|
My impression is that mushro ketchup is meant to be thin - it's more similar to Worcestershire sauce than what we know as ketchup today. Also that recipe is really good and mushroom ketchup is delicious  need to try and make walnut ketchup at some point.
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 09:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 11:49 |
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:My impression is that mushro ketchup is meant to be thin - it's more similar to Worcestershire sauce than what we know as ketchup today. Worcestershire sauce and ketchup both share a similar lineage to fermented fish sauces. Worcestershire is a direct descendant of Roman garum using anchovies, while ketchup started as an imitation of Chinese and Malaysian pickled fish sauces that coincidentally happened to similar to what they already had in Europe. The recipe was Anglicized by adding shallots and mushrooms or tomatoes, then eventually dropped the fish altogether to become a purely mushroom or tomato-based sauce. Then the tomato ketchup became the most popular and displaced the older recipes, but Worcestershire sauce is still hanging on as one of the last common remnants of those days.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 14:56
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Worcestershire sauce and ketchup both share a similar lineage to fermented fish sauces. The specific thing called Worcestershire sauce was devised by Lea & Perrins in the early 19th Century. The official origin story is that it started out as an Indian condiment sauce lacking any fermented fish component. This ancestor sauce was then (depending on who you ask) either imperfectly replicated in a form that involved fish sauce or, alternately, was made more compatible with the British tastes of the moment by addition of fish sauce. But at least as far as I know it's one of those commonplace culinary items whose actual history is at best obscure and at worse actively muddied by various parties attempting to assert authorship of the original article. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though. And tomato ketchup was a comparatively late innovation, after around a century of the mushroom variety became commonly associated with the name.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 04:45
|
|
|
I always liked the worcestershire origin story that involved it being super awful and the guys just hid their shame in their basement for like ten years. Then they found it while cleaning or something and decided to give it a try to see if being really old had helped.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 14:31
|
|
|
Internet Wizard posted:I always liked the worcestershire origin story that involved it being super awful and the guys just hid their shame in their basement for like ten years. Then they found it while cleaning or something and decided to give it a try to see if being really old had helped. Aging liquids to improve it is a very old technique. While Romans usually drank their wine very fresh (without sulfites or proper bottling to preserve it, wine will go bad pretty quickly), some expensive wines were aged for a very long time. The Opimian vintage of 121 BC was considered the absolute best in Rome and leftover wine continued to be drank for a very, very, very long time. Pliny the Elder had it over 200 years after it was made and described it as being undrinkable, basically syrup with an extremely concentrated flavor. There were jokes in comedies about 160-year-old vinegar being served at aristocratic banquets because of this trend.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
gently caress, I can't remember how long the orangecello has even been in the pantry...
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 16:49
|
|
|
I dunno about Worcestershire sauce being a direct descendant of mushroom ketchup, but the first thing I though after trying mushroom ketchup for the first time was "this tastes a lot like Worcestershire sauce". There are non-fish sauces out there that are similar like Henderson's Relish but I've not tried them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 17:03
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I dunno about Worcestershire sauce being a direct descendant of mushroom ketchup, but the first thing I though after trying mushroom ketchup for the first time was "this tastes a lot like Worcestershire sauce". Not a descendant of mushroom ketchup. Ketchup and Worcestershire sauce are both descendants of fish sauce, which came to English cuisine from both Roman and East Asian sources. Mushroom and tomato ketchup both initially had fish in them in the early recipes, and both eventually dropped them to use the mushrooms or tomatoes as the primary ingredient (and tomatoes eventually completely displaced mushroom ketchup until more recent revivals). They're essentially parallel developments from the same core source, with Worcestershire being closer to the original concept and ketchup skewing hard left. SubG posted:...maybe. Even if they came up with the fish later, it still bears a marked similarity to early European catsup/ketchup recipes when they added it. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Jan 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Even if they came up with the fish later, it still bears a marked similarity to early European catsup/ketchup recipes when they added it. Tomato ketchup isn't attested until the early 19th Century (specifically 1804) and the first recipes (e.g. from James Mease's Archives of Useful Knowledge) have more in common with what we'd call tomato sauce today than with anything called ketchup in earlier days or what we'd call tomato ketchup today. That is, tomato ketchup appears to have originally been called ketchup not because it was part of the fish sauce -> mushroom sauce development directly, but rather because ketchup had become a term applied to puréed condiment sauces in general. Which is to say that fish sauce, mushroom ketchups, tomato ketchups, and Worcestershire sauce are absolutely all related, but I don't think it's accurate to call them all part of a single lineage dating back to the fish sauces of antiquity. With a giant asterisk next to anything said about Worcestershire sauce because its history is polluted with a lot of On This Spot In 1686 style pseudohistory and who the gently caress knows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 23:42
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I dunno about Worcestershire sauce being a direct descendant of mushroom ketchup, but the first thing I though after trying mushroom ketchup for the first time was "this tastes a lot like Worcestershire sauce". Henderson's relish is amazing if you can get it. I prefer it to Lea and Perrins but it seems to only be available in Yorkshire sadly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:20
|
|
|
The thing I'm wondering is how 'ketchup' v. 'catsup' came about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
PubicMice posted:The thing I'm wondering is how 'ketchup' v. 'catsup' came about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3wSBAOW-Bg This says the splits been there since the beginning and it's likely a romanization issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 22:19
|
|
|
PubicMice posted:The thing I'm wondering is how 'ketchup' v. 'catsup' came about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 22:19
|
|
|
The History Guy just did an interesting video about ketchup https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BHXH5am7B0
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 22:29
|
|
|
Also, this may out me as some kind of heathen, but it's interesting to me that Worcestershire sauce and ketchup have such similar yet divergent lineages, since the two of them are essentially the main flavors in barbecue sauce, at least as far as my Yankee self understands it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 23:15
|
|
|
Oski posted:Henderson's relish is amazing if you can get it. I prefer it to Lea and Perrins but it seems to only be available in Yorkshire sadly. I've literally never seen it for sale in either Bristol or Nottingham. Apparently it's a Sheffield thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 00:32
|
|
|
If you want to know an etymology for an English word just google "[word] etymology". https://www.etymonline.com/word/ketchup We already do this for you. There is no reason to resort to lovely youtube videos.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 00:51
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I've literally never seen it for sale in either Bristol or Nottingham. Apparently it's a Sheffield thing? Pretty sure the Morrisons in Ilkeston has it but not enough to suggest a trip out for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I've literally never seen it for sale in either Bristol or Nottingham. Apparently it's a Sheffield thing? Sadly it's nowhere to be seen in the southern home counties either. I'm fortunate that my brother lives in Sheffield and occasionally sources some for me. I have just been prompted to find that you can get it on amazon though, if you can swallow the postage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:If you want to know an etymology for an English word just google "[word] etymology".
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 16:25
|
|
|
SubG posted:I guess you're technically correct in the sense that googling [word] etymology will get you an etymology for a word. But holy hell there are a lot of bogus etymological arguments out there and even more bogus food history and google page ranks are a terrible way of differentiating good scholarship from bad. Etymonline is literally the best source for all etymologies in the world and how well curated it is for English is a unique gift that is rare and should be enjoyed. I don't actually work with English but I wish I had such a robust resource in the languages I do work with. It's literally more trustworthy than the OED, which is the next-best source.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 16:31
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Etymonline is literally the best source for all etymologies in the world and how well curated it is for English is a unique gift that is rare and should be enjoyed. I don't actually work with English but I wish I had such a robust resource in the languages I do work with. Like, literally. The actual etymological portion of the entry for ketchup you linked lacks any citations at all for usage. This appears to be a common defect in etymologies offered by etymonline. But whatever. I wasn't trying to cast aspersions on etymonline, I was suggesting that just randomly googling word etymologies is not a reliable method of obtaining good references.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 16:46
|
|
|
SubG posted:[citation needed] Etymonline doesn't have citations cause it's not wikipedia and it's managed by actual researchers instead of randos. The citations are internal and managed by people who actually know what they're doing instead of being crowd-sourced. (I know this because I'm one of them.) And I was explaining how there are better ways to look up an etymology than citing loving garbage youtube videos. No, it's not perfect but it's the best you got unless you feel like spending 10+ years of your life learning how to linguist. I think the catsup vs ketchup thing might also have something to do with contrastive phonology from Hakka vs. Malay but I have to do more work to see if that's true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 16:57
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Etymonline doesn't have citations cause it's not wikipedia and it's managed by actual researchers instead of randos. The citations are internal and managed by people who actually know what they're doing instead of being crowd-sourced. (I know this because I'm one of them.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 17:22
|
|
|
SubG posted:The historical cooking thread seems like an odd place to make the argument that you shouldn't care about citations in a discussion about the origin of a food term. If you want to make the argument that etymonline should show their citations that could be a thing, and one I agree with and have argued with them about. It has absolutely nothing to do with their quality. I'm telling you as a person who works in this field that it is the gold standard. Could it be better? Yes and we're working on it. But there isn't a better resource for etymologies of the English language and all other languages are would die for such an available way to look up etymologies. If you want to hit me up with your preferred source of etymologies that's superior, god speed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 17:34
|
|
|
So how about that ploughman's lunch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 17:34
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:If you want to make the argument that etymonline should show their citations that could be a thing, and one I agree with and have argued with them about. Having no citations inherently lowers the quality of any academic resource. Personal notes on where things are sourced from is not the same thing as citing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Having no citations inherently lowers the quality of any academic resource. It has citations just not all of them are out-wardly facing. Yes this a problem that I have argued against repeatedly. Despite its flaws it is still, sadly, the best source on etymologies that currently exists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:So how about that ploughman's lunch. Looks good! I wasn't really familiar with the term, being in the US. I like snack-type meals like that (I'm a big fan of charcuterie boards, for example). Here's some history on where the name comes from, which sadly I had to go to Wikipedia for because etymonline doesn't have an entry for it. Sorry, guys. quote:Beer, bread, and cheese have been combined in the English diet since antiquity, and have been served together in inns for centuries. However, the specific term "ploughman's lunch" is believed to date from the 1950s, when the Cheese Bureau, a marketing body, began promoting it in pubs as a way to increase the sales of cheese, which had recently ceased to be rationed. Its popularity increased as the Milk Marketing Board promoted the meal nationally throughout the 1960s.[4]
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
If I turned in a paper without “outward-facing” citations my TA would either fail me for making crap up without citations or fail me for plagiarizing. Anybody going to that website should rightfully be immediately skeptical of any and all information presented by this self-proclaimed golden standard that does not cite its sources.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 19:01
|
|
|
Yes, agreed. It's been a point of internal debate forever. If you have a better source I'd love to hear it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
JacquelineDempsey posted:Looks good! I wasn't really familiar with the term, being in the US. I like snack-type meals like that (I'm a big fan of charcuterie boards, for example). When you add in the typical vegetables like onions, it's practically identical to a medieval peasant's diet. It's all stuff that's cheap and easily portable, with something sharp like onion to keep it from being too boring.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
Speaking of which, I'm confused by the discussion of "dripping" as a major portion of an English coal miner's lunch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Speaking of which, I'm confused by the discussion of "dripping" as a major portion of an English coal miner's lunch. I believe it's literally a collection of the fat and juice that drips off a pork or beef roast when cooked. If I remember correctly, old hog breeds (and possibly cattle, I'm not sure) were a lot fattier, so there would probably be much more fat rendering out of a typical roast back in the day. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dripping
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
Most heritage breeds are much fattier and flavorful than modern production breeds. This is pretty standard across all forms of livestock, heritage breeds will usually be healthier animals, have a higher fat content, and have a stronger and more pronounced flavor profile. Unfortunately the trade off is being slower to market size. With pigs they usually fall into either lean or lard breeds. Production breeds today were derived from the lean breeds. A big part of this was the anti-fat craze in the US during the 60s/70s iirc
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 21:03
|
|
|
Internet Wizard posted:Most heritage breeds are much fattier and flavorful than modern production breeds. This is pretty standard across all forms of livestock, heritage breeds will usually be healthier animals, have a higher fat content, and have a stronger and more pronounced flavor profile. Unfortunately the trade off is being slower to market size. Related: Many heritage breeds of pigs in the UK were virtually wiped out in a few months during WWII as farmers were ordered to cull livestock that didn't produce eggs or milk. There's a really nice mini-series called Wartime Farm (you can find it on YouTube) that went over this and a variety of other major shifts in food production/distribution in the UK during that time period.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 03:38
|
|
|
Ate baked onions, do recommend, thanks thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 04:50
|
|
|
 pigs produce milk
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 04:55
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:I believe it's literally a collection of the fat and juice that drips off a pork or beef roast when cooked. If I remember correctly, old hog breeds (and possibly cattle, I'm not sure) were a lot fattier, so there would probably be much more fat rendering out of a typical roast back in the day. My mum would used to make bread and drippings (literally bread dipped in liquid fat after a roast) and it was always beef. Again might be that pork at that time was not as fatty, though generally pork fat/skin was used to make crackling instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 08:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 11:49 |
|
|
Enough bitching about citations. Go watch John be excited about scrambled eggs instead! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQWETcw-E74
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 08:53
|
|
