badthings

Word. Except I might blow it on one case of good wine, comprised of nice but un-astronomical Hermitages and Montrachets that I could not normally afford, but nothing Petrusian. Alternatively, I would go out to eat somewhere with a good wine list. Though I couldn't graph it, food has a similar curve of diminishing returns for me. I am more interested in quality than artistry, which I guess makes me petit bourgeousie.

This is an interesting point, because it's true. However, it is also true of quite a few restaurants in the vicinity. It is pretty tough, I would think, for a chef to stake his/her reputation on "shopping" around here (this goes back to the Jeremiah Tower thread). For me, what distinguishes Oliveto is the pasta and the charcuterie (salumeria?), which are both superb. I've just never felt that the QPR was in line with comparable places in the area. (the wine markup, for example, is SF-style, not East Bay style.) This had something to do with it. On the other hand, they helped foster that mood by making me wait 15 minutes and then giving me the shittiest table. I felt like I was trying to get seated at Babbo! (that is a joke, see the Babbo thread). Seriously, though, this is Oakland, not NY. I will definitely check out Bertolli's new book. Once I contemplate making mortadella at home, I will probably decide that it's worth paying him to do it for me.

Well, I have to just recommend again that everyone get a hold of that Art of Eating, because he pretty much covers the bases. It seems to me that feeding the calves real milk is probably more humane and tastes better. The other problems -- too much grass, too much walking around -- are addressed by slaughtering the calves earlier -- this also makes economic sense for the farmers. Lydia Ratliffe, the producer Ed interviews extensively for the article, is doing it at 4 1/2 - 5 months. Julia, in MtAoFC, says milkfed and slaughtered at 5-12 weeks is ideal. Marcella Hazan, in CIC, says milkfed, slaughtered under 3 months. Neither was complimentary about the quality of american veal in general. I'll try to track down some local sources and do a tasting.

well it's definitely some sort of laminate as far as i can tell. i wish i knew what it was. The first picture you posted (the piece against the wall) looks like Formica, because the corners appear to be black. On the other hand, the thickness looks like melamine, as fresco said. Scrutinize this piece -- if it's Formica, you should be able to distinguish a thin sheet of something on the surface (tapered back from the edge very slightly -- 17 degrees, I think), then a kind of negative space (that black strip), and then something else on the edge (surfaces perpendicular to the wall), which may or may not also be formica. Sorry, this is hard to describe. If it's melamine the white surface will not look very thick at the edge -- not a detectable sheet of one thing (formica) glued onto another (the backer board). Ignore the edging, because it could be anything. I can't imagine that anyone would have made the work surface of a countertop out of melamine, but you never know... Whatever it is, it's glued to the wall with construction adhesive, so kiss your sheetrock goodbye if you pull it off.

Personally, I find high-quality canned (jarred, actually) piquillos just as good as fresh. Though a prejudice against preserved foods is understandable in the US (and in other countries), I think it is wrongheaded in this case. It would be absurd, for example, to claim that fresh cod is superior to bacalao, or fresh duck to confit. Ok, I'm joking -- apples and oranges. And, admittedly, my examples are not vegetable. (And, I cannot deal with those fat white asparagus in any form.) But the point is that preserving can create something new, and not just poorly imitate the "real thing". In the case of the piquillos, the essential flavor may actually be enhanced by the preservation, and the texture is definitely improved, for the purpose of stuffing them. Certainly they are a poor simulacrum of fresh peppers, but that is not the point.

I'm pretty sure there's one at the Napa premium outlets. BTW, finally managed to chip one of my plain white porcelain C&B bachelor plates last month. Shitty dishwasher. Probably had them around 7 years.

I once substituted pork loin for lamb shoulder. Needless to say, a bad idea. Pork shoulder would have been good though, if you want to skip the lamb. Or you can leave it out entirely.

I can hardly wait: 2003 Nuits-St.-Georges Dry Creek zin.

For my birthday, my girlfriend made me a tapas meal with a special tasting flight, devised by her native genius (with some help from the guy at Spanish Table): Manzanilla La Cigarrera Alvear Fino "en Rama" 1998 Barbadillo Palo Cortado "Obispo Gascon" Barbadillo Oloroso Seco "Cuco" Unfortunately, I didn't read Craig's latest article until this morning, so I did not take notes. All were excellent, the Manzanilla fresh and refreshing as a good manzanilla should be. The fino, as Craig noted above, was 100% PX, from Montilla Moriles, and "vintage", so no solera. I would have liked to compare it to a "normal" fino, because it tasted exactly like a (very good) normal fino in my mind -- bone-dry, nutty, flor-al. I sort of felt that the regular 8-10 degrees C was too cold to really tease out the complexities, but my palate is still a little out of sorts. We concluded the meal with the last two and a cheese plate. As you can imagine, they were amazing, particularly with the manchego/membrillo combination. By this time, I may have been a teensy bit wasted, because I find it hard to come up with appropriate adjectives. How many times can you say "nutty"? I will say that a good cheese plate is brilliant with powerful sherries like these -- every bite seems to wipe your palate clean, so that each sip has that incredible "first sip" oxidized feeling. Luckily, there is much more of the last two, so I will be able to ponder their deliciousness for weeks to come.

squid. some people claim it (and octopus) are less rubbery if frozen first.

The Times wants you to pay to read Michael Pollan's beef article from the magazine last year, but this Frontline interview covers the basics.

I used "sustainably" because I believe that is how the producers discussed by Behr market their product. Obviously veal of any kind is much more "sustainable" than, say, cows raised to maturity for beef -- and the important questions are the ones Sam listed. Labor Day Homework: everyone go re-read their Art of Eating.

Craig, the image of you staring down the two glasses of Almaden was priceless. And I don't even know what you look like!

I have had some very drinkable reds produced both in Dão, and by Dão, somewhat confusingly (one called Dão, the other Dão riserva). The first made from Touriga nacional & Jaen, the other presumably similar. There are also some wines called alvarinho (for the US market anyway) that are a step up from "regular" vinho verde, which I am happy to drink all summer long. Sorry I can't be more specific -- the vagaries of portugese labelling have mostly eluded me so far.

Thanks, Craig, that makes much more sense. This is true of every commonly available "Japanese" beer too.

It's probably too late, but I would like to return to the discussion of veal, which is much less complicated. I don't think veal presents the same questions of sustainability as, say, commodity crops, GM or not, so it is primarily an issue of quality vs. animal welfare. It is interesting that Julia (and others) denigrate the quality of "sustainable veal" because, as I recall, Julia (and others) used to be in the habit of denigrating the quality of american veal in general. So I wonder: is regular american veal now objectively good, or just better than the sustainable? I certainly haven't noticed a change. The other question is: have some people managed to figure out how to make better sustainable veal? That was certainly the implication of Ed Behr's article, mentioned so long ago. I think we need a tasting.

not chiding anyone -- it is interesting, I think, how we got here from sustainable veal. This stuff is important, and we should all be thinking about it. Which is all I do, on a strictly amateur level. I've been reading the AgBioView newsletter, which is a great source of both information and intellectual dishonesty on the topic, if anyone's interested. Today they had an Economist review of Ending Hunger in Our Lifetime: Food Security and Globalization By C. Ford Runge, Benjamin Senauer, Philip G. Pardey and Mark W. Rosegrant which seems germane to the discussion.

Sorry: There's a lot more research on this -- my point was that initially yields were definitely lower, but that they have now pretty much fixed the problem. Of course, but saying that x is no more dangerous than y doesn't make x safe. It's true, it's just not a legitimate argument for GM crops. Absolutely. Maybe someone should start doing them. I agree. That is what (I thought) I was trying to say. Faster than 50 years, too. I was trying to make a little joke. The problem that is unique to GM crops -- not soy! -- is if the transgenic material conveys an adaptive advantage, introgresses into wild relatives, then outcompetes plants without the transgenes. They go away, along with their genes that aren't as valuable at the moment as glyphosate resistance, but might have come in handy later on. That, I think, is a serious concern, particularly with corn among the GM crops now grown. Sorry if I seemed shrill, I've been reading a lot about this, and some of the advocates on either side are intellectualy dishonest.

I have noticed a lot more of it at my local merchants recently (in the last year or so). But maybe I wasn't looking before. surely the good 2000, 2001 harvets have something to do with it.

It's probably annoying to the two of you that I keep busting in on your debate, but this just came out today: Paul L. Raymer and Timothy L. Grey, "Challenges in Comparing Transgenic and Nontransgenic Soybean Cultivars," Crop Sci 2003; 43 1584-1589 Here's a (fair use) excerpt from the abstract, since you need a subscription to read it: They go on to discuss the different numbers on "yield lag," and assert, plausibly, that this problem has basically been overcome. Not to drag this out unnecessarily, but I think this demonstrates the need to really familiarize oneself with what we do know before getting all het up about this. E.g., FG seemed really pissed off by the suggestion that GM crops had lower yields, though this is in fact the case. Lots of biologists talk lots of shit about demography to argue their case knowing nothing more about it than the latest FAO projections, which are always wrong. Lots of anti-GM people talk about human health risks, which is absurd and alarmist. And, Sam, I'm not trying to attack you, but this is a common, and very, very lame, argument: I.e., since human stupidity has already fucked up so many ecosystems with invasive species, it makes sense to do it more, with transgenic species the genomes of which we have altered in unpredictable ways of which we cannot reasonably project the long-term implications. This is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the question at hand.And you are certainly right about the potential of crop biotechnology to do all kinds of wonderful things -- but it is merely that, potential. No one is close to commercializing anything that's going to help feed the world, or do anything except try to get Monsanto in the black. Which does not mean that it's by definition evil, but the pro-GM people need to stop talking about saving the world and actually do something before they trot out that argument again. Finally, the last sentence of that abstract is food for thought: I have no stake in heirloom soybean varieties, but one thing that we really do not want to do, if we're going to feed the world, is eliminate agricultural biodiversity. sorry to interrupt.

here

Demography: Basically, in early modern Europe, the marriage rate closely tracks real wages, after a short lag. What this means is that when the economy improves, more people marry. This is significant because marriage rates determine population growth rates in societies without birth control (and without significant amounts of out-of-wedlock children). Thus, Malthus's "preventative check." This phenomenon is called the "European marriage pattern," and it is alleged to be unique to early modern Europe, but I don't see how this can be proved without comparably detailed documentation. Nor has anyone explained convincingly why this would be uniquely European. Be that as it may, it is certainly worth inquiring into the demography of contemporary subsistence societies to try to determine precisely how food availability influences population growth. (I'm sure people are doing this, I just don't know anything about it). If nothing else, the European marriage pattern shows that population growth does (or can) respond to economic conditions short of starvation. Like a lot of these issues, more complicated than it might seem. Sources: J. Hajnal, "European Marriage Patterns in Prespective," in D. V. Glass and D. E. C. Eversley, eds., Population in History (London, 1965). E. A. Wrigley and R. S. Schofield, The Population of England, 1541-1871. A Reconstruction (London, 1981) (the most complete data).

I'm glad someone had a good experience there. I have certainly had (some) excellent food over the years. It never occurred to me that bad service was correlated with age perception. I guess my Dorian Gray strategy backfired. Or maybe it's that we were dressed better than everyone else, who all seemed to have put on their best dog-walking clothes for the event.

caul fat is appetizing!

Sounds positively Houellebecq-ian. What is up with French Lit.?