Full On Food

[Corinna Dunne]

←

If they can just take a little more care with each topic, dump the celebrity cooking spot, and quit with the near-pointless trips to the far corners of the globe they'll have a damn good half-hour food programme. And no Clarkson - bonus.

←

I agree that the celebrity segment just doesn't work. On Top Gear it works because they have a league table and every celeb is required to drive on the same track (although the weather brings its vagaries, which adds to the interest). This gives it more relevance and acts as a thread of comparison. So when Tim Rice beats tough man Vinnie Jones on time, it gets a laugh.

So what task could be set in a cooking format? The highest rise in a souffle, or the fastest time to stiff peaks, whisking egg whites with a balloon whisk? It all just sounds a little bit like watching icing dry. And yes, I think that a snappier edit and a compressed time slot of 30 minutes would inject a much needed shot of energy.

[Duncan]

The Organic pigs was interesting although it seemed a little confused in that it mistook pigs for a lot of space as being organic. I'm sure there are pigs with plenty of space that aren't organic.

←

Quite so. There is a pig farm near us which is not organic, but does make a point of raising the pigs free from antibiotics. Apparently one of their children was allergic to antibiotics so they starting producing suitable pork and found a ready market. Organic or not is not nearly as important as how well the animals are treated.

Nevermind that diluted chocolate with water then re-cooled and chantillyed is completely useless as it is a temporary semi fluid state and cannot be kept in such state for more that few minutes. The taste differential is debatable.

But hey, meet Heston.B where Alchemy meets kids at play.

←

That's odd, when I made his Chocolate Chantilly recipe some time ago it was perfectly stable (and delicious). I wonder what I did wrong

The main difference in the taste is that it is much more intense than a typical mousse. You start with a good chocolate and then don't dilute the flavour with cream, sugar, eggs or anything except a bit of water.

And alchemy, or maybe even some chemistry, meeting kids at play in the kitchen is exactly where it should be. If you can't have fun with your food what else is there?

[Paul de Gruchy]

the real problem with Heston is that his cooking requires a fair amount of attention to detail and the TV format isn't really suited to transmitting information of that type. I think that's why Corrigan works better: buttering wonton wrappers and putting in chorizo and cheese is straightforward and can be mucked around with: he even suggested alternative fillings. But Heston's things leave so many questions. Like the snails: where do you get them from, what do you cook them in for four hours, how much almond goes in the butter, how much chocolate, how much water, what temperature etc?

For some reason I was reminded of the doctor: "A woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hinder legs. It is not done well; but you are suprised to find it done at all." I think there is an element of that to Heston's inclusion. That's not to denigrate his cooking, but the motives for his inclusion in the programme are, I suspect, driven largely by the freakshow aspect: he's a chef - with liquid nitrogen! And he breaks the rules!

[Duncan]

the real problem with Heston is that his cooking requires a fair amount of attention to detail and the TV format isn't really suited to transmitting information of that type.  I think that's why Corrigan works better: buttering wonton wrappers and putting in chorizo and cheese is straightforward and can be mucked around with: he even suggested alternative fillings.  But Heston's things leave so many questions.  Like the snails: where do you get them from, what do you cook them in for four hours, how much almond goes in the butter, how much chocolate, how much water, what temperature etc?

←

That's why they keep telling you to visit the website, although they don't seem to have updated it for program three yet.

What you cook them in for (according to the website) 3 rather than 4 hours:

1 carrot, peeled and thinly sliced

1 onion, peeled and thinly sliced

1 fennel bulb, finely sliced

1 stick of celery, finely sliced

100g/3½oz button mushrooms, finely sliced

2 garlic cloves

bouquet garni made from bay leaves, thyme and rosemary

And it is 20g almonds to 200g of butter (which also has garlic, shallots, mushrooms, mustard, salt, parsley and parma ham).

The recipe I followed for the chocolate chantilly asked for equal weights of chocolate and water, and that one is easy enough to reproduce entirely from watching it on tv (although I think when he did it on Richard and Judy it lacked the obfuscation that Full on Food achieves).

[Carlovski]

They missed an opportunity for some discussion/argyuments over the beef - last week Heston cooked a Rib of beef for 20 hours, this week Richard Corrigan cooked his for 10 minutes.....

[sandra]

About that beef and the blowtorch, has anyone tried that?

[Matthew Grant]

I've never tried it on beef and I have to say that I think it was done for dramatic effect, why not just brown it quickly in a hot pan?

[Carlovski]

If you have a blowtorch handy then it probably is easier.

Plus you get to play with fire.

Must admit that I'm still not tempted by the whole idea - tenderness isn't everything.

[Matthew Grant]

I've slow cooked a fair bit of meat and would advise that it's not going to be to everybodies taste. Although it cooks evenly and comes out perfectly rare it takes on a different (I hesitate to use the word funny) texture and taste, I think that was evident from seeing the beef on the show.

[alexw]

I've slow cooked a fair bit of meat  and would advise that it's not going to be to everybodies taste. Although it cooks evenly and comes out perfectly rare it takes on a different (I hesitate to use the word funny) texture and taste, I think that was evident from seeing the beef on the show.

←

true, the texture is different when tried for the first time, also the taste is very odd unless some roast flavour is incorporated. i usually finish my low temp meats very quickly (5 seconds max) in a red hot pan so there is a very slight change of colour, and you get 1/2 mm of greyness around the edge, add a little fleur de sel after carving and then quite bloody yummy. personally I don't like to use the blowtorch as can easily end up with the "oops I forgot the meat on the barbecue" flavour.

also slow cooking varies on the meat used, I would recommend 60C for chicken, 52C prime beef cuts (54C for poorer cuts), and 58C for Lamb. in red meat at 60C is when the collagen tightens and starts to squeeze out the precious water and flavour so avoid above this at all costs, also cooking loow and sous vide demands that your suplier is of best quality, (do not try and do this with tesco value joints!!!!!), also your hygiene in your kitchen for this task needs to be impeccable

Alex.

[JudyB]

I've never tried it on beef and I have to say that I think it was done for dramatic effect, why not just brown it quickly in a hot pan?

←

I think in his printed recipes Heston does suggest blowtorch or a large pan.

The problem is whether or not you actually have a large enough pan - I know that we don't.

The other option that Duncan has used when cooking beef this way is to use the "Turbo Grill" setting of our oven to brown the meat. Otherwise it takes a long time to do a good job with a normal "kitchen" blowtorch...

[Dirk Wheelan]

I have a problem with adjectives like 'perfectly cooked'. If I buy some steak at Lidgates, let it come up to room temperature and cook it either on a grill, or in foaming butter, or whatever, and let it rest for a few minutes. It tastes fantastic. Where is the improvement in sous-vide-ing it and then blowtorching etc? It seems like a long-winded way of achieving a traditional effect. On the other hand, I had a lamb dish at the Fat Duck a few years ago, and although the flavour was nice the overall texture and appearance of the meat was very odd, in fact I thought it was unpleasant, and certainly not 'perfectly cooked'.

I'm all for technology in the kitchen if it demonstrably improves what is being cooked, but I would wager that an experienced cook can get the same, if not better, results by braising pork belly, than can be got by sous-vide and stirred water baths. The only difference is that the latter sounds more exciting. I'd also wager that a lot those that get overexcited about things cooked in plastic bags have little experience of competent traditional cooking, because if they did they wouldn't be so free with the 'perfectly cooked'. The claim of MG is that it can produce 'perfect' results, but in order to do so its practitioners would have to know what 'perfect' was, and, as its not clear that we can be objective about this, their use of the term is consequently tantamount to making the claim that their own cooking is 'perfect'. On the other hand, if you claim to be able to access 'perfection' through plastic bag cooking then you are backhandedly designating all non-plastic bag chefs as 'imperfect', which we all know is bollocks.

So don't be so gullible, and learn how to braise.

[Matthew Grant]

I have a problem with adjectives like 'perfectly cooked'. If I buy some steak at Lidgates, let it come up to room temperature and cook it either on a grill, or in foaming butter, or whatever, and let it rest for a few minutes. It tastes fantastic. Where is the improvement in sous-vide-ing it and then blowtorching etc? It seems like a long-winded way of achieving a traditional effect. On the other hand, I had a lamb dish at the Fat Duck a few years ago, and although the flavour was nice the overall texture and appearance of the meat was very odd, in fact I thought it was unpleasant, and certainly not 'perfectly cooked'.

I'm all for technology in the kitchen if it demonstrably improves what is being cooked, but I would wager that an experienced cook can get the same, if not better, results by braising pork belly, than can be got by sous-vide and stirred water baths. The only difference is that the latter sounds more exciting. I'd also wager that a lot those that get overexcited about things cooked in plastic bags have little experience of competent traditional cooking, because if they did they wouldn't be so free with the 'perfectly cooked'. The claim of MG is that it can produce 'perfect' results, but in order to do so its practitioners would have to know what 'perfect' was, and, as its not clear that we can be objective about this, their use of the term is consequently tantamount to making the claim that their own cooking is 'perfect'. On the other hand, if you claim to be able to access 'perfection' through plastic bag cooking then you are backhandedly designating all non-plastic bag chefs as 'imperfect', which we all know is bollocks.

So don't be so gullible, and learn how to braise.

←

I hope you weren't referring to me as gullible!

When I say perfectly cooked I am talking about the meat being cooked evenly all the way through not that it is the ultimate, set down in stone, way that meat should taste. Cook a piece of meat at 5 degrees for 20 hours and the whole piece of meat will be at 55 degrees. I don't suggest for one minute that I prefer this method of cooking.

[Dirk Wheelan]

This wasn't directed at anyone in particular. I'm just ranting about the obsession with process over results.

The only way to judge cooking is by its end result, and however much you go on about probes and molecules, it doesn't change what's on the plate, but only the perception of what's on the plate.

Every spring I play golf in les Landes, which is a short drive to Bordeaux, particularly la Tupina. I must have eaten there fifty times, every time it's fantastic, and there's not a plastic-bag to be seen.

There could be several reasons for this:

- I'm a philistine and don't recognize quality.

- Good cooking has always existed and is not dependent on technology

- Perfection is a relative term

I favour the second reason; MG chefs and traditional chefs are equally capable of cooking well, but I reject the inference that MG has a monopoly on perfection. As I said, it begins and ends with what's on the plate. If people want to talk process that's fine as long as no one is under the illusion that process supersedes results.

[Matthew Grant]

I've just realised that the MG you were referring to wasn't me but Molecular Gastronomy!

[fisherman]

Every spring I play golf in les Landes

- I'm a philistine and don't recognize quality.

i can't help but feel these two statements are linked in some way

[Dirk Wheelan]

Every spring I play golf in les Landes

- I'm a philistine and don't recognize quality.

i can't help but feel these two statements are linked in some way

←

Any particular reason? Or is this just a cheap shot?

[MobyP]

but I would wager that an experienced cook can get the same, if not better, results by braising pork belly, than can be got by sous-vide and stirred water baths.

←

I realise my opinion might not count for much within this context, but I've actually done a rather - possibly pathologically - large amount of experimentation with pork bellies, am a much above average home cook, and have also tasted several versions at several different restaurants. First, having spent many months in order to source the best bellies possible, I have subjected them to slow roasting (4 - 6 hours), very slow roasting (24 - 30 hours), fast roasting (1 - 2 hours), short, medium and long braising (2, 4, 6 hours), and confit'ing (4 and 36 hours), and with none could I control the precise textures of meat, collagen and fat as well as those I've had cooked sous-vide both at Ducasse and Blumenthal. The reason, essentially, is that to roast or braise is also to subject the meat to diifferential temperatures and oxidation, both of which cause a warping of the flesh, and causes the fat/flesh/collagen to cook a different rates. Confit'ing solves this to some degree (depriving access to oxygen), but temperature control is problematic, and generally harder to control. If you're ever in Pimlico, they used to confit the belly at the Ebury (I think for 24-30 hours). Occasionally it was superb. The last two times have been slightly over-cooked, however.

By the way, sous vide is not MG, per se. It was invented in the Troisgros kitchens in the 70's as a way of controlling the fat lossed in foie gras terrines, and then widely picked up by other French chefs. The Roux brothers had a sous vide company in the late 70's, and many chefs, from Robuchon and Loiseau downwards, have or have had retail lines in French markets. The problem of perception comes into play - and people tend to think of it as 'boil in a bag.'

Also, no chef worth his or her salt (including Blumenthal) believes sous vide to be a holy grail, applicable to every protein. It does tend to be useful with higher collagen contents, simply for the temperature control it offers. But I've had fish prepared sous-vide (by a very well-known nouvelle chef) that was terribly over-cooked. I've also had it done 'as meant' at the FD. In my opinion, in both cases, the delicateness of the flesh wasn't done any favours by the sous-vide process.

As far as slow cooking, one of the best legs of lamb I've ever had was from following Jack Lang's recipe in his egci course (scroll down). It's not the miserable, oxidised grey flesh that passes for popular in this country, but it was sublime.

Edited July 26, 2005 by MobyP (log)

[Dirk Wheelan]

As far as slow cooking, one of the best legs of lamb I've ever had was from following Jack Lang's recipe in his egci course (scroll down). It's not the miserable, oxidised grey flesh that passes for popular in this country, but it was sublime.

←

I disagree with your polarization, perfectly cooked vs. grey and oxidized. This is exactly what MG plays up; a binary opposition of before/after, good/bad, and even if MG were a massive improvement over traditional technique this would still be a gross, and deceptive, simplification.

As you yourself say your reference for pork belly comes from Ducasse and HB, so it's hardly surprising that your experiments fall short given that you don't recreate their exact techniques, not to mention dining context. 'Warping', 'oxidization', 'imprecise' textures are not in themselves negative qualities. Indeed, to a certain extent they are the defining characteristics of roast meat, and eliminating them alters the end result to such an extent that argument becomes worthless; which is better the mashed or chipped potatoes?

If you envisage a result that you wish to achieve and then find a technique by which to precisely achieve it then that technique is the 'perfect' way to achieve that result. However, it's much harder to demonstrate that the result is 'perfect' because the result is merely how one imagines perfection. Any argument about 'best' ways of cooking must be developed from consensus on 'best' results, this consensus is not clear as some people claim. Indeed, I object to the practitioners of MG stealing the initiative on this question. I don't think it's acceptable that chefs be both judge and jury on matters concerning their own food.

[MobyP]

I disagree with your characterisation if of my characterisation. I didn't posit the result of the lamb as a qualitative perfection, just that the result was sublime. I don't suggest that this is the only way to cook lamb (in fact, I came across a recipe yesterday whereby you hang the leg from a piece of string tied above the fireplace, and start it revolving for a couple of hours as the heat from the fire slowly roasts it - it sounded absolutely superb). The effect of fire, or flame, or hot metal on meat is dear to my heart. The effect of uneven cooking is, in the right context, exactly what I want (for instance, seared fish, or seared foie gras).

I don't suggest for a second that sous vide (as opposed to MG, which I keep suggesting are two entirely separate things, even if they do overlap on occasion) is better than roasting, or poaching, or any other cooking method. And I'm unsure who it is who has claimed the monopoly of objective perfection that you claim MG proponents are guilty of. As you say, if you have an end result in mind, you can design the method around that desired result. All I meant was that to achieve the textural result closest to the best pork belly that I have had, which happened to be at the FD and ADNY, sous vide was I believe required. Even with confit, prepared by a fine chef, where both the collagen and fat were perfectly gelatinised, the meat had over-cooked, leaving it stringy.

I am not even - and you may find this hard to believe - a proselytist for MG, as far as I know. The reason you and I keep butting heads is that in my opinion you keep mischaracterising what molecular gastronomy IS.

[Dirk Wheelan]

Let me put this in the simplest possible terms, and then be done with it.

- With technique I can achieve the results I want.

- I know what perfection is.

- With technique I can achieve perfect results.

There's something wrong here, isn't there?

No one knows what perfection is, but the reason dining keeps changing so much is that certain chefs set themselves up as visionaries who claim to produce perfect results. What are we saying, that only now in the 21st century has the culinary ideal been revealed to chefs?

If this is the case, then effectively, we have come to the end of the gastronomic road, and are eating in a golden age.

(BTW, I know exactly what MG is, but I'm talking about the application of MG as a PR tool)

[fisherman]

Every spring I play golf in les Landes

- I'm a philistine and don't recognize quality.

i can't help but feel these two statements are linked in some way

←

Any particular reason? Or is this just a cheap shot?

←

actually it was a joke

[Dirk Wheelan]

actually it was a joke

←

Challenging preconceptions about humour

[fisherman]

one mans meat is another mans poisson, there you go, theres another one.

i can go into the deeper meanings of my post, or joke as i like to refer to it, but i can't really be bothered, and you probably wouldn't pay much attention. suffice to say golf and philistines are inextricably linked in my mind

[Dirk Wheelan]

you probably wouldn't pay much attention. suffice to say golf and philistines are inextricably linked in my mind

←

Not true! I'd love to know why you make this mental connection, and indeed, why you think other people would find it funny.

Do you make any other humorous associations with other interest groups?

How about angling?