Unfruitful Applications of Modernist Techniques

[slkinsey]

One of the things that's great about the Modernist Cuisine books, and other books explaining various modernist techniques and the principles behind them, is that you can see what happens when you apply these techniques to everyday dishes.

For example, I have made "chicken à la king" (or "creamed chicken" or whatever you might like calling it) by making a herbed white sauce, splashing in a little sherry, adding sauteed mushrooms and small vegetables, and then folding in diced or shredded cooked/chilled sous vide chicken breast at the last minute just to warm the chicken through. The juicy tenderness of the sous vide chicken breast makes a big difference over using chicken prepared using conventional methods. This is a minor kind of way that using a modernist technique improves a traditional dish in a notable way.

But sometimes you go to the trouble of using a modernist technique you think will make a big difference and... meh. It wasn't worth the trouble. For example:

Last weekend a friend and I threw a small party where we cooked dishes from our families' repertoires of Texas cooking (we both have roots in West Texas). I thought: "Hey! Modernist chicken fried steak!" So I took some beef short ribs, butterflied them and flattened them out to traditional CFS thickness, bagged them and cooked them at 60C for 48 hours, then chilled them in an ice bath and took them to the party. At the party I used Wondra to get a more crispy exterior, and I also strained/reduced the bag liquid and added that to the cream gravy. The thinking was that short rib meat would result in beefier-tasting CFS, that the LT/LT sous vide cooking would make it fork tender, and that using the osmazome from the bag would make the cream gravy beefier as well. All of these things turned out to be true, as far as it went, but it tasted like... really good chicken fried steak, but hardly the OMG THIS IS THE BEST CHICKEN FRIED STEAK EVER I had hoped for. It wasn't revelatory. Definitely not something I'd bother doing again, whereas I really don't ever cook chicken breast with traditional techniques anymore.

Any other examples of applications of modernist techniques that just weren't worth it?

[FoodMan]

One of the things that's great about the Modernist Cuisine books, and other books explaining various modernist techniques and the principles behind them, is that you can see what happens when you apply these techniques to everyday dishes.

For example, I have made "chicken à la king" (or "creamed chicken" or whatever you might like calling it) by making a herbed white sauce, splashing in a little sherry, adding sauteed mushrooms and small vegetables, and then folding in diced or shredded cooked/chilled sous vide chicken breast at the last minute just to warm the chicken through. The juicy tenderness of the sous vide chicken breast makes a big difference over using chicken prepared using conventional methods. This is a minor kind of way that using a modernist technique improves a traditional dish in a notable way.

But sometimes you go to the trouble of using a modernist technique you think will make a big difference and... meh. It wasn't worth the trouble. For example:

Last weekend a friend and I threw a small party where we cooked dishes from our families' repertoires of Texas cooking (we both have roots in West Texas). I thought: "Hey! Modernist chicken fried steak!" So I took some beef short ribs, butterflied them and flattened them out to traditional CFS thickness, bagged them and cooked them at 60C for 48 hours, then chilled them in an ice bath and took them to the party. At the party I used Wondra to get a more crispy exterior, and I also strained/reduced the bag liquid and added that to the cream gravy. The thinking was that short rib meat would result in beefier-tasting CFS, that the LT/LT sous vide cooking would make it fork tender, and that using the osmazome from the bag would make the cream gravy beefier as well. All of these things turned out to be true, as far as it went, but it tasted like... really good chicken fried steak, but hardly the OMG THIS IS THE BEST CHICKEN FRIED STEAK EVER I had hoped for. It wasn't revelatory. Definitely not something I'd bother doing again, whereas I really don't ever cook chicken breast with traditional techniques anymore.

Any other examples of applications of modernist techniques that just weren't worth it?

For me, the benefit of Modernist techniques or ingredients can be divided into two broad categories:

1- Makes a better or otherwise impossible-by-any-other-means end product (medium-rare short ribs, powedered olive oil, warm gels,...)

2- Makes for a comparable, not necessarily better, end dish as a conventional method, but is more efficient, convenient or precise (great spare ribs, perfectly cooked sausage,...)

It seems like your short rib CFS was neither of these. Right?

[Kouign Aman]

The juicy tenderness of the sous vide chicken breast makes a big difference over using chicken prepared using conventional methods.

Seriously, the sous vide chicken was detectably better than poached chicken breast?

[Chris Hennes]

With chicken breast the real key (IMO) is the temperature: presumably if you cooked the chicken without bagging it, but at exactly your preferred temperature, the result would be comparable.

[FoodMan]

With chicken breast the real key (IMO) is the temperature: presumably if you cooked the chicken without bagging it, but at exactly your preferred temperature, the result would be comparable.

Well, isn't this the case with pretty much any meat we cook? Using a precisely controlled water bath gives you more control. So, sure, poaching the chicken will give you the same result from a doneness perspective. However, if you bag it you can add aromatics, stock, liquid, fat or whatever in the bag. Also, as opposed to poaching, you don't lose any flavor to the surrounding liquid if the chicken is bagged. It really unltimately depends on what you want the end result to be in many cases.

Going back to Sam's original post, he was hoping for a better CFS. Instead he ended with a pretty good one that still did not save him any effort or time.

[slkinsey]

For me, the benefit of Modernist techniques or ingredients can be divided into two broad categories:

1- Makes a better or otherwise impossible-by-any-other-means end product (medium-rare short ribs, powedered olive oil, warm gels,...)

2- Makes for a comparable, not necessarily better, end dish as a conventional method, but is more efficient, convenient or precise (great spare ribs, perfectly cooked sausage,...)

It seems like your short rib CFS was neither of these. Right?

Exactly. I was going for #1 above, since my technique was obviously more laborious than the normal one for CFS.

The juicy tenderness of the sous vide chicken breast makes a big difference over using chicken prepared using conventional methods.

Seriously, the sous vide chicken was detectably better than poached chicken breast?

Absolutely! I had cooked them to around 60C. Meanwhile, your average poached chicken breast is going to be hammered through to 80C or even more. Also, something I've noticed is that meats cooked to low temperature, chilled and reheated even to a higher temperature seem to still be more moist and tender compared to meats cooked straight away to the higher temperature. Not sure why.

[Chris Hennes]

With chicken breast the real key (IMO) is the temperature: presumably if you cooked the chicken without bagging it, but at exactly your preferred temperature, the result would be comparable.

Well, isn't this the case with pretty much any meat we cook? Using a precisely controlled water bath gives you more control. So, sure, poaching the chicken will give you the same result from a doneness perspective. However, if you bag it you can add aromatics, stock, liquid, fat or whatever in the bag. Also, as opposed to poaching, you don't lose any flavor to the surrounding liquid if the chicken is bagged.

I was addressing Kouign Aman's point that for short cooking times, poaching and vacuum sealing can achieve similar results, provided you have precise control of your poaching temperature. You don't have to poach in water: I used to poach chicken breast in stock, etc. I prefer vacuum-sealing because water is much cheaper and easier to deal with when using a circulator, and you can use less aromatics, etc.

However, even if you don't vacuum seal, I'd suggest that the very fact that you are poaching with precise temperature control makes that poaching action a Modernist cooking technique. Classical poaching with mediocre temperature control yields much poorer results for chicken breast.

[FoodMan]

With chicken breast the real key (IMO) is the temperature: presumably if you cooked the chicken without bagging it, but at exactly your preferred temperature, the result would be comparable.

Well, isn't this the case with pretty much any meat we cook? Using a precisely controlled water bath gives you more control. So, sure, poaching the chicken will give you the same result from a doneness perspective. However, if you bag it you can add aromatics, stock, liquid, fat or whatever in the bag. Also, as opposed to poaching, you don't lose any flavor to the surrounding liquid if the chicken is bagged.

I was addressing Kouign Aman's point that for short cooking times, poaching and vacuum sealing can achieve similar results, provided you have precise control of your poaching temperature. You don't have to poach in water: I used to poach chicken breast in stock, etc. I prefer vacuum-sealing because water is much cheaper and easier to deal with when using a circulator, and you can use less aromatics, etc.

However, even if you don't vacuum seal, I'd suggest that the very fact that you are poaching with precise temperature control makes that poaching action a Modernist cooking technique. Classical poaching with mediocre temperature control yields much poorer results for chicken breast.

Agreed.

[Kouign Aman]

Whew, for a moment there I thought someone on eGullet was touting the wonders of 'boil in a bag', and giving it a grand new title.