ChrisZ

Werdna, where are you based? As an Australian I'm interested to know where this show is being broadcast around the world, and also which series you are watching. TV cooking shows fascinate me because they're a collision of my professional life (TV) and my hobby (cooking). When I'm watching a cooking show - especially ones that are more 'reality' style, I'm often busy admiring the way the show is produced while being annoyed at aspects of the cooking, or vice versa! You seem intrigued by the show's format, so here are some vague ramblings about how it came to be: Firstly, realise that Australia is a small TV market, and until recently we only had 3 free commercial TV channels. We have more now, and cable is much more widespread than it was 10 years ago, but basically we have 3 non-government channels - 7, 9 and 10. They are fierce competitive rivals... In 2003 Channel 9 invented a reality TV series called 'The Block', which put 4 couples in a competition to renovate a block of flats. The show was a smash hit and continues to this day, still with huge ratings. Channel 7 wanted something just as popular, so they responded in 2004 by creating a TV series called 'My restaurant rules', which pitted 5 couples (each representing their own state) in a competition to renovate and launch a restaurant. There were many elements of the show that closely mimicked elements of 'The Block', such as weekly cash bonuses to the couple who had done the best job in that particular week. The show rated OK but was never the smash hit that 'The Block' was, and it only ran for 2 series. Jump forwards to 2009. Channel 10 license the UK series 'Masterchef' but give it a radical makeover, and turn it into a reality TV show where the contestants live in a house together but risk eviction based on various cooking challenges. Masterchef is on TV 6 nights a week and rates its socks off. It is very difficult to explain to anyone overseas what an unexpected phenomenon the Australian series of Masterchef became. It was so popular that during the general election, a scheduled TV debate by the two party leaders going for Prime Minister was re-scheduled so it didn't clash with the Masterchef final. Channel 7 want something similar, and decide on a format comparable to the UK show 'Come dine with me' - where competitors cook dinner parties for each other in their own kitchens and rate each other's food. Perhaps the success of Masterchef prompted them to look at other UK cooking shows? However a local cable company had already licensed the UK format and produced 'Come dine with me Australia' for pay tv. So Channel 7 called their version 'My restaurant rules' to tie in with their previous series 'My kitchen rules' and tweaked the format enough to avoid legal issues with both 'Come dine with me' and 'Masterchef'. Basically they combined elements of Masterchef with Come dine with me, and retained the concept of the competitors representing their own state. What you get is a TV series in which the first few weeks closely resemble the format of 'Come dine with me', as each couple cook in their own homes for the other competitors, who judge their cooking. Based on the scores, some couples are evicted and then the series switches to a format that closely resembles Masterchef Australia, where the couples compete against each other at various locations, with various challenges, and are judged by a panel of professional/celebrity chefs. Couples are progressively eliminated until there's a 'Grand Final', and a winner. So there you go, perhaps that answers some of your questions regarding the format? Personally, I like the show but it's more reality than cooking, so they obviously hype up the drama and tension. As someone who is heavily interested in the science behind cooking it often frustrates me when the contestants get highly emotional about things which are completely wrong! This happens all the time... in the most recent series, two contestants try cooking steak with a digital thermometer so they don't overcook it. However they do two things wrong - firstly they cook the steaks until the internal temperature is about 65C (55C would be considered rare), and secondly they don't make an allowance for the temperature to continue rising after they take the steaks off the heat. The end result is horribly overcooked steak, and a shot of the contestants declaring that digital thermometers are rubbish and throwing theirs in the bin. Obviously the thermometer wasn't broken, they just didn't know what they were doing... but I guess it's good entertainment!

If you're seriously interested in ice cream then also consider "Frozen Desserts", by Migoya. It has a lot of technical information - this is a book aimed above your average home cook, it's aimed at professionals making small quantities. It deals with a lot of the different terminologies used and whether or not they're regulated - eg "ice cream" is defined and controlled, "gelato" is not. All sorts of ingredients, formulas, additives and techniques are discussed, and although the book is full of recipes it also has basic tables and ratios designed for commercial applications. My only real disappointment with the book is that Migoya basically concludes that the best way to make small quantities of ice cream is with a pacojet, and as they cost more than my first car I won't be getting one anytime soon. But the photography is superb and the recipes are inspiring. If you're really serious about ice cream then this is a book for you.

I don't know if he's spelled it out anywhere, but although it's often said that the most technically "perfect" way to cook a chicken/turkey would be to butcher it and cook the different parts sous vide at different temperatures, there is a certain amount of tradition and satisfaction in serving a whole bird at the table. It's not as practical to cook a whole chicken or turkey sous vide as you'd need a pretty big water bath and some huge sized foodsaver bags! So if you want to cook the bird whole, then slow roasting is the practical alternative.

I've just come back from the supermarket and I paid special attention to the types of cream on offer. It's really a bit of a mess, because you have different local manufacturers (including Dairy Farmers, Bulla and Pauls) using the same terms for different products. As I mentioned above, King Island Dairy produce a delicious solid cream product that is basically Australia's version of clotted cream. They used to call it 'double cream', but they changed the name to 'pure cream' to avoid confusion with the UK version of 'double cream'. But Paul's make a product called 'pure cream' which is a pouring cream, they use the term 'pure' to denote that there are no thickeners in it. So the King Island "pure cream" is a 53% solid spoonable cream, and the Paul's "pure cream" comes in a carton and is pourable. Gippsland Dairy, on the other hand, continue to use the term "double cream" for their 50%+ solid spoonable cream (ie a clotted cream analogue), while another company are using the term "double cream" for a pourable cream with 45% fat and no gelatine. And so on... But as Broken English says - they all indicate on the label if they're suitable for whipping or not.

Oooh looks lovely. Can I ask about the seating - does having most of seats wrapped around the bar make it more suitable for dining alone? I have been interested in eating here for a while but I'll never convince my wife to join me...

No, it's produced by a culture, in the same way a yoghurt is. The suggestion to thin down yoghurt makes sense, although the flavour will be slightly different. Although 'buttermilk' was traditionally the liquid left over after making butter, all commercially sold buttermilk is now manufactured through fermentation and has nothing to do with the production of butter at all. In Australia, it's usually sold in 600ml cartons, and as the others have noted, in amongst the specialty & flavoured milks at the supermarket. Even our local corner shop sells it, so it can't be that uncommon - but don't look for it amongst the full size cartons that hold 1 litre or more. I use it mostly in pancakes, it gives them a lovely flavour, and I have a devil's food cake recipe somewhere that uses it too. But I've never drunk it... In regards to cream, it something I think has become more confusing recently, as local companies have adopted terms used in other countries but they've used them for different products. Until fairly recently, the only cream you'd get in an Australian supermarket was your bog standard 'thickened cream', with 35% fat and probably some gelatine. That was pretty much it, and as a kid I was often mystified by UK recipes that specified 'single cream' and 'double cream', neither of which translated directly to our 'thickened cream'. Then came 'lite cream' - which many people found out the hard way that you can't whip - and you also have your gourmet producers (such as King Island) with their delicious and decadent "pure" creams with a fat content approaching 55% (comparable to the British clotted cream). I know many people in Australia think that when a UK recipe calls for 'double cream', it's referring to the solid, high-fat "pure cream" such as the King Island product - when in actual fact the normal supermarket 'thickened cream' is more suitable. While King Island have changed the name of their product from 'double cream' to 'pure cream' to avoid this confusion, other manufacturers still continue to use the terms 'double cream' for a thick, spoonable 50%+ fat product that is nothing like the UK 'double cream'. I've also seen local companies producing products called 'single cream', 'pouring cream', and 'double cream' but they don't seem to be the same as the products in the UK either, although I could be wrong. But basically - if you just want to whip some cream, then your standard supermarket 'thickened cream'- with 35% fat and probably some gelatine- will be best.

I've always been interested in the ratios used in various cake recipes. I think it's worth recognising that there are a number of well recognised cake types and usually a recipe will fall clearly into one category. Each type of cake has its own characteristics, messing around with the ingredients will generally be taking you away from one category and towards another. - A cake that has equal quantities of butter, sugar, eggs & flour is a pound cake. I love pound cakes for their buttery flavour, and all the cupcake recipes I've seen fall into this category. - If you have equal quantities of flour and sugar, but half that amount of butter and eggs then you've got a butter cake (which oddly enough has less butter than a pound cake). Both these types of cakes are made by initially beating together the butter and sugar, and the cake will rely on a chemical reaction to rise, such as baking powder. - A true sponge cake has no butter, and the eggs are separated so the whites can be whipped. The initial beating is of the egg yolks and the sugar, not butter and sugar. - If you add melted butter to a sponge cake then you get a Genoise sponge. As well as those common types of cake, you've also got a Chiffon cake which is a hybrid of a butter cake and a sponge cake, and 'foam' cakes such as the angel food cake - which may use only egg whites. If you use almond meal instead of flour it's a Jaconde sponge, which is traditionally baked very thin. The point is that a cake only has 3 or 4 ingredients and all the different permutations and combinations will determine what type of cake you're making and the ratios that work well have been established and given different names...

And here are some more answers when I posed a similar question recently...

Us antipodeans have been discussing our favourites here...

My work colleague told me that once he ordered a '3 egg omelette' at a cafe, and was served an omelette with 3 fried eggs on top. Laughter aside, it never occurred to me to ask for a specific number of eggs in an omelette. Is it acceptable or simply pretentious?

No-one has mentioned using a pastry docker, the puff pastry that I've seen made was lightly docked at each fold so there were indentations on the pastry, but not holes. I would imagine that this would do a lot to aerate the layers. Curious to know what the pros think?

I'm very interested to know how they vary... how different are the ratios? I can't imagine that 20 different recipes would be that different from each other... I can't even think how the ingredients would vary by much. My first thought (and I'm someone who has never even made puff pastry) is that the quality of the flour / butter would make a bigger impact on the result than a different recipe. But if this is naive then please let me know why I'm wrong ;-)

And this one...

I skipped through this the other day and assumed the discussion was about sushi. But then I looked again and you only say 'Japanese'. If you want a wow factor, go to Roka in Charlotte Street. They have some sushi on the menu but a lot more. It was around the corner from my old work-place and I loved having a drink and a snack in the basement when I could- I never actually ate upstairs in the proper bit, but the food is the same downstairs. You get two 'wows', firstly when you eat the food and again when you see the bill. But it was great.

I agree with Keith & Shalmanese, and to a certain extent I agree with the sentiments of David Kinch. There has always been a distinction between a cook and a chef. But with modernist cuisine the high-profile pioneers have blurred the boundaries and that loss of distinction between the creativity of the chef and the techniques they use to cook with has become confused. I think that David Kinch needs to think about the difference between the conceptual approach of a chef, and separate that from their kitchen tools. All of the well-known techniques that modernist cuisine use are basically adaptations from previously known industrial processes. Spherification, sous-vide, modern hydrocolloids, texture modification - these were not invented by modernist chefs, merely 'discovered' amongst industrial manufacturing. How these tools and techniques continue to be used in the future is up to the chefs who use them, but it is wrong to value them according to the way they're being used by chefs right now. If you listen to Heston Blumenthal talk about his creations, you can quickly get an idea of his philosophical approach to food as a chef. He talks a lot about emotion, memories, and involving multiple senses of the body. He also has a particular interest in reviving centuries-old recipes. These are the themes and concepts that define Blumenthal as a chef, and not as a cook. The fact that he uses techniques like sous-vide, texture modification etc etc doesn't mean they're required or are the same thing as emotive cooking. They're just the tools he has adopted to realise his creative vision. If Blumenthal was starting up 50 years ago he could still have designed a Fat Duck restaurant around his approach to food/emotion/perception- he just wouldn't have used gellan, N-zorbit, iPods, etc etc. The idea of serving one food that looks like another is not new, and even when it is done with modernist techniques (like Blumenthal's 'meat fruit') there is an underlying concept and philosophy there that isn't tied to a particular cooking technique. But I don't think anyone will expect to see a long-term trend in restaurants of serving food that looks like something else - without Blumenthal's underlying philosophy as a chef it simply becomes a demonstration of cooking technique that people will quickly tire of. In the same way we can expect chefs in the future to explore new concepts and different avenues and some of them will continue to use the techniques that are considered 'modernist' today. Cooks all around the world continue to spit-roast, confit, pan-fry, bard, batter and baste food in the same way its been done for centuries. These techniques haven't died out even as menus have evolved from haute cuisine to novelle cuisine and to modernist cuisine. I've heard that nautical people are very strict about the difference between a 'boat' and a 'ship'. I'm sure that people who work with food are equally strict about the distinction between a cook and a chef. But it's that distinction which has been lost with reviews and analysis of modernist cuisine- and it's where I think David Kinch needs to think more carefully. -Chris

Does everyone add the butter in chunks? I always beat/whip the butter separately until it's as pale and as fluffy as it will get, then I fold in the meringue. Having the butter whipped up first makes it easier to maintain the air in the meringue - I fold the meringue in by hand, not using a mixer, and having the butter whipped nice and soft makes this pretty easy. I've never seen a stage that is 'nasty and curdly' - didn't know it was considered normal. ...always interesting to read about how other people do things :-)

Plans, yes, but not in production yet. (Sorry about that). Actually there's not a lot we have to change, but unfortunately we can't do everything at once. If the US version goes well, we're definitely going to put together an EU version. If the price point is the same in Australia I'll get one. I agree with Nick & Chris about not relying on the heater to bring the water to temperature, but any chance of a more powerful heater to take advantage of the beefier current outside of the US?

I ordered the book online without seeing it first, and I'm really impressed at how good it is. There was always the potential for a cheap & quick effort to ride the Masterchef bandwagon but no- this is a quality effort. I've compared it with Phillipa Sibley's and although her's has positive points, in a side-by-side comparison the Zumbo book is broader in scope yet more comprehensive overall. And cheaper. The book covers a wide range of areas (Gap listed the 6 sections above), the recipes are challenging but achievable, and the photography is excellent. If you're at all interested in baking or sweets then there's got to be something in here that you'll like and learn from. I'll add that although Zumbo has been mentioned on eGullet a few times, and not always that positively, I really admire the guy and I love his cakes. I don't get macarons (although I'm happy to eat them) but his gateaux are as creative as anything else being done in Australia and compared to the sheer, overwhelming mediocrity of the average bakery I think he deserves the recognition that he gets. You only need to visit a Michel's Patisserie to remind yourself of how poor the average suburban cafe/patisserie is. There are a few things that bug me, though, so here are some thoughts: - OK so I admire the precision in the recipes. Everything is in grams. I love this. But the degree of precision suggests the recipes have been scaled down from industrial quantities by a computer. Do I really need to ensure that I add only 69g water? 108g sugar? 338g cream? I suppose the odd numbers make you pay attention. But it makes the recipes seem very serious... - Some of the more unusual ingredients are not identified clearly. He seems to use specific trade names rather than generic terms. For example he will list "iota" as an ingredient, not "iota carrageenan", "algin" instead of "sodium alginate", "calcic" instead of calcium chloride etc etc. I'm lucky enough to have built up a comprehensive pantry of specialist ingredients so the lack of clarification here bugs me. I shouldn't have to look up an ingredient that I already have in the glossary just to know what he's referring to. - In some cases this is quite important. For example he simply lists "gellan" instead of specifying gellan F or gellan LT 100. I assume he's referring to the low-acyl gellan-F, because that's the only type sold by Texturas (the distributor that uses the names 'calcic' and 'algin'), but if his recipes are so precise they specify 69grams of water instead of 70 then you'd expect equally precise directions regarding the ingredients needed. - To use another example, he has a recipe called "Tanzanie" - named after the "Tanzanie" chocolate that he specifies to use. But which Tanzanie? A quick Google search revealed Tanzanie chocolate is made by Cocoa Barry, Pralus and a few others... I'm pretty sure that Cocoa Barry and Pralus are not the same! If the type of chocolate used is so significant that the recipe is named after it, you'd expect clarification on what it actually is. - Something I would like to see with the more complex recipes is an overall table of ingredients required. Some of the gateaux have many parts to them and you need to manually add up the totals of all the ingredients to make sure you won't run out halfway through baking. As an example, I started making the 'Tanzanie' gateaux I just mentioned. It has 9 individual components, each with its own recipe- although the mirror glaze also uses a separate glaze as a base, bringing the total number of individual recipes to make to an even ten! So if you're in the mood to spend a day baking the Tanzanie then you first need to sit down and add up all the components in ten separate recipes to ensure you have enough of everything. This only really applies to gateaux and I haven't seen any cookbook that does this, so it's a suggestion- not a criticism - but I had to make an emergency detour to pick up some more cream because I hadn't calculated how much I needed at the start... But despite these comments I can see myself making a lot from this book, and I recommend it to anyone who enjoys baking and doesn't mind a challenge. Now I've got a 26cm square slab of Tanzanie gateaux sitting in the fridge and I'm wondering what will happen to my pancreas if I eat it...

Just a few thoughts: -If you like the idea of hash browns and are googling for recipes, also include searches for roesti. -A good potato and leek soup is hard to beat, and very simple. -For something different, search for some recipes for a German potato cake (with streusel topping). -The key to good gnocchi is to minimise gluten development in the flour, so work it as little as possible. The worst thing you can do is make gnocchi in an electric mixer - you'll end up with rubber balls! I even use cornflour instead of wheat flour to keep them soft.

When it comes to baking, I totally understand. While I'll happily eat milk chocolate by the block I can't think of a single recipe where it works well, as even as well as dark chocolate. Mousses, cakes, cheesecake, souffles, macarons, gateaux, cookies - I've been thinking about this all day and I can only sympathise and agree with you that when it comes to baking - only dark will do. (Obviously this is a personal preference and no disrespect intended for those who like baking with milk chocolate). There's something about baking with milk chocolate that seems to make it even milkier, in a disappointing way. So I would try going in the opposite direction (embrace the milkiness) and grate it into hot milk and drink it as hot chocolate, with a dash of cocoa powder to supply the richness. I'm not even convinced that this would work but if you've got 6 pounds of the stuff it's not hard to try ;-)

Thanks so much, you've already helped me a great deal and introduced me to the notion of 'spoilage bacteria'. It's not necessary, but it suits my erratic nature :-) My understanding of brining is that if I use a higher concentration - such as 8% - then I need to calculate exactly how long to leave the meat in, or else it will start to cure, or I'll need to allow time after brining for the salt to redistribute. The reason I use an equilibrium brine is because I'm not that organised, and my understanding is that once everything comes into equilibrium then the meat doesn't continue on to begin curing, and a few days here or there won't make a difference. FWIW I've been brining in tupperware, with a full-to-the-brim container. The lid isn't 100% airtight, but it's easier than using a foodmaster to vacuum bag a big sack of liquid. It's also easier to measure out quantities. There's very little air in there, and the meat is totally submerged. The searing isn't something I normally do, it was an experiment. I usually sear after sous-vide, but I thought I'd try searing before - to see if those maillard flavours made a difference. Although i didn't get to find out, it is one of the reasons I was shocked to see contamination - as all I wanted was a brown crust I made sure the pan was REALLY hot and the pork was seared on all 6 sides. I really can't see any surface bacteria surviving that. But I was only thinking of taste, not hygiene at that point. Yep, the bag. It's become second nature for me to double-seal both edges and I'm really glad I did! The bag was so tight I was worried it would pop just by being touched, but it held together and I could only detect the very faintest smell. But that was enough to know it was bad... It also occurred to me that maybe the apple juice I used fermented, possibly given a helping hand by the slug of cheap & cheerful sherry I also added. But despite the disappointment it has been a very valuable learning experience and I really appreciate your input. Cheers.

Well, that was the point I was trying to make, but (to use a food metaphor) the whole topic is a can of worms. Even if we agree that home cooking has suffered a demise (a debatable topic in itself) there will even be huge differences between countries. But I was trying to suggest that the manufacture of a single product did not play a role in the overall history of food and home cooking, although the attitudes towards a given product would be a product of the time. While I may be ridiculed for such a crass reference to popular culture, even 'Downton Abby' illustrates that less than 100 years ago the aristocracy had loads of servants to cook everything for them, and that WW1 changed the idea of 'home cooking' more than a can of soup! I think the thread has evolved to an overall discussion of food history, and one entertaining but also informative TV show that might have escaped notice in the USA is the English production 'supersizers go'. They made specific episodes on the 50's, 70's and 80's and it's interesting to see how food culture has changed in England in only half a century. It's a great, funny show - worth seeking out for anyone interested in food history but doesn't take it too seriously.

I had my first sous vide fail today, which has given me a bit of thinking to do. I've always thought I was pretty careful with hygiene but a pork belly that was in the bath for 3 days ended up puffing up like a balloon, and I have no doubt that if the bag had burst the smell would have been horrid. I've made several pork bellies before and they've been great, I thought I had my technique down pat. I'm trying to figure out where the meat got contaminated and why it wasn't pasteurised. I'm wondering if it was during the brining? I use an equilibrium brine (from MC, 3.168) and leave the meat in there for a few days. The other potential culprits are the flavourings I added - the only ones I can definitely remember adding are sherry, soy sauce and apple juice, but I might have thrown a few herbs in there too. This is what I've been doing: - Firstly I measure out the brine solution. I don't boil the brine or otherwise pasteurise it (which might be a mistake). - I blanch the meat in boiling water. I've mentioned on the forum before that I copy the .- I leave the meat to brine for a few days (in the fridge). I always use the weaker equilibrium brine (total concentration of 1% salt, .4% sugar) - not sure if this would help or hinder any bacteria. - Then I sear the meat on all sides in a hot pan. Again - I would assume that this kills any surface bacteria. - It's into a vacuum bag with a small amount of flavourings, and cooked for 3 days (72 hours) at 58 degrees C. I've done a number of pork bellies this way and they've all been awesome- they've all been pretty small, around 500g, so it's not like I have a huge chunk of meat that takes hours to come up to temperature. I was really shocked to see the bloated bag this morning, especially as I think it only started to blow up 2 days into the cooking. I have two digital thermometers that agree with the temperature of the water bath (just a simple rice cooker / temp controller combo), so although it's a budget setup it's accurate. I don't think it's a true PID but the temperature swings are only about 1 degree either way- basically I'm not worried about a problem with my rig. The main things that worries me is that I thought that 58 degrees would be hot enough to pasteurise the meat but I'm obviously wrong, and also that I didn't see anything wrong for 2 days. I'd like to think that if I got hungry after 48 hours instead of waiting for 72 I would've noticed a bad smell, but I hate the thought of eating something unsafe. Here's some of my thoughts - - I should boil the brine (and cool it) before soaking the meat in it. - I should blanch the meat again after brining. - any flavourings that I add to the bag should also be boiled & cooled first. How have others reacted to results that are obviously unsafe to eat? I'd appreciate any input and advice on what could have gone wrong or what I can do better... -Chris

Thanks, this was great. It's not just a food blog, it's practically a guidebook! And as I said earlier, I really appreciate the amount of travel you've put in. Top job :-)

I think it's a much more complex question than simply identifying one product. I am a huge fan of the author Bill Bryson, my two favourite books of all time were written by him ('a short history of nearly everything', and 'at home'). In his biography - "The life and times of the thunderbolt kid" he is essentially writing about what it was like to grow up in the 1950's, and he discusses the impact of refrigeration and processed foods on the average family. He quotes an article from Time magazine published in 1959: "A few years ago it took the housewife 5 1/2 hours to prepare daily meals for a family of four. Today she can do it in 90 minutes or less - and still produce meals fit for a king - or a finicky husband". It wasn't any one product that changed everything, it was an overall cultural change in attitude to technology. Technology was embraced simply for the sake of it - if something was considered new, it was assumed to be better. Bryson happily gives the example of experiments in delivering mail by rocket - wildy impractical, not cost effective, but they did it because they could! And in his other books, such as 'at home', he talks about the revolution that was processed cheese - when it was first developed it cost more than 'real' cheese and was considered a gourmet delicacy! There were a number of technological innovations, such as ice, refrigerated railway cars, and believe it or not the can-opener (canning didn't really take off until someone figured out how to open the cans easily, which took decades), that were a lot more influential than any individual food product.