slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
See http://www.dictionary.net/rectify definition 3. I don't know enough about the alcohol industry to know if this is where they get the apearant authority to do this or not but found it interesting.
Note that definition three includes redistilling. In other words, you add the flavoring and then you redistill (aka rectify) the flavored liquid.
-
The typical design of a stock pot--tall and narrow-- has nothing to do with making stock, but rather with real estate: A narrow pot uses much less space on a stove top, and most of the kitchens in Europe have "french tops"-- gas fired solid steel tops (no individual burners) or electric solid tops. The stock pot also does double duty in the bain-marie holding hot sauces and soups, and again, the smaller footprint is adventagous.
I'm going to disagree with this assertion. The reason a stock pot is tall and narrow is because the whole point of making stock is to end up with plenty of, well, stock. It is therefore disadvantageous to have a lot of your liquid evaporate while you are making the stock. The approximately 1:1 ratio of diameter to height that a stock pot has minimizes evaporation while still providing sufficient heat transfer into the liquid, so that you can simmer the stock for a long time and still wind up with plenty of liquid.
This becomes obvious when attempting to make a long-simmered stock in, say, a cooking vessel with the geometry of a casserole (e.g., a Le Creuset) which has a 2:1 ratio of diameter to height. You end up with a lot more evaporation.
-
To a chemist, "rectify" means to purify or separate out impurities, usually via repeated distillation. Infusing alcohol with another substance, then, would be the opposite of rectification in this sense.
[...]
FWIW, "rectifying" in the context of booze generally means refining and purifying the distillate via multiple distillation.
This is interesting to me because that is always how I have understood the meaning of the word in the booze context, and yet a regular at work will often say that he is "rectifying" his glass of Scotch by adding miniscule amounts of ice or water until the alcoholic heat has been reduced. The guy is a world-class bloviator and talks out of his six more often than not but when this topic came up I wondered if maybe he knew a definition of the word I did not. I should add that the guy is a university professor--in Chemistry. Yes, he has a PhD. No, he doesn't normally really know what he is talking about (but is very opinionated nonetheless).
Where does this alternate usage come from?
The earliest usage of "rectify" means, more or less, "to put right." However, almost concurrently (c. 1450) we see the chemical usage meaning "to purify or refine (any substance) by a repeated or renewed distillation, or by come chemical process; to raise to a required strength in this way; also to flavor (a liquor) with some substance during rectification." There is a later usage that means "to put right by calculation or adjustment" that was mostly used with respect to adjusting compass readings starting in the 1500s. (This all from the O.E.D.).
I imagine your customer would assert he is saying that he is "putting the scotch right" by lowering the proof "by calculation." It seems like a stretch to me -- especially given the far more common usage within the context of distilled spirits. Even if one is using it poetically, it has a connotation of purification, refining and "righting" by removing things (errors, substances, impurities, etc.).
It's interesting to me that the ABC in California seems to have taken the position that infusion and rectification are the same thing. Alcohol often is flavored with something and then rectified (e.g., gin, absinthe, etc.), but a straight infusion isn't rectified in my book, nor according to any definition I've ever seen.
-
Is this strictly a California issue?
Is there any suggestion, other than speculation, that this is the beginning of an effort by large liquor companies to outlaw infusions nationwide?
AFAIK making in-house infusions is against the code in every state. It's just hardly ever enforced.
-
I'll add that the main reason you want a thick conductive base is because, if you plan on keeping a large volume of stock (i.e., "liquid plus stuff") on the stove for an extended period of time, you want to make sure you don't get any hot spots. There's nothing worse than getting burned flavors in that stock you just spend 8 hours making.
IMO, the two features you want in a stock pot are:
(1) It should have a thick enough conductive base that you eliminate the possibility of hot spots, scorching, burning, etc. (I'd say that the ability to brown things in a stock pot is not important, because this is extremely impractical in a real stock pot due to the height to diameter ratio.)
(2) The height of the pot should be approximately equal to the diameter of the pan, in order to minimize evaporation. David's picture is a good example. That's why I said "real" stock pot. There are plenty of pots people call "stock pots" (e.g., Le Creuset casseroles) that are not actually stock pots.
-
It would appear that the ABC is actually using the word "rectify" incorrectly even according to their own licensing information.
A Type 08 "Rectifiers License" says that "this type of license is frequently referred to as a "distilled spirits rectifier's license", which is incorrect since the license also permits the rectification of wine. This licensee is authorized to cut, blend, rectify, mix, flavor and color distilled spirits and wine upon which excise tax has been paid and, whether rectified by the licensee or another person, to package, label, export and sell the products to persons holding licenses authorizing the sale of distilled spirits (Sections 23016 and 23368). This licensee may sell distilled spirits and wine without the need for any other license, but he/she may not sell wine to a person who does not hold a license that also authorizes the sale of distilled spirits. A rectifier may also elect to function as a distilled spirits wholesaler, but when doing so, he/she must comply with all of the provisions applicable to a distilled spirits wholesaler (Section 23371)."
It seems as though they are looking at all the things one can do with a rectifier's license (viz., "cut, blend, rectify, mix, flavor and color") and then call that all "rectifying" because it's done under a "Rectifiers License." It's interesting that they distinguish "rectify" from "flavor and color" in the description of the license, and then appear to combine them under one definition when they say that "rectification is any process or procedure whereby distilled spirits are cut, blended, mixed or infused with any ingredient. . ."
In any event, it seems pretty clear from the license description -- particularly the reference to excise tax -- that this wouldn't be easy for a bar or restaurant to obtain.
-
This is an extremely odd use of the word "rectify." There are, as far as I know, two meanings of "rectify" that could apply here: the chemical meaning and the legal meaning.
To a chemist, "rectify" means to purify or separate out impurities, usually via repeated distillation. Infusing alcohol with another substance, then, would be the opposite of rectification in this sense.
To a lawyer, "rectification" is when the court orders certain changes in a legal document to correct errors (in the US it's typically called "reformation"). This doesn't seem to apply either.
FWIW, "rectifying" in the context of booze generally means refining and purifying the distillate via multiple distillation.
-
Is there a disadvantage to a straight gauge pot? When using a disk-bottomed pot, does more heat concentrate at the bottom, and, if so, how does that effect the overall heating of the entire contents of the pot? Might there be instances where more or less heat conducted by the sides has an advantage or disadvantage? Could the thickness or material of the disk outweigh or be offset by a good single gauge design?
The main disadvantages are (1) that straight gauge pans cost a LOT more than disk-bottom pots, and (2) that you can get a LOT more thermal material in a disk bottom than you can with a straight gauge design (my stock pot has a 7 mm aluminum disk on the bottom -- more than twice as much aluminum than any straight gauge design will give you).
In addition, the tall/narrow design of a stock pot is just not one where conducting heat up the sides is important or valuable. Why would it be?
-
No. To be honest, I've rarely had a homemade liqueur that approached the quality of even the lesser commercial products. The exceptions have been things like homemade sloe gin, which isn't exactly rocket science. I've had a few cream liqueur preparations that have been okay, but this is in general not a category I hold in high esteem and, in addition, the homemade preparations are not shelf-stable (not to mention that, if you want "Irish Cream" it's hard to beat mixing cream, sugar and Irish whiskey in a glass yourself according to your preferences).
-
A cream liqueur has cream in it.
The designation "crème" simply means that it contains enough sugar as to have a syrup-like consistency ("crème" refers to the liqueur having the texture of cream).
-
There is no advantage to a straight gauge design in a stock pot -- provided that what you're really talking about is a stock pot.
-
And for those worried that this means all mixed drinks are also illegal, their memo issued in 2008 to clarify the law, clearly states that this does not apply to mixed drinks prepared for immediate consumption.
Right. So, for example, you're allowed to muddle caraway seeds in your rye whiskey a la minute, but you're not allowed to make caraway-infused rye.
-
Rinsing a glass with an aromatic spirit makes the most sense when there will be a significant "collar" between the surface level of the liquid and the top of the glass. This is a way to get an aromatic component at an intensity level that would only be possible using a much greater amount of the spirit if it were simply combined with the other liquids in the mixing glass.
Rinsing a glass can also be a handy way of getting a consistent and small amount of a select booze into a glass. I don't think the different size of different glasses makes as much of a difference as you might think, because larger glasses are also going to hold more of everything else. That said, if the glass isn't going to have a "collar" then I'm not sure this has any advantage over simply measuring into a mixing glass (except perhaps for time efficiency).
I agree that "rinsing the ice" is pretty useless.
The problem with making a Sazerac with absinthe in the mixing vessel (not a shaker!) is that you miss out on the intense absinthe aromatics. A proper Sazerac should be in a large enough rocks glass that the liquid only comes perhaps 1/3 of the way up. 1/2 way at the most. That leaves an awfully large expanse of "dry" glass for the absinthe to stick to, where it can find its way into your nostrils when you take a sip.
As for muddling, yes it does make a difference. A good citrus squeezer should be expressing little or no citrus oil. I suppose it might be possible to get a similar load of pungent citrus oil by soaking an entire lime's worth of twists in the booze, but this strikes me as more trouble than it's worth. But don't take my word for it: try it yourself. Make a Daiquiri your way using lime juice from your citrus squeezer, and make another one where you muddle in lime quarters (a good way to tell how much lime juice you have muddled out is to tip the shaker out into a jigger). See if they taste different. Then see if you can make them taste the same using lime twists in the non-muddled version. My strong suspicion is that they will taste quite different and that you won't be able to make up the difference using lime twists.
-
Whenever I'm cooking something where it's impossible to extract sufficient air from the bag to prevent floating (e.g., cauliflower), I simply leave a "tail" on the bottom of the bag and use a heavy binder clip to attach a heavy weight. Down it goes and down it stays. And I don't have to worry about having a foreign object in the bag.
-
They are still lasagne -- just high quality dry lasagne.
Their web site calls it lasagna a sfoglia which doesn't mean anything special, it's just a way of saying "pasta for boiling in leaf (thin sheet) form. This is to differentiate it from pasta sfoglia ("thin sheets of dough") which is puff pastry.
-
Aged twelve whole months, I see...
-
My mother has any number of 'quat trees of various varieties in my parents' yard. Over the years, I have been bequeathed with untold "riches" in limequats, lemonquats, kumquats, etc. both fresh and in a variety of prepared forms. So it is with a heavy heart that I must inform you that I have some bad news: They are virtually useless in cocktails except as a garnish if you have ones that are more or less olive-sized (the entire fruit is "edible"). The juice is... not good in cocktails, to say the least. And the 'quatcello we tried making with the peels was, in a word, execrable.
On the other hand, if you like them and would enjoy a metric ton of 'quat marmalade, candied 'quats, etc. please send me your address.
-
So, if I'm going to make pasta for lasagne al forno (with ragu and bechamel), should I make a pasta with egg or without? And how thick or thin should the noodles be rolled?
Yes, with egg and AP flour.
The thickness depends somewhat on the effect you would like to achieve. If I were going to make lasagne al forno with spinach, asparagus and a light bechamel, I'd probably like to have many layers of very thin pasta. For ragu, parmigiano and a more robust bechamel, I'd go thicker. This is similar to the differences in thickness I'd have were I going to make tagliatelle with those two different treatments. And actually, making the lasagne right around the same thickness you would use for tagliatelle with the same ingredients is a pretty good rule of thumb. Overall, IMO, you always want the pasta to be thinner than the pre-made sheets of "fresh" lasagne you can get in grocery stores.
It goes a little something like this...
-
Count me in as someone who believes absolutely in blanching fresh pasta for lasagne al forno. I think it makes a big difference.
I also don't think it's much of a pain to do. The way I do it is to have a big pot of simmering salted water on the stove, and a big bowl of cold water right next to it. As I finish rolling out each sheet of pasta, I chuck it in the simmering water, stir it around a bit so it doesn't stick to itself, wait until it starts to firm up, then take it out with tongs and plop it into the bowl of cold water. After that, you can just take out the sheet of pasta and flatten it out on some tea towels to dry out a bit. It doesn't matter all that much if the pasta sheets tear a bit, since it's going to be layered anyway. I layer the dish with the lasagne as they come out of the water. So it's: make one gigantic broad noodle; blanch; chill; blot; cut; layer; top with ragu, etc.; make another gigantic noodle; etc.
Personally, I don't care for the dried, semolina pasta sheets of lasagne for lasagne al forno. Almost invariably one of two things goes wrong: either the noodles aren't tender enough, and it's difficult to cut with a fork without the filling oozing out all over the place; or if the noodles are tender enough to cut with a fork, they're water-logged and insipid. The lasagne in lasagne al forno aren't supposed to be al dente. One should be able to cut all the way down through all the layers with the side of a fork without squirting the fillings all over the plate.
One note of pedantry: One noodle is a lasagna (much like one noodle is a spaghetto). More than one noodle is lasagne (note the "e" ending). The dish, "wide noodles baked in the oven" is lasagne al forno. A dish described as "lasagna" or "lasagna al forno" would consist of a single noodle. The al forno part is almost always used with reference to the baked dish, because there are plenty of non-baked lasagne dishes that use these broad noodles much like any other noodle (I like fresh lasagne with butter and asparagus, and it's also good tossed with ragu).
-
The question, I think, is whether it's possible to create a thick layer of polymerized fat-plus-whatever in one go. I would suggest that it isn't. Which is a way of agreeing with Dave about "proper seasoning" but additionally stipulating that it's not possible to create "proper seasoning" in a thick layer.
As for flaking, however, I'm not sure I agree that either Dave is correct. Flaking, in my experience, is due to the accumulation of seasoning into a layer that is too thick to be sustained. Whether the seasoning is an accumulation of 5 layers or 500 layers isn't important. It's the total thickness of the seasoning.
Some of my 100+ year old inherited cast iron cookware shows evidence of flaking on the outside surface where the seasoning has built up quite thickly. The inside, however, shows no evidence of flaking. This is most likely because the seasoning on the cooking surface of the pan has been kept reasonably thin by the scraping of metal utensils, cleaning, etc. whereas there has been nothing to keep the seasoning on the outside surface from getting thicker and thicker over the years until it was finally thick enough to develop cracks and internal faults (perhaps helped along by occasional overheating, etc.) and start to flake off like cast iron eczema.
-
Parmesan and cheddar are both notorious "graining" cheeses when it comes to sauces. Had you made the sauce with at least one "smooth melting cheese" it probably wouldn't have been a problem. Parmesan, in particular, isn't even considered a "melting cheese."
-
While we ponder this question, can we also ponder what, exactly, "sour" means? I am having a hard time learning about how sourness works as a flavor in relation to brix, ph, and so on, and knowing that may help explain the role of sourness in the evolution of the lemon.
"Sour" is the perception (and thus a psychological phenomenon) proceeding from the sensation of acidity. The sensation can be either inhibited or amplified by things such as sugar, temperature, etc. -- and, of course, the perception of the sensation can be affected by various factors as well.
By the way... I know that people throw around "brix" like it's a scientific way to talk about "sweetness" or "amount of dissolved sugar," but that's not really what it means. "Brix" is the measure of all the dissolved solids in a liquid. One could have a very high brix liquid that contained little or no sugar or sweetness.
-
Plenty of fruits are not particuarly pleasant for humans to eat, and plenty of them aren't all that sweet. The olive, for example, is a kind of stone fruit. Tufted dandilion and thistle seeds are fruits. Radish, carrot and beet seeds are fruits. Chili peppers are fruits. None of these things is naturally attractive for humans to eat. And some of them (e.g, thistle seeds) aren't necessarily "meant" to be eaten. But, for many of them, there is an animal that likes to eat it. Birds, for example, seem entirely impervious to capsaicin and can eat as much as they like with no ill effect.
With citrus fruits there is also the problem that these plants are very easily hybridable and have been extensively modified by humans over the millennia. Whether there is such a thing as a truly "wild" or "natural" lemon. . . probably not. So it's hard to say whether the progenitors of the sour fruits we know as lemons and limes were actually sour before we started monkeying around with them.
-
A crespella (plural is crespelle) is a crepe.
I've never heard of a crispella.
Why did my gratin break?
in Cooking
Posted
Gruyere is a smooth melting cheese that doesn't go grainy, so it's a good choice.