This time around, I found a blog entry rather than an article for an interesting technique. Though at first glance a blog seems to be an unreliable source, I found this to be incredibly informative. The man who runs the blog, David Lebovitz, seemed skeptical about molecular gastronomy techniques before trying them. This is an important view to include in my blog/project, because I myself see no problem with the meeting of science and cooking.
The technique in question, which Mr. Lebovitz pulls off amazingly, is the addition of Maltodextrin to foods to make them a powder. This idea struck my fancy, and the applications are virtually endless. Lebovitz manages to "powderize" nutella and caramel, some of the substance one would think as utterly impossible to turn to powder. These sticky, gooey substances are easily converted to a thin powder with the addition of a polysaccharide called Maltodextrin, however.
After reading about Maltodextrin here, I discovered it's actually a rather common food additive. It is even used in process foods, as well as in candy and soda. The web sites I consulted seem to put a lot of emphasis on how it is a natural food additive. This is interesting, since many molecular gastronomy techniques require chemicals that are not so "natural".
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Herve This
After learning so many new things about molecular gastronomy, I wanted to learn more about its founder, Herve This. I came across this article, which is a more personable look at the "Father of Molecular Gastronomy". The article referenced the story I have heard several times when reading about molecular gastronomy. Herve This was a physical chemist who failed miserably at making a cheese souffle. But, rather than admitting defeat, he created an entire field dedicated to finding out why he failed.
He collected cooking myths, like those I referenced in the previous post, and tested them tirelessly. This and his partner, Kurti, worked together to figure out why some things worked while others did not. Together, the two created molecular gastronomy, a growing field. Although Kurti has since passed away, This is continuing work in his field as well as assisting others in many other fields. The article states that This is not as interested in the flashy applications of molecular gastronomy so much as the basics of it.
This later came up with a formal system of classification- he condensed 451 french sauces into 23 distinct types. Not only does this classification make the recipes more accessible and easy to understand, but it could also lead to the invention of new sauces. This then created a formulaic approach to flavoring, and demonstrated how it could be used by using it himself! He created a recipe for a "bitter orange, scallop, and smoked-tea concoction" and gave it to a chef who masterfully prepared it. Those who tried it were thrilled by it.
This is continuing his work, walking the fine line between food science and love of cooking. It was incredible for me to read about how hard-working and personable the inventor of this fascinating field is.
He collected cooking myths, like those I referenced in the previous post, and tested them tirelessly. This and his partner, Kurti, worked together to figure out why some things worked while others did not. Together, the two created molecular gastronomy, a growing field. Although Kurti has since passed away, This is continuing work in his field as well as assisting others in many other fields. The article states that This is not as interested in the flashy applications of molecular gastronomy so much as the basics of it.
This later came up with a formal system of classification- he condensed 451 french sauces into 23 distinct types. Not only does this classification make the recipes more accessible and easy to understand, but it could also lead to the invention of new sauces. This then created a formulaic approach to flavoring, and demonstrated how it could be used by using it himself! He created a recipe for a "bitter orange, scallop, and smoked-tea concoction" and gave it to a chef who masterfully prepared it. Those who tried it were thrilled by it.
This is continuing his work, walking the fine line between food science and love of cooking. It was incredible for me to read about how hard-working and personable the inventor of this fascinating field is.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Kitchen Myths
There are many "old wives' tales" about things that are perpetuated even today. The majority of these, I've found, relate to cooking in general. Since I learned before that molecular gastronomy is being used to get rid of some of these nonsensical ideas, I went on a search for examples. I found this article, and learned about several different kitchen myths.
The first myth I learned about is one which I always felt was a little fishy. As someone who frequently cooks things which must be boiled first (vegetables, pasta, the like) I was always curious as to why adding salt was necessary for greens. As it turns out, it's not! Adding salt does not do any of the things I've heard- for example, it brings out the color of the greens or lowers the water temperature. In fact, the author says in a blind taste test, many could not tell the difference between greens cooked in salty vs. unsalty water.
I also discovered the myth about not allowing egg yolks and whites to touch when making a meringue is untrue. There are many strange rules for making meringues, so it is often easiest to simply believe the rules. However, some of them are just outrageous- if the tiniest bit of egg yolk mixes with the white, it will still be able to form peaks.
The most useful bit of information on this page, though, is how it refutes the "x minutes per pound" theory about cooking meat. As it turns out, the weight does not matter as much as the thickness of the cut. From cooking a lot of pork roast, I know that the center temperature is most important- this means the meat is completely cooked. However, inexperienced cooks may be going on time alone, and could end up with undercooked meat. Undercooked meat not only tastes bad, but can also harbor bacteria and other harmful things.
Using molecular gastronomy to dispel food myths is the most practical application for it. Although it is cool to look at the pretty things chefs can do, the most important is educating the public. By giving people knowledge rather than myths, much like in the real world, everyone is greatly improved!
The first myth I learned about is one which I always felt was a little fishy. As someone who frequently cooks things which must be boiled first (vegetables, pasta, the like) I was always curious as to why adding salt was necessary for greens. As it turns out, it's not! Adding salt does not do any of the things I've heard- for example, it brings out the color of the greens or lowers the water temperature. In fact, the author says in a blind taste test, many could not tell the difference between greens cooked in salty vs. unsalty water.
I also discovered the myth about not allowing egg yolks and whites to touch when making a meringue is untrue. There are many strange rules for making meringues, so it is often easiest to simply believe the rules. However, some of them are just outrageous- if the tiniest bit of egg yolk mixes with the white, it will still be able to form peaks.
The most useful bit of information on this page, though, is how it refutes the "x minutes per pound" theory about cooking meat. As it turns out, the weight does not matter as much as the thickness of the cut. From cooking a lot of pork roast, I know that the center temperature is most important- this means the meat is completely cooked. However, inexperienced cooks may be going on time alone, and could end up with undercooked meat. Undercooked meat not only tastes bad, but can also harbor bacteria and other harmful things.
Using molecular gastronomy to dispel food myths is the most practical application for it. Although it is cool to look at the pretty things chefs can do, the most important is educating the public. By giving people knowledge rather than myths, much like in the real world, everyone is greatly improved!
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Food Pairing
In a search for more information on how molecular gastronomists manipulate flavors, I found this article. I particularly enjoyed it because, although short, it conveys its message effortlessly. It also managed to stay highly scientific: sometimes, I find molecular gastronomy articles which are more about the beauty of the work than the science. After all, molecular gastronomy is supposed to be a combination of both art and science.
Food pairings prior to molecular gastronomy were made simply by trial and error, the article states. Chefs would apply knowledge they had of ingredients and attempt to find things which "worked" together. However, a man named Heston Blumenthal is said to be the man who introduced science to the mix. By working side-by-side with science, he discovered that ingredient with similar molecular compounds go together better.
Blumenthal took advantage of this knowledge, and began to create many strange food pairings, some of which the article lists. Many of the food combinations look strange to a "regular" person, such as myself, but the wonders of science have brought them together for the better! Though some might say this approach to food pairing destroys creativity, I think it opens up an entirely new outlet for creative minds.
After further evaluation, I have deduced this technique is much more accessible than spherification. Though I would love to make sphere-shaped apples, olives, or something of the like, the cost is too high. Getting sodium alginate is possible, but buying a gram scale and calcium chloride, as well as doing many trial runs before the official product, makes it a difficult option. I am forever brainstorming what I will do for my presentation. As of right now, I think I will bring in a peculiar flavor combination- however, this could change! I don't want to get my hopes up too much this early on.
Food pairings prior to molecular gastronomy were made simply by trial and error, the article states. Chefs would apply knowledge they had of ingredients and attempt to find things which "worked" together. However, a man named Heston Blumenthal is said to be the man who introduced science to the mix. By working side-by-side with science, he discovered that ingredient with similar molecular compounds go together better.
Blumenthal took advantage of this knowledge, and began to create many strange food pairings, some of which the article lists. Many of the food combinations look strange to a "regular" person, such as myself, but the wonders of science have brought them together for the better! Though some might say this approach to food pairing destroys creativity, I think it opens up an entirely new outlet for creative minds.
After further evaluation, I have deduced this technique is much more accessible than spherification. Though I would love to make sphere-shaped apples, olives, or something of the like, the cost is too high. Getting sodium alginate is possible, but buying a gram scale and calcium chloride, as well as doing many trial runs before the official product, makes it a difficult option. I am forever brainstorming what I will do for my presentation. As of right now, I think I will bring in a peculiar flavor combination- however, this could change! I don't want to get my hopes up too much this early on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)