"Modernist Cuisine" by Myhrvold, Young & Bilet (Part 3)

[jmolinari]

Question regarding the pasteurization of meats.

Repeatedly in volume 1 the authors detail the the inside of whole cuts of meat are sterile unless they've been jaccarded. The discussion of salmonella on chicken details that there are 2 "varieties" one that is fecal based and one that invades the ovaries and then the eggs.

Based on this, one would be led to believe that the inside of a chicken breast is sterile like other solid muscles.

If that is the case, why does the whole chicken breast have to be brought to temperature and held for pasteurization rather than just the surface, as one would be able to do for beef? The case is made that it's because chicken is often sold whole with skin on which would carry the majority of the risk, but that would still only affect the surface of the chicken breasts, would it not?

[derekslager]

I think that selling the KM without the rest of the book would encourage people to just buy the KM which is not something that I support - I think that the knowledge in the main book is very useful. One could try to have a KM exchange program but that requires lots of logistic hassle which we are not staffed to do.

As one of the unlucky few who still has _only_ the kitchen manual, I can say with some confidence that anybody buying it alone expecting to get a distillation of all that Modernist Cuisine has to offer would be gravely disappointed. It's fun to look through, and certainly useful by itself -- I've used some of the techniques already. However, reading the "how" for a certain recipe or technique without being able to access the "why" is actually quite frustrating. In isolation, the kitchen manual is at best a teaser for the real content.

[nathanm]

Question regarding the pasteurization of meats.

Repeatedly in volume 1 the authors detail the the inside of whole cuts of meat are sterile unless they've been jaccarded. The discussion of salmonella on chicken details that there are 2 "varieties" one that is fecal based and one that invades the ovaries and then the eggs.

Based on this, one would be led to believe that the inside of a chicken breast is sterile like other solid muscles.

If that is the case, why does the whole chicken breast have to be brought to temperature and held for pasteurization rather than just the surface, as one would be able to do for beef? The case is made that it's because chicken is often sold whole with skin on which would carry the majority of the risk, but that would still only affect the surface of the chicken breasts, would it not?

This is substantially correct.

Food safety is about paranoia - as it should be. What you want is measured and appropriate levels of paranoia, but that is not always what you get. The theory behind cooking a chicken breast all the way through is that it would not be hard for contamination to get inside - for example a stray cut with a knife, or even the act of poking a thermometer probe. That is a possibility, and that is the justification for cooking all the way through.

Frankly, most home chefs given a badly contaminated chicken to cook would likely cross contaminate everything else in their kitchen. If you are making a salad in the same kitchen as the chicken, cross contamination could occur, so why not pasteurize the salad?

Indeed, why not pressure cook all food to 12D sterilization, wouldn't that be safer? In fact you can achieve that by only eating canned food - wouldn't that be best of all?

Actually, it would from a pure food safety point of view but most people would say that is silly. Deciding exactly where to draw the line on food safety versus food enjoyment is a judgment call. Most food safety rules are repeated as if they were the pronouncements from on high, and don't admit that they are judgement calls as to a subjective level of risk and reward.

Chicken sashimi (toriwasa) is served in Japan. You need to be very sure of your source of chicken, and clean the outside well, but people have eaten it for years.

In practice it is not that difficult or onerous to cook chicken breast all the way through to pasteurization, so you might as well do it. It probably is safer, although exactly how much safer is open to debate - it depends on your source of chicken. Nobody has good statistics as to how likely it is that you would get sick if you didn't cook all the way through, but wouldn't get sick if you had cooked it - cross contamination and other issues make this very hard to assess.

In other cases - like a green salad - it would certainly be safer to cook it, but that would also ruin it so most people would make the choice to eat their salad raw.

[jmolinari]

thanks Nathan, that makes sense.

[OliverB]

I doubt my post came across as severely critical, but I do feel I can post my light dismay, after all, I paid for it (a lot). I'd voice the same if some new camera gear would not work right or a new car rattles after 3 days. That does in no way mean that you guys did something wrong no worries.

I am very happy that you post the errors, I don't see that as a point of attack, but as a point of praise! Alinea did the same, I printed that and put it in my book. Some computer books also offer this, I always appreciate it. I will not glue labels or make notes in my MC, I'm a book nerd, not quite wearing white gloves, but I like my books in pristine condition. To me it's a work of art, and I treat is as such.

It would be great if someone at MC - or maybe we could even make it an eGullet project? - would highlight the real big errors, so we don't all have to work through the books and replicate the work. I'd be happy to take on part of that.

As someone said above, recipes are guidelines and the food is what you make of it, that's certainly true, I hardly ever cook word for word from recipes. If ever. But many of these are not just "recipes" in the traditional way, they use mini amounts of odd chemicals, and if there should be an error stating use 5g of unobtanium while it should be 5mg you won't be able to make it your own, well, except your own mess :-) I'm sure there are cooks out there that will spot this kind of error, just as I can spot that 5Tbsp salt is probably wrong on roast chicken, but I never cooked with any of these modernist things and would have no idea that I'm making cement instead of a fancy gel.

The books are amazing, the work, dedication, and money that went into them is mindboggling! That there are errors is a given, people might still find some in the 5th edition, some might even be new. That you provide us with a list of them is awesome, thanks!

Being able to get a corrected kitchen manual somewhere down the road would be nice, but I know the logistics of this are most likely prohibitive and we'll all live. But one can dream

I still haven't decided what to cook, the carrot soup is very tempting though. I'm not a big fan of Mac'n Cheese, but the kids are. I'm just afraid if I make it once, I'll never be able to go back to Kraft, and for a quick lunch I just have to go that route at times...

[Todd in Chicago]

I doubt my post came across as severely critical, but I do feel I can post my light dismay, after all, I paid for it (a lot). I'd voice the same if some new camera gear would not work right or a new car rattles after 3 days. That does in no way mean that you guys did something wrong no worries.

I am very happy that you post the errors, I don't see that as a point of attack, but as a point of praise! Alinea did the same, I printed that and put it in my book. Some computer books also offer this, I always appreciate it. I will not glue labels or make notes in my MC, I'm a book nerd, not quite wearing white gloves, but I like my books in pristine condition. To me it's a work of art, and I treat is as such.

It would be great if someone at MC - or maybe we could even make it an eGullet project? - would highlight the real big errors, so we don't all have to work through the books and replicate the work. I'd be happy to take on part of that.

As someone said above, recipes are guidelines and the food is what you make of it, that's certainly true, I hardly ever cook word for word from recipes. If ever. But many of these are not just "recipes" in the traditional way, they use mini amounts of odd chemicals, and if there should be an error stating use 5g of unobtanium while it should be 5mg you won't be able to make it your own, well, except your own mess :-) I'm sure there are cooks out there that will spot this kind of error, just as I can spot that 5Tbsp salt is probably wrong on roast chicken, but I never cooked with any of these modernist things and would have no idea that I'm making cement instead of a fancy gel.

The books are amazing, the work, dedication, and money that went into them is mindboggling! That there are errors is a given, people might still find some in the 5th edition, some might even be new. That you provide us with a list of them is awesome, thanks!

Being able to get a corrected kitchen manual somewhere down the road would be nice, but I know the logistics of this are most likely prohibitive and we'll all live. But one can dream

I still haven't decided what to cook, the carrot soup is very tempting though. I'm not a big fan of Mac'n Cheese, but the kids are. I'm just afraid if I make it once, I'll never be able to go back to Kraft, and for a quick lunch I just have to go that route at times...

I made the carrot soup again for my wifes parents last night - it was as smashing success! That ones a keeper for sure!

Todd in Chicago

[vengroff]

I just read the coffee chapter and I loved it. I'm glad to see it given the space it deserves in a book like this.

I remember my one and only god shot. It was at Stumptown's Pike St. shop in Seattle. I've been there quite a few times and the shots are always great, but something about that one day elevated it to the next level. It had a progression of distinct individually discernable flavors, caramel, apricot, toasted brioche, and dark chocolate, all with an incredible richness and depth.

I also liked the jabs taken at Michelin-starred restaurants that drop the ball with their coffee service. I wonder why more restaurants that offer espresso don't just buy Nespresso machines. The same staff that pull wildly erratic shots today could at least produce something consistently good. Not excellent, but always good. And it certainly requires no training to drop a cartridge into the machine and push a button.

As I turned the pages I kept hoping to see the story of the Clover vacuum press machine. Once the darling of independent shops, it quickly fell out of fashion when Starbucks bought the Coffee Equipment Company that designed and manufactured it. But it was, and still is, a very well engineered solution to the problem of producing a consistently top-notch cup of brewed coffee.

[Sharif]

I think that selling the KM without the rest of the book would encourage people to just buy the KM which is not something that I support - I think that the knowledge in the main book is very useful. One could try to have a KM exchange program but that requires lots of logistic hassle which we are not staffed to do.

As one of the unlucky few who still has _only_ the kitchen manual, I can say with some confidence that anybody buying it alone expecting to get a distillation of all that Modernist Cuisine has to offer would be gravely disappointed. It's fun to look through, and certainly useful by itself -- I've used some of the techniques already. However, reading the "how" for a certain recipe or technique without being able to access the "why" is actually quite frustrating. In isolation, the kitchen manual is at best a teaser for the real content.

I'm in the same situation and agree completely.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Sharif (log)

[Fat Guy]

There's a cool story in the New York Times "Diner's Journal" blog about the error-checking process. Larry gets his due, and Chris Amirault is quoted as well.

Mr. Myhrvold asked readers of the online forum eGullet.org, where a robust discussion on sous vide and other scientific approaches to cooking was already taking place, to point out errors in the first print run. Readers — and one reader in particular, Larry Lofthouse — immediately stepped up, and pored over the massive books for weeks, checking for typos, misplaced decimal points and calculation errors in scaling charts.

[Chris Amirault]

Glad she included the "better than Escoffier" line. That ought to get some hackles up.

[FoodMan]

FYI, the Errata list had errata in it . I found a couple and reported them. They are now updated on the site but the PDF is still wrong and should be updated shortly. I guess Nathan was not kidding that at some point reading and re-reading will start to introduce some errors.

[Anna N]

FYI, the Errata list had errata in it . I found a couple and reported them. They are now updated on the site but the PDF is still wrong and should be updated shortly. I guess Nathan was not kidding that at some point reading and re-reading will start to introduce some errors.

Yes, I too found errata in the errata but life has proved hectic for the last couple of days so I haven't reported them. Glad someone did.

[Dann Cutter]

At some point as well, (referring to errata, printing etc) we need to be concerned with assigning too much fault such that either the next printing does not sell as well, or Nathan et al are discouraged from tackle other topics of import to flesh out the series (pastry, baking and brewing/distillery come to mind). At the same time, an overly sycophantic response is also not helpful. I take Nathan's posting regarding the errors as what it is - a professional taking pride in his work and ensuring continued quality. The number and severity of some the errors are concerning but not overly - nor does product cost really factor into it, as I spent more on my nuclear engineering textbook two years ago; MC has really no obvious comparison in the cooking literary world right now. It's big, it's complex and we are first users. I find the errata response more than satisfactory.

Truth be told however, my history with this text has been one of an amateur home cook arguing with myself concerning the initial cost vs need aspect. (I had cancelled, reordered, almost cancelled, then waited to see if it shipped). 10 years from now I am sure that Nathan's initial payback period will have passed, and low cost versions (or electronic versions) will exist. Even for the next printing and likely the one after that we all will still fundamentally be early adopters. Looking at pinnacle cooking texts; often they are referenced in terms of the decades of different printings.

I regretfully solved mine the way my schooling suggested - selling my copy during this last lull in supply for a profit in order to buy again at a lower cost later. No sale lost of MC, but certainly, I forfeit the 1st printing and access for months - and frankly felt somewhat disheartened doing so. The errata, though appreciated immensely, never factored into it.

[Guy MovingOn]

I think it would be a good idea if the index had some colour coding to indicate if a recipe has been published with an error in it.

That way we wouldn't have to look through the entire errata to check every single time if the recipe we want to use has an error, we could simply check the index, find the recipe, if it is in black we can just find the volume and page number to look it up in the books.

If however, the recipe in the index is written in red or has a star* next to it or some other symbol, we would then know that the published recipe has an error, so before we look it up in the books we would know to check the errata list first.

[nickrey]

I've just finished the task of correcting my copies.

Like others, I did not want to mark my texts but still wanted to have an indication as to whether there was an error on the page I was looking at.

To do this, I decided to "red flag" each page with an error. In my case, however, I "red dotted" them with stickers (something like these).

This indicates to me that there is an error on that page. I will then look up what it is on the errata for that volume, which I will keep in the front of each volume.

As more errors are found, I'll update the dots and errata.

Thank you Nathan et al for not securing the PDF, this allowed me to copy it into Word for reformatting to my needs.

Would it be possible, however, to get a complete list of the errors in Volume 6 on the MC web site? I realise they are contained within the individual chapter errata but it took a lot of cutting and pasting to make a consolidated list for this volume.

[LoftyNotions]

I found eG about 2 years ago while searching for information on sous vide cooking. The original sv thread was just over 100 pages at the time. I’ve derived a great deal of personal benefit from the information freely shared here. I was particularly impressed with the contributions from Nathan. When I learned that Nathan was writing a book I pre-ordered as soon as it was available on Amazon.

Fast forward to March, 2011. I had just received my copy of Modernist Cuisine when I read Nathan’s post asking readers to report typos. Since I was planning on reading the entire book anyway, why not take a deep dive? Because of all the knowledge I had gained from the eG community, and Nathan in particular, it seemed like something I could do to give a little back. So I started reading and sending e-mails…

As Nathan mentions in his blog on the Modernist Cuisine website, some of what I sent in was subject to interpretation or a matter of style, some weren’t errors, but others were.

I was happy to do this in return for what I had already received, but it turns out that Nathan had other ideas. He invited my wife and me to a dinner at the cooking lab. Talk about having a secret fantasy fulfilled! Our evening there was over the top wonderful.

Even while I was in fault finding mode, I was continually amazed at the quality of this book and everything they got right. I’m in awe of the talented group that put the book together, and the staff that fixed the most memorable meal of my life. Now I know what food can taste like.

As soon as I can get some pictures of the meal edited I’ll post them here.

ETA: The posts in question have been moved here, as they discuss and present cooking with Modernist Cuisine, and contribute more to that discussion than this one.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Mjx
Moderator note added. (log)

[S Schroeder]

When my books arrived there was a hole in the side of the packaging. I am not sure what Amazon/Fed Ex managed to drive into my book box, but there sure was a hole. With a little trepidation, I began to unpack and grew to become deeply appreciative of the forethought that the MC team put into something as lowly as packaging. The puncture went through the outer box, through the inner box, and hit the final layer of protection. All this but the case and books were left untouched!

[alanjesq]

Just finished Vol I.

Again, I say "wow, wow and double wow" So on point, so focused and so filled with info. Even some of the sidebars that I could care less about, I care about. Go figure. Staggering. I can see where the series can be like a drug: "Everybody out of the room, and don't come back for a year or so" Worth every penny. Thanks MC

alanjesq

[Guy MovingOn]

I've just finished the task of correcting my copies.

Like others, I did not want to mark my texts but still wanted to have an indication as to whether there was an error on the page I was looking at.

To do this, I decided to "red flag" each page with an error. In my case, however, I "red dotted" them with stickers (something like these).

This indicates to me that there is an error on that page. I will then look up what it is on the errata for that volume, which I will keep in the front of each volume.

As more errors are found, I'll update the dots and errata.

Thank you Nathan et al for not securing the PDF, this allowed me to copy it into Word for reformatting to my needs.

Would it be possible, however, to get a complete list of the errors in Volume 6 on the MC web site? I realise they are contained within the individual chapter errata but it took a lot of cutting and pasting to make a consolidated list for this volume.

This is still a three step process:

i) Look something up in the index

ii) Find it inside the volumes

iii) If it has a red label check the amendment in the errata

If the index could already have this colour coding we would know to check the errata straight away before searching for it in our volumes.

[abadoozy]

I think maybe I've found a mistake that I don't see in the corrections document, but maybe it's open to interpretation.

In the Conversion section, 5-XXXVI, it lists the # of grams of all-purpose flour in a cup as 80. Now, I know that converting flour from volume to weight is somewhat subjective, but most charts assume somewhere in the realm of 4 to 5 ounces (112-140 grams) of flour per cup. 80 grams seems very low for a cup of all-purpose flour.

King Arthur, for example, lists 1/4 cup as 30 grams on their nutritional info for all-purpose flour. So 120 grams per cup - MUCH higher than the conversion chart.

So is that a mistake, or am I just missing some bit of Modernist Cuisine logic?

[nickrey]

I've just finished the task of correcting my copies.

Like others, I did not want to mark my texts but still wanted to have an indication as to whether there was an error on the page I was looking at.

To do this, I decided to "red flag" each page with an error. In my case, however, I "red dotted" them with stickers (something like these).

This indicates to me that there is an error on that page. I will then look up what it is on the errata for that volume, which I will keep in the front of each volume.

As more errors are found, I'll update the dots and errata.

Thank you Nathan et al for not securing the PDF, this allowed me to copy it into Word for reformatting to my needs.

Would it be possible, however, to get a complete list of the errors in Volume 6 on the MC web site? I realise they are contained within the individual chapter errata but it took a lot of cutting and pasting to make a consolidated list for this volume.

This is still a three step process:

i) Look something up in the index

ii) Find it inside the volumes

iii) If it has a red label check the amendment in the errata

If the index could already have this colour coding we would know to check the errata straight away before searching for it in our volumes.

But the errata only give the correction rather than the whole recipe.

You will always look it up in the index and then find it inside the volumes. So two steps in your definition are always going to occur.

If there is a red dot, you look up the correction; if not, you don't. Playing around with the index as you suggest just means that you consult the errata before finding it inside the volumes: a change of order, but not a step less.

I'm not sure what benefit would be gained by this process apart from not putting the dots on the pages. Moreover, as I will often go to a recipe without checking the index, your process actually adds another step, viz. 1. find interesting recipe, 2. check index to see if it has an error, 3. look up errata. By flagging the recipe direct, you cut out step 2.

[avaserfi]

Big upset today! I'm waiting for a copy from Barnes and Noble. Two acquaintances who ordered theirs after me got confirmation that their copies had shipped. I called BN today and was told my set has not shipped and there is no ETA because they are out of stock again! They couldn't explain why people who ordered after me got priority, but are "looking into it." Guess I will be waiting a little longer.

[Borgstrom]

By flagging the recipe direct, you cut out step 2.

That's exactly what I've done, using little adhesive dots in the corner of each page that has a correction. Took me about 20 minutes this afternoon:

The only potential downside is that there are 112 pages (as of May 1, 2011) that need to be marked in the Kitchen Manual, and their thickness adds up:

I suppose an alternative approach would be to just use a Sharpie pen to make a dot, or put dots at various positions across the bottom of the page or next to the affected recipe so their thickness doesn't add up. In any event, the adhesive dots come off with minimal effort and no damage, so I can try a new system later if I want.

[Chris Hennes]

I just took a pencil to the KM, I've already started beating on it pretty hard: its value as a collectors item is going to be nil in pretty short order, I actually use it in the kitchen. Plus obviously I'm going to have to buy the whole set again when they release volumes seven and eight, right?

[Chris Amirault]

I've managed to stain my KM already, for crying out loud.