paul o' vendange

And a full quarter of the WWW just wept bitterly. Bonne fortune, Lucy. J'espere que nous pouvons faire un autre rendezvous un jour. Paul

Johnnyd, if you knew Jacqui, you'd know why. I did say salty. -P

Beautiful. The heart of it. Paul p.s.: I once worked for a place called La Poubelle. Owned by Jacqui, une femme vraiment provencale. Crusty, salty - we had an open line, in a rush she'd bellow to a server asking "when's it coming up" that "this is not F$cking MACdonalds! My food is gud, ee takes time! Not quite as genteel as your Pierre, but her food was wonderful, she served it simply with great goblets of Rhone and Provence wines. You've brought home why I love French cooking (and eating), the daily simplicity of enjoyment, honoring it. Merci encore!

Lucy, in between drafts of our operating agreement and inputting hundreds of "items" in my food costing software (anyone use iPro?), I have been amply, spiritually refreshed by your work. I said it before in so many words, let me say it now plainly: that was one of the finest web experiences I've ever had. Thank you for it. As I also said, were it not for the fact we are opening a restaurant imminently, I'd still be terrified to follow in your footsteps. My hats off to the next blogeur. Yours, Paul

I loved his book, but then I've followed him since I was but a kid with his publication of La Technique. Felt after reading the memoir he'd be a blast over a bottle of wine. Personally, I think he could care less about gaining anything from it. I just have the gut feeling he likes what he is doing and has made a good life from it, and probably felt it was about time to look back on his life in cooking. I'm really glad he did. (I get more of a sense of "profiteering" from a host of would be "masters" seen on any number of cable shows). I think we in America owe him a far bigger debt than he probably gets credit for. Because he has, along with Julia and others, brought French technique and cuisine to the masses, it is easy to forget his true import under the garish glare of celebrity chefdom and the phenom it has become. But were it not for Chef Pepin and his cohorts and colleagues, we'd might still be making velveeta surprise using canned spinach. Paul

At our restaurant, it will be the sous's job to devise something interesting, and nutritious, from various inventory. I feel it is vitally important to not feed crap to everyone (the worst I ever had was fouled fowl thighs, and although I begged off, a good many staff did not and got horrendously sick); additionally, I'd like it to be a learning opportunity to devise something worth eating from less-than-dear inventory (forgot the name of Keller's cook, was it "Eric's lasagna?"). We will also make several regular entree items, or specials, for our staff to try on a daily basis while we go over in detail how everything is made, what went into the thinking to come up with it, etc. 4:30-5:00 is a time to relax, bitch, whatever, 5:00-5:30 down to the business of the night. Paul

Sequim, if you are out of Seattle, you may want to consider Grimaud Farms, out of Stockton, California (a bit closer). They specialize in Muscovy (the parent Company, Groupe Grimaud, has been doing Muscovy in Europe, since 1965, from what they say); I get my moulard magret, as well as some drop-dead extraordinarily flavorful guinea hen from them. The mail order unit is Joie de Vivre, at Joie de Vivre. Just an option, I've no connection to them. The woman I dealt with on a wholesale basis was Cecile, very nice. Happy hunting! Paul

I should add, though, Chris, that the chemical property of C02 is one of its great benefits - supercritical C02 (past its "critical temperature/pressure point", no further pressure will being liquification; rather, the compound exhibits both gas and liquid properties) is used in making hop extracts - a fantastic solvent, supercritical C02 has negated the need for the solvents formerly used, primarily methylene chloride or hexane (talk about chemical soup). The initial phase in Miller's reduced isohumulone extract, discussed above. Paul

CDH - actually, CO2 is commonly liquid, under pressure. In fact, this is how dry ice is made - liquid co2 undergoes rapid pressure reduction (expansion chamber), causing some of the liquid to flash to vapor, the remainder to thereby flash-cool to solid state (at -109F) - dry ice. Paul

I used to judge home brew contest all the time. During a regional roundup in New Orleans (brewers from various groups in the gulf South) and one of the lads (John D. for those of you that know him) and some of his buddies made one of these things. Think about it. Something with animal fat in it that is going to sit around at room temp for a few days (okay-55F, but still pretty warm) and then be cooled and people are going to drink it. Not me buddy. I used to tell people to bring em on. I would drink weird beer and strong beer all day long, but nothing with animal fat. Sorry. Not a good plan. Sure beer is acidic, but why take the chance? YUCK. Brooks, I put "cock ale" right up there with "Babylonian Beer." A bubbling soup of musty barley-paste is not my idea of "I'll have another." Then again, I've never been a big fan of bloodletting to cure my headaches either.

Here in Chicago, we are actually blessed with great brewing water, at least for dark ales. 56 ppm Ca, 141 ppm bicarbonates, I seem to remember. Ok, I admit I may truly be off the deep end. But still puzzled by Miller's computer-response. Then it occurs to me. In the same paragraph, they say their beer is "essentially" natural; and their brews have no additives. OK, is is is? To wit: "Beer" is finished product; strictly speaking, a given "brew" comes from the kettle, and "brews" are the precursors to "beer." Therefore, is it me, or is Miller dissecting the English language such that they are indeed "brewing" naturally, but adding a host of crap downstream to their finished product? Come forth, O' Miller, and make testament! -P

I, too, wrote to Miller, with the following query: "Can you tell me, at any time during your brewing, cellaring or finishing process, do you use any chemical additives of any kind - i.e., added enzymes (i.e., maltase or other sugar enzymes; peptases, etc., anti-oxidants or other agents)? Thanks." And Miller, after careful consideration, wrote the following response: Thanks for contacting us. Our Beers are essentially a mixture of natural ingredients: Water, Malted Barley, Corn Syrup, Hops, and Yeast. Our brews contain no additives or preservatives of any kind. Beer is 94% water Malted Barley is the soul of beer Corn syrup gives beer a milder and lighter-bodied flavor Hops add spicy aroma and bitter flavors Yeast changes sugars into alcohol and carbon dioxide ***There are no sugars, such as table sugars, added to our products with the exception of our Flavored Malt Beverage's such as Skyy Blue, and Sharp's non-alcohol brew. A small amount of natural sugars are present in our products, but because they are in such small amounts, we do not test for them*** We appreciate your interest in our company. Cheers! --------------- I'm glad to know they've got the answer down. I am puzzled by "essentially a mixture of natural ingredients." If only essentially, among "Water, Malted Barley, Corn Syrup, Hops, and Yeast," what is left? Alright, enough perseveration. Back to a pint of ale.

Any Yoopers - how's the harvest?

Great news, Chris. Consolidation always helps out so much with maintaining quality. Watch the slide down, and cry in our beers. Crap.

Great, Robin, glad it worked out. Credit goes to James Peterson (and a host of others - I am about 80% thief, 20% improvisateur), not me. The only thing I would add, purely personal preference, but if I am using fat off a pan-sear/roast/saute, I only use the first few minutes worth of fat. After that, by my taste the fat is heated up quite a bit, changes chemical composition, and gains a bit of burnt flavor. It is for this reason, too, that I always pour off the fat, right from the start - reserving the first few minutes worth, sadly, tossing the rest. If I want fat in volume, I render off the skin (which I save, religiously) and trim from the carcass. Thanks for the Port sauce idea. I do a red wine reduction on that par (whole bottle down to a glaze), have never done that much port. Just about all the animals I cook and eat go, in toto, into the plate - a demi-glace fashioned from the duck bones, in this instance, and my cassis sauce is usually a "standard" ratio of 1/4 c or so of cassis, with the duck demi glace, reduced back to demi-glace consistency. But will do the full bottle-reduction on the port. Thanks. Paul

Found it: "A recipe from the 1500s: Take 10 gallons of ale and a large cock, the older the better; parboil the cock, flay him, and stamp him in a stone mortar until his bones are broken (you must gut him when you flaw him). Then, put the cock into two quarts of sack, and put to it five pounds of raisins of the sun-stoned; some blades of mace, and a few cloves. Put all these into a canvas bag, and a little before you find the ale has been working, put the bag and ale together in vessel. In a week or nine days bottle it up, fill the bottle just above the neck and give it the same time to ripen as other ale. Lest you think that was just an example of The Funny Stuff People Did A Long Time Ago, people actually still make this stuff. Boston Beer Co. recently whipped up some cock-ale from a recipe from Compleat Housewife (a British cookbook from 1736), out of 12 gallons of beer, "one large and elderly cockerel," raisins, mace and cloves. According to Koch, the founder of Boston Beer Co., the beer was a great success." Cheers.

Actually, Naguere, I believe the "cock ale" is an authentic 17th or 18th century recipe. Brings new meaning to "Beer is Good for You," get your restorative chicken soup with a pint. Paul

Mike, agree on all counts, and must admit I'm stumped as to the cache/appeal. A step up from "40's?" Paul

JPW, the same material as is presented on their website. I don't see a "Star Chamber" conspiracy here, I'm sure it's true. If Bud uses rice, Miller uses corn as both are cheap. What I find when I have had Miller's product is a very evident taste of DMS - di-methyl sulfide, taste of creamed corn, not my bag. There are a few Miller drinkers out there, or so I've heard, so each to their own. By the way, a blurb on Miller's "hop engineering" (reduction of isohumulone via hydrogenation), from a beverage business journal: "But what about beers like Miller that come in clear glass without the benefit of German engineering? Why don't they skunk up something fierce? Miller comes at it from a different angle, making the hop compounds less susceptible to skunking. Darwin Davidson, the technical director for major hop broker S.S. Steiner, explained the process of making the hop extracts Miller uses. Darwin is the technical director, and this does indeed get a little technical, but bear with me. First, liquid carbon dioxide is run through a bed of pelletized hops. It absorbs the hops' oils and resins, the key flavor, aroma, and bittering components. Then the carbon dioxide is allowed to evaporate, leaving the extract. Some brewers use this extract, and Davidson said that it will give a very true hop character to the beer. Extracts can be split down further to pure alpha acids, hops oil, and beta acids, the real components of interest to brewers. The oils' flavor is changed somewhat by the process. The extracted alphas can be "isomerized" (This is what actually happens to alpha acids in the brewkettle, Darwin said), and added directly to the beer for hop character. Miller Brewing takes a further step. They take the iso-alpha acids and hydrogenate them, much like is done at refineries, by forcing hydrogen through the oils at extremely high pressures. This produces rho-iso-alpha acids, also known as tetralones. These tetralones have intensified bitterness, increase foam stability and retention, and offer a better resistance to sunlight. They would be ideal, only they do not maintain the precise flavor of fresh hops. Hopping rates in mainstream American beers being what they are, this isn't a serious problem as long as the bitterness is right." (emphasis mine). It ain't all "pure, natural ingredients," brewed by a couple of old timers and moved by horse and carriage, ladies and gentlemen. I could care less, as I said if science moves it ahead, great. Just that the big boys are about as far removed from "traditional methods" as Kraft Foods.

I'd agree, CDH, malt extracts and candi sugar should give you an OG of about 1.046, if you go with 1#/1 gallon cast out wort, so your essential doubling will give you a big beer. Utilization percentage of the hops at 45 minutes will be fairly low, and the high OG will additionally reduce your utilization. Given your style, probably within range of bitterness. Paul

At Goose Island, they run, if memory serves me well, 19 assays for every production batch. Critical points throughout the process - including the heat exchanger - are differentially cultured up and incubated, and a host of other assays are regularly run (vacuum filtration, CO2/Air content, ATP Bioluminescence, forced ferments); from cast out wort out through to finished product, including a rig to test beer coming out of our kegs and daily bottle lifts off the bottling line. The kegs weren't hoff-stephens, granted, but the filler did a good job - 4 stage, caustic/peracetic/scalding H20 before a drop of beer was racked. In the years I was there, I never saw a returned case or keg due to spoilage. 6 months shelf life on the bottle, 3 months on the keg. Not every micro has the $ to run such a regimen, but, at least in this example, we put the $ and effort in, and it showed. Paul

Brooks, believe it or not, I think we are in agreement about many things here. The Bavarian law is a pile of marketing crap, I only use it to say that no brewery is "pure" if pureness means solely the reinhetsgebot ingredients, at any point in the process. I also agree that "additives," "natural" or not (Irish Moss or its refined cousins, anyone? PVCC?) are largely process in, and not product out. Maybe I wasn't clear, either - I agree that science has largely made beer better, not worse. Anyday, I'll take a consistently produced, child-of-science beer over a fouled "real ale." And a good part of what passes for "character" in "fully natural" real ale is in fact soup brimming with beasties I don't like seeing under the scope. But I don't think that was the point of argument here. It was said that beer contains little, if any, chemical additives. I agree in the main, but not wholly. As I said, I know otherwise, from brewing practice. I do agree with you re: shelf stability and distribution practice of the big boys. As National Distribution Manager, I saw what happens when distribution lines are intact, and what happens when they are not. The big boys don't have to worry about it. One more point: As to shelf stability, personally, I'd rather run dozens of checkpoint quality assays on any given batch run rather than pasteurize a beer for a millisecond. I think you can achieve shelf stable products every time, to the same rigor, without relying on pasteurization. But perhaps that is a topic for another thread. Paul

By the way, the original source for this information on Miller's (apparently, erstwhile) practice of using additives is Roger Protz, who in a 1988 CAMRA "Real Ale Guide" names the offending compounds in Miller Beer: "He mentions in particular Miller Lite, "described as 'the nearest thing to an empty glass'", and discusses how American legislation (at one time) forced the makers to list their ingredients: "propylene glycol alginate, water, barley malt, corn syrup, chemically modified hop extracts (there ya go), yeast, amyloglucosidase, carbon dioxide (!), papain enzyme (clarifier, I believe), liquid sugar, potassium metabisulphite, and Emkamalt". Apparently, the publicity was quite effective in getting Miller to change their tune, and again, I can't say for certain what the big boys do now, but presume that at least these compounds are not likely found anymore in Miller products. I also don't dispute their skill. As someone on the Homebrew Digest once said, "While they may choose to brew swill for marketing reasons, the skills of the brewers at places like Miller and Anheuser Busch are actually quite good. It takes a lot of skill to create a product that while brewed at several different plants across the country, tastes the same everywhere, state to state, month to month, year to year. It's just so sad they choose to exercise this enviable skill in the pursuit of thoroughly lackluster beer." That about captures it for me. I also know from first hand experience that it is not uncommon for "even" craft breweries to use certain compounds to avoid harmful effects during shelf storage - e.g., the antioxidants named above. Paul

An article by Fred Eckhardt on "Lite": Here

Well, a quick search of the Malting and Brewing Society of America's (MBAA's) Technical Quarterly Journal quickly revealed: "In this study, a pilot test skid equipped with an adsorption column demonstrated the ability to selectively adsorb and concentrate flavor compounds from brewery fermentation byproduct carbon dioxide gas without adsorbing sulfides. Dosing brewed products with the recov-ered flavor concentrate further enhanced the flavor characteristics of those products. This paper provides a description of the pilot adsorp-tion equipment and the method for producing a flavor concentrate." By Gil Sanchez, of Miller Brewing Company. One could easily find the sources for other things. I, personally, don't have a problem with "additives" per se, and, granted, scrubbed and re-introduced "flavor concentrates" are not the same as exogenic materials, but they are there. I am under no illusion that the "Big Three" do not use additives in one form or another. Indeed, the "Big Three" brewers have largely led the way in a host of things not having anything to do with the renheitsegbot - the Bavarian purity law specifying that only yeast, water, malt go into beer. Paul