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.

Sign in to follow this  
BryanZ

Trends and Philosophy in Molecular Gastronomy

Recommended Posts

The 2002 version of The Fat Duck website:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020802192042/...od_science.html

The Science of Food

Science has had a direct influence on the composition of the menu at the Fat Duck. New cooking techniques derived by questioning the fundamentals of accepted culinary practise, have directly impacted on the structure of the menu.

In order to better understand how this interaction works at the Fat Duck, this section has been divided into 6 subsections:

Low Temperature Cooking

Palate Cleansers

Brain to Palate Connection

Encapsulated Flavours

Distilled Flavours

Compounds of Foods

If you would like to join the molecular gastronomy discussion group

please click here.


"At the gate, I said goodnight to the fortune teller... the carnival sign threw colored shadows on her face... but I could tell she was blushing." - B.McMahan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In contrast to the above:

Still live on the El Bulli website.

About Molecular Cuisine - By Ferran Adria

http://www.elbulli.com/historia/docs/2003-...olecular_en.pdf

To claim that anyone using these

products is practising molecular cuisine only serves to confuse the

public, as does the suggestion that the first person to make a foam or a

savoury ice cream was guided by scientific principle (and God only

knows how ignorant we were of the world of science when we had the

idea of using the whipped cream siphon in 1994).


Edited by sizzleteeth (log)

"At the gate, I said goodnight to the fortune teller... the carnival sign threw colored shadows on her face... but I could tell she was blushing." - B.McMahan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sizzleteeth,

Better sharpen those teeth, cause its time to eat. You contradict yourself more than I do, which is more than anyone I know.

Question.....when does earth run out of natural resources (yes this has everything to do with science in food).

Its been too long "Nathan", I have been itching for a good fight. BTW, make sure to calculate the energy consumed for every keystroke when replying. There are only so many left on this planet, but who cares, you will be long gone by the time the next generation has to answer to our scientific misstakes.

Lets see how does this work.....cooking=the transfer of heat=the transfer of energy=finite resources=sustainable life. So this means we need to get to know the subject in its entirety rather than wind up on the wrong end of the equation.

Your move.

This post was edited to add a little extra sizzle to the pan.

In contrast to the above:

Still live on the El Bulli website.

About Molecular Cuisine - By Ferran Adria

http://www.elbulli.com/historia/docs/2003-...olecular_en.pdf

To claim that anyone using these

products is practising molecular cuisine only serves to confuse the

public, as does the suggestion that the first person to make a foam or a

savoury ice cream was guided by scientific principle (and God only

knows how ignorant we were of the world of science when we had the

idea of using the whipped cream siphon in 1994).


Edited by inventolux (log)

Future Food - our new television show airing 3/30 @ 9pm cst:

http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tv/future-food/

Hope you enjoy the show! Homaro Cantu

Chef/Owner of Moto Restaurant

www.motorestaurant.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sizzleteeth,

Better sharpen those teeth, cause its time to eat. You contradict yourself more than I do, which is more than anyone I know.

Up early today I see, though I'm not sure what there is to "fight" about, as supposedly...

Molecular gastronomy is dead.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/foodmonthly...1969722,00.html

Though I'm not sure what anger of yours would be directed at me, because I certainly didn't kill it, and I actually find it a bit unfair - especially seeing that the creator is not even able to defend himself, having passed on some time ago.

I don't believe that "Molecular Gastronomy" is the issue - or that it ever really was. It was simply incorrectly applied as a label to something else and fell victim to guilt by association.

Like blaming the scientists who defined the properties of nitroglycerin, instead of the people using the information to blow up buildings (instead of treat heart conditions).

It is conceivable that you would find my particular style of argument contradictory, since I am not exclusively on any side and agree/disagree with elements belonging to the same category, and I'm sure you will continue to see it as such.

I'm a bit busy during the day, so please continue with whatever it is you have to say and I will do my best to respond this evening.

Though I cannot predict the future.


"At the gate, I said goodnight to the fortune teller... the carnival sign threw colored shadows on her face... but I could tell she was blushing." - B.McMahan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the car the other day I found myself wanting ketchup on my fries but unable to dip for safety reasons. Then I wondered why nobody has yet figured out how to put cold ketchup inside the french fry and then I had the lightbulb. This is the future of molecular gastronomy. Mr. Rogov said it first in this thread. This too shall pass. I think this too shall largely pass from haute cooking. But it will take root in food production for the masses where there is a boundless appetite for neat tricks with food or fire (fourth of July) or gravity (bungee jumping) or momentum (rollercoasters).


You shouldn't eat grouse and woodcock, venison, a quail and dove pate, abalone and oysters, caviar, calf sweetbreads, kidneys, liver, and ducks all during the same week with several cases of wine. That's a health tip.

Jim Harrison from "Off to the Side"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you're painting is a cyclical picture. Something as basic as Jello commercialized and popularized mass-produced gelatin desserts. Now we're doing all sorts of weird stuff with gelling agents and hydrocolloids. I think you're largely right that the majority of techniques being discovered now will pass out of fashion. With that said, a solid understanding of food science and a few revolutionary techniques like sous vide are by no means bad and will certainly have legs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. And ketchup inside french fries.


You shouldn't eat grouse and woodcock, venison, a quail and dove pate, abalone and oysters, caviar, calf sweetbreads, kidneys, liver, and ducks all during the same week with several cases of wine. That's a health tip.

Jim Harrison from "Off to the Side"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been reading a ton about this molecular gastronomy and it's not really my cuppa tea. Those credentials in mind, I'm reluctant to associate sous vide cooking with it. Sous vide goes way back. The plastic part is new and ability to take so much air out is new but before plastic there was slow and low in an animal skin bag. I think sous vide itself is evolution, not revolution. And a useful tool for making science food. (but so are conventional pots and pans and ovens).


You shouldn't eat grouse and woodcock, venison, a quail and dove pate, abalone and oysters, caviar, calf sweetbreads, kidneys, liver, and ducks all during the same week with several cases of wine. That's a health tip.

Jim Harrison from "Off to the Side"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you dont call cornstarch molecular gastronomy, stop calling hydrocolloids molecular gastronomy. We really have to stop this ridiculous trend.

Herve This' book molecular gastronomy is an example of what a scientist does to examine food and make it better by understanding it at a molecular level. Using alginate doesn't mean you understand anything at a molecular level so why do we keep using this title!

by the way, the food one this site doesn't look that great, looks like something I could have bought 10 years ago.


Dean Anthony Anderson

"If all you have to eat is an egg, you had better know how to cook it properly" ~ Herve This

Pastry Chef: One If By Land Two If By Sea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you dont call cornstarch molecular gastronomy, stop calling hydrocolloids molecular gastronomy.  We really have to stop this ridiculous trend.

Herve This' book molecular gastronomy is an example of what a scientist does to examine food and make it better by understanding it at a molecular level.  Using alginate doesn't mean you understand anything at a molecular level so why do we keep using this title!

by the way, the food one this site doesn't look that great, looks like something I could have bought 10 years ago.

Agreed.... I've been using agar agar and xanthan gum in my pastry for nearly a decade.

(And I barely even know what I'm doing. :wacko: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Molecular gastronomy" is a term that was coined by Nicholas Kurti back in the 1990s to describe an examination of the science behind cooking (on the molecular level). This doesn't seem to be a terribly inappropriate usage of the term, although some people prefer "molecular and physical gastronomy."

This term later came to be associated not only with the examination of the science behind cooking, but with the application in cooking of the knowledge so gained in novel and unexpected ways. In other words: the application of molegular gastronomy the scientific investigation gave rise to molecular gastronomy the cooking school.

I can see the logic behind the use of this term, but it does fairly well summarize a certain approach to cooking and food. And while we can quibble that "all cooking has molecules," at some point we devolve into the kind of reasoning that says "all behavior is just biology, but all biology is just chemistry, but all chemistry is just physics (etc.)" when there are good and logical reasons not only to maintain chemistry and physics as separate disciplines, but also to have both physical chemistry and chemical physics!

Perhaps something like "scientifically informed new cuisine" might be a more accurate term, but "molecular gastronomy" is hardly the least appropriately applied cooking term. How about sauté?


Edited by slkinsey (log)

--

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree that there is a difference between the quasi-scientific exploration of cooking and the application of the knowledge so gained. This is a fairly minor nit you're picking here. But, if you want to pick nits...

"Gastronomy" has many possible definitions, including:

  • The art and practice of choosing and preparing and eating good food
  • A particular style of cookery (e.g., "Southern gastronomy")
  • The study of the relationship between food and culture

"Molecular" ("relating to, produced by or consisting of molecules") makes some sense, in consideration of the fact that people seek to understand how food behaves and interacts on a molecular level, and to apply that knowledge to produce new and unexpected effects.

Slap these two words together, and what do you get? Well, I'll tell you what you don't get. You don't get your definition, which seems to be: "the scientific exploration of the chemical and physical properties, relationships and reactions of food items, including the first-time application by the investigator of the knowledge thus gained in a new and unexpected expression of the ingredients in a culinary preparation." Rather, you get something like: "a style of cooking based upon an understanding of the molecular properties of food" -- which one could differentiate from regular gastronomy by adding "applied to produce effects not possible with traditional cooking techniques."

So, despite your protestations, the appellation "gastronomy" is misapplied to the scientific investigation and not so much to the style of cooking. A better way to describe what you think is the only thing that should be called "molecular gastronomy" is plain old "food science," and the people you would call "molecular gastronomists" are more appropriately called "food scientists."

"Gastronomy," on the other hand, is a word that is appropriately applied to a style of cooking. I would argue that it is only when food science is applied to the preparation of food to produce a new and unexpected effect that it becomes "molecular gastronomy."


--

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't disagree that there is a difference between the quasi-scientific exploration of cooking and the application of the knowledge so gained.  This is a fairly minor nit you're picking here.  But, if you want to pick nits...

"Gastronomy" has many possible definitions, including:

  • The art and practice of choosing and preparing and eating good food
  • A particular style of cookery (e.g., "Southern gastronomy")
  • The study of the relationship between food and culture

"Molecular" ("relating to, produced by or consisting of molecules") makes some sense, in consideration of the fact that people seek to understand how food behaves and interacts on a molecular level, and to apply that knowledge to produce new and unexpected effects.

Slap these two words together, and what do you get?  Well, I'll tell you what you don't get.  You don't get your definition, which seems to be: "the scientific exploration of the chemical and physical properties, relationships and reactions of food items, including the first-time application by the investigator of the knowledge thus gained in a new and unexpected expression of the ingredients in a culinary preparation."  Rather, you get something like: "a style of cooking based upon an understanding of the molecular properties of food" -- which one could differentiate from regular gastronomy by adding "applied to produce effects not possible with traditional cooking techniques."

So, despite your protestations, the appellation "gastronomy" is misapplied to the scientific investigation and not so much to the style of cooking.  A better way to describe what you think is the only thing that should be called "molecular gastronomy" is plain old "food science," and the people you would call "molecular gastronomists" are more appropriately called "food scientists."

"Gastronomy," on the other hand, is a word that is appropriately applied to a style of cooking.  I would argue that it is only when food science is applied to the preparation of food to produce a new and unexpected effect that it becomes "molecular gastronomy."

Very well put, slkinsey. Maybe now we can put this baby to bed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my 2p, will try to keep it as concise as possible. My background in neuroscience, not cooking, but I am very interested in both. The problem with MG is the term itself... it really does not say anything. I don't know who came up with it ( I believe it was Kurti) , but it is a term that really says nothing.

In my opinion we have two branches: Food science (which includes, chemists, physicists, doctors, neuroscientists etc) and cooking (chefs). Food science tries to explain physical and chemical properties of food.

Chefs cook. Sometimes chefs cook borrowing methods discovered from food scientists, or other scientists in the industry. Adria did not discover spherification, he borrowed it.

All the hydrocolloid are being used in food industry for decades. How many years has light mayo been around. 20-30 years? well, this was because they have been using xanthan gum to stabilize the emulsion with less fat. that's it. Check almost any produce

Chefs are borrowing ingredients and techniques that have been around for decades. Yes, some have been pioneers (like Adria et al) and have been using them creatively in their restaurants, mainly to create new methods of presentation (a pea ravioli will always taste as pea puree; olive oil sand made with oil and maltodextrin always tastes like olive oil... ). Molecular gastronomists did not discover alginate, xanthan, guar, methol, activa, malto, lecithin etc. Scientists did. Food industry used them extensively the last 50 years. Chefs use them the last 10. what do you think the "E" numbers and "stabilizers" at the back of products is...

What we call molecular gastronomy, is as much of a progress in cooking as nouvelle cuisine to traditional french cuisine. The use of xanthan in a sauce is as much of progress as a the use of cornstarch, or the use of reduction to create rich sauces without the use of roux (which was one of the big contributions of nouvelle cuisine).

Hope this made some sense, sorry if it was too long...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my 2p, will try to keep it as concise as possible. My background in neuroscience, not cooking, but I am very interested in both. The problem with MG is the term itself... it really does not say anything. I don't know who came up with it ( I believe it was Kurti) , but it is a term that really says nothing.

In my opinion we have two branches: Food science (which includes, chemists, physicists, doctors, neuroscientists etc) and cooking (chefs). Food science tries to explain physical and chemical properties of food.

Chefs cook. Sometimes chefs cook borrowing methods discovered from food scientists, or other scientists in the industry. Adria did not discover spherification, he borrowed it.

All the hydrocolloid are being used in food industry for decades. How many years has light mayo been around. 20-30 years? well, this was because they have been using xanthan gum to stabilize the emulsion with less fat. that's it. Check almost any produce

Chefs are borrowing ingredients and techniques that have been around for decades. Yes, some have been pioneers (like Adria et al) and have been using them creatively in their restaurants, mainly to create new methods of presentation (a pea ravioli will always taste as pea puree; olive oil sand made with oil and maltodextrin always tastes like olive oil... ). Molecular gastronomists did not discover alginate, xanthan, guar, methol, activa, malto, lecithin etc. Scientists did. Food industry used them extensively the last 50 years. Chefs use them the last 10. what do you think the "E" numbers and "stabilizers" at the back of products is...

What we call molecular gastronomy, is as much of a progress in cooking as nouvelle cuisine to traditional french cuisine. The use of xanthan in a sauce is as much of progress as a the use of cornstarch, or the use of reduction to create rich sauces without the use of roux (which was one of the big contributions of nouvelle cuisine).

Hope this made some sense, sorry if it was too long...

Every word made sense, but still don't know which side of the table your sitting on though.

Very simply, the word Molecular (I dont care about the word gastronomy so I am no even going to argue that one) does not belong anywhere its being placed in the restaurant industry right now. I doubt most people that use the word even know what a molecule is.

Nouvelle Cuisine still works for this genre of cooking , "New Cuisine". But because "Nouvelle Cuisine" is not and old title we have to find something to replace it for today's chefs.

I'll be honest, you can think I am dumb all you want, but I have absolutely no idea what you just said in your last post slkinsey. I would argue it, but it seems like a patch work of random opinions and facts sewn together in a statement. So maybe you can break it down for me exactly what you are trying to say?

your last statement which sounds like it was taken from wikipedia's definition is the only one that gastronomy should be referred to, just because some people use it to mean something else, doesn't make it right, so let's stick to that definition for analysis of this phrase.


Dean Anthony Anderson

"If all you have to eat is an egg, you had better know how to cook it properly" ~ Herve This

Pastry Chef: One If By Land Two If By Sea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry you couldn't understand my post, Dean. It seems clear to me and others. But, what the heck -- I've got the most recent edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. Let's bring out the Big Book...

gastronomy [ad. F. gastronomie (first occurring as the title of a poem by Berchoux 1801) a. Gr. γαστρονομία (the title of a poem quoted by Athenaeus) f. γαστρ(ο)-, stomach, on the analogy of αστρονομία, astronomy.]  The art and science of delicate eating.

1814 Sir. R. Wilson Priv. Diary II 345 The banquet was according to all the rules of perfect gastronomy. 1837 M. Donovan Dom. Econ. II. 379 The march of improvement will induce the professors of gastronomy to elevate their calling. 1845 Ford Handb. Spain II. 25 This trait of Spanish gastronomy was not lost on the author of Gil Blas.

I think it's a reasonable extension to suppose that the art and science of good eating includes the selection and preparation of good things to be eaten.

Many dictionaries (although not the OED) add a secondary meaning along the lines of "culinary customs or style."

The definition of "gastronomy" you prefer is furthered by... well, you and wikipedia.


--

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, you are right, there was no rationale... I believe this:

there is no such thing as molecular gastronomy, as a style of cooking. Heck, I will go as far to say that there is no such thing as molecular gastronomy, as it is a invalid term.

Chefs tend (less nowadays) describe their style of cooking as "Molecular gastronomy", as one is saying "I cook italian", or "I cook French" etc. This is just silly... just because someone uses lecithin to make a foam (instead of a reduction), or alginate to make a sphere (instead of pea juice), this does not define a new style in cooking.

Although Adrian, Blumenthal , Garnier and Keller now despise the term Molecular Gastronomy, they are the ones that have established it and and used it in the beginning to describe their cooking style. Heck... Blumenthal uses it to describe his style in the intro of his Perfection series... They dropped it after it became more fashionable and more people were using it.

I have eaten the Fat Duck and at Sketch, some things I liked, some things I did not. I have not visited El Bulli, but people who have, advised me to eat something solid before hand, because they were very dissatisfied with everything being in a jelly state.

I have been following the blog Ideas In Food (http://ideasinfood.typepad.com/) and I am very impressed with their use of modern techniques, I would really like to eat in thei restaurant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tall food and coulis are still "Nouvelle Cuisine" even though it hasn't been Nouvelle for 30 years now. Mondrian and Pollock are still modernist painters even though their work is far from modern now. Accept the fact that labels will be misappropriated.


PS: I am a guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apropos to this discussion, Time Out has Mystery Science Eater, in which "TONY examines the original mass-market uses of some of molecular gastronomy’s latest tricks."

For example:

Sodium alginate or pectin and calcium

Now: spherification

Then: pimentos for stuffed olives

Methylcellulose

Now: foams, hot foams

Then: pie filling, sexual lubricants, laxitives

Transglutaminase

Now: meat noodles, blocks of fish, frankensteak

Then: crab sticks, chicken nuggets

Vacuums

Now: fanch sous-vide applications such as rare short ribs, spring eggs, vacuum-infusions, etc.

Then: enhanced shipping, preservation and processing properties

Peristaltic pumps

Now: Johnny Iuzzini's rhubarb noodles

Then: open heart surgery, moving harmful industrial liquids


--

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not "Molecular Gastronomy" is a good name for something is a different topic from whether or not that thing exists.

I'd agree that it's not the most accurate or meaningful title. But there's no question in my mind that it refers to something that's separate from other styles or traditions in cooking.

What sets the style apart seems pretty simple. Historically, virtually all cooking evolved through trial and error and through the gradual building upon existing traditions. Food science has been with us for a while, but it's had a narrow range of applications: theoretical ones (answering questions about why cooking works) and industrial ones (solving practical problems related to food processing and manufacturing).

Molecular gastronomy started when chefs who had studied the food science saw in it opportunities to try things that were completely new ... to take principles learned in the laboratory and use them make radical departures from existing cooking traditions.

I think the biggest problem with the term isn't that it's imprecise, or reduntant, or annoying--but rather that it's going to get dated very quickly. We've already moved into the era when people practicing the techniques aren't just experimenters and inventors, but cooks who are learning by example and from books. Just like they've learned every other culinary tradition. Past this point, it will become increasingly unclear which techniques are molecular with a capital M, and which ones are merely molecular in the sense that cooking has always been.


Notes from the underbelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Porthos
      I picked up enough boneless short ribs to make 3 meals for my Sweetie and me. One meal will be pan-braised tonight. One has been vacuum-sealed and is in the freezer. My question is about seasoning, sealing, freezing, then defrosting and cooking at a later date. I'd like to season and seal the 3rd meal's worth. Can I use a dry rub on the meat, then seal, freeze, and cook at a later date? Does anyone else do this?
    • By newchef
      So I've now found myself at the water's edge of Modernist Cuisine.  Specifically, using sodium citrate for emulsifying all kinds of cheeses.  What I'm after is making an emulsified Parmesan sauce as well as another emulsified cheese sauce (most likely using Cheddar or Colby) that I can freeze and use later.  I'm a single guy and am no stranger of tweaking recipes for freezing but I haven't done it for modernist stuff yet.  I'd love to make a big batch of cheese sauce, freeze it into ice cubes for up to 3 months or so, and then take a few cubes out to thaw on a weeknight and toss with pasta, drizzle over veggies, etc.
       
      I looked at the modernist cuisine FAQ and saw this specific post about the cheese sauce that is "probably" freeze-able because it uses something called carageenan.  Has anyone been able to freeze sauce and keep it frozen for, say, a few months?  And not have to use carageenan?
       
      Thanks!
    • By WackGet
      Recently I picked up a few different types of emulsifiers in bulk powder form when I saw them in passing at a catering wholesaler.
       
      Having never used powdered emulsifiers before in cooking or baking, I figured I'd find pretty comprehensive instructions for their use on the web - but I can't.
       
      I'm not a stranger to food science but nor am I a chemist. I understand that emulsifiers are at least sometimes prepared by pre-mixing them into a (heated?) liquid or fat and then using the resulting solution in the actual recipe, which may explain why a lot of commercial emulsifier mixtures are packages as tubes of gel or paste. I've also checked several industry-level textbooks about emulsifiers and while they are fantastic for in-depth explanations of the chemistry behind each emulsifier, they do not (as you might imagine) provide guidance on how a lowly baker or cook would actually use a powdered form.
       
      So does anyone know how to prepare and use a dry powdered form of any of the following in a real recipe?
       
      Specifically I am most interested in enhancing baked goods and adding stability to sauces, but would also like to know how to use them for other processes such as sausage-making too.
      E471 Mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids E481 Sodium stearoyl lactylate E482 Calcium stearoyl lactylate E472e DATEM (diacetyl tartaric acid ester of mono- and diglycerides)
        Thanks.
    • By mjbarnard
      I cooked two turkey breasts sous vide. This year had access to the Meater+ thermometer probe which I managed to vacuum seal in the bag without difficulty (it is small). Since it works wirelessly I was able to monitor and it records the internal temperatures at the thickest part of the breast.
      I thought the results were interesting. I cooked at 60C for 8 hours. I have always used https://www.chefsteps.com/activities/a-better-way-to-turkey-cook-that-bird-sous-vide-for-the-best-feast-ever which gives long cooking times at lower temperature. I have found that as according to this page https://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/2014/11/sous-vide-turkey-breast-crispy-skin-recipe-thanksgiving.html that 55C gives turkey which is just a little too pink for most tastes. Over the last few years have increased the temperature up to 59/60 and I find it perfect - very moist and tender, but pale not pink.
      See attached images. I changed my mind a couple of times and started at 58 then 60 then 59 again, so ignore the slight variations. The thing I found interesting was that the thickest part (of a large breast) reached 55C in around 1 hour 40 mins and target of 59 in 2 hours 30 mins. Now I appreciate that sous vide is a combination of temperature and time or duration, but the data make me think that around 4 hours would be sufficient, as per the seriouseats table. I have previously used the chefsteps 55-58 for their much longer advised times, up to 12 hours and the meat is still quite pink at the end, so I dont believe 55 for 12 hours would effectively be the same.
      From now on I will watching the internal temperatures with interest. This has always been the (relative) unkown for sous vide amateurs. 


    • By chefg
      I have to say designing the Alinea kitchen has been one of the most exciting experiences thus far in the opening of this restaurant. I have been fortunate to have been “raised” in some of the best kitchens in the country. When I arrived at the French Laundry in August 1996 the “new kitchen” had just been completed. Often times you would hear the man talk about the good old days of cooking on a residential range with only one refrigerator and warped out sauté pans with wiggly handles. When I started about 50% of the custom stainless steel was in place. The walls smooth with tile and carpet on the floors. I recall the feeling of anxiety when working for fear that I would dirty up the kitchen, not a common concern for most cooks in commercial kitchens.
      The French Laundry kitchen didn’t stop, it continued to evolve over the four years I was there. I vividly remember the addition of the custom fish/canapé stainless unit. Allowing the poissonier to keep his mise en place in beautiful 1/9 pan rails instead of the ice cube filled fish lugs. Each advancement in technology and ergonomics made the kitchen a more efficient and exacting machine.
      When I returned to the Laundry this past July for the 10th anniversary I was shocked that it had metomorphisized once again. The butcher room was now a sea of custom stainless steel low boys, the pot sink area was expanded, the walk-in moved, and an office added to the corner of the kitchen. The kitchen as I left it in June of 2001 was beautiful and extremely functional, of course it is even more so now. It is the relentless pursuit of detail and concise thought that allows the French Laundry kitchen to be one of the best for cooks to execute their craft…..16 hours a day.
      This was good motivation.
      When it came time to design my kitchen I drew on experiences at Trio, TFL and other kitchens I was familiar with to define the positives and negatives of those designs. We were faced with a 21x 44' rectangle. This space would not allow for my original kitchen design idea of four islands postioned throughout the kitchen, but ultimately gave way for the current design which I think is actually better than the original. But most the important aspect in shaping the final design was the cuisine. Due to the nature of food that we produce a typical layout with common equipment standards and dimensions do not work. Here is where the team drew on our experiences from Trio. By looking at the techniques we utilized we came to several conclusions.
      1. A conventional range was not our main heat source. We do need the flat tops and some open burners for applications such as braising and limited stock work. But our overall use of this piece of equipment is somewhat low. Given that we wanted four open burners and two flat tops with two ovens I began to source out a reliable unit. We settled on the Molteni G230.

      2. Upon analyzing our other heat source needs we decided to place a large focus on induction. By utilizing portable induction burners we are allowed the flexibility to give as much power as needed to a specific station in the kitchen. Obviously induction’s radiant heat is very low, and this allows us to keep the temperature in the kitchen reasonable, yet the power is quite high. 31,000 BTU's of highly controlable heat. But the main reason for choosing this flexible source of heat is the fact that each chef typically employed at least four different cooking applications on a given night. This huge flux in technique and the realization that the menu would change entirely in 8 weeks time meant that we had to design a kitchen that could evolve on a nightly basis. And last, we are very specific with temperatures; induction makes it easier for us to hold a liquid at a predetermined temperature for long periods of time without fluctuation. They operate between 85 and 500 degrees farenheit. We did a great deal of research on the different producers of induction and favored Cooktek. The fact that they are the only U.S manufacturer of commercial induction cooking equipment and located in Chicago made the decision easier. Their innovative approach to induction may prove to be even more exciting as we are already talking about new product development in the future.

      3. a. The complexity of the presentations and a la minute plate-ups of the food require a great deal of surface area devoted to plating. This was one of the most critical factors in determining the basic shape of the kitchen. The size of some of today's popular plates, the amount detail in each composition, coupled with the fact that producing tasting menus vs. ala carte means sometimes large waves of same dish pick ups made it necessary for us to have over 44' of linear plating surface.
      b. Virtually nothing goes vertical above the 36” counter top in the space. All food, plates, equipment, and dry good storage are contained by under counter units. There are a few exceptions such as the infrared salamanders, the three-door refrigerator, and the hood. This allows all the cooks a clear line of communication between each other and the front staff. It allows me an easy sight line to survey the entire kitchen’s progress with a quick glance.
      Given these two points it seemed obvious that we needed to combine the two and create custom pieces that would fulfill both needs. Large spans of plating surfaces with all food and equipment storage below. As you can see we ended up with two 22’ long units. Each function as a pass and under counter storage.
      The building is 21’ wide wall to wall. This allowed us just enough space to create two lines on each exterior wall with their passes forming a 60” corridor for the pick up of plates and finishing of dishes.
      4. We decided to add a station to the kitchen. At Trio we had five including:
      a. pastry
      b. cold garde manger
      c. hot garde manger
      d. fish
      e. meat
      Now that we had more space, and the ability to give each station multiple heat
      sources regardless of their location in the kitchen, we could spread the workload even further. We also realized it doesn’t make much sense to identify each station by classic French Bragade terms. A saucier did not solely cook meat with classic techniques and prepare various traditional stocks and sauces…in fact quite the opposite. This holds true with most of the stations, with the exception of pastry, but even they will have very unconventional techniques, menu placement and involvement in the kitchen systems. We will add a station that will be responsible for a large majority of the one-bite courses both sweet and savory.
      5.Given the size constraints of the building we realized a walk-in would not be possible in the kitchen. If we were to have one it would be in the basement. Having experienced this at Trio we decided to design the kitchen without a walk-in, making up for the space in various lowboy locations and a three-door reach-in. I experienced the walk-in less environment when I worked at Charlie Trotter’s. It is certainly different, but as with most things if done properly it provides a very efficient environment. It works best in situations where fresh products are brought in daily for that days use. And prevents ordering in large quantities. It also provides us with very specific units to house different items. We will utilize the 3-door refrigerator to store the majority of the vegetables and herbs along with some staple mise en place, and items that cannot be made in very small quantities like stocks. Raw meat will have it’s own lowboys as well as fish, dairy, and all frozen products.
      6. At Trio we found ourselves using the salamander a great deal. It is very useful for melting sugar, bringing on transparent qualities in things like fat and cheese, cooking items intensely on only one side, and it is a highly controllable non-direct heat source. Due to the air gap between the foodstuff and the heat elements the cook can control the degree of heat applied to the dish based on the technique he is using. It becomes a very versatile tool in the modern kitchen, so much so that we will install three Sodir infrared salamanders.

      Again, this is to insure that all the cooks have access to all of the techniques in the kitchen. As I said before it is important for our cooks to be able to sauté, simmer, poach, fry, grill, salamander, and freeze at the same time and sometimes for the same dish.
      We have a few unusual pieces of equipment in the kitchen; the most is probably a centrifuge. A few months ago Nick and I were driving home from a design meeting and ended up talking about signature dishes and menu repetition. Of course the black truffle explosion came up and he asked if I would have it on the menu at Alinea. I replied a firm no, but shortly thereafter said I would enjoy updating it. We threw around some tongue and cheek ideas like White Truffle Implosion, and Truffle Explosion 2005….I said it was a goal of mine to make a frozen ball with a liquid center….but then dismissed it as nearly impossible. Within a few minutes he said …”I got it…we need a centrifuge” His explanation was simple, place the desired liquid in a spherical mold and place on the centrifuge…place the whole thing in the freezer. Within days he had one in the test kitchen. I guess this is better suited for the kitchen lab topic that we will be starting in a few weeks…
      We are working on a upload of the kitchen blueprints. When those post I plan on going into more detail about certian aspects of the design. Doing so now would be pointless as the viewer does not have a reference point.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...