The Mullet Lifestyle : "If someone asks if you want extra mayonnaise, you have to say 'yes'. 'Cause that's part of it."

via Shutdown Corner

The Memorial Service at Fort Hood

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Fairly short and worth watching on Veteran's Day. One of his best rhetorical efforts in recent memory, and given his track record that's saying a lot.

Dry Brined Turkey

It's apparently all Thanksgiving all the time over at the NYT, with today's Dining Section filled with wine choices, side dishes, and... of course... a turkey recipe. What's interesting about this year's recipe is that it utilizes "dry brining" to give you your extra margin of error when cooking the turkey. What's been the hot thing for many years has been regular brining... that is, submerging the bird in salt water for hours to days... but there's been some push back regarding the side effects of brining. Harold McGee, probably the most famous food science guy in the world, lays it out this way:

So what’s not to like about a brined turkey?

To begin with, the unrelenting saltiness, which it shares with its commercial cousins, the so-called “moisture-enhanced meats.” These ready-to-cook supermarket roasts can be up to 10 percent brine, with eight times the sodium content of the original meat. And saltiness doesn’t necessarily enhance turkey flavor. When I made two turkeys and compared brined and unbrined breasts side by side, the unbrined meat tasted meatier, more intensely turkey-like. That’s not surprising, because the added juiciness of brined meat comes from tap water, not the meat itself.

Worst of all, you can’t use a brined turkey to prepare one of the highlights of the Thanksgiving meal: gravy. Roast a plain turkey and you end up with a panful of browned turkey juices, which you can defat and deglaze and aromatize into a delicious pan sauce. But juice up the turkey with tap water and salt, and its drippings become too salty to use.

A few years ago, Russ Parsons compared dry brined/salted birds to your normally brined ones and found that while dry brining seasoned the meat and kept it moist you didn't get the spongy texture you risk with normal brining. This, of course, is not a new cooking innovation, but something people did for years, but for whatever reason had fallen out of favor somewhat... though the Zuni Cafe made a name for themselves with their dry brined chicken, so it's not like it's a lost art or anything.

Interestingly, Cook's Illustrated... one of the biggest proponents of brining over the years... has a dry-brined turkey recipe($$$) in their latest issue, but they take it to 11 by having you "bard" the breast with salt pork... another classic technique that had fallen to the wayside a bit.

Unfortunately, I don't think I'll be making a turkey this year, but I would lean towards the Cook's Illustrated one since I'm sort of fascinated by barding at the moment... but it's obviously a fair bit more complicated than the New York Times article. It's sort of interesting to see how trends come and go as food writers try to think up something novel for Thanksgiving each year. If you're curious, I blogged my efforts at a butterflied high roast turkey (normally brined) last year.

Thanksgiving Wine

The New York Times recommends a mix of red and white wines for Thanksgiving:

The wines need to be versatile, to complement a wide assortment of dishes, including the idiosyncratic variations that every family knows and loves. They must be modest but confident wines that assert their flavors in harmony with the food rather than trying to dominate the proceedings. And they must be modestly priced.

I'm not a wine guy, so I have no comments on their selections, but it seems like a nice article to have handy as people start gearing up for the holidays. Though, personally, I'll be looking at the Thanksgiving beer recommendations at Beer Advocate.

Pan Fried Pumpkin Butternut Squash Gnocchi?

Steamy Kitchen has a pretty interesting Pumpkin Gnocchi recipe up right now... interesting mostly because the gnocchi are pan fried and she uses ricotta and Parmesan in the gnocchi themselves... which I think is fairly unusual, but then I don't get out much. The thing is, we've got (I think ) five butternut squashes from the garden in Maine sitting on the counter waiting to be used... though some are destined for lasagna and whatever other nefarious ends Anna can dream up... that still leaves us with plenty of squash for gnocchi, which appeals more to me than canned pumpkin. The problem being that I don't really know how many cups of puree a butternut squash will produce, so I don't know how much ricotta/Parmesan or egg yolks or whatever to get to keep the ratios the same. However this butternut squash gnocchi recipe calls for cooking the squash the night before... which, while kind of a pain, would give me a better idea of what I'll need. I think I'm going to roast a chicken tonight, based on a recipe from Barbra Kafka's Roasting cookbook (recently passed on to me as Anna's mother tried to clean out some cookbooks she wasn't using)... but I hope to try this out before the end of the week.

photo by flickr user pcarpen used under a Creative Commons license

Horizons' Seitan

Horizons in Philly is probably the best vegan restaurant on the east coast. Granted, there's not a whole lot of competition... but still, if you're a vegan and live within a day's drive, you owe it to yourself to make a pilgrimage... and even if you're not a vegan, and live nearby, you should check out what talented chefs can do with soybeans and wheat gluten. I guess they were the first vegan chefs at the James Beard House a couple of weeks ago, so they must be doing something right. Anna has always raved about the place... and being that her sister and mother are both vegans and live in Philly/Southern New Jersey, it's been her family's goto spot for fine dining for quite some time... but Saturday was my first trip there. We had a range of appetizers that we all shared, but the entrée choices were much more monotonous, as the experienced diners gravitated towards the grilled seitan.

Horizons' seitan is unlike any seitan you've ever had. Seriously. I've never been a huge fan of seitan... though I like it more than tempeh (whose flavor I find kind of odd)... but Horizons' seitan was exceptional. Store bought seitan (pictured above) seems to tend towards a rubbery texture, but Horizons' effort was quite soft but with a nice chew... I won't say it's "meat-like", but it really is quite nice and satisfying. While I've never really understood vegans' and vegetarians' obsession with fake meat products, I think nearly any naysayer would be favorably impressed with what Horizons' serves.

The problem is that their seitan recipe is a secret... this despite the fact that Horizons has released TWO cookbooks. Apparently they get a custom cut of Ray's Seitan, a brand that is only available in Philly (not shipped anywhere AFAICT). Anna says that she has never been able to duplicate the texture at home... though she suspects that the chewy texture comes from over kneading, but has yet to test this hypothesis. An interesting blog post, where the author went to a cooking demo by the chef Rich Landau, suggests that Landau likes the seitan recipes from Veganomicon (best cookbook name EVAH) and How to Cook Everything Vegetarian (Bittman's)... so that might be where to start. I know we at least have Veganomicon, but I don't think we have Bittman's veggie book.

While I understand why Horizons and Ray's would want to keep a firm hold on their exceptional product, it seems a shame that vegans who don't live in Philly probably don't know how awesome seitan can really be. If Anna ever figures it out, I'll be sure to post it here.

Garden Stating

I'm off to visit with Anna's family over a three day weekend... posting should resume on Monday.

I don't particularly like this movie (it's aight) or this song (meh to The Shins), but it's topical so here you go:

Less meat or better meat?

This past Saturday, Nicolette Hahn Niman (of Niman Ranch fame) had an op-ed published in the New York Times pushing back against the idea that reducing meat consumption is key in fighting climate change... instead, she makes the case that it's factory farmed meat that's the real problem, and if we all ate pasture fed beef in our hamburgers everything would be super awesome. Obviously she has a dog in this fight... being in the pasture fed meat business... but she made some interesting points. Helen York at The Atlantic, however, was not so impressed, feeling that getting Americans to eat less meat was far more important than getting them to eat pasture fed meat... and that the case for pasture fed is not so strong as Niman made it seem. Besides emphasizing that methane from the animals digestion is a bigger problem than CO2 from machinery et al, York's main points appear to be that pasture fed meat is too expensive to be for most Americans and that any greenhouse gas advantages of pasture farming would be eliminated if they were done on a large enough scale to replace factory farming. To me, the first point is a feature not a bug... more expensive meat means eating less of it... and I tend to agree that many small farm advocates are a tad unrealistic when they imagine our food needs met by a thousand picturesque Niman Ranches dotting the countryside. There is just no way that we can feed everyone without embracing economies of scale to some extent. Regardless, the Nimans responded... though they didn't really address what I consider to be York's main criticisms. They do push back against the methane bit... saying that better feeding reduces those emissions, and that we've had giant herds of ruminating animals for basically ever... which is sort of fair, I guess. They also say it's federal policy, not scale that causes the high costs... but don't really cite any evidence. They do bring up an interesting tidbit:

A related point I emphasize in my op-ed but York ignores in her response is that a food's environmental impact should be considered holistically. It's important to consider grazing's significant environmental benefits. For one thing, pastures have been shown to sequester substantial amounts of carbon, much more than cropland. A mountain of studies have shown that pasture is by far the most ecologically sound method of producing food. Compared to cropland, pastures have much less soil erosion and cause much less water pollution. As the op-ed mentioned, they can also be excellent ways to maintain natural ecosystems and biodiversity. Moreover, the rumen's role in food production is nothing short of miraculous. As Cornell University professor David Pimentel wrote in Food, Energy and Society, ruminants can effectively make use of marginal land that is otherwise unsuitable for food production;they are intermediaries between naturally occurring, inedible cellulosic vegetation and human beings. In other words, by grazing on forage that humans cannot digest--thanks to their rumens, the very cause of those enteric emissions--grazing animals make efficient use of natural resources.

I'm a little curious about the "mountain of studies have shown that pasture is by far the most ecologically sound method of producing food"... but it sounds plausible. After all, the entire organic food thing arose out of a desire to stem the massive ecological damage of industrial farming methods. But if we're talking about all the livestock in the US, is there enough "marginal land that is otherwise unsuitable for food production" to pasture them all on?

They then go on to state that they want Americans to eat less meat too, but then complain that if you get all the foodies to eat less meat, then who is going to pay over $30 a pound for our steaks? Well O.K., not really... but that's kind of what it sounded like. While I think making meat more expensive is a good idea, it really is hard to believe Niman Ranch is a very good model for how food production should be structured. I would like to see some more hard analysis about what it would mean to say "all animals have to be pastured" or whatever. Is that even feasible? Would it make meat so expensive to put it out of the reach of most Americans? What would it do to greenhouse gas emissions?

I suspect, however, that the answer to this post's title is (predictably): both.

photo by flickr user publicenergy used under a Creative Commons license

Iron Chef Obama?

This sounds kind of fun:

On the episode, which will open the show’s new season Jan. 3 on the Food Network, two pairs of chefs will compete: Cristeta Comerford, the White House executive chef, and Bobby Flay go up against the combined forces of Mario Batali and Emeril Lagasse.

In a collision of politics, cooking and popular culture, Michelle Obama will reveal the secret ingredient that the chefs must use in their televised cook-off: anything that grows in the White House garden (no further spoilers here, though).

See? I'm not the only person who thinks politics and food go great together.

Maine Sucks

53 to 47 percent against gay marriage.

Dog: It's what for dinner!?

Via Ezra Klein

Jonathan Safran Foer notes in the Wall Street Journal that, if our food choices were rational, we'd all eat dog meat. Many other cultures across the world do it. Dogs are no smarter than a pig... so it's not like they're special on a cognitive level. Besides, we're already euthanizing 3-4 million dogs annually and turning their remains into "the food for our food"... so why not eliminate the middle man? Indeed, doing so, and moving straight to eating dogs would be better for the environment and our planet:

Few people sufficiently appreciate the colossal task of feeding a world of billions of omnivores who demand meat with their potatoes. The inefficient use of dogs—conveniently already in areas of high human population (take note, local-food advocates)—should make any good ecologist blush. One could argue that various "humane" groups are the worst hypocrites, spending enormous amounts of money and energy in a futile attempt to reduce the number of unwanted dogs while at the very same time propagating the irresponsible no-dog-for-dinner taboo. If we let dogs be dogs, and breed without interference, we would create a sustainable, local meat supply with low energy inputs that would put even the most efficient grass-based farming to shame. For the ecologically-minded it's time to admit that dog is realistic food for realistic environmentalists.

Clever as it is, presented in the Swift-ian style... the idea that our food choices "are not rational," should not surprise anyone who won't, for example, touch brussels sprouts... or isn't interested in eating puffin meat... or is, ahem, offended by the mere existence of rye bread. Indeed, I imagine you could concoct a similar article from the other direction... mocking the impossibility of living a life free of animal cruelty while citing the vegetarian with the leather pumps and cosmetics tested on animals. The rational choice of "cruelty free" or "locally grown" can only take most of us so far. While I'd like to think I'm dedicated to the idea of "locally grown", I only made it to the farmer's market a handful of times this summer... and, uhm, it's... like... almost winter and I live in Massachusetts... do you expect me to just eat root vegetables for the next 6 months? So yeah... there are obviously (very low) limits to what effort I will put forth and I what inconvenience I will endure, for a food related ideal. I don't imagine that is unusual... but I won't eat a dog, and that instinctual revulsion takes absolutely no effort on my part.

So how do we change our food culture to inspire such revulsion in factory farmed meat? Field trips to slaughterhouses? Mandatory butchering classes in middle school? Or do we just take the decision out of the consumer's hand and regulate the cruelty (as best we can) out of our meat?

Lost Cities Impressions

Anna is a fairly big fan of card and board games... pretty much always being up for a game of anything ranging from Candyland to Boggle to Monopoly. While I do enjoy the occasional game of cutthroat Monopoly, I have generally eschewed boardgames since I was a teenager... preferring to get my strategic and competitive game playing fixes on the computer. The problem there is that the competition is usually against the A.I., which besides tending not to be much of a challenge... isn't very social, and doesn't satisfy the most critical criterion in the request: "Let's do something together!" With multi-player video games most often needing two copies of the software, and two computers or consoles to run it on... it really seemed the most cost effective strategy for another entertainment option beyond cooking, watching Netflix, or going out was for me to investigate board gaming, and find something that appealed to me more than Boggle. The problem from the board gaming end, however, is that the vast majority are meant for something like four players... not two... and while we could get some friends over for a board gaming night occasionally... or perhaps head down Mass Ave to Pandemonium Books for their board gaming night... two player games are really what we're going to get the most use out of.

We started with highly regarded Carcassonne and War of the Ring, but had mixed success. While I like Carcassonne, I've never quite gotten into it... usually preferring to do something else rather than play... luckily Xbox Live Arcade has a version Anna can play solo. I can't really explain what's failed to grab me about Carcassonne... maybe it's just that I prefer massive strategy titles with lots of complicated rules and moving parts... thus I am a much bigger fan of War of the Ring. While we both really enjoy WoTR, it takes quite a lot of time for us to setup and play(see here) and thus requires more planning and dedication than you really want on a week night. So I am starting to acknowledge that I need to get more into games that can get whipped out and played quickly, without needing hours of setup and hours of play to resolve... while I think I need to give Carcassonne another (more serious) go, I also wanted to try some other games.

So with that... rather long... introduction, you know where I'm coming from with my impressions of Lost Cities: I am new to board gaming, lean towards complicated games, but want to get into some "simple but deep" ones. We played on two different nights... just a game or two each time (each game consisting of three rounds)... which is sufficient to give some impressions of how it plays and some of the strategy involved. Lost Cities is a 60 card game (5 suits or "expeditions" instead of the 4 in a regular deck) that's pretty straight forward to play, with the most complicated (and important) part being the scoring. For each suit/expedition there are numbered cards from 2 to 10 and then three face/investment cards. Each player puts down cards on their own side of the table and doesn't directly impact the expeditions of the other (you do indirectly impact them of course). The investment cards for any expedition can only be played before you put down any numbered cards... and any number card you put down has do be higher than the ones you've played so far. So ideally, you'd put down the three investment cards and then in sequence the cards 2 through 10. Each player starts the game with 8 cards, and then on your turn you can either put a card down on an expedition or discard a card to the middle onto the appropriate expedition discard pile... then you take a card.. either from the deck... or from one of the aforementioned expedition discard piles. The round ends when the last card is drawn from the deck... meaning that you will end a round with cards in your hand, and getting cards onto the table before the game ends is a huge part of the strategy... the end comes much more quickly than you think it will. Besides just getting your cards down on the table, the biggest part of the strategy involves the nature of the scoring. When you start an expedition, you start in the hole 20 points... that is, if you can't put down more than 20 points of numbered cards on an expedition by the end of the round, you lose points for starting it. The investment cards increase the multiplier applied after you determine how many points an expedition won or lost... which can lead to huge losses if you put down investment cards and few numbered cards. So, naturally, a fairly large part of the strategy appears to be based on holding cards to screw your opponent... or holding back on playing any cards from an expedition until you already have a lot of points from that suit in your hand. There is a lot of tension between wanting to put down a long string of cards that will score you a big round, and trying to keep from taking big risks for huge losses.

While the first couple of games we played were mainly just learning the ins and outs of that scoring dynamic... it's super easy to pick up the rules, and you can just dive right in. I have to say that I've enjoyed it quite a bit so far, with one of the nicest parts being that you can play it in small doses... and thus I'm not really worried about of getting sick of it quickly... playing three rounds for a game is pretty fast, but still feels like a decent amount of activity to me.

So I'm pleased. I'll try to update if I sour on it, or suddenly find some aspect of the strategy that makes playing it tedious.