Kent H. wrote:
Are you referring to: Harold J. McGee, Shirley Corriher, and Russ
Parsons?
If so, what have they done other than write books?
You know, it's abundantly clear that you truly don't know. I'd be less
eager to parade that about than you are. It's also rather clear you
haven't read their books or you'd know what else they've done.
McGee has both a technical background and a linguistic one; I've never
met him. Shirley is a chemist - an actual scientist - and Russ is a
good researcher and reporter who consults with knowledgeable people
and then does his own experiments. I've spent time with both of them.
You might want to read Jeffrey Steingarten, too. Alton Brown. "On
Cooking" by Labensky and Hause. Some science and some good technique
info. Anything by John Thorne. "The Oxford Companion to Food."
Do they run restaurants?
No, but I have. Where I tested a lot of techniques and hypotheses. In
any event, what does the fact of running restaurants have to do with
science? Beyond that, your sources below don't include too many people
who've run restaurants, either. Can't have it both ways.
And if that whole "did they run restaurants" business has the kind of
legs you want to imply, I had my first restaurant job in the early
50's. South River, New Jersey. Lovely place. I worked in foodservice
through high school and early college years. Studied hard sciences at
university. Went into corporate life and traveled the world. Went
through a chef training program in Europe. Opened my first restaurant
in 1976. Seminars in the US since. Run my own operations, resort
feeding, country clubs, consulting with large and small feeding
companies. When did you start yours? How many have you run?
Is there any corroboration of what they are saying?
You ought to subscribe to a few professional chefs groups and lists
and not be quite so proud of your deficits. Then you'd see how often
it all gets tested and tried and discussed amongst people who are on
the firing line. Maybe read a few trade journals. Join IACP and RCA.
The
world is full of instructors in junior colleges across the U.S.
preaching questionably documented "food science".
And even more full of amateurs who think that their old books are the
end of understanding. But this is a nice try to disparage people who
are regarded as pretty much the cutting edge of food science today for
non-scientists. Without exception, none of your cited references have
any qualifications to teach food science.
I will accept Pelleprat,
I find it more convincing when one can correctly spell the names of
his heroes. Pellaprat. The big book is called "Modern French Culinary
Art." Note the word "art." Says in the book, "Born in the Victorian
age, Pellaprat's greatest and most productive period was between the
two World Wars." He died in 1935. Everybody sing, "Everything 's up to
date in Kansas City. They've gone about as far as they can go..."
the Larousse Gastronomique,
Right. Prosper Montagne' wrote that one. Escoffier wrote a nice
introduction to it. He died before it was published in 1938. I
*always* refer to books written before 1938 for current scientific
information.
Raymond Oliver,
Sure. I love his science. Guy started his TV program in 1953. Was a
chef before that. In his book "Gastronomy of France," he says, "In the
aphrodisiac meal . . . the number of dishes should be extremely
limited. If possible, one should make do with a single dish and in no
circumstances should one eat its fill. . . . In very favorable
conditions, the effects of an aphrodisiac meal are almost
instantaneous." Right. Great science.
Elizabeth David,
A competent enough, if overfussy, cook who makes no claims to
scientific expertise.
Julia,
Who talks about what works, not universal laws.
Olney,
She's good for what she has done. A bit dated. Gutsy woman, though.
Michael Field,
A blowhard who believes that if one word will do, 12 are better. A
musician who decided to become a cook. Died 30 years ago.
and finally, Alice Waters,
She's most assuredly not about science. Her important contribution is
to promote flavor and freshness, not science. California cuisine.
as those who know something that works, that is proven, and that is
accepted by people walking through restaurant doors and their readers
daily.
So, let's see. These sources are where you go for science? Um, sure. I
go to Jackson Pollack paintings for the physics of refraction and
diffraction. I go to Ernest Hemingway for instruction in the evolution
of language. One should always stop at Beethoven's house for a
full-scale course in audiology.
"Something that works" has nothing much to do with *why* it works or
*how* it works. As for "proven," the only thing that they prove is
that the task at hand works, not anything behind it nor if there are
better ways to approach it. "Accepted" is a funny thing for this
discussion, both because it has no relation to science, either, but
more because you seem to imply that these people have never made
mistakes or misjudged the response they'd get. It shows rather clearly
that you don't really know them, their work, or how foodservice unfolds.
You need some more recent sources. Go buy "Professional Cooking" by
Wayne Gisslen. Or any of his other books and see what professional
cooking is about. See what a good grasp of science looks like when
allied with a good knowledge of commercial cookery.
And so forth,
Indeed.
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio wrote:
Kent H. wrote:
Bob Pastorio wrote:
Kent H. wrote:
The following from today's San Francisco Chronicle. There has been
dialogue in this NG about how much salt and how much sugar for turkey
brine. One wouldn't ordinarily post a newspaper article. Alice Water's
credentials, however make that appropriate, in my mind.
Please note that 2 cups kosher salt to 2.5 gallons of water is even less
than my 4 oz table salt to 1 gallon of water.
As well, here is the URL for the original article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...DG71316TG1.DTL
Happy Thanksgiving,
Kent
BEST WAY BRINED TURKEY
After cooking nearly 40 turkeys in The Chronicle's test kitchen, we
found a brined turkey to be the best. The brine, a seasoned
salt-sugar-water mixture, is from Chez Panisse's Alice Waters and is
published in "The Secrets of Success Cookbook," by Michael Bauer.
Michael Bauer works for the Chron. And he wrote the book?
Oh.
Russ Parsons works for the LATimes. His book disputes Bauer's book. I
say let 'em fight it out.
Sounds like they tried one brine. Pam Anderson did the research on
brining when she was editor of Cook's Illustrated and is the largest
reason why brining is such a popular subject today. She tested 40
brined birds. Here's where she says what she says:
http://www.bbq-porch.org/turkey02.asp?clkd=iwm
There are several other issues the piece raises:
1) Cooking temperature - 400F is way too high, IMO. It will cause more
purge than necessary and result in decided moisture loss.
2) Basting with stock merely cools the surface while it evaporates.
There's no flavor benefit. Later when pan drippings are used, it will
consist mostly of fat which will essentially let the skin fry in the
oven and it will become very dark. Tests show that basting doesn't
contribute flavor, moistness or any other positive benefit. Opening
the oven door, however, does. It lets the oven cool down a bit which
also cools the surface of the bird. Good for getting the inside cooked
without overcooking the outside.
What a bunch of cerebral crap!
Thanks, Kent. Your scholarly approach and depth of knowledge are
simply effusive and a fine example to all and sundaes. It's a delight
to sit at the feet of a genuine mastic who delves as widely as yours.
Cerebral crap, indeed. It would seem that anything beyond your meager
capacity isn't there. It's your cute way of sticking your fingers in
your ears and chanting La-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you....
I guess we need to let the "experts" soak their birds their way,
huh...? You do yours your way and I'll do mine my way. And we'll all
live happily ever after.
It would appear that it's not within your small grasp to acknowledge
that serious and scholarly people like McGee, Corriher and Parsons
might know something you don't.
Apparently YMMNV. It's good to see at least one absolute in the universe.
Pastorio