slkinsey

Sounds like you're talking about this stuff here (here is another brand). As you have observed, it is a sweet thyme-flavored liqueur. I'd suggest using it in very small quantities in a cocktail. What do you think might go with Thyme? You might try pairing herbal with herbal, something like 2 ounces of rye, 1 ounce of white vermouth and a teaspoon of farigoule liqueur (the 2 oz strong, 1 oz herbal wine, 1 teaspoon sweet liqueur is a great formula I got from Dave Wondrich). Or... thyne goes well with lemon flavors. You might try making a gin sour and adding a dash of farigoule liqueur.

Er... with that name, are you sure she isn't from Puglia? A Sicilian with the last name "Pugliese" is like a New Yorker named "Bostonian."

This shape is called "candele" (candles). You can cook them as you would any long strand pasta, in a reasonably tall stock pot. Even though they are taller than your pot, the part in the water will soften relatively quickly so you can push them down until they are completely submerged. You can use just about any sauce you like for strand pasta.

I started a thread for Tehuitzingo-specific (which is to say, non comparitive) discussion here.

That's too bad to hear that the kaffir lime leaf infusion was too bitter. Do you think you over-infused it?

Hector, how do you mean that "the bubbles of the carbonated liquid never got mixed up with the other liquid." Do you mean that there were no bubbles forming in the body of the drink? Or that a persistent foam formed on the surface of the drink? If you mean that there was only a small layer on the top of the drink that was actively bubbling, and that there were no bubbles forming in the lower part of the drink, then WHT has the right idea. As long as the liquor of the drink had a specific gravity higher than the specific gravity of the fizz water, it should be possible to carefully layer the fizz water on to the top of the drink without having it mix in. If the drink was not actively bubbling but had a persistent foam on the top, it was probably shaken with raw egg white.

This is an important point, and not only for the reason that overcrowding lowers the heat in the pan. One important feature of a true frypan is that it has low, sloping sides. This geometry allows steam created at the interface between the cooking surface and the food to evaporate quickly and thoroughly to keep the food "dry," which is an important part of achieving a crispy texture. If there is not sufficent room around your fish fillet for the steam to escape quickly and thoroughly, it is impossible to achieve optimal crispness. For similar reasons, I would not recommend a straight-sided pan such as a saute pan or cast iron skillet unless the pan is large enough to leave a substantial border of empty space around the fillet.

Er... I believe it was Robert Benchley who said, "let’s get out of these wet clothes and into a dry martini." Peter Benchley, his son, is more famously known for things like, "the great fish moved silently through the night water, propelled by short sweeps of its crescent tail" and "aaaaaaaaugh! A shark just bit my freakin' leg off!" At that time... probably something that would hardly be considered "dry" by today's standards -- and better for it, too.

It's definitely the case that unimaginitive bartenders have a tendency to call drinks a "[something] Martini. But I don't think it's entirely fair to attribute all this to a lack of imagination. It's also definitely the case that this practice tends to be a good business choice in most bars in the country. It is a simple fact that it's easier to sell a drink named "Apple Martini" than it is to sell the same drink named "Apple Core" -- never mind something more whimsical like "Fall in New England." I think that most of America has caught on to the idea that cocktails are cool, but most of America also doesn't know much about cocktails or appreciate the flavors of liquor. Chef Shogun nails it on the head, I think, when he suggests that many people want the image of sophistication that goes along with drinking a "martini," but don't actually want to drink a Martini. An unkind person might suggest that such people would like to appear to have a sophistication they largely lack. When a customer reads "Apple Martini" they know they are getting an apple-flavored sweet drink in a V-shaped glass. To a certain extent, the V-shaped glass makes it easy to pretend it's not a girl drink. I actually don't have too much of a problem with a drink using the word "martini" (or "sidecar" or "manhattan" and so on) when it is a drink that is clearly riffing on the martini concept or is reasonably related to the idea of a martini. A dry, clear drink that focuses clearly on the flavor of the spirit... go ahead and call it a "Somethingorother Martini" if no other inspiration strikes. You're mixing gin with dry sherry instead of vermouth and want to call it a "Spanish Martini?" Okay with me. You're cleverly twisting the cognac, Cointreau and lemon juice in a classic Sidecar formula and want to call it a "Tantris Sidecar?" Good, I say -- it tells me something about the drink I might not have otherwise known. But I do draw the line at a drink made with Godiva liqueur, vanilla vodka and cream being called a "Chocolate Martini." It should also be pointed out that there are plenty of cocktail categories one can easily and correctly adapt. Okay... to be correct, they weren't originally considered "cocktails," per se, but rather distinct categoriess of libation unto themselves. I speak of things such as the Fizz, Daisy, Mule, Punch, Crusta, Julep, Sling, etc. -- even the Cocktail. If you come up with a drink involving a base liquor, a little liqueur and a splash of sour fruit juice that's shaken, poured into a cocktail glass and dosed with a bit of seltzer water, there's no reason not to call it a Somethingorother Daisy. That would be entirely correct. In fact, although a true cocktail historian like Dave might protest the renaming of the odious Sour Apple Martini as the Sour Apple Cocktail, I would find this a much more appropriate name. But that, of course, would necessitate having bartenders and beverage directors (not to mention customers) who knew about and cared about these things. Unfortunately, although there are many exciting things going on with cocktails right now, it's still a fact that the cocktail enthusiast is much more likely to be served a well-prepared drink in someone's home than over a bar.

For the sake of clarity, this is not a review by Jancis Robinson. It is a review by her husband, Nicholas Lander that is reproduced (presumably with permission) on Ms. Robinson's web site.

Hmm. Interesting switch. Plymouth and Tanqueray Malacca couldn't be more different. Of course, nothing it like Malacca. But I would have figured they'd go with a more assertive gin than Plymouth.

Rob Walsh's Houston Press article on cocktails, which has been discussed in these forums, mentions Gramercy Tavern's take on the G&T: Sounds to me like it's as simple as that: infuse gin with some ginger (a great way to prepare ginger for infusing is to "mulch" it in a food processor) and then use the ginger-infused gin to make a Gin & Tonic. I don't think I agree with ChicagoBartender about the length of infusion, however (although this does depend on how the ginger is prepared). With relatively finely chopped ginger, I think it's a matter of hours rather than days before the gin will be ready. Another option is simply to muddle several thin slices of ginger in a mixing glass with the gin and lime, shake with a little ice and then double strain into your ice filled glass before topping with tonic water. That way you don't have to use up a whole bottle of gin for the infusion, and you can vary the amount of ginger flavoring on a drink-to-drink basis until you find the intensity you like. Edited to add: I did a little more poking around and have come to learn that Gramercy Tavern makes (or used to make) their Ginger G&T by heating up a 1:2 (sugar:water) simple syrup with plenty of fresh ginger to infuse, then adding that syrup to Tanqueray Malacca* at around 1:2 (syrup:gin) along with some lime juice. This mixture was stored for a while to "meld" and then poured over ice and topped with tonic water. This is clearly a process for a restaurant that expects to be serving a lot of these drinks, and not particularly well adapted for home use. I still think it's probably better to make the drink by muddling. That said, ginger infused into warm sugar syrup will not have the same flavor profile as ginger infused into room temperature alcohol. Most notably, I would expect the sugar-infused ginger to to have less "bite" (especially if the mixture is "aged" for a few days) than the alcohol-infused or muddled ginger, and perhaps a slightly more full flavor. * Tanqueray Malacca is no longer produced. I don't know what they use now.

Some interesting answers here. But I'd like to hear why we think certain places have such great pasta.

I've had a chance to browse through a copy. It's definitely must-have reading for the cocktail enthusiast.

I think it all depends on what you're making. For G&Ts, and especially for gimlets, I don't think it makes much sense to use a subtle, high priced gin. More often than not, my gin of preference for this kind of thing is Gordon's. It has a nicely up-front juniper presence that cuts through things like tonic water and preserved lime juice -- and it goes for around 12 bucks a liter. Another versatile gin with a strong juniper presence, and smooth enough for martinis, is Tanqueray. Tanqueray is probably my favorite all-purpose gin, but it's almost twice the price of Gordon's at 22 bucks a liter.

I'm dying to. Here's Robert Sietsema's review. Here's a quote for posterity:

cdh: the "ham" Varmint is talking about is, at first anyway, a "fresh ham" (which is to say, the thigh and buttock of a pig) rather than a "cured ham." "Corning," when it really comes down to it, is nothing more than a mild salt-and-spices cure -- although I am given to understand that "corning" involves curing in brine (aka "pickling") rather than dry salting such as Varmint describes, if you want to get technical.

Here's a link to the story: http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi...1,5324199.story There are also some letters to another Tribune writer available today: http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/new...,4371872.column

Dude. The taco truck at 103rd and Broadway is better.

Chef, I would respectfully suggest that Karen Graham is not a very scientifically reliable source. Here are some sources you might consider in addition to those you cite: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Frequently Asked Questions about Food Irradiation and presentation on Food Safety and Irradiation. Iowa State's Food Irradiation Site, including the Consumer Questions document referenced by bkinsey upthread. This document directly refutes many of Karen Graham's assertions. The The Foundation for Food Irradiation Education's Information Website. Some Food Irradiation Links from the National Agricultural Library. An interesting PDF from Kansas State that lists the maximum dosages allowed for the various applications of irradiation. Some of the documents you find will be out of date. Even something as recent as 2000 may not reflect the most recent methods.

I don't think anyone is challenging the notion that odor is the most important contributor to flavor (flavor and odor are not the same thing)*. It's the 98% part that is problematic. First, I have never seen that number cited by any reliable source. And second, it seems too high a percentage. I know people sometimes say "98%" to mean "mostly," and perhaps that is what you mean to say. But, for now, let us agree that smell is the most significant sensory contributor to the perception of flavor and leave it at that. The new edition of McGee's On Food and Cooking has this to say: As I think these two extracts demonstrate, while smell is the central component, it's considerably more complex than simply saying "98%." I would be delighted if you could share some of this scientific data with us, including the sources. Thank you. It is always good to see someone be open to the influence of new evidence to the extent that they change their mind. I've made the point before, but it bears repeating: I don't think anyone here is arguing in favor of tasteless factory farmed mealy tomatoes. We'd all prefer to have organic sustainable heirloom tomatoes just picked off the vine and conveyed directly to our plates. For many of is, this is simply not possible, and so we make do with the closest we can come to that ideal. And the fact is that there are certain circumstances where the judicious use of irradiation can actually help in this direction. Here we have evidence from someone who had tomatoes from her own garden irradiated, and she says that they stayed in condition better and longer than the not-irradiated tomatoes! The only other way she would have been able to keep her tomatoes for that length of time without irradiation would have been to freeze, dry or can them -- and I think you will agree that either one of these processes would have far greater effect on the flavor, texture and nutrient levels than simple irradiation. I, for one, would love to be able to go to the Greenmarket and buy heirloom tomatoes from a local farmer (something I do religiously anyway) that had been irradiated. I could buy more of them, because they would keep longer. The farmer would have less spoilage, and would make a better profit. What customer doesn't want to have more heirloom tomatoes? What farmer doesn't want to sell more of them? This would be a win-win situation. What about cheeses? A young raw milk cheese could be aged to absolute perfection and then irradiated. This would not only preserve the deliciously funky raw flavor at its peak, but would also render meaningless all the safety concerns that restrict the (legal) sale of these cheeses in the US. All this is to say that sustainable, fresh, pure, slocal, seasonal, organic food and irradiation are not mutually exclusive. They could work very well together. * Taste is the sensation produced by the activation of taste buds in the mouth and throat area by certain chemicals. Smell is the sensation produced by the activation of olfactory receptors by certain chemicals. There is another chemosensory mechanism called the "common chemical sense" through which various nerve endings (especially prevalent in the naturally moist/membrane areas of the body) react to certain chemicals to create sensations such as the burn of capsaicin, the sting of ammonia, etc. These senses combine with other sensed elements such as texture and temperature to produce the impression that we call "flavor." As many people understand, smell is perhaps the most important contributor to the perception of flavor.

Well, that's the problem with real science and real information and real situations. Sometimes the data doesn't back you up and you don't find what you're looking for. And the situation is always more complicated than you thought it would be. I would suggest, by the way, that it is not particularly productive to come up with strawman arguments for why irradiation might be "bad."

I find this a puzzling statement on your part, as you seem to have rejected out of hand statements from the one person in this discussion with a PhD relevant to the topic subject and years of relevant experience in a highly applicable area. If there is one person on this thread who can claim to have education as well as professional experience and knowledge as to the effects of irradiation on biological material, it is bkinsey. And, of course, andiesenji appears to be the only person with actual experience tasting irradiated and not-irradiated foods side-by-side, but that's not acceptable either, for some reason. I'm not sure what you were expecting. Someone who works in a lab doing food irradiation experiments? I think you can see the full spectrum of responses on this thread: some pro some con; some grounded in scientific experience/education, some in personal experience, and some in politics and philosophy.

I enjoy the tacos up in our 'hood at Taqueria y Fonda La Mexicana. In particular, the lengua (tongue) tacos are extellent. They also make a pretty good tripe taco and pig's ear taco.

Evangeline, If you have a small, old electric stove, I am not sure an expensive piece of copper cookware will do you a lot of good. Your major limitation is the stove. I'd be inclined more towards heavy disk-bottom designs. In re to Falk and tarnish: Falk pans discolor with heat and use just as much as other copper pans. The difference is that they can be brightened easily with a Scotch Brite pad and some Bar Keeper's Friend due to their use of a brushed finish. In re to Sitram Magnum Pro, while I don't have any specifications for it, it does appear to be one of their "Professional" lines (links to a PDF). So I would assume that the specifications are in line with their other high end designs: heavy stainless steel body with roughly 2 mm of copper or roughly 6 mm of aluminum in the base.