slkinsey

The answer, in my experience, is to use (a) a lot more smoked salmon, and (b) turn the smoked salmon into a paste. This is affordable if you can buy a container of smoked salmon scraps from someplace that does a fair amount of business in smoked salmon. Process the scraps into a paste in the food processor, then add the yolks and continue to process that, then add as much of any additional ingredients are are needed to get the texture you want. Folding in bits of smoked salmon will never give the result you want, because the yolks and the mayonnaise and the mustard and everything else will coat the palate and interfere with tasting the salmon. This is the same reason that little chunks of smoked salmon stirred into cream cheese isn't nearly as tasty as salmon paste whipped into cream cheese. So, if the salmon is made into a paste and combined with the yolks and other ingredients into a uniform mass, the salmon flavor will infuse into everything and be easier to taste. Or... yanno... use a different kind of fish. In my experience smoked trout deviled eggs are better than smoked salmon deviled eggs, and the smokey fishy flavor has more cut (you could even crisp, dice and fold in the smoked trout skin for an extra fishy smokey punch).

I think that the link between salt intake and blood pressure is tenuous at best on an epidemiological basis, although may have some effect on an individual basis depending on the genetic makeup of the individual person. I'm in pretty good company in thinking this. That said, it is true that people who eat mostly processed and prepared foods rather than cooking for themselves -- an increasingly large percentage of the population in western world -- consume a tremendous amount of salt (and also a tremendous amount of sugar). If companies like Boston Market and Subway (etc.) can make their food taste good without adding a ton of salt, I think this is probably a good idea for a number of reasons.

I don't believe these are made with potassium hydroxide but rather with potassium carbonate.

In my opinion, by far the most important consideration is proof when it comes to Juleps. You need at least 100 proof. (Personally, I don't find much reason to have a sub-proof bourbon around generally.) Don't forget that you're going to get some melting before you hit thermal equilibrium. After that, it all becomes a matter of preferences and tastes. I vastly prefer a Prescription Julep made with a base of high proof cognac (Louis Royer Force 53 or Pierre Ferrant 1840) over one made with bourbon. I also like rye Juleps made with Rittenhouse BIB. Or, for that matter, you can make a pretty good Julep with Bols genever. I prefer all of these things to bourbon juleps, although I will admit that this is at least partly due to contraryness over having the historically inaccurate orthododoxy of bourbon Juleps rammed down our throats for so long. If you're sticking with bourbon, however, it's nice to know that some of the oldest and most venerable brands can be had for very little money. For example, Old Grand Dad 100 proof is a very good quality bourbon that can be had for an absurdly low price compared to lesser brands. And the 114 proof bottling is only around 5 or 6 bucks more. For Julep making, it's hard to see how you could do better than OGD 114 without spending a lot more money.

There are two issues here: 1. How will the pan fit on your cooktop? 14 inches will be too large for the pan to fit comfortably on your cooktop with any other pans in use. I doubt, however, that the overhang will do anything bad to your knobs. 2. How will the heat be? I have two 14" nonstick frypans I use, so I can speak to this: The heat will not be particularly even. You could mitigate this somewhat by buying a pan with a very thick aluminum pad, however.

"Creating flavor that is not there" reflects an incomplete understanding of how flavor works. Fundamentally, flavor is molecules. This is to say that the perception of flavor is created in the brain out of a variety of sensory perceptions such as taste, smell, temperature, texture, chemesthesis, etc. that all result from different molecules acting on the various receptors. If we take a piece of pork and roast it, we are creating molecules or molecular forms that did not exist in the raw pork, and therefore we are creating flavors that did not exist in the raw pork. Some of the molecules and molecular forms resulting from this roasting may have a stronger or more persistent flavor than the molecules and molecular forms present in the raw pork. Indeed, this is generally speaking the case: a stock made with roasted chicken bones and browned vegetables has a stronger flavor than an equivalent stock made using equal amounts of raw ingredients that are not roasted and browned. This may not be the flavor you want, of course, but that's another question all together. Roasted meats and bones are maillardized rather than caramelized for the most part. All of which is to say that your pork stock might not have had tons more flavor if you had roasted the bones, but I bet it would have had more. If you're just saying that no amount of roasting could make a "bones only with no meat" stock flavorful, I would agree with that. Regardless, I think you are correct that meaty flavors for the most part come from meat and that the bones are there to give body to the stock. Most of the time, as I said before, the bones used for stock have meat scraps on them. In the cases where they do not, meat is usually added. If given a choice between making a stock using $0.99/pound chicken bones and $1.15/pound chicken drumsticks, I would absolutely choose the drumsticks. That's a no-brainer. But, for me, while I wouldn't like a "bones only" stock, I also wouldn't care for a "meat only" broth. What you want is to find a good balance between the richness and mouthfeel that comes from gelatin and the meaty flavors from the meat.

I've never used bones with no meat attached. But I don't think that's really the done thing. Bones are used because they contribute gelatin, and also because they are usually attached to a fair amount of meat and gristle that would otherwise be unusable. As for the leftover meat, if you have done your job the leftover meat should be dry, mealy and flavorless because you have extracted all the flavor, gelatin, fat, etc. into the stock. I've never been able to get a free-feeding cat or ferret to show much interest at all in leftover stock-making meat (most dogs of course will eat anything if they think it's "people food"). I certainly wouldn't want to eat it myself, because it has the taste and texture of sawdust. It's also worth pointing out with respect to dcarch's experiment that pork stock is not a particularly intensely flavored stock to begin with. Compared to beef, veal, chicken, duck or game stock, pork stock is certainly the least intensely flavored.

I don't think there is such a thing as crème de violette without artificial coloring. Simply steeping violets in alcohol isn't going to result in a persistent blue-purple color. Meanwhile, I'd be interested to know about any liquor store that would accept the return of an opened bottle of booze.

I've had this one from Northern Tools for probably 10 years now. The thing is a beast. I used to use it to grind up whole chicken carcasses for my ferrets to eat (they have since gone to their great reward after long lives). Even now I often grind up the chicken, bones and all, when making chicken stock. The feeding tubes, augur, knife and plates are all very heavy metal, so keeping them in the freezer for a few hours before a grinding session works great to avoid smearing, etc.

It seems ridiculous to apply this to anything other than the writer's individual preferences. To my tastes, Keste is so far ahead of Di Fara that they're not even remotely in competition. Others with different preferences would probably say they were equally separated but that Di Fara is the clear winner. So is there a clear answer? Clearly not!

In my opinion, if you are making a traditional mostly-meat ragù and you find yourself in need of reduction by evaporation, you're doing it wrong. There shouldn't be a ton of tomato product in a meat ragù. That said, I don't cook my ragùs by chucking everything into the slow cooker raw and turning it on. Typically, I will soften the aromatic base, "brown" the ground meats, and do the wine and milk additions all on the stovetop. I will then reduce this down to a pretty tight consistency before transferring it to the slow cooker. That whole process takes maybe 30 minutes. As others have suggested, you can also prop up the lid with a chopstick near the end to facilitate evaporation (although a quick stir usually reveals that the extra liquid you think you have to get rid of is really a false impression created by stratification).

No. The Red Hook relies upon the extra bitterness and intensity of flavor for its characteristic flavor. Subbing regular sweet vermouth for Punt e Mes would remove this crucial component of the drink.

Yes, you can do this in a slow cooker. I haven't made ragù any other way for years. For something like ragù that really does get better and better the longer it's simmered (although it does change), there is no reason not to just use a regular slow cooker in the regular way. For anything you might want to do in a more temperature controlled way, unless you are prepared to figure out how to properly temperature control the slow cooker for "regular-style" cooking (just putting the temperature sensor in the middle of your ragù or stew won't work), the only way you can effectively use the PID is for sous-vide cooking in the slow cooker. I have done this a few times with ground meat dishes and have not particularly loved the result. So I would say that's not worth the hassle. For a stew where you want the stew meat cooked perfectly, I think it's worthwhile going sous vide.

I use a dedicated whirly-blade coffee grinder for spices. Spices will definitely cloud the canister.

I'd like to have SV-level precision cooking regular stuff in my crock pot. If I'm gonna buy a temperature probe.. I don't believe this is really possible.

My experience (albeit with a VitaPrep) is that if it seems cloudy it can often be made clear with judicious application of hand-washing. That said, the literature that comes with the VitaPrep enjoins the user from washing the canister in the dishwasher, and I never have. Dishwasher detergents have abrasives and other things that will inevitably scratch plastic and make it cloudy. If you've been washing yours in the dishwasher, it's possible that you scratched away enough of the coating that this batch was the last straw and now you have permanent clouding. As far as I know, only Oster has a tempered glass canister.

I have a vintage Ice-o-Matic electric crusher (the one that looks like a deco tombstone). I got it off eBay, and it makes better crushed ice than any other ice crusher I know.

lindag, what was it that you didn't like about it?

Next you'll be telling me that Kentucky Fried Chicken isn't from Kentucky chickens!

The VitaPrep solves the cavitation problem with a kind of baton-like implement that sticks down into the canister and can be adjusted to break up the cavitation an entourage a powerful vortex (it's not really meant to be used as a shoving implement, although people do use it that way). Generally speaking, the Blendtec is better for smoothies and beverages and the VitaPrep is better for purees, sauces, etc.

The main problem I've had with frittate in America is that they're served way too hot. They are really at their best at room temperature or slightly above. The other most common mistake is making them way, way too thick. Have a look at Marcella Hazan's recipes, for example. The frittata with cheese consists of six eggs and a cup of grated parmigiano-reggiano cooked in a ten-inch pan. This is not going to result in a 2 inch thick frittata. Finishing them under the broiler is, IMO, one of Marcella Hazan's very rare mistakes. This inevitably results in a leathery (not to mention frequently burnt) brown layer on the top where one is not desired. Broiling the frittata also has a tendency to make it puff up, which is not desired. A frittata is supposed to be firm and set, not fluffy or airy. To achieve this, you want to cook the frittata as slowly as possible. Starting with very low heat on the stove and then into a low oven is the best way, IMO, followed by a substantial rest to set up and come down almost all the way to room temperature.

I strenuously disagree with this. 2 hours of chicken wings in the pressure cooker makes a superior chicken stock, and it only gets better from there. Obviously, if the commercial product is the standard you're aiming for it's going to be hard to beat with homemade (I prefer Duke's and Kewpie in commercial mayonnaise, but that's neither here nor there). I personally find homemade mayonnaise to be far superior to the commercial stuff, I just wish it were easier to make in smaller quantities than a cup. Is this mole available via mail order. Google search was not useful. Tim, are you thinking of Doña María brand?

No, we used ice and however much water it seemed to take to hit the sweet spot.

A while back Martin Doudoroff and I made a recipe of Fish House Punch as close to the original as I've had. We used Louis Royer Force 53 cognac, Smith and Cross Jamaican rum, Dutch's barrel-aged peach brandy, oleo-saccharum and lemon juice. It was, in a word, delightful. It was interesting to us that the peach brandy did not seem at all apparent when the mixture was at full strength, especially with the other strong flavors in there, but when we diluted it all down to "punch proof" it popped right out.

This is a little bizarre. First off, the Earl Grey MarTEAni is an Audrey Saunders recipe, not something from Tavern Law in Seattle. Second, there is no reason to infuse the tea into the gin using a sous-vide bag and heat. It infuses just fine at room temperature. Third, there is absolutely no reason to make 1:1 simple syrup in a sous vide bag. Weird. The only reason to use heat would be because you wanted to speed up the infusion process.