paul o' vendange

I love my 2001 LaRousse ("Red."). In fact, it's bedside now. Inspires me when down, or I need a certain term I've lost, or to just generally learn or refresh on something. I find it a really valuable book. I see the current issue, 2009, is coming in at $45, my edition, the 2001 edition, is coming in right around $15 on Amazon. Just one reason I've found it valuable (like Escoffier, which I'm still trying to work through). Grant Achatz: “It is critical to have a sound understanding of traditional culinary principles before attempting to push boundaries in cuisine. Larousse Gastronomique helps me execute the progressive cooking we do at Alinea.” —Grant Achatz

Re-reading Daniel Boulud's Letters to a Young Chef for the umpteenth time. Have not cooked in consistent reality in over 10 years. 57. Can I be a, ahem, young chef, to be lettered? 🤔

Totally agree, Suzi. That was incredible and typical of Anthony. Thanks for doing that, and for the post reminding me of that.

I really didn't know where to put this. Anthony was obviously a universe more than food media. I'm sure like all of you, I'm still really grieving him - my wife and I watch and re-watch Top Chef and were as surprised as the contestants to have him suddenly come on and fill in for Tom as a guest judge on an episode last night. I'm tearing up as I write this. It's impossible to accept yet. We're trying. I myself am still trying to find a way back into cooking. It occurs again right now that maybe Anthony, as frank as he was, was also as compassionate as I've known; a soulful whisperer. If you haven't seen it, just a little bit from CNN.

I love and have re-read both books several times (in fact, on a sort of CIA bender lately, so read both over the last few weeks. Re-reading TPC as well). I liked Jonathan Dixon's foreword, in which he gives hommage to but distinguishes his book from M. Ruhlman's book; his as slightly more of a subjective study, Michael's more objective as a writer coming from outside to learn the experience. I don't think either falls so neatly into Dixon's distinction, but it was a nice way to sort of bookend both texts. I could re-read both (and will, I'm sure), dozens of times. I've got a mountain bedside. Guess I'm on a bender in general. Mourning Anthony, can't quite get to his books again yet, so reading Eric Ripert's books again (On the Line, the Le Bernardin Cookbook), and also finished 32 Yolks, which I absolutely loved. Wonderful. So much in a tight little tome, draws me to him all the more. And enough 2 a.m. reads of inside, ludicrous things that happen in the trade, that as I bust out laughing and wake my wife up, get me in fitting trouble.

I'm very sorry I can't offer any current or substantive suggestions as to places to go, just wanted to throw this out there - if you haven't read it - is Lawrence Durrell's Prospero's Cell. I'm not as big a fan of his fiction, which I find overwritten to some extent, but I'm really fond of his non-fiction travel writing. Among them, Prospero's Cell is exceedingly beautiful in its narrative of the life, land and sea of the island. Granted, from another, more innocent time, but I just wanted to toss it out as you might draw some enjoyment from it, before your trip. Happy travels.

Hey Paul - Actually, I said white stock, not white sauce. It's the second stock after estouffade (and his chicken is the same thing, with the addition of additional giblets and/or carcasses, and "three boiling fowls" - that's a lot of bird per gallon of water!!). I've worked across many spectrums, all of them, really, classically based. But I've never cooked entirely true from Escoffier's work, to the word. I'm doing it because until I do, it's just a thought experiment, you know? I can't know what it is, until doing it verbatim, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. But I really am tripped out by not just the use of salt (I don't in my stocks, but many do - two immediately come to mind, Paul Bocuse, Judy Rodgers/Zuni Cafe Cookbook - lost her book years ago, but I seem to recall not only that she salts her stock, but against all orthodoxy, doesn't skim it at all - let's it cool scum and all overnight, then skims, if memory holds), but man - that's a lot of salt, or so it seems to me! It will be nice to make some velouté and derivative sauces from this, to see how it works. Partially, I'm just trying to feel the Belle Époque - and imagine, their palates demanded a richer, fuller experience. Partially, I love culinary history, the underlying reasons of why a certain gastronomy was as it was. But here, as well, just curious if anyone else has literally worked Escoffer, and what their experience of this use of salt is. Edit: Equally astonishing, at least to me, is that I haven't found any discussion of this anywhere on the web. I would have thought that given Escoffier's importance, and the importance of these stocks to French cuisine as we know it, there'd be more on this. I just find it kind of jarring, but then I admit I can go in fits of obsession, when nature allows.

Hi all, I'm puttering a way back in. I've read Escoffier but in all my life, though I've used, as many of us have, a world of techniques and recipes, etc., passed on by traditions following from him, I've never replicated much from the book. Starting from the beginning. I've NEVER put a grain of salt in any stock. What he calls for in his white stock seems crazy to me. I gulped and added the full measure (though I made chicken stock, which calls for additional carcasses, whole boiling hens, etc., which I did). It's a luscious stock. Absolutely rich and an entire paradigm apart from the chicken stock I regularly use, which is a wetting agent, a braising liquid, a lighter basis for derivative sauces, etc. As this stock stands, I would use it in potage, but cannot imagine reducing it for sauce purposes. The salt is palpable, though it's "nice," I guess I'd say. The stock tastes great. I also find it interesting Escoffier doesn't typically call for salt in his small sauces. So it seems, salt in stock, watch it in saucemaking. I've tried finding discussions about this on the web, even in French, and I came up empty - which also really surprises me. Anyone else make his white stock? Anyone else use salt in their stock? Anyone else use it in this kind of ratio (60 g/12 litres water)? Thanks.

Hahahah - I love it - "Tongs Embargo." Good explanation, too, thanks Paul. I'll try to dig that up, interesting subject.

That would be great to find out, Paul. The gram thing I hadn't heard, but I guess I'm not surprised. I did know of the tong thing - if I'm not mistaken, he uses fish turners wherever possible and tongs are basically persona non grata.

Hey Paul, Interesting thought, and of course there are a million variations on ratios, components and techniques on any stock. What piqued me, however, is that for both the veal and "primary," let's call it, chicken stock, both recipes, with few exceptions, are identically worded. So much so, in fact, that I presumed Bouchon's was merely repeated from TFL, until I saw this halving of both the veal bones, and in essence, the time. Add to this that TFL does a remouillage and obviously, you end up with a substantially thinner sauce. Radically thinner, I'd think, though I've never made the Bouchon version. At any rate, just caught the difference today and found it interesting. In terms of what they're doing today, can't know, of course. My gut actually tells me this primary stock and the way it's made is really the soul of Keller's cooking, the essence of his cooking philosophy, written in the words of a recipe. I actually imagine nothing's changed at all. Would be interesting to know.

Sorry to resurrect, but obsessing. Randomly - Have long considered Thomas Keller a demi-god and tried to learn all I can from him. "My" veal stock was "his" veal stock, no interpretation whatsoever, for years. I have a hard time breaking from anything he does, but I've always found the stock a bit red for my truthful taste, and a bit sweet. I've made Escoffier's stock-espagnole-demi-glace for decades, and it wasn't till coming to TFL and Keller's way, that anything changed. Just your thoughts: TFL uses 10 lbs bones, remouillage, a lot more time, to get to 2 quarts. I only realized today that Bouchon uses half the bones and only 4 hours, to get to the same result - 2 quarts. Is this a typo, anyone? I feel like I'm missing something. TFL has aromatics working a total of what, 12 hours? Yet it works, in my opinion; I don't taste "dead." It goes against orthodoxy ("....add in and simmer for one more hour....."). Thoughts?

Thanks, Baron. Believe it or not that method is one I used, but it's easily been 25 years or better and with my memory issue being what it is, it literally dropped off my map. Not even sure where I picked it up, but it was definitely a French chef or other French source. Sincerely grateful to you for mentioning it as it does work fantastically well. Wish I had the "Recettes Originales" in the original, to see what they write there. Just seems crazy, so agree all, it's likely a typo or mistranslation.

So would I, which is why I've always been so puzzled. Goes against everything one is taught, etc. But these are the Troisgros's, and I don't know if this is a mistranslation or not (I only have the English version, would be nice to see the original).

Hello everyone - Hope you're looking forward to spring as much as I am. Let's just say this winter, in particular, ready to say goodbye. Odd question, but it's bugged me for as long as I've had their book. If anyone has it or has seen it, in the Troisgros Bros' book, they call for doing a chicken stock "making certain to keep it at a full rolling boil for 45 minutes" and "skimming the fat off the top." "These two things are important if you want to ensure a crystal-clear stock." I've never tried it, though I should. As it stands, I do keep stocks at a brisker simmer than some, probably, as I find I get better clarity with enough simmering agitation to better dislodge impurities from the meat and bones, not anywhere near a boil and emulsifying. But rolling boil? Trip. Anyone?

Very cool. Thanks, robird.

Can I give you a counter-example? An inspector who "followed the letter" on opening requirements. Hot water, based on peak capacity. Part of that calculation was a hot water sink for washing lettuces and other vegetables. A hot water sink. For washing lettuce. It tipped us over the edge in terms of total capacity needed, and we would have needed to get a new hot water heater, to the tune of, as I recall it, over $10,000 we didn't have, to start up. Thankfully I fought, and argued before the state, that you don't use hot water to rinse lettuces. I won, and so our existing hot water heater was enough. What if it wasn't? How many businesses can't open, or fold, because of ridiculous laws like this? I really loved the requirement that there could be no exposed silver in the restaurant. A French place, expected to keep our tables covered in plastic during service. We, and I think mostly everyone, kind of winks together....we put the plastic on for inspection, the inspector inspects, knowing the second she leaves, it comes off, and we move on. How much sense does that make? It's important to think of these, too. And in terms of this French cheese issue, I think it's very relevant. OK, I already posted my Abondance cheeses. Here's some tommes, and reblochons. I only came to them because I was gifted to taste the real thing, nurtured along masterfully, from France. I find this incredibly wrong.

Hi Rob, I'm sorry, I'm not following the stat. I think you'd probably need to do something else, like total dairy, per capita, and so forth - right? We own 13% of the nation's total dairy, but we're a ghost town compared to some places. The concentration of farm capital is large, and expanding hotly. And that concentration exerts its influence on laws in my state. One example only - again, anecdotal though it's easy to look up. We, for example, are the only state in the union requiring cheesemakers to undergo state licensing. To the tune of 240 hours of official apprenticeship, and required courses from one sanctioned place only, UW. The sum cost to the would-be cheesemaker is about $3,000. I can tell you from what little beginnings I did, the curriculum is heavily slanted to large production. Raw milk cheeses are the devil - a point on which I didn't make any friends among the speakers on a given day, actually. They literally refused to countenance studies - FROM UW itself - showing, for instance, the beneficial effects of flora on wood cheese shelving. And much more. As jaded as I've become, I was stunned. But I felt I knew the environment I was throwing myself in to. I abandoned the plan, like many other cheesemakers, actually (abandoned, or moved out of state). Is the cheesemaker's licensing requirement reasonable? Not in my books. How about chefs? I believe it, like many other laws on the books (trust me - the "on farm" law was scratched from the state, only with the state kicking and screaming. I know a small, Amish farmer, who had his farm shut down on multiple occasions. And he fought).

Can't speak for all states, but in Wisconsin, things like that were originally successful, then the state argued before the courts these were all just end runs around the prohibition against raw milk (Ha....truthfully, wasn't thinking Prohibition when I wrote that .... same brilliant conception, right?) and the state was initially successful. Now, we have "for farm consumption." Just what that means is the whole ball of wax. Most states that are on the fence play like this - the state hates it, the lobby hates it, and they'll do what they can to shut any producer down. But there are vocal supporters of an individual's right to choose what they consume, and so we have our middling, cumbersome, silly laws (feel like owning part of a cow? You're golden in many states!).

I can tell you it's a war here in Wisconsin, and I believe that is squarely explained by the huge corporate dairy interests that inform our state's policies. The definition of "farm consumed," "club" etc., get to the silly. Testament to the fact that those who want it, like Paul said, should be able to consume it.

Hope it's not too off-topic, and it certainly is arguable, the group's aim, but if interested in more information on raw milk, you can go to the Weston A. Price Foundation, or RealMilk (I think RealMilk is associated).

I agree with you here, Weedy. Unfortunately, I think that's the problem. A good many regulators from the USDA are actually drawn directly from the upper management of agribusiness companies. Here in Wisconsin, heavily oriented towards dairy agribusiness. The rules - cumbersome as they are, and becoming even more so - are therefore being designed by the former heads of large agribusiness companies. Those rules - such as the boards I mentioned above, costing upwards of $100,000 for some - actually put smaller, artisanal producers out of business. I can tell you truthfully, the primary reason I begged off continuing the process of putting the first Abondance production in Wisconsin, is because it's ridiculous to try and be an artisanal maker in this state. Hard not to see a connection between how outlandish and ill-founded the rules, and who stands to benefit by their imposition. It ain't the craftspeople, doing traditional work.

Absolutely agree, Paul. I feel the same way. My experience as a maker is in Abondance, which if folks don't know is more or less a smaller cousin of the alpine giant Beaufort. The process is virtually the same. I do love this family of cheeses, but I'm also drawn to them by the simple fact they've been around since at least roman times. (I think it was Pliny the Younger who first chronicled Beaufort). Millennia of production history, millennia of insanely good, healthful cheese, all on raw milk. Don't touch it. With you, Paul - that's how I feel.

Weedy, with respect, my "anecdotal" thing was a joke - as in, I'm alive. Guess it fell flat. I wasn't using that as any basis for my argument, and never would. I understand your point of view. Yes, in an era when sickened cattle were in tightly cramped urban lots, fed leftovers from distillers grains, their milk combined into tanks and shipped to points far and wide, pasteurization was necessary. Just as now, when milk is gathered from large farms, under only slightly better circumstances, with cows stuffed with antibiotics, the farms' milk again combined; yes, pasteurization is necessary. It is not only unnecessary, but less healthful, if you're drinking raw milk from known small producers using known practices, with healthy cows fed on food they should be eating (grass - pasture) as I do. Pasteur's germ theory of disease was a landmark development in the history of medicine, but as with all models, it has it's limitations, and here, I'd say, is one. Just an illustrative example. Vacherin - named d'Or in Switzerland, du Haut-Doubs in France. In France, raw milk. In Switzerland, pasteurized. There has been a history of listeriosis with this cheese - a soft ripened cheese, gooey and stinky as all get. Raw milk, of course, even more dangerous because of the limited aging time, high water content, and soft paste. Right? Except it has been the Swiss, pasteurized version, Vacherin Mont d'Or, that has had the history of outbreaks - even deaths, tragically. To this date, as far as I know, none of the cheeses from France - all, by French law, made with raw milk - have been tainted with listeria. This is just one example. There really is an entire scientific body of evidence that supports the notion that it isn't so much the presence of microbes - wonderful, delicious, living yeasts and bacterias - in our foods, but rather how well they take over an ecosystem to prevent or contain the growth of pathogens to acceptable or lower limits. The above Vacherin story merely illustrates this. Another, somewhat related. The fertilizer theory of agronomy. That without fertilizer, you cannot have good growth. So, we've killed our growing fields, now, to the point where the farm's earth really is a kind of dead fiberboard, there merely to push the sticks of plants into, a substrate to drown with fertilizers. Doesn't it make sense to allow the microbes that transport oxygen to plant roots, to thrive and let them do their job? All without the cost and detrimental effects of fertilizers? Anyway, big subject. I've studied it quite a bit, as I love natural food, make it, hunt for it, as I love the earth, so I want to know what drives it all. Not saying anyone is incorrect, but I'm convinced by what I've studied, and know my personal choices. I drink milk from a farm of 4 beautiful girls - and I'm grateful for the gift.