Monthly Archives: March 2011

blogging, food, morsels, sitenews

Syrup & Tang’s 4th anniversary and time for a new look

8 Comments

Time flies when you’re busy eating delectable things and making biscuits. I’m marking four years of Syrup & Tang by changing the look a bit (the last time was two year back). I hope my readers like the new design and continue to enjoy my writings.

If you notice anything that’s not working well, please leave a comment here or email me. There are still a few minor changes to implement this week, so keep an eye out for them.

The new design retains elements which have been there since the beginning, including (of course!) the sharp blade. 😉 I’ve also taken this as an opportunity to increase the photographic elements a little, though not as a photoblog – I do a lot of photography, but Syrup & Tang is about communicating about food rather than showcasing photos.

I always use a redesign to refine my CSS skills and I endeavour to make every design fully compatible with the majority of browsers. This time I’ve abandoned catering for Internet Explorer 6 – less than 2.5% of readers are using that piece of rubbish now, thank goodness – but the site should still be mostly functional for them.

Happy eating!

cooking, equipment, food, hl, reviews

Kitchen scales redux

4 Comments

My kitchen scales battle showed no signs of a Duncan-win following my first article bemoaning the crappiness of many scales and the deterioration of my favourite model. The latter, my once-trusty IKEA model, now resets itself if I plonk anything onto it even moderately hard. Sigh.

In a sign that some companies are being a little more careful in how they approach bloggers, it was more than a relief to receive a commercial email that wasn’t trying to get me to PR-pimp pears or the latest bloody Vegemite to my “interested readers”. Instead, Brad at KitchenwareDirect (one of a number of online discounters in Australia) offered me the opportunity to try out a set of scales from Soehnle, a brand mentioned a few times by my readers. As he was also polite enough to make clear that he wasn’t suggesting a reviewing angle and accepted that I rarely mince my words about products, I accepted the offer of some scales to test.

To recap and update my kitchen scales testing criteria:

  • measure up to at least 3 kg, preferably more
  • measure as little as 2 gm
  • measure in increments of no larger than 1 gm
  • be zeroed/tared easily
  • measure reliably, without the figure creeping up or down, or the baseline changing
  • have no immovable/fixed lip or button at the same level as the weighing surface (too easy to rest a bowl on it and end up with a misleading reading)
  • have an easily readable display
  • have easily replaceable batteries
  • have no grooves for collection of dust/food
  • perhaps measure lb/oz as well

The scales I tested were the Soehnle Cuisina, with a raised weighing platform and a plastic bowl which fits on top. It officially weighs to 5000 gm / 11 lb 6 oz (tick) in 1 gm increments (tick), with a minimum weight of 1 gm (tick). Reality comes close to this (see below). The battery is a single 3V lithium button, which means it’ll last a long time, but if it suddenly dies you probably won’t have a spare ready to hand – hopefully the low-battery icon starts to show with enough warning.

The bowl is a convenient size and shape and sits well on the weighing surface. It comfortably holds at least 2.5 litres. Most of the time I would be using my own bowls, but for simple projects the included bowl is perfectly adequate.

The fact that the clear glass weighing disk sits well above the display is very good (tick), and although the display isn’t illuminated, it was much easier to read than my IKEA scales. The display turns off automatically after 3 mins (tick) or by pressing the button again (tick). If the registered weight is above zero, pressing the button tares the unit. The button had a clean click response. The grooves around the button, as on most similar scales, are a dust/food collector, so I’ll be taping some clingwrap over the display and button. The weighing disk can be removed for cleaning. It’s also handy as a grip for picking the scales up (so maybe I won’t drop them as often as other scales;) ).

Weighing was quick and consistent (tick) across the full range (1 gm – 5000 gm), with additions of large or small amounts giving the expected reading (i.e. putting, say, 5 gm, 500 gm or 5000 gm on the scales and then adding another item of a known weight always gave the expected result). Consistency is good, but that doesn’t say anything about accuracy. Weighing large numbers of Australian coins (which have standard weights), I discovered that the Soehnle Cuisina scales were mismeasuring the weight by about +1.4 gm per actual 1000 gm of material. This is unlikely to be disastrous, except at the pointy end of avant garde cuisine. The IKEA scales remain the ones I’ve tested that are most accurate.

On most occasions, the display settled on the final weight promptly (tick) and it didn’t change thereafter (tick). This was tested by (1) putting a range of different final weights on the scales, and (2) by rapid or gradual addition of material (e.g. pouring liquid into a bowl slowly).

But now for something annoying: The scales don’t register very gradual addition of material when starting from zero. This can be a problem for sprinkling powder, grains, or a gentle flow of liquid.

I measured out 10 gm of rice, removed it, and then very slowly sprinkled the rice back into the bowl. The display steadfastly showed “0”. To test if this problem only occurred around the zero point, I measured out 10 gm of rice, then gradually sprinkled in an extra 5 gm of rice. This worked fine.

The scales will not register (at zero) the addition of less than 1 gm, or multiple additions of less than 1 gm. My advice: never start by adding small amounts to the scales. Make sure you’ve added a larger amount of material quickly (to get it to a value above zero reliably) before adding any small amounts. Thankfully the problem only exists at zero, while some other scales I’ve tried had the problem no matter what had already been weighed. In tiny print on the guarantee sheet, I found the text: “This scale has an intelligent [sic!] zero setting. This may in some cases when bulk ingredients are poured very slowly cause the display to remain at zero.” Correct.

The scales can display metric or Imperial weights (tick), but unlike many scales this isn’t possible by simply pressing a button. The manufacturers decided that users will only operate in one system (and as long as you’re not an English speaker, that’s probably true), so they stuck a teencytiny switch under the cover for the battery compartment. Grr. If you do like Imperial, however, the weight is displayed to a decimal fraction of an ounce (tick; I won’t comment about the silliness of doing decimals of an anachronistic base-16/8/14/whatever measurement system).

All up, the Soehnle Cuisina scales are good to use and responsive, but – as is common to most domestic digital scales in my experience – a little inaccurate. In this particular case, the innaccuracy is small enough that you need not feel discouraged from trying the Soehnle Cuisina.

My sincere thanks to KitchenwareDirect for providing these scales for review.

(As a side note, I recommend against the increasingly common type of very flat glass scales (like those I rejected in my first article) in all brands. Careful reading of reviews of these on various US, UK and German sites indicates that they all have problems with changes in readings and sensitivity to where items are places on the weighing surface. Stylish looks, poor performance.)

chocolate, cooking, equipment, food, hl, recipes

Fantastic chocolate ice cream, plus equipment failure

2 Comments

I can feel myself approaching an equipment crisis. My favourite food processor is no longer sold in Australia and spare parts are crazy expensive. My kitchen scales are on the way out. My new spatulas bend too much. And just recently I lost the paddle for my ice cream maker. All such things are discovered at the least convenient moments, and the last two had to happen just as I was reviewing a book on ice cream – Ice Creams, Sorbets & Gelati by Caroline and Robin Weir.

Some weeks after testing a few recipes, I noticed the book had a recipe that ostensibly reproduced the stunning cacao extra bitter ice cream at Berthillon in Paris (see pic here). As that was the most impressive chocolate ice cream I’ve ever eaten, I had to try it at home.

I made the custard. Chilled it for 24 hours. Made sure the ice cream maker’s bowl was in the freezer.

Took out the custard. Assembled the machine. Couldn’t find the paddle. Couldn’t find it. Anywhere.

I put the custard back in the fridge. The bowl back in the freezer. And searched.

I went online to see if I was misremembering the colour or shape of the paddle while rummaging through cupboards and drawers and down the back of shelves.

In the end, I had a pot of custard and a frozen bowl and no paddle, so it seemed the only options was to try to churn the mixture by hand with a rigid spatula (that’s when I discovered the new spatula isn’t strong enough). Despite only having made a half mixture of custard, this was hard work, especially as you don’t want the mixture freezing solid against the walls of the bowl (that’s why the paddles scrape down the walls and base constantly). Uff.

As much as I complain, it was educational. Doable. And the result was damn good.

At first, the coffee in the mixture was too noticeable and I wasn’t excited. But 24 hours later this had mellowed and probably wouldn’t have been noticeable to new tasters. The final ice cream was dense and rich, beautifully chocolatey and melted superbly. A textural delight.

I won’t reproduce the exact recipe here, but the key characteristics were a basic rich vanilla ice cream custard with quite a lot of cocoa and chocolate dispersed through it, along with some sugar syrup and a small amount of instant coffee. (The cocoa is boiled for some minutes to get rid of the raw taste, and the chocolate is then melted into the milk for the custard.)

Was it the same as Berthillon’s? The potential was there. I used a 55% cocoa solids dark couverture. If I were to make it again, I’d try 70% or so as I think that would get it closer to the mark.

Meanwhile, I’m off to borrow my mum’s ice cream maker from 1985. She still has her paddle.

by Duncan

Macaron update for early 2011

4 Comments

I hope all my 2010 macaron devourers had a lovely summer, relaxing and eating (but not too many substandard, crunchy, flavourless macarons, please!). I know many of you have been curious about what’s happening with Macarons by Duncan in 2011.

As you might know, the macarons are a second business for me alongside an almost full-time job. Being a one-man-production-macaron-maestro is not easy (the biscuits take a looong time to prepare, especially if you want something better than average!).

Lots of things going on in life away from the macarons have made it difficult to restart manufacture, leaving me with the unenviable decision of whether to (1) stop completely or (2) ramp things up by employing helpers and finding better production premises. The first option would be very relaxing (assuming I’m not stalked by macaron-lovers-in-withdrawal). The second option would require time and a more commercial enterprise.

I’m deferring the final decision until the non-macaron life has settled down a bit, but there won’t be any Macarons by Duncan for normal sale in the next few months. There is a chance I’ll accept occasional requests for special orders (not wedding size!), but I can’t promise.

For those of you who subscribe to my updates via Twitter, I will start using that account for more general discussion, and updates about Syrup & Tang (my main food site). I’m not a big Tweeter at all, but if you don’t want that non-macaron stuff in your Twitter stream, I won’t be offended if you unfollow;)

If you subscribe by email, that list will simply be unused until there’s any further news.

If you’d like to stay informed about things on Syrup & Tang, follow this link to see the other subscription options.

cooking, food, media, reviews, society

My Kitchen Rules: I can see burnt bits

7 Comments

When I was a kid there were crackers called Fish Shapes (I think they were among the early Arnott’s Shapes). They were foul. But if you were at a party you just had to have some, finding it hard to stop at the first handful. Despite their revoltingness, they were compulsive eating.

In a similar vein, My Kitchen Rules 2011 is compulsive viewing. I sat on the train home last night wishing I wasn’t going to be home in time for another dose of this distasteful, mediocre circus of the nice, naïve, ‘noying and nasty. Alas, Metro trains were running on time.

A columnist for Crikey.com asked on Monday “Why does this program remind me of Big Brother and all its negativity?” Nicely put.

Of course, it’s not just the producers’ deliberate choice of some distinctly unsympathetic personalities that keeps viewers simultaneously horrified and fascinated, but also the stunningly awful abilities of many of the contestants to (a) organise themselves, (b) work as a team, (c) cook.

I gather that the contestants submitted a number of menus for their dinner parties and were only told on the day which menu they would cook. Wouldn’t you, in their position, have practised most of the menu items? Perhaps have worked out how to tea-smoke duck? Checked whether deep-fried chocolate-risotto-encased ice-cream balls was a tasty idea? Googled “blue fin tuna” to work out whether ecological shame should be on the menu?

I know a few very competent cooking bloggers who wouldn’t have wanted to attempt many of those menus in a mere three hours, but hey, maybe that’s why we didn’t audition for the show!

I can’t see why My Kitchen Rules is such a ratings winner for Channel Seven. Last year’s run was novelty and horror. This year’s is the same, but with extra tiresome bitchiness and incompetence. And hosts Manu Feildel and Pete Evans, as charming as they are, are now so scripted, re-shot and dramatically paused that their presence is just wooden.

So I’m thinking… if one of the contestants could just go beserk with the kitchen implements, the show could end happily (for viewers) and prematurely. What an elimination!

Does anyone even remember who was in it – or won – last year? Didn’t think so.

Postscript: I wrote the above just after the episode finished. Alas that meant the telly was still on when Conviction Kitchen started. I didn’t see the first episode, but my first impressions were of a distasteful, exploitative piece of reality TV. Other shows manage shameless prejudiced overtones (the xenophobic Border Security) or manipulative tempting and shaming (Biggest Loser), but do we need to combine prejudice, tempt-n-shame and a lottery-for-freedom for Conviction Kitchen’s participants? That makes a mockery of the transformative intentions of the learn-to-cook exercise.

Isn’t it morally reprehensible to pour a drink for people subject to a no-alcohol restriction and then see if they’ll drink? Is it mere coincidence that a camera happens to be focused on a participant who suddenly admits to a legal problem to the chef, while another camera just happens to be trained on the chef’s face? Why do the promos and pre-advertisement previews emphasise drama and failures? It wins the voyeurs’ votes. At least chef Ian Curley seems to have had the best intentions with the participants and series.

NOTE: This is not the place for discussion of rehabilitation/crime/etc, so comments along those lines won’t be published.