slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
It's better to keep the citrus separate and incorporate that into the recipe at the last minute.
-
I, for one, like going for a cocktail at 6:00 on a weeknight.
One of the things that has honestly kept me from going to M&H a lot more often is that they don't open until 9 PM, and it's just very rare that I'm in Chinatown looking for a cocktail at 9 o'clock on a Wednesday night.
-
They also, it should be noted, did not find that there was any particular salmonella-killing power to their alcoholic eggnog after it had been inoculated with salmonella. This suggests that, if your eggs are in good shape, you probably have nothing to worry about. But if one of your eggs has salmonella, it's not a given that the booze will kill it.
-
This is something I need by tomorrow, so there's no ordering it from out of town. And I need rather less than a kilogram.
-
I have a trimmed out chuck-eye steak that I'd like to bond together into a solid roast in a few days. Does anyone know where I could get a little transglutaminase in NYC? Or perhaps some eGer in NYC would be willing to give me a touch of it?
-
Oh... you also asked about maintenance. You need to replace the gasket on the grouphead every year or two. Maybe descale every so often if you have hard water (we have very soft water in NYC -- I have descaled twice in approximately ten years). And you'll want to clean out the grouphead and the filter-screen with something like Urnex Cafiza from time to time.
-
Some Egg Nog related science:
-
I've had my Rancilio Silvia for around 10 years now. It's good as new. Better, really, considering that I recently took it entirely apart in order to install a PID kit that controls both the brewing and steaming temperatures.
It's not clear to me that there is much of a difference between the older machines and the newew machines that is not cosmetic (e.g., the drip tray is a little different). When I opened mine up, the guts looked virtually identical (with a few insignificant details) to the pictures in my installation instructions which were taken of a new machine. To the best of my knowledge, the only significant difference between the new machines and the old ones is that the new ones have an adjustible overpressure safety valve. If you wanted to, you could install a new overpressure safety valve... but I don't know why you would.
As with buying anything used, caveat emptor. Everything depends on how the machine is treated. If you do get one, I highly recommend installing (or buying pre-installed) a PID kit. It makes a big difference. Also, get a bottomless portafilter and the La Marzocco triple basket.
-
For one of my crazy multi-course Thanksgiving dinners, I used to do a full course of Brussels sprouts preparations. Here is "Brussels Sprouts Four Ways"
Clockwise from the upper right hand corner, there is: Sauteed with guanciale; gratineed with gruyere and bechamel; shaved raw and marinated in vinegar; and Brussels sprouts crème brûlée.
It was originally a whimsical "joke course" but proved to be very popular -- especially the Brussels sprouts crème brûlée.
-
135F/57C is significantly below the temperature that most people feel is the lowest you can go for "just done" breast meat in poultry. Most people are happier with at least 60.5C/141F for breast meat, and this temperature is likely to seem undercooked for leg meat.
As for the times, 12 hours seems excessive. All that is needed for pasteurization at 60.5C is around 5 hours, and even at the lower temperature Jack proposes, 6.5 hours would be sufficient for pasteurization of a piece as thick as 70 mm. While the leg meat may derive some benefit from longer cooking (although not at either 57C or 60.5C, in my opinion), this is not so with respect to the breast meat.
Chuck, your proposed temperatures and timings seem about right to me. You may want to go longer with the breast meat to get pasteurization, depending on how thick it is. The temperature of the leg meat will depend on the effect you desire. Do yourself a favor and read or search through this thread. You will find plenty of information on cooking turkey.
-
I think that, what is to be gained from this, is that Schlag, just like our American "whipped cream" can be sweetened or not, depending on context and the desires of the cook.
-
1
-
-
Interesting take. Although I would say that it is more "cocktail + citrus" rather than "sour plus bitters."
-
Was any of those four times in Vienna? This German language recipe specifically calls for unsweetened whipped cream: "Mit "Schlag" (ungesüßter Schlagobers) servieren" (ungesüßter = "unsweetened"; Schlagobers = the Austrian German word for Schlagsahne = "whipped cream").
-
In a way, I suppose it's like looking for a recipe for "à la mode" or "au jus."
-
Huh! Who knew?
Well, you and these guys, clearly. I'll have to try it with confectioners sugar next time.
Maybe that's how they get it so thick at Peter Luger.
-
In the context of dessert, I'd say that it is true that it is usually sweetened and usually flavored with vanilla. The same thing is true with respect to whipped cream for dessert and coffee in the United States -- it is usually sweetened and often flavored with vanilla. But, in other contexts, it might not be. If you were in Austria and got some whipped cream that was unsweetened and flavored with rum, it would still be Schlag.
What's the thinking behind using confectioners sugar (very fine sugar with corn starch) in whipped cream? Does the corn starch add stability or something?
-
Two things:
I'd say that the whipped cream there is likely to be sweetened if it is going to be used with a dessert, just like it would be here. And it can also be flavored with whatever you like. But neither of these things would be necessary for it to be called "Schlag."
Second, I imagine you mean to say superfine rather than confectioner's sugar. Confectioner's sugar contains corn starch.
-
I think it is unlikely that what this recipe calls for is "guinea fowl" (known as faraona in Italian). Rather, it is calling for a "fowl," meaning "a cock or hen of the domestic chicken (Gallus gallus) ; especially : an adult hen" (see: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition). Which is to say that you'll be just fine using a fryer, although as usual you would get more flavor out of a more mature chicken.
-
Mit Schlag simply means "with whipped cream." The verb schlagen, in this context, means to beat or whip. Schlag stands in for the larger word Schlagsahne, meaning "whipped cream" (Sahne = "cream"). It's like saying, "with whipped" or "with whip" -- which is a colloquialism still used in parts of the country with lots of descendants of German immigrants.
So, to answer your question, there is no recipe for Mit Schlag. It's just plain old whipped cream. For example, Kaffee mit Schlag is simply coffee topped with whipped cream.
-
David, for goodness sake, don't take it personally.
Freepouring has a larger margin for error than using jiggers. I don't see how you, or indeed anyone could possibly argue otherwise. It's simply a fact. I could bore you with detailed explanations of the various reasons why this is true, but I believe I outlined most of them above in post #9 in reasonably detailed layman's language. So, to suggest that yours or indeed anyone's freepouring in real-world conditions necessarily involves a certain amount of error greater than a similarly skilled bartender using jiggers is not meant as an insult. It is simply stating a fact. You, yourself said, "point taken on my friend pouring 4 ml and me pouring 6 ml." Skilled bartenders at using jiggers are not likely to have a 2-3 ml discrepancy using a powerful ingredient such as Chartreuse. And yet, perhaps even more skilled bartenders will never be able to approach this level of accuracy freepouring. That equals error. I don't have to test you on it. I am quite aware of the limits of human perception. I earned a degree studying this kind of thing.
I think your assertion that "not filling up a jigger defies the point completely and makes this conversation null and void" reflects an incomplete understanding of the variables involved here. Let's say that one is making the hypothetical Sidecar I mentioned above (2 ounces cognac, 1 ounce Cointreau, just a touch less than an ounce of fresh lemon). If you freepour, there are four opportunities for error: 1. the two ounce pour of cognac; 2. the ounce pour of Cointreau; 3. the slightly less than once ounce pour of lemon juice; and 4. whether or not, taking into account the possibility for error in pouring the ounce of Cointreau, the lemon juice pour is actually smaller than the Cointreau pour, and by how much. If one is using a jigger, there is only one possibility for error: mow much less than one ounce of lemon juice are you going to pour. And since the bartender will have the static visual reference of the jigger to judge just how much less than full the jigger is filled, this possibility has a much smaller margin for error than any one of the four possibilities when one is freepouring. Again, it is a simple fact that it is easier to look in a jigger and judge that there is a tiny line remaining before the jigger is full than it is to make a volume judgment by counting or watching a stream of liquid (never mind that flow rates will be different depending on the fullness of the bottle, the nature of the pour top, the temperature and viscosity of the liquid, etc.).
As to bars that stock multiple brands of bourbon, rye, cognac, etc. that bartenders are able to experiment with in creating and refining their cocktails (which is what I mean by "developing")? Some have more brands than others, but I would say that all the top cocktail bars in NYC stock multiple brands of various spirits. This would include, off the top of my head and in no particular order, Pegu Club, Flatiron Lounge, PDT, Death & Company and Clover Club. Milk & Honey does not have as much spirit redundancy as most bars here of their calibre due to severe space constraints. I have literally sat at the bar on many occasions as bartenders have mixed, tasted and evaluated over a dozen iterations of a cocktail they're working on, and they have been known to refine their ideas and creations over periods of weeks occasionally months before putting them on a menu. And this is the reason these people are known as the best of the best.
Again, I cannot of course speak for everyone and I am sure there are a few oustanding counterexamples. But I'd say that 100% of the top cocktail bars in NYC are jiggering bars, and that 95% of the top cocktailian bartenders of which I am aware use jiggers. Tristan seems to indicate that a similar percentage would be true among the top cocktail bars and top cocktailian bartenders in London. -
Intrinsically means that the substance itself is what you are addicted to. When one becomes addicted to, say, nicotine, one becomes addicted to the nicotine itself. It's not that you smoke a cigarette and then your brain produces some other chemical that your brain likes, and you get addicted to that other chemical. You're hooked to the actual nicotine.
The way the authors have described their model, it works like this: You binge on tons of sugar with some frequency. Eventually, following a significant history of this binge behavior, your brain starts to produce opiates in response to these binges. Your brain likes opiates. Opiates are addictive. You become addicted to these opiates. Since binging on sugar is a way of getting your brain to produce these opiates, you continue to binge on sugar in order to feed your addiction to opiates.
Note that you are not addicted to sugar. You are addicted to the opiates.
Now, let us rephrase:
You binge on rich, fatty foods with some frequency. Eventually, following a significant history of this binge behavior, your brain starts to produce opiates in response to these binges. Your brain likes opiates. Opiates are addictive. You become addicted to these opiates. Since binging on rich, fatty foods is a way of getting your brain to produce these opiates, you continue to binge on rich, fatty foods in order to feed your addiction to opiates.
Note that you are not addicted to rich, fatty foods. You are addicted to the opiates.
One more time:
You visit a dominatrix with some frequency. Eventually, following a significant history of this BDSM behavior, your brain starts to produce opiates in response to these assignations. Your brain likes opiates. Opiates are addictive. You become addicted to these opiates. Since visiting a dominatrix is a way of getting your brain to produce these opiates, you continue to visit a dominatrix in order to feed your addiction to opiates.
Note that you are not addicted to being spanked by a woman wearing a rubber cat suit. You are addicted to the opiates.
The paper says this. . .No, actually, the paper does not say that. The press release publicizing the research says that, in a sound-bite from one of the authors. We don't know what the paper says at this point. It has not been published.
-
Perhaps I can put it another way. You are running to the kitchen to eat sugar, and not foie gras and butter. You may reasonably say that you are addicted to sugar, and this paper gives some initial support to this being a neurological reality.
I, on the other hand, am running to the kitchen for foie gras and butter, and I don't give a crap about sugar. It would be infinitely more difficult for me to give up fat than it would be to give up sugar in my diet. Other people may be out there running, period. And it would be very difficult for them to give that up. The authors comments suggest that a similar addiction mechanism is likely for both my cravings for fat and the runner's fondness for the "runner's high."
So, what are we to condlude from this? That sugar is an addictive substance the same way that heroin is an addictive substance? That your "sugar addiction" is real and my "fat addiction" is fake? Or, rather, that it is possible for a variety of substances, and indeed activities to produce an addiction response with respect to things that are not intrinsically addictive in and of themselves?
-
Right. K8memphis's point that sugar is so pervasive in processed foods, etc. in our society that many people may already display this addiction response in association with consumption of sugar is well made. There is nothing in this paper that speaks to that one way or the other. I do, however, agree that overconsumption of sugar in processed foods is a problem. I don't eat processed foods as a general rule of thumb, so I am not particularly concerned about putting syrup on my waffles. More to the point, however, there is nothing in the author's description that suggests that sugar is an intrinsically addictive substance the way acohol, nicotine and morphine are. Indeed, they specifically say the opposite.
-
I'm not seeing any information here that high fat foods produce similar reactions.
That's because they didn't study that. The point I'm making is that they didn't necessarily identify anything about sugar that makes it any more intrinsically addictive than other things. What they did was show that, under certain conditions, laboratory animals exhibited an addiction response associated with the consumption of sugar. The authors are also quite clear that it is not the sugar, per se, that is addictive. Indeed, they go out of their way to point out that the addiction is to the opioids, saying that "the brain is getting addicted to its own opioids as it would to morphine or heroin. Drugs give a bigger effect, but it is essentially the same process." If you read their summary, it is quite clear that anything that might trigger the release of opioids in the brain (pain, for example, or fat or fear or whatever) could eventually create a similar addiction response.
Eggnog – Recipes, Ingredients, Styles, etc.
in Spirits & Cocktails
Posted
Well, exactly. But, from a bacteriological or food safety standpoint, they don't seem to have showed much other than the fact that their relatively bacteria-free egg nog stayed relatively bacteria free over a fairly long time period. Assuming that their handling technique was good and their utensils and containers were clean (all to be expected in their line of work), it's not too much of a surprise.