Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

French Laundry, Per Se - aromatics, liaisons, veal stock?


paul o' vendange
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

I recently picked up the book.   I wasn't aware of the plentiful use of xanthan, carrageenan, etc in the restaurants.  Has this been their practice for a long time?

 

The veal stock I found curious.  In the leading paragraphs of the liaison section he discusses adding in aromatics near the end, rather than post-initial skimming (or twice for their "master method" - yet the paragraph above mentions only once, with an hour to go).  Yet the veal stock as described in the book is their traditional method in three parts, with aromatics given 24 hours or so, effectively, and no added gelatin or other liaisons.  So, just curious.  Errata?  Anyone read the book, and have some thoughts?

-Paul

 

Remplis ton verre vuide; Vuide ton verre plein. Je ne puis suffrir dans ta main...un verre ni vuide ni plein. ~ Rabelais

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there's a difference in using "stuff" for aroma - vs. "taste"

if you want something to have the 'taste/nuance' of celeriac, add it early on.

if you want the dish to steam the aroma of celeriac to the diner's nose, add it at the end.

or both . . . for desired result . . .

 

most stocks are about the taste thing. 

ala minute preps tend more to using stuff that already has 'the taste' and just pimp up the experience with the aroma.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you watched a lot of Paul Prudhomme's old cooking shows, I was surprised and confused to see him do this when cooking. He would cook with an ingredient/herb, and then later on add it again near the end of his cooking. It makes sense now.

  • Like 2

 

“Peter: Oh my god, Brian, there's a message in my Alphabits. It says, 'Oooooo.'

Brian: Peter, those are Cheerios.”

– From Fox TV’s “Family Guy”

 

Tim Oliver

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Toliver said:

If you watched a lot of Paul Prudhomme's old cooking shows, I was surprised and confused to see him do this when cooking. He would cook with an ingredient/herb, and then later on add it again near the end of his cooking. It makes sense now.

 

Cool.  I've not seen them, though I should.  I didn't attend but on the timing of a late-addition of aromatics, CIA seems almost religious about it, IMO (adding in at last hour.  It's in The Professional Chef, and I might have even read of it in Michael Ruhlman's Making of a Chef, though my memory is hazy). 

 

Veal is actually the only one I add it early, actually.  I'm looking for sugars and some very background flavors, so don't mind the early and long simmer.  I do both a light chicken stock for braising or deglazing, and a stronger dedicated chicken stock simmered 3 hours.  On these, the aromatics only get an hour (less, on the light one, as I go to 45 minutes and out.  Same for any jus, as these only get an hour, or less, depending).

-Paul

 

Remplis ton verre vuide; Vuide ton verre plein. Je ne puis suffrir dans ta main...un verre ni vuide ni plein. ~ Rabelais

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AlaMoi said:

there's a difference in using "stuff" for aroma - vs. "taste"

if you want something to have the 'taste/nuance' of celeriac, add it early on.

if you want the dish to steam the aroma of celeriac to the diner's nose, add it at the end.

or both . . . for desired result . . .

 

most stocks are about the taste thing. 

ala minute preps tend more to using stuff that already has 'the taste' and just pimp up the experience with the aroma.

 

 

That's a good point.  My suspicion however is it's more caramelization and maillard reactions we pick up after a long simmer, over any aroma compounds given by aromatics and herbs lasting for hours (and with aroma being a key component of what we know of as "flavor", not sure what perceptions would be left, as these compounds, many of them, so easily evaporate).  It's an interesting question since these compounds have different evaporation (and thus loss) affinities.  I've never compared and so I'm only guessing.  I'm sure it's been studied - McGee, maybe?

 

Mostly, I was just puzzled by the book's comments on timing for their general approach or "master method": "...In the early days, at [TFL}, we'd cook the aromatic vegetables for nearly as long as the bones.  But vegetables release pretty much all their flavor in 45 to 60 minutes.  So today we only add the vegetables at the end of the stock making..."  Yet the veal stock as described in the book is as we've always known Chef Keller to do, in three parts, aromatics added in early in "Veal Stock 1." 

 

At a loss, then, how this fits within the "master [stock] method" description above.  Anymore, I tend to do something along the line Escoffier describes, with bones getting long simmers and any meaty remnants (and aromatics) getting a shorter simmer, to preserve these aroma compounds.  I'll also get giddy and do something like the coulis described in Peterson's book, with several increasingly stronger stocks coming to make the final stock.  I try to parse when to add the aromatics both to avoid too much sweetness, and preserve some aromatic "brightness," really (e.g., not adding in aromatic veggies for "stock 1" or "2" if I'm doing 3 stages).

Edited by paul o' vendange (log)

-Paul

 

Remplis ton verre vuide; Vuide ton verre plein. Je ne puis suffrir dans ta main...un verre ni vuide ni plein. ~ Rabelais

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you read James Peterson's Sauces? Its my favorite book on the subject, Don't have it handy but i do recall that he adds towards the end as well basically says there's no point in cooking the veg for 12 hours when its going to give up its flavor in 1 or 2.  

 

I do like the new FL/PS book and his approach to folding in new techniques to what is really still very classical approach to fine dining

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AAQuesada said:

Have you read James Peterson's Sauces? Its my favorite book on the subject, Don't have it handy but i do recall that he adds towards the end as well basically says there's no point in cooking the veg for 12 hours when its going to give up its flavor in 1 or 2.  

 

I do like the new FL/PS book and his approach to folding in new techniques to what is really still very classical approach to fine dining

Yep, agreed.  I love Peterson's Sauces book (his Sauces, and Fish books are my two faves).  I only have the second edition, though, well-worn.  Do you have the current Sauces edition?  Is it worth it to buy the new book?

 

I'm very excited to read TFL/PS.  I love all his books and this one looks fantastic.  Right there with you - I love the classical foundation married to modern approaches,

  • Like 1

-Paul

 

Remplis ton verre vuide; Vuide ton verre plein. Je ne puis suffrir dans ta main...un verre ni vuide ni plein. ~ Rabelais

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, rotuts said:

pardon my ignorant ce ;

 

what is TFL/PS  in standard english ?

The French Laundry and Per Se. 

  • Like 3

Anna Nielsen aka "Anna N"

...I just let people know about something I made for supper that they might enjoy, too. That's all it is. (Nigel Slater)

"Cooking is about doing the best with what you have . . . and succeeding." John Thorne

Our 2012 (Kerry Beal and me) Blog

My 2004 eG Blog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...