Skip to content

KITCHEN EQUIPMENT: OBSERVATIONS FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE POND

Posted by Administrator on

Every two years the North American Food Equipment Manufacturers (NAFEM) organization hosts its premier event somewhere in the United States - the NAFEM Show - where manufacturers throughout North America display the latest and greatest foodservice equipment they have to offer. On the other side of the pond, in Italy, there is another biennial event - the HOST show - where the latest and greatest European kitchen equipment is showcased, offering industry professionals an opportunity to kick the tires. This past fall, these two tradeshows were held back-to-back in Atlanta and Milan, and I was fortunate to participate in both.

Separated by less than a week, attending these two shows one right after the other highlighted clear similarities and differences between trends in the two regions. I would like to briefly address the commonalities first, as analyzing the differences is far more revealing. Generally speaking, walking around the more than 20 combined exhibit halls, just about everything I saw was familiar. There were a few new, truly innovative products at both shows, but even these were often improvements within a pre-existing category. In other words, there were some different style ranges with very unique features - but they were still ranges. Pressurized braising pans had an increased presence and seemed to be growing in popularity - but they were an improved version of the familiar piece of equipment we have been using for decades. I think you see my point.

The differences between equipment displayed at these two exhibitions, however, were more intriguing to me because I believe that they convey a great deal regarding trends, preferences, health codes, and priorities within each region. Certain products - even product categories - that were on display in Atlanta could not be found in Milan; and the reverse was also true. The remainder of this column highlights some of the key divergences I observed between the goods on display at these two events. Here they are, in no particular order:

As a general rule, the European equipment featured a higher quality of fit and finish. Craftsmanship of the equipment was typically superior to their North American counter parts. The polishing, welding, corners, and overall design of the European equipment seemed to receive more attention and consideration. The Europeans are more thoughtful about the design of their equipment, with a better understanding of how the equipment is actually utilized within commercial kitchens.

The European equipment featured a number of little details that had been carefully conceived to improve the European products' function, cleanability, and durability. Here are just a few examples of what I am referring to: Manual cranks for tilting equipment that featured a recessed handle which could be stowed when not in use; pre-determined access points within lids on kettles and braising pans to ensure that the fill faucet would not be damaged; a recessed griddle top to help keep food in one place, as opposed to raised shields on three sides (also much easier to keep clean).

The Europeans use far more induction tops. A heavy duty induction range - built to match a full bodied range line - was a standard at the HOST show. A similar piece of equipment could not even be found at NAFEM.

Food guards (also referred to as sneeze guards or breath shields) were a standard in the United States, and even the sole or primary product line for several manufacturers. These items were much harder to find in Milan. While they were incorporated into some of the buffet and serving equipment, they were far less prevalent.

Many of the cooking suites (pianos) on display in Milan featured an open bottom with no ovens or storage cabinets below. While this does make cleaning much easier, I was a bit surprised given the limitations on space throughout Europe and traditionally smaller footprints for kitchens.

Speaking of smaller footprints, I saw range line-ups, complete with cabinet and oven bases, that were only 550mm deep (less than 24 inches). This seemed to have some possible application for venues where variety is desired, but volume is low and space is at a premium.

The popularity of different cooking methods was evident in the equipment on display. In Italy, combination oven-steamers have become the norm in what is now referred to as vertical cooking. While combi-ovens, as they are commonly called, are continue to gain popularity in North America, they are not nearly as common as they are in Europe where nearly every corner bistro employs a combi-oven in the kitchen. Conversely, charbroiling is still a very popular method for cooking in North America, but few charbroilers were exhibited at the show in Italy.

Due primarily to health code requirements in the US, temperature controlled food holding equipment was far more common at the NAFEM show. More specifically, I am referring to equipment that is designed to hold food product - either hot or cold - that is ready for service. Drop-in hot food wells, refrigerated cold pans, induction heated chafing dishes, and other such comparable equipment on display in Atlanta was specifically designed to hold food products either above 140F or below 40F. The equivalent equipment in Italy did not focus meet the same temperature requirements. This is most likely due to differences in code requirements and preparation methods. I can only remember seeing one manufacturer in Milan showcasing hot food wells, and I did not see a single drop-in cold pan. Frost tops were utilized in most of the cold serving equipment, a method which is slowly being phased out in the US.

The European equipment placed far greater importance on limiting the usage of energy and water. Of particular interest was a manufacturer of dish machines who has a worldwide presence. During the show, they unveiled a new flight-type dish machine that can operate on just 50 gallons of water per hour. This machine, however, is not available in North America; the comparable unit that is available uses approximately 400 gallons of water per hour.

Within these observations there is a story being told. Different regions have different requirements and priorities, which impact the design and function of their kitchen equipment. What is important in one region may not be as important as another. Cooking methods, local health codes, cuisine, manufacturing processes, and local customer expectations all work to shape the type and style of equipment being offered in each region. In my experience, the lines between European and North American foodservice practices are blurring more and more each day. North American based hotel and restaurant brands are expanding globally while European culinary practices are being sought out more regularly throughout the United States as food preparation and consumption continue to play a more important role in everyday life. Taking time to explore and consider practices from the other side of the ocean - regardless of which side you live on - could result in a few good ideas that might improve your operation.

Read more: http://escoffier.com/culinary-content/articles-on-restaurant-design/129-restaurant-kitchen-equipment-us-vs-europe

A Quick Celtic Astrology Background Explanation

Posted by Administrator on

Of the many different types of astrology that are out there, Celtic astrology is one of the most interesting. It is different from the rest because of additional variables that are associated with the constellations used for zodiac signs. It is a lunar based astrology, one that has 13 signs instead of 12. One of the primary differences is that it uses crystal stones and trees in its correlation with personality traits that people will have as a result of the day that they were born. Let's look at Celtic astrology in summary providing you with a little bit of background information that can help you decide whether or not this type of astrology is for you.

A Background On Celtic Astrology

Due to the emphasis of the Celtic people on nature, and also the moon as their primary way of keeping track of time, they were well aware of the integral connection between both mankind and nature. In the beginning, Celtic astrology was not a relationship between zodiac symbols and people, but a relationship between the Celts and trees that would signify certain characteristics about a person depending upon the time of the year that they were born. Each tree is representative of personality traits that a person will have, similar to how other forms of astrology are designed. There was also the concept of the dark and light halves of the year, something that was representative also of the life, death and rebirth cycle.

Celtic Tree Symbols And Traits

There are 13 trees that are part of Celtic astrology which include the birch, rowan, ash, and alder tree to name a few. Each one of the trees is associated with a different animal, each with their own characteristics. In the same way that Chinese astrology also uses the Dragon to represent one of its zodiac signs, so also do the Celts. It would seem that the Dragon may have been a real animal at some point in time due to the correlation between Chinese and Druid astrology. Astrological charts could be designed based upon a person's date of birth and the sign and tree for which they were associated. There seems to be some validity to this particular pseudoscience simply because it has existed for so long, and many people do possess a large number of the traits associated with their particular zodiac sign.

Celtic astrology is one of the most unique in the world because of its connection to nature, in combination with the signs of the zodiac in the sky. If you are able to find an astrologist that can provide a natal chart for you, using the signs of the Celtic zodiac and the trees that are also associated, it may very well be an important decision that can change your life.

My Brother’s Keeper: From Sibling Violence to Brotherly Love

Posted by Administrator on
As recently as the 19th century, Western societies lived by an unspoken pact: what happened in the family stayed in the family. Scandal, and even violence, was nobody else’s business and was best hidden from the public so that the illusion of wholesome, happy and healthy family relationships could be maintained.
Gradually, however, cracks began to appear in society’s veneer, and the image of the modern flourishing family gave way to a more nuanced portrait. First, seemingly isolated incidents of child abuse intruded on public awareness, prompting the establishment of a society for child protection in America by 1875, and a similar society in Britain by 1884. The exposure of marital violence was less forthcoming despite the efforts of early women’s movements. Nearly a century passed before the first shelter for battered women opened in England and its founder, Erin Pizzey, published Scream Quietly or the Neighbours Will Hear (1974), which would spread awareness of domestic violence across Europe. The next year, British geriatric physician G.R. Burston described a phenomenon he called “granny battering,” corresponding to what American practitioners had been calling “battered old person syndrome.”
But there was yet another skeleton to be discovered in the family closet. In 1980 a groundbreaking study, known as the National Family Violence Survey, would be published in the United States under the title Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family; it would reveal that—of all forms of family violence—the most prevalent was that which occurs between siblings.
This discovery remains well worth looking into, because despite reductions in birth rates throughout much of the world, the majority of children have brothers and sisters. Even in China, single-child policies have not been widely implemented outside urban areas. And rather than being immune to sibling violence, single children may suffer indirect but significant effects, since those who are violent toward siblings also tend to be violent toward dating partners and peers.
But what is sibling violence? Don’t all children quarrel and even fight occasionally? Isn’t it an overreaction to classify aggressive behavior between siblings as violence? Where is the line between “normal” sibling conflict and abusive behavior, and how and when should parents intervene?
Oddly enough, despite the surprising finding of the National Family Violence Survey, these questions went largely unconsidered for some time by researchers in their understandable zeal to study forms of domestic violence that had already been accepted as social problems. Sibling violence was easily shrugged off as little more than an exaggerated form of sibling rivalry, a concept that in some circles is considered “Darwinian common sense.” Sibling aggression, bullying and even murder, after all, are certainly not unusual in nature, where in some species the wild young compete to the death for the sole right to the survival resources provided by their parents. Thus the terms “sibling” and “rivalry” were nearly inseparable for decades, particularly in Western cultures, forming the basis of perhaps the most popular view of the sibling relationship.
Interestingly, the first crime described in the Bible is fratricide: a jealous Cain kills his more successful brother, Abel, and when asked his whereabouts, Cain disdainfully responds, “I don’t know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” Clearly he thinks not.
Later in the same book, Genesis, a younger brother (Jacob) cheats his older brother (Esau) out of his inheritance, and a few short chapters farther on, Jacob’s older sons throw their paternally favored brother, Joseph, into a pit and conspire to kill him. In a twist that hints at the complexity possible in sibling relationships, one of the brothers, Reuben, hatches a private plan to return and save Joseph, but he is unable to intervene before the others sell the boy into slavery. Joseph ultimately repays his brothers with kindness, saving their lives in the face of drought and almost certain starvation. But it is the early rivalry between them that tends to be remembered, reinforcing commonly held stereotypes about the nature of sibling relationships.
At the other extreme, the relationship between twins has enjoyed a far more benign reputation. Stories abound of seemingly telepathic twins whose bonds—spiritual and physical—were forged in the womb, who enjoy a harmonious mind meld of the kind that is assumed to be forever beyond the reach of ordinary siblings not fortunate enough to be endowed with a real-life mirror image.
The reality, of course, is that twins can be plagued by competitive and even violent relationships just as singletons can enjoy warm, supportive bonds. But it was perhaps not until Stephen P. Bank and Michael D. Kahn published the 1982 edition of The Sibling Bond, a collection of their research into the complexities of sibling interactions, that these polarized stereotypes were seriously challenged by researchers. Further, Bank and Kahn’s contention that parents are not actually a child’s only significant influence inspired later researchers to explore the rich variety of emotional, developmental and other needs that sibling relationships can fulfill, leading many to regard brothers and sisters as potentially important attachment figures—different from parents, but no less influential. As we will see, the findings of these studies in terms of the influence of sibling relationships on personality development and even resilience raise serious questions about whether and how far parents should tolerate conflict and aggression between their children.
The same body of research also underscores that it isn’t enough for parents to discourage negative interactions between siblings. Just because children don’t lash out at one another overtly doesn’t mean they feel warmly toward one another—and it’s the degree of warmth in a sibling relationship rather than the mere absence of negativity that predicts children’s behavioral, emotional and social adjustment. This isn’t to say that children who feel warmth toward one another will never experience conflict, of course; the goal for parents is to help children increase their ability to resolve conflict reasonably quickly and restore an atmosphere of active support. This may require parents to change their expectations: instead of brushing off hitting, name-calling and shunning as harmless behaviors, parents ideally would make it clear that they expect their children to treat each other with warmth and affection, and would reward such behavior when it occurs spontaneously.
Obviously it is in a parent’s best interest to aim for this: few parents take pleasure in presiding over constant squabbling. More important, it’s in the children’s best interest too. Sibling relationships are likely to be the most enduring they will have in their lifetime. Like our parents, siblings are party to our early experiences, but barring unnatural death, they are likely to remain part of our lives much longer, outliving parents by 20 years or more. In addition, if siblings share both parents with us, we will typically have about 50 percent of our DNA in common. That means they are genetically more like us than anyone else on earth other than our parents. Considering that these relationships can contribute tremendously to the stores of resilience that will help carry us through the adverse events that are an inevitable part of life, it makes sense to ensure that they are as supportive and nurturing as possible. Fortunately, research suggests that even though there will always be some elements outside their control, parents are capable of exerting a powerful influence over whether their children will develop positive or negative relationships, either of which can have a lasting effect on the child’s worldview and corresponding mental health persisting long into adulthood.

The Key to Happy Relationships? It’s Not All About Communication

Posted by Administrator on
If couples were paying any attention during the past few decades, they should be able to recite the one critical ingredient for a healthy relationship — communication. But the latest study shows that other skills may be almost as important for keeping couples happy.
While expressing your needs and feelings in a positive way to your significant other is a good foundation for resolving conflicts and building a healthy relationship, these skills may not be as strong a predictor of couples’ happiness as experts once thought.
In an Internet-based study involving 2,201 participants referred by couples counselors, scientists decided to test, head to head, seven “relationship competencies” that previous researchers and marital therapists found to be important in promoting happiness in romantic relationships. The idea was to rank the skills in order of importance to start building data on which aspects of relationships are most important to keeping them healthy. In addition to communication and conflict resolution, the researchers tested for sex or romance, stress management, life skills, knowledge of partners and self-management to see which ones were the best predictors of relationship satisfaction. Couples were asked questions that tested their competency in all of these areas and then queried about how satisfied they were with their relationships. The researchers correlated each partner’s strengths and weaknesses in each area with the person’ relationship satisfaction.
Not surprisingly, those who reported communicating more effectively showed the highest satisfaction with their relationships. But the next two factors — which were also the only other ones with strong links to couple happiness — were knowledge of partner (which included everything from knowing their pizza-topping preferences to their hopes and dreams) and life skills (being able to hold a job, manage money, etc.).
Couples counselors, however, rarely address these two areas, as the focus on strengthening relationships has been on improving communication to reduce destructive behavior and to build support and comfort for each other. “For the last 25 years,” says Tom Bradbury, a veteran couples researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles, “the prevailing attitude has been that relationships need to meet our emotional needs.” To be successful, however, he’s also found that relationships need to function in more practical, and perhaps mundane ways as well.
And learning more about your partner, says the study’s lead author Robert Epstein, a professor of psychology at the University of the South Pacific, in Fiji, could be relatively easy if people (men especially, since they scored worse in this area) took the trouble to find out, remember and put to use such relatively simple information as the names of their partner’s relatives and the dates of birthdays and anniversaries. Even more important, Epstein says, is knowing such critical things as whether your partner wants children. While his study did not separate trivial from such profound knowledge, he says that the two are strongly linked.
While other marriage researchers agree that forgetting things like birthdays or food preferences can be annoying and detrimental to a relationship, they believe the importance of life skills that was revealed in the study is telling.
“It’s an old idea, really,” says Bradbury. “In 1900 a woman or man would think, ‘My partner must be able to provide for me.’ ‘She must be able to help me plant and dig up the crops.’” If the couple had this foundation, they’d consider themselves lucky if they also got their emotional needs met. In Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage, historian Stephanie Coontz traces the gradual erosion of this old idea of marriage back about 200 years in Western society as cultural expectations about marriage changed from one rooted in kinship, property and utility to one in which people were expected to get nearly all of their emotional needs met by one person.
For today’s couples interested in improving their relationships, say the study’s authors, therapists might consider going back to the basics and incorporating more practical social skills into their discussions. And that may include referring those who lack these skills to money managers or career coaches. “Communication skills are necessary,” says Lisa Neff, couples researcher at the University of Texas at Austin, “but they’re not sufficient when couples are under stress.”
It’s important for couples to know how the outside world — whether they can get a job, whether their kids can play outside safely or go to a good school — will affect their relationship even if they have good life skills and good communication skills. Strong relationships, says Bradbury, recognizes how pressures outside of home and the relationship can influence, and even break down good communication skills.
“Outside,” Bradbury says, “there is a real world that impinges on us.” To deal with it takes not only communication, but also an understanding that even the strongest communication networks among partners can falter and when they’re under these intense external pressure. The strategy he suggests for couples he counsels is to join forces rather than turn away from each other. “It’s not you against each other; it’s you against the world,” he says.