roosterchef21

+1 here. The only things I can think of that is better cold is milk, frozen goods (obviously ) and some fresh seafood - prawns and crabs, sashimi items etc.

Fresh milk in big cities.... Grrr.... And here in Australia raw milk cheeses... Grrr....

I prefer my berries separate. I like to macerate them in a syrup or liqueur of some description and spoon them over. Then a f off dollop of whipped cream, some fresh grated nutmeg and some fresh blueberries to finish. Yum.

Off the top of my head... * Casu Marzu * A good quality Ice Wine - again * Any regional dishes - there are a ton out there and it's a very broad goal but it's something I really love when I travel. 3 Star restaurants are great. But I love regional dishes just as much. * Fresh milk - Had it when I was a kid. It blew me away * Wild Strawberries - discovered some of them on our farm - it blew me away. * Pho in Vietnam * Bresse chicken * 100 year old balsamic * Street food * A tagine in Morocco

Secrets of The Red Lantern by Pauline Nguyen is an outstanding book in my opinion.

I tend to use unsalted butter for the majority of my food. It's really hard to judge how much salt is in butter and what the end product will be. I save salted butter for the table. And I really advocate (as with anything), the use of high quality products in a dish. I'm not saying make your next pudding with kilos of Monsieur Bordier's butter. But there are products out there that are at a quite good price point:quality ratio. I think the salted stuff can really hide the poorness of butter and the unsalted stuff is just plain nasty. So sick of mass produced crap.

Lamb brains. That smell after blanching them really turns my gut.

Carrots. I think they are much more versatile and have a very distinct flavour profile. At least in the way it is hard to find a substitute.

I thought it might have translated to pudding. But everywhere I look comes up as a French form of icing. I wondered if it had been adapted but it doesn't seem to be. Maybe it's a word that has been misused by someone without understanding it and kind of stuck? I know fondre means to melt so maybe it came from there? I would of thought they would have come up with a different word for it than fondant since it already has a meaning. Especially in a culinary sense so as not to confuse the diner.

I had also heard of the biscuit thing. It was in my Escoffier. As a pudding I couldn't find it anywhere but the word is used everywhere for it. Strange. I'd love to know how it came to...

Good choices. Somewhere cheap you could try is Cafe Sopra. They have a few locations but it's one of those places where a lot of Sydney's chefs and food identities go to. It's run by the Fratelli brothers. Really good food in a nice setting and cheap. You could also try for cheapish lunches are Glebe Point Diner, Yoshii for lunch or Bodega on Thursday or Friday plus the aforementioned yum cha places earlier in the thread. If you want/are willing to spend a little extra go to Sean's Panorama. Really simple food with a killer view. It's on Bondi Beach. To me it's what Australian dining is all about. It's not the best restaurant in the country by any means. But it's about the lifestyle and culture in this country. Chef with his own farm uses those ingredients on his really simple chalkboard menu which is on the beach in a really relaxed setting. No pretentious dining rooms, over the top service or anything like that. Just somewhere where you can have an ice cold beer or wine, eat great food and watch the waves roll in.

This may well be a stupid question but why is chocolate fondant (as in the pudding) called a fondant? I always thought a fondant referred to that white stuff found in confectionery? How did it get the name? My Larousse, La Repertoire, a culinary dictionary and Penguin Companion to Food all say the same thing. Is it a translation and shortening from a larger word? Is it just a common mistake?

What about a gooseberry and frangipane tart? I've always thought that almonds and gooseberries have a wonderful affinity with each other.

You would think so...

I was just thinking I have never seen a list made for the greatest pastry chefs ever. I've seen a greatest chef list but never pastry. If you could make a list who would be in your top 10? Would Lenotre or Bellouet be at or near the top? Would contemporaries such as Torreblanca, Balaguer, Bau or Duytsche make it? I'm interested to know.

Did you zero the scales? Also, did you use the right size eggs? Hate recipes that just state x number of eggs. Give a weight please. Or at least a size.

Maybe he's just peaked too early in his career?

I just can't go past flathead for fish and chips. Whiting if it's grilled but for anything else... I wonder though, it was one of the fishes I used to catch fairly regularly so I wonder if that has influenced my decision? Has anyone else come across this in their choices? The fish they grew up on or had a childhood memory of?

Totally disagree with this. Put it this way. If I had a chef and a professor in front of me I'd be showing a lot more respect for the professor. A professor is pretty much a doctor at the top of his or her game especially since it is almost the final title you can get in that respect i.e doctor -> associate professor -> professor -> dean. The title chef is the same. Anyone can call themselves a chef especially once qualified. It's not the same with a professor. Chefs have the Bocuse d'or or their third Michelin Star. Professors have the Nobel Peace Prize. Which one is more important? Since we are talking about people at the top of their game...

Posted this on a separate forum. Does this make sense? Ok.... I feel like I need to define Molecular Gastronomy. There are two terms in play here; Molecular Gastronomy and Molecular Cooking. Molecular Gastronomy is the science that refers to the exploration of culinary techniques and transformations that occur during cooking. A Molecular Gastronomist researches these ideas and in turn enables chefs/cooks to use it in a practical way. Molecular Cooking refers to the process of using these theories to output a product that is a commodity . A chef does this. Think of Gastronomy as the science and Cooking as the final technology behind the science. Now, Molecular Cooking does not refer to combining ingredients that complement each other. Well it sort of does but it doesn't. The whole basis behind producing a dish on any level is to create a dish that tastes good. It doesn't matter whether it's classical French or Molecular Cooking. Molecular Cooking uses those techniques and transformations previously researched in to produce a dish. Techniques and tools used could include anti-griddle, freeze drying, gels, spherification, airs and a whole heap of other stuff. So for example, a simple salad of tomato, basil, olive oil and mozzarella might use a number of techniques: Tomato: Freeze dried tomato; tomato air Basil: basil gel; basil spaghetti Olive oil: olive oil soil; olive oil caviar (spherification) Mozzarella: anti-griddled mozzarella; As I said earlier, Molecular Cooking does involve combining ingredients in ways that complement each other. This is more on the Molecular Gastronomy side though and is an almost separate discipline. This is talking about the Volatile Compounds in food. These are the compounds found in food that give it's various flavor profiles, and, when combined with other foods, naturally complement each other. An example could be tomato and basil (again). Although it is researched by Molecular Gastronomists, and can well be a separate discipline altogether, chefs can and do dabble in this. There are plenty of books around that have the volatile compounds of food in them, and a really keen chef or cook can buy them and start playing. This is where places like elBulli and come in. They (used to) close for six months of a year just to research new techniques, transformations and combinations for the next season. They combine Molecular Gastronomy, Molecular Cooking and Volatile Compound research into a restaurant. This is why elBulli was such an important restaurant. They were an actual restaurant researching and pushing boundaries and then selling those boundaries as a commodity. They were on the front line of all this representing these disciplines at a place where the average consumer could experience. Whether you love or hate these disciplines, there is no doubting elBulli' importance. Deconstruced food is another term bandied around. It's not quite Molecular Cooking, although it often uses those techniques. Rather it is breaking down a dishes individual components into a single item, changing it considerably and putting the thing back together.

Just another thing on the buffet when I die and go to Heaven... That looks sooooo good!

i think people get mixed up between Molecular Gastronomy and Molecular Cooking. I also think people think that deconstructed means Molecular Cooking even though it often uses Molecular Cooking techniques...

The worst part is the term Molecular Gastronomy is used incorrectly...

Wiping the bench absentmindedly while waiting for <insert food here> to cook. Which in turn leads to pulling the cupboards out, the stove apart, cleaning the roof, the drain etc etc...

^^^ this. Chef is a job function, not a title. If anything, Master Chef (the European one, not the ACF one) could come close to being a title, but I am not sure how to work that into an appellation. Chef describes someone who, inside a kitchen, directs a number of subordinates in the preparation of food for service. The word "chef" derives from the Latin "caput", "head". I blame FoodTV for diluting the term to the point of irecognition. Food Network actually goes so far to call bona-fide, hard-working, chefs "amateur chefs" to differentiate them from "real" chefs, which - in FN lingo - means "actors on TV cooking things". In the same vein, people like Karine Bakhoum, a woman who moved from fashion to food PR, never worked a day in a kitchen, is called "chef" in any and all FNTV press releases. Personally, my cooks call me by my name. Every once in a while, especially when we get stages and externs from cooking schools in, someone calls me "chef", as does our FoH when they refer to me, simply to build the mystique and rapport with the diners. For lack of a name, outsiders may ask for the "chef" when wanting to speak to the person in charge of the Back of the House, but again, that's a job function, not a title. Ever since after my apprenticeship I can't recall having called anyone "chef", either. And, alas, I used to work for some of those people that are now being referred to exclusively as "Chef X". Trust me, outside of FNTV and book tours, only bosses I wouldn't want to work for insist on the "chef" title. I agree. I think Professor or Doctor is a title that should be used in addressing a person. Not chef. At least not for people outside of the industry. I think the only time you should be addressing a Chef by title is if it is at work and they ask for it or is the done thing in that kitchen. Or they are a chef at the top of their game. This last scenario is only out of respect and is optional. It takes a lot more time and effort to reach Doctor level let alone Professor. And it's a lot harder mentally to reach these levels. I can see this point not been popular with chefs though...