slkinsey

The common thought among espresso geeks seems to be that the Rancilio Silvia is the lowest-priced top-quality espresso machine out there. Is is very positively reviewed on coffeegeek.com, and was the coffee kid's first love. I have one myself, and have been very, very happy with it. I don't think the Gaggia or Dualit are even in the same category. One thing about espresso is that, while there is an art to it, it is very much a machine-based product. A great cook can make great food with crappy pans. Good pans only help to make it easier. With espresso, on the other hand, you really can't make good espresso on a not-so-good machine and generally the better the machine, the better the espresso. All this is to say that a decent home espresso setup costs a fair amount of money. I know a lot of people who decided to save money on a machine and ended up not using it very often because the coffee just wasn't all that good. IMO, the Rancilio Silvia/Rocky machine/grinder is the lowest-priced combo of decent quality at around $US750 (~£460). I have the setup from 1st Line with the La Marzocco filter backets, and I plan to buy the three-hole steam tip.

Damn you Trillium, and the flower you rode in on! Now I must find a source for raw hog jowls in New York City so I can make my own guanciale! Seriously, though... there has to be someplace in the City where I could buy some...

I second Jim in re to the preparation technique. My main advice is to prepare them with minimal cooking. These are best eaten as close to raw as possible IMO. I had a really nice dish of penne with fresh fava beans and anchovies once that I have been meaning to try at home. Fresh fava beans are also great with penne, prosciutto, parmigiano and a drizzle of the best quality olive oil at the table. I had this at a place called L'Artevino in Montespertoli (outside Florence) using a wonderfully flavored evoo from Rocca dell Macia, which is primarily known as a winemaker. Anyway, as the oil is not sold at retail (or wasn't at that time) the proprietor was kind enough to sell us a few bottles at cost. I recommend L'Artevino to anyone who is exploring the countryside around Florence. Seats maybe 20. Reservations only. The table is yours for the night. The philosophy there seems to be starting with a firm base in the traditional cooking of the region but going on to create new modern dishes that are reflective of those roots.

I have an immersion blender and I have to say that I don't use it nearly as much as I thought I would. It's just not convenient for very many things I do. I suppose I'd use it more often if I made a lot of chunky-textured semi-pureed soups and the like... but even then I find that immersion blenders don't work so well if you're trying to blend up something with a significant amount of leafy green or fibrous vegetable matter. Anyway, my personal experience is that you'll have a much easier time doing the things you propose with appliances you already own -- and actually I'm not sure that an immersion blender would work very well for those things at all. Whipping cream is best and easiest to do with a electric hand beater, and I always do mayonnaise and emulsified salad dressings in the small bowl of my KitchenAid food processor. If you don't already have a small-bowl food processor, I think you'd get a lot more use out of one of those for the tasks you describe than an immersion blender. YMMV, of course. Some people use their immersion blenders all the time.

Hmm... I've never had any trouble sauteeing potatoes in my regular-stick pans, although I probably would use nonstick if I were making a potato galette or a potato-wraped fish fillet. Is it problematic getting the potatoes to crisp up in nonstick? Especially without overheating the pan? As for eggs and crepes, once I started using black steel crepe and omelet pans I never looked back. Yea, I hate that too.

Am I a bad person for thinking that's funny? If you are, then we're both going to hell. I wonder what cockatiel tastes like... I don't know, but they're good for popping popcorn. Much better results than uncoated. Interesting... I wonder why. What is better about it? Are you popping them in very little oil? I would worry that the pot would get above 600 degrees, though -- possibly degrading the PTFE and releasing "bad things" into the popcorn. To be honest, I pop corn maybe once every ten years, so I ask more out of curiosity than caring one way or the other. When I was a kid, we had a kind of perforated basket on a long handle that we used to pop corn over the fire in the fireplace. We always thought that was cool, and the popcorn was pretty good.

From the article: I can think of a lot of bad things that might happen if you allow a pan with plastic inside it to reach 680 degrees -- like burning down the house. Most people forget that PTFE coatings are essentially plastic, although they can look like they're part of the metal, and that plastic can burn when it gets hot enough. This is another reason I think it's a bad idea to have nonstick everything in the kitchen. Perfect example: Now, what is the point of having a PTFE-coated saucepot for boiling water?

Cool! Are people still keeping watch? I'll definitely snap up one or two if they go on sale like that again, and would appreciate the heads up.

Werd.

Sorry... some things require more than a few pithy comments. Also, I type fast.

Well... that's why I said they were "more or less" the same. My point being that the coating on a $140 11-inch All-Clad Stainless nonstick frypan is not going to last 7 times longer than the coating on a $20 nonstick pan from another manufacturer, and it certainly won't be 700% more slippery. In fact, my experience is that you can buy a brand new $20 nonstick pan every three years and end up cooking on a better nonstick surface over the course of the next 12 years than you would by getting the more expensive All-Clad pan and sticking with it -- and for less money.

i bet their business would change if they then started suddenly allowing smoking. i think the crux here is the change in atmosphere. namely, smoking to non-smoking overnight. You make a very good point, Tommy. But one wonders if it is possible to make a change of this kind any other way. One cannot "gradually cut down" on smoking in bars like a smoker trying to kick the habit. I have never implied that many bars aren't hurting right now. Even casual observation seems to bear this out. On the other hand, I simply cannot believe that all the people who have been spending money in bars over the years are going to stay away permanently. I can't see these people deciding to stay home and drink by themselves just because they have to step outside to have a cigarette at their local. So I have to think that there will be a significant rebound in a year or less. My casual observation of bars in California seems to bear this out as well. Will there be some businesses that fail before the rebound happens? Certainly. Businesses fail all the time and for a lot of reasons, especially in the food and liquor-selling business. Bars sometimes close for something as trivial as the factory moving the exit to the other side of the building so that it is no longer convenient to drop in for a cold one on the way to the train. A bar that has very little to offer (decor, great beer/scotch/vodka/etc. selection, innovative cocktails, singles scene, college hangout, great bar food, whatever) other than a guy pouring you a Bud and a shot of watered-down Jack Daniels... well, some of these places are in for tough times, it's true. Unfortunately, that is the way it goes. These are a lot of the same places that end up going out of business when a subway station is closed for renovations, etc. Again... I'd like to wait to see some numbers in a while. I find it interesting that most of the people I see complaining are either hard-core smokers who want to be able to smoke wherever they want or business owners who are hurting short-terrm, are impatient for a rebound and figure "if it ain't broken then why did they fix it?" I suppose another alternative might have been to require bars and restaurants to shell out big bucks on health insurance to cover their employees for ETS-related health problems... but somehow I have a feeling that they wouldn't like that too much either.

Some facts about nonstick cookwear: 1. All the various nonstick coatings are more or less the same. 2. Eventually all these coatings will wear out. Some designs may last longer than others, but they eventually will wear away. 3. The main thing you are paying for with All-Clad is the cladding (well, that and the marketing). What makes clad cookware special is that you have a nice thick layer of conductive metal (aluminum) on the outside and a nice thin layer of nonreactive cooking surface (stainless steel) on the inside. There is really no value in spending big bucks to have cookware that is lined with stainless steel on the inside if that lining will only be covered with a nonstick surface. 4. Understanding the above, what you want is something that has a nice thick body of conductive metal covered on the inside with a nonstick surface. You can get this WAY cheaper than All-Clad. Just get something thick but cheap and thow it away when it gets worn out or starts losing its nonsticky-ness. This way you won't be spending a lot of money and you'll always have a fairly fresh nonstick surface. A brand new cheapo nonstick surface will always be less sticky than a 4 year old All-Clad nonstick surface. That's just the way it goes with that kind of treatment. 5. On the other hand, if you really love All-Clad and are able to determine that the warranty covers the nonstick surface, then go ahead and get the All-Clad and just send it in to be replaced every time the coating wears out. I don't have much use for nonstick, but it can be useful to have maybe one nonstick fry pan for delicate fish and things like that. For me, a nonstick fry pan is more of a specialty pan that only gets used every so often... similar to a crepe pan or an omelet pan in that respect. I'd guess that I cook on nonstick less than 20 times a year.

Hmm... I'd be interested to see the numbers on this. And I'd be interested to see what those numbers are like 6 months from now. And, really, given the fact that smoking has been banned in restaurants for quite some time, I have a hard time believing that restaurants are really suffering all that much. Other than some restaurants that were allowed to offer limited smoking in a bar area, I don't quite understand what the big difference is. I'd like to get an undersanding of the number of NYC restaurants that were able to accomodate a significant number of smokers before the ban. My guess, based on my observations, is that it isn't all that many. As I said before, I have a lot of friends who smoke, and none of them has changed their restaurant eating habits as a result of the ban. Bars... now that's a different story. For whatever it's worth (if we're going to get anectodal), I work with a lot of people on the UWS and have been hanging around @SQC on Columbus/72nd pretty much since it has been open. They have never allowed smoking, and it doesn't seem to have hurt their business any. Anyway, I rather imagine that someone (or, more likely, several someones) is collecting data on the economic impact of the new smoking law, and before too long we'll see some of their findings.

Interesting. From the title of the story, one would think that the inclusion of OTB in the restaurant somehow permitted smoking on the premises. As it turns out, he has decided to open an OTB location in his restaurant to offset claimed business loss due to the smoking ban. After reading the article and doing some poking around, I have some thoughts: 1. Wasn't smoking banned in restaurants, except in the bar area, a long time ago? 2. I know that restaurants make a lot of money on booze, but I have a hard time understanding how he could have "lost about 30 percent of [his] business due to the new no-smoke law" (emphasis mine). As it turns out, the owner runs Sidetracks as a restaurant during day and a nightclub in the evening. This makes his claimed business loss more understandable. But really he losing that money more as a bar owner than as a restauranteur. With bars, and especially those with a "scene" happening, I woud predict that business will rebound after a while as smokers who spend money in these places realise there is no other game in town and adapt. 3. Sidetracks seems to be fairly political and a local center for the fight against the ban. 4. Scroll down to "Gambling Machines" in this article for coverage with a slightly different flavor. I find it interesting that OTB "is expected to generate about $3,000 per month for the establishment." Is this supposed to cover his 30% loss? Yikes.

A Maillard reaction happens when the amino acids and sugars in a piece of food that is subjected to heat combine. This causes both browning and the formation of many flavor and aroma compounds. Subjected to further heat, these compounds break down to create even more flavor and aroma compounds. Each type of food has distinctive and unique flavor/aroma compounds that are formed through Maillard reactions. More information may be found at this page and this other page.

Oops, I wasn't referring to mineral content. It wasn't clear in my post, but I was referring to the different flavors that the minerals provide in each. And, yes, I'm aware that component-wise, sea salt and mined salt are the same thing. Right... my point was just that the <2.5% difference in minerals doesn't really make the salts taste different, although it may make them feel different. That said, I am rather inclined to think that the salt processing method plays a greater role in determining the texture of sea salts than the mineral content. The real difference between food-grade salts of any kind is the size, shape and configuration of the salt crystals. It is a textural difference, not a flavor difference. Understanding the above it becomes clear that using a special sea salt in a dish will not make much of a difference when it is used in a way in which it will dissolve. This is why these salts are typically used after the dish is cooked, and why it doesn't make any sense at all to salt your pasta water or your soup with an expensive sea salt. In your steak example, it strikes me that the different salts won't make any real difference in the flavor of the steak unless they retain their textural element and do not dissolve. Obviously this is not the case for a truly flavored salt like the smoked salt would be different.

I like sea salt and other unusual salts as well... but I thought I'd inject the following three tangential elements into the discussion: 1. Sea salt and mined salt are the same thing. The only difference is that mined salt crystallized several million years earlier. 2. All food-grade sea salt must be at least 97.5 percent pure sodium chloride by law. This means that, at most, you are getting 2.5% "other minerals" and usually a lot less. Salt harvested by solar evaporation, for example, is around 99 percent pure, with the other 1 percent being almost entirely magnesium and calcium compounds. 3. In controlled tests where tasters tried to distinguish between a number of different salts dissolved in water, the results were inconclusive. 1, 2, and 3 from What Einstein Told His Cook, by Robert L. Wolke All this means is that sea salts are interesting for their unique textures and not really for the mineral content. If the salt were chunky enough to retain some texture through cooking of the steak, I bet that there are many that would make an interesting contribution. Getting back to the marination thing... for me it very much depends on the cut and quality of the steak. I would hesitate to put anything but salt on a good piece of prime beef. On the other hand, chimichurri on skirt steak can be awesome.

Not sure what is "political" about responding to the statement by a previous poster that all studies showing no causal link were funded by "Big Tobacco". Nor did I state that I believe second-hand smoke to be harmless. Nor am I "pro-tobacco". My sincere apologies if, responding to the tenor of your previous post, I misconstrued the subtext. Although I can see how you may have reasonably inferred it from my post, I did not intend to say that you personally were "pro-tobacco." For the record, I don't think I said that the only studies showing no causal link were funded by big tobacco. What I said was: This is not the same thing as saying that the only studies showing no link were funded by big tobacco. It says exactly what it says: the only people out there who are saying that secondhand smoke isn't bad for you are the tobacco companies (and the people who listen to them). These are the same companys, I should point out, that until a few years ago were also saying that firsthand smoking wasn't bad for you either. I should also point out that there is a big difference between the study you "exposed" and the tobacco-funded studies. The tobacco-funded studies typically strongly "disprove" any such link, whereas your study at least suggests that some linkage may be there, but does not have good statistical power (and I pointed out several reasons why this is bound to be the case). If I may quote myself again, I said "The scientific/medical community is pretty well lined up in the 'it's bad for you' camp." I stand by that assertion. Whether or not there is "proof" from long-term epidemiological human studies... well, there isn't. And I don't think there ever will be. This is just way too complicated a topic of study, and the various confounding factors are simply too great for a study of this kind to produce particularly meaningful results. If anyone really wants me to go through the long and boring explanation of why this is the case, I can. That said, controlled animal studies, as well as the environmental animal study I cited, all point to ETS as being bad for one's health. So it really is a case that just about everyone in the medical/scientific community knows ETS is bad for you, and that a certain kind of "proof" is lacking (i.e., a statistically powerful long-term environmental human study). Finally, and again for the record, I'd like to point out that I was equally condemning of anti-tobacco people citing such studies as a smoking gun supporting their views: Moving on... I have already said: Also agreed... they should have some latitude. The question is what degree of latitude allows the business owners enough freedom to run their businesses and yet still protects the public. The smoking ban has got to be a tiny requirement in the grand scheme of all the government regulations a bar must follow. I'm sorry, but this is absurd. If that were the case, then every office building in this country would be filled with smoke and people would have to work in them because they need work. It's always easier for business owners to do nothing than it is for them to do something like this. If market forces and the willingness of employees to work in a certain environment were the primary factors, we'd still have people working with asbestos. It is a documented fact that people will continue to work in an environment they know is killing them because they need the money. Industrial Revolution? Coal mines? There are thousands of examples. Also, for everyone in NYC who thinks market forces should be allowed to work and determine the way people run their businesses... I am certain your landlord will be glad to hear of your support the next time the rent regulation laws come up for another vote. There are some business owners who would really appreciate some latitude in how to run their businesses. There are regulations and there are regulations. I would agree that a regulation that prevents you from smoking at all is a bad regulation. This regulation is not there to prevent you from smoking. It is there to prevent your smoke from being breathed bya non-smoker at their place of employment. Likewise, the sexual harassment laws are not there to prevent people from fondling women's breasts. They are there to protect women from having their breasts fondled at the workplace. Etc. Etc. Etc. What I don't get about certain smokers (and pogophiles, I am not saying you are one of them) is their philosophy that smokers should be allowed to light up anywhere they want and that, if the smoke bothers anyone that's their problem and they should just take themselves elsewhere. I just don't get that. Even more interesting is that I know a lot of smokers and very few of them are actually all that upset about the smoking ban. Indeed, I find it interesting that many of the smokers I know don't even smoke in their own apartments.

From here: More info on the referenced page. Edit = posted at the same time as mise en place

I don't know if I totally agree with the tallow definition, though. Which part do you not agree with? That it is tasteless? Well, yes. Both that it is tasteless and the implication that it is best used in industrial applications... although I suppose that may be the case. On the other hand, maybe "tallow" only refers to "industrial beef fat." I certainly would not characterize the golden elixir pooled at one end of a Peter Luger platter as "tasteless." I wonder why people don't cook with beef fat the way they cook with lard? Anyway, this is a definition of tallow I liked better (from here):

Yes! I love Hoegaarden. I was actually quite sad to learn that the Celis Brewery in Austin, Texas had gone out of business. Pierre Celis was almost singlehandedly responsible for reviving the witbier style and I thought Celis White was even better than Hoegaarden (Pierre Celis was the original owner of the brewery that makes Hoegaarden). Unfortunately, Celis entered into a partnership with Miller which eventually acquired 100% of the business and decided to close the brewery and sell off everything. Anyway, I hear that some other company may have acquired the equipment/trademark and will revive the brand. I have not heard whether this will happen or, if it has, what the results have been like. I love all kinds of wheat beer, although I have never been able to get a hefeweizen either in America or in a bottle that came close to what I drink from the tap when in Bavaria.

Interesting what they say on the Esperya site about Guanciale: I can agree with the use of guanciale and pecorino -- although I think it is acceptable if not preferred to use pancetta and parmigiano -- but the adminitions against bucatini and onions struck me as very odd. I don't think I have ever eaten this dish in Italy when it hasn't included these two ingredients. In fact, I always thought it was Bucatini all'Amatriciana. Thoughts? Link to recipe on Babbo website: clickare qui.

Although I am not always a huge fan of TVFN stuff, I have found Alton Brown's method for grilling salmon steaks to work really well. This ends up giving you a little "fillet mignon" shape of salmon that is easy to handle on the grill, and you don't have to worry about the flap parts falling off or overcooking. When you remove the fish from the heat and take off the string, the skin comes right off with it.

I always thought they used to use beef tallow. What's the differene between beef tallow and lard? Is lard from a pig and beef tallow expressly from cows? Yes. Lard is pig fat and tallow is cow or sheep fat. From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary I don't know if I totally agree with the tallow definition, though.