . . . forgotten cocktails, all accompanied by interesting stories on their history, etc.
- Margarita: 2 oz silver tequilla, 1 oz Cointreau, 1 oz fresh lime juice (shake/strain)
-
I'm with mrbigjas. Sounds interesting, but I'm not sure I'd pay 90 bucks for a fancy plated cast iron skillet.
I didn't cover nickel surfaces because it's not a very common metal for cookware. I assume nickel was used in this case because the cast iron pan is plated via electrolysis, something that couldn't be done with stainless steel.
It's a mistake to assume that nickel is totally benign, however. Nickel is one of those things that is essential in minute quantities but can be very bad in larger quantities. Too much nickel can lead to increased rick of lung cancer, nose cancer, larynx cancer and prostate cancer, allergic reactions, dermatitis and other nasty things. I'm not sure these things would happen from occasional use of a nickel cooking surface, but I'll say this: I won't be buying one.
-
Thank you, Darcy for this amazing resource! You did all this work yourself? Great!
I have a nice repro copy of the book at home, but actually I think this web version makes it a more useful resource for research, etc. Some of these are fairly simple concoctions, but still amazingly good. One of my standards with any spirit is derived from his Whiskey Cocktail. It's hard to go wrong using this formula with any spirit (except vodka), and this formula with Laird's bonded applejack and Fee's aromatic bitters is one of my all-time favorites.
-
Those are wicked cool. Sam, if you can get the source for those pitchers, I'd be grateful.
Wicked cool! That takes me back to my New England youth...
Yea... I want some too. Indeed, there are a great many things they use at Pegu that I covet. I'll see if I can find out about the pitchers, but they have sourced a lot of very special stuff from all over the world and it wouldn't surprise me if they're not available to the likes of us.
-
Awesome foam, dude!
-
Second, presumably you're getting your cold glasses by one of two methods: either you are filling the glass with ice and a little water to chill it down or, preferably, you're pulling it out of the freezer.
I've found the old method of filling the glass with ice and water works better, because then there is no condensation on the stem of the glass.
Doesn't quite get as cold, though. Pegu Club freezes both their martini stirring pitchers (see below) and their glassware. They didn't quite have this going when I went there for the first "friends and family" pre-opening event, and were doing the usual chilling with ice. One of the first things I noticed upon my return there a few days later, when they had the freezers going, was that the stirred cocktails were notably cooler -- at least 10 degrees F.
Here are the pitchers they use for stirred cocktails at Pegu:
-
I must take issue with the comment alot of dillution won't hurt a spirit. Dillution is the quiet ingredient, you only notice it if it's wrong. Too much or too little will ruin a cocktail as fast as too much orange flower water.
I don't think anyone implied that over-dilution wouldn't hurt a spirit. I was trying to make the point that basing one's mixology on the principle of minimum dilution (such as trying to avoid the infinitesimal amount of condensation that might cling to the inside of a frozen glass) and thus creating under-dilution is, as you correctly point out, just as bad as the other way around.
Now that I think of it, dilution is an often overlooked and yet fundamental aspect of cocktailery. Could make an interesting thread.
-
300rwhp I think you have two confusions here:
First, as cdh points out, dilution is good when you are talking about a cocktail. If you're making a cocktail, you want twenty to twenty-five percent dilution. The amount of water that might be added to a cocktail due to condensation on a cold glass is minimal anyway.
Second, presumably you're getting your cold glasses by one of two methods: either you are filling the glass with ice and a little water to chill it down or, preferably, you're pulling it out of the freezer. Either way, there is virtually no water in the glass when you pour the drink into the glass (you shake the water out of the ice-chilled glass and the frozen glass should be dry). Any condensation that forms on the cold glass once the cocktail is poured in will be on the outside of the glass and therefore none of this water will get in the drink.
The most important thing is that your drink is cold... and you would be surprised at how much a room-temperature glass can warm up a cocktail.
-
Yea... I've been a few times, and it doesn't look like DeMarco's is going to pan out as the "Di Fara Manhattan" we all hoped it might be.
If anything, I think this has to do with the fact, as I am led to believe, that the driving force behind Di Fara, Domenico DeMarco, hasn't given much support to his children's venture and hasn't ever made any real effort to transfer his legacy of technique and expertise to his children. You'd think that Dom's children would be so steeped in their father's methods, having made thousands of pizze at his side over the years, that a pizza from their hands would be virtually identical to one from his. But none of these things appears to be the case. I gather from those that are in a better position to know than I that he's actively resisted bringing his kids along in the craft. (I'd welcome any input from those who are in a position to have additional or, hopefully, contradictory information on this.)
Of course, the one lesson taught at Di Fara above all is that you have to have someone who cares about making the best pizza working the oven -- someone with a personal investment. It's possible, I suppose, that the pizza at DeMarco's would be a lot better if Dom's children were actually there making the pizza every day. Last I heard, though, they weren't.
-
That's an interesting point, Mike. And it's all the more frustrating when you consider that making a basic menu of specialty cocktails and most of the standards at a "very good" level of quality in a restaurant setting (low volume compared to a lounge or bar) isn't exactly rocket science. All the people behind the bar have to do is care. I'm not saying the cocktails are going to be like they are at Flatiron Lounge or Milk & Honey, but there is certainly no excuse for them to not be "very good" so long as there is a good recipe book and people willing to follow it.
-
Does anyone know if there's difference in stickiness of polished stainless steel compared to brushed stainless steel?
I own cookware with mirror polished and brushed interior finishes on the stainless steel, and I have never detected the slightest difference. Never mind that, unless you treat your pans like the Shroud of Turin, a mirror polished cooking surface won't stay that way for long anyway.
-
Of course top shelf ingredients and high prices are no guarantee of quality.
The $5 Old Overholt Sazerac made by the surly 60 year old bartender and served in a chipped Old Fashioned Glass at the Le Richelieu hotel bar in New Orleans may well be better than the $10 featured cocktail using top shelf rye made by the well coiffed actor wannabe and served in a Martini glass at the trendy new restaurant in downtown San Francisco.
This is a good point, but the principle still extends beyond liquor. There are plenty of Italian restaurants selling an amazing plate of pasta for 12 bucks and plenty of Italian restaurants selling a not-so-good plate of pasta for 17 bucks.
Tangential thought, but I think it's a mistake to think of Old Overholt as the "Popov of rye" (rye whiskey being the "new vodka," don't you know
). Old Overholt is a quality product.
Safety of Mosanto's rBGH (Bovine Growth Hormone)
in Food Traditions & Culture
Posted
Right. I would, for example, choose "conventional" milk from a small local dairy farm over "organic" milk from a megafarm in California. That said, it is usually the case that small local farms are "organic" or "natural" or whatever, and unlikely to use antibiotics (never mind something like rBGH). This may be for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the fact that the small dairy business is not a huge money-maker and things like "organic" and "grass fed" and "natural" help justify the higher prices these dairies need to charge to stay in business. Unfortunately, "our milk is worth twice the price because tastes 1000 times better" doesn't cut it with most consumers.