Modernist Cuisine *****

[JRPfeff]

Clark,

Thanks for posting the technique for mac & cheese. From this recipe and Ruhlman's review, I conclude that this is a silly set of books. They are for the most part useless to anyone but Myhrvold and his "modernists." The techniques take too much time & attention, and require equipment that won't be found in homes, just labs (Oh boy! Another uni-tasker!).

I have no use for it.

Jim

 

[Clark Deutscher]

I totally get what you're saying Jim. Having said that I may end up with the book at some point (you know the day I win the lottery, or somehow convince Jeff to buy it and scan the whole thing and email it to me).....I do play with the odd chemical from time to time and have a lot of time on my hands. Although 2 days to make a Ny Strip does seem somewhat ridiculousm it would have to be really really really good. I made the homemade pasta with xantham ghum they discuss and it really is good. There is not way that it will be usefull to 99% of people out there though. Plus I question the quality a little when I hear about the bbq rubs. Having said that without trying them I don't know. If nothing else I suppose I can say I am intrigued.....

Clark

 

[j biesinger]

Jim, I think I'm 180* from you. I take everything Ruhlman says with a pound of salt. I tend to disagree with him on most things and find his attitude towards cooking a bit snobbish. I see modernist cooking and new wave books like French Laundry and Momofuku to be very in line with my BBQ sensibilities. We have no problem spending several hundreds on a unitasking smoker and, between prep and cooking, spend a couple of day cooking a butt or brisket.

Whether I want to or not, I have to admit there's a big pschological component to cooking, Keller speaks to this. Sometimes spending 3 days building a dish simply makes it taste better. I hate to admit to a placebo, but it works for me. Time spent on a recipe is a positive for me.

It only a matter of time before the hydrocolliods are commecially packaged for home use. I know Adria has a line but it's prohibitively expensive. I predict it won't be long before the "exotic ingredient" deterent will be a thing of the past. Right now though, I like seeking out rare ingredients. Just this weekend, I scored some fennel pollen and urfa pepper. Modern cooking has an element to seeking out weird stuff.

I do get the home cook that wants to remain a traditionalist, it's just not me.

I don't get the home cook, that loves cooking, but says something is too involved.

 

[j biesinger]

Nathan posted this on egullet Nov 2009

The book project is coming along very well.

Yes, it is going to be expensive. Current plan is ~1500 pages, bound into 3 volumes in a boxed set. We looked at a physical prototype of the book yesterday (with blank pages)- it weighs about 30 lbs. One thing I found interesting is that they say that there will be between 1 and 2 lbs of ink!

We have not set pricing yet, but it will likely be in the $300 range. Heston's Big Fat Duck coobook came out at $250, and the el bulli books are $350. We have about 3X the number of pages as el bulli books, and almost that multiple for Heston's book. So if we had the same price per page it would $1000+. The Joan Roca sous vide book is $200 for a much smaller number of pages - indeed our sous vide chapter is longer than his book.

<span class="ev_code_RED">We hope to eventually produce a cost reduced version. Heston has done that with a much cheaper $75 verison of his book, but it did not come out until long after the main version.</span>

I know there will be people who will be upset about the price. I'm interested in getting feedback on this. I think that a lot of the issue is that cookbooks are typically priced very cheaply. It is a bit odd that to eat Thomas Keller's food you pay $250 per person at Per Se or French Laundry - the book is about the same as the tip on one meal.

We have taken a no-compromise approach to making the book with both thousands of person-hours of effort by a large team. We also have no-compromise in terms of photographs - we have color photos on every page. That is really expensive to produce, and expensive to print. Cookbooks published in the US cut corners everywhere - there are very few photos and the like. Most European cookbooks do too, but to a lesser extent, and books like Big Fat Duck cookbook, or el bulli cookbooks have much higher production values. However these books tend not to have as much in the way of step-by-step directions.

 

[JRPfeff]

Originally posted by j biesinger:
Jim, I think I'm 180* from you. I take everything Ruhlman says with a pound of salt. I tend to disagree with him on most things and find his attitude towards cooking a bit snobbish.

I gave up on Ruhlman's blog a while ago, too much self promotion and cliquishness, but I still find his cooking topics worthwhile.

Originally posted by j biesinger:
I see modernist cooking and new wave books like French Laundry and Momofuku to be very in line with my BBQ sensibilities. We have no problem spending several hundreds on a unitasking smoker and, between prep and cooking, spend a couple of day cooking a butt or brisket.

Speak for yourself, Kemosabe. My most expensive WSM cost me $125 (cash price, no tax or shipping). Where are these "hundreds of dollars" you speak of?

Brown's main complaint against unitaskers is not cost, it is use of limited kitchen space for storage of one-use appliances and gadgets. Since my WSM's are not stored in my kitchen or pantry, this argument becomes moot.

Furthermore, the total duration of a barbecue cook may be long, but my prep time is minimal (trim & rub, then back in the fridge) and once things get going on my WSM, it is set it & forget it. I always smoke with my WSM at full capacity, so I end up with months worth of meals once I freeze the leftovers. The time/meal ratio gets pretty low when all things are considered.

Originally posted by j biesinger:
Whether I want to or not, I have to admit there's a big pschological component to cooking, Keller speaks to this. Sometimes spending 3 days building a dish simply makes it taste better. I hate to admit to a placebo, but it works for me. Time spent on a recipe is a positive for me.

This may be our big difference. I work in a highly regulated and proceduralized business. Cooking is my time to get away from following rules and to be creative. From what I've seen of Modernist Cuisine techniques, it is closer to running the control boards at Fukushima, than it is to cooking.

Originally posted by j biesinger:
It only a matter of time before the hydrocolliods are commecially packaged for home use. I know Adria has a line but it's prohibitively expensive. I predict it won't be long before the "exotic ingredient" deterent will be a thing of the past. Right now though, I like seeking out rare ingredients. Just this weekend, I scored some fennel pollen and urfa pepper. Modern cooking has an element to seeking out weird stuff.

Getting back to Ruhlman's review, "and I remain frustrated that I lack so many tools and ingredients required to actually use this behemoth." If a food professional such as Ruhlman (who makes regular trips to NYC) doesn't have it, it will be a long time before it gets to me.

Originally posted by j biesinger:
I do get the home cook that wants to remain a traditionalist, it's just not me.

I don't get the home cook, that loves cooking, but says something is too involved.

As I previously stated, this isn't cooking, it is a chemistry set. I leave that stuff at the office when I go home.

I will continue to do my cooking in analog fashion, and leave the digital techniques to you and the modernists.

Jim

 

[K Kruger]

Originally posted by j biesinger:
Jim, I think I'm 180* from you. I take everything Ruhlman says with a pound of salt. I tend to disagree with him on most things and find his attitude towards cooking a bit snobbish. I see modernist cooking and new wave books like French Laundry and Momofuku to be very in line with my BBQ sensibilities. We have no problem spending several hundreds on a unitasking smoker and, between prep and cooking, spend a couple of day cooking a butt or brisket.

Whether I want to or not, I have to admit there's a big pschological component to cooking, Keller speaks to this. Sometimes spending 3 days building a dish simply makes it taste better. I hate to admit to a placebo, but it works for me. Time spent on a recipe is a positive for me.

It only a matter of time before the hydrocolliods are commecially packaged for home use. I know Adria has a line but it's prohibitively expensive. I predict it won't be long before the "exotic ingredient" deterent will be a thing of the past. Right now though, I like seeking out rare ingredients. Just this weekend, I scored some fennel pollen and urfa pepper. Modern cooking has an element to seeking out weird stuff.

I do get the home cook that wants to remain a traditionalist, it's just not me.

I don't get the home cook, that loves cooking, but says something is too involved.

I'm with you on pretty much all of this. I wish Ruhlman spent a bit more time critically thinking. I am quite fond of well-written cookbooks, as few as there are. I collect cookbooks but have rarely cooked a recipe from any. It's just not how I do things. Most of the better ones, like those you noted, are very much in line with my sensibilities as well, however. Anymore, I'm just not into exacting procedure, measurements (I haven't used a scale in eons), and such, but I do appreciate the process involved. There probably is a lot of stuff I do that many would find procedurally exacting, possibly time consuming or overly process oriented, but so much of my flow is second nature I do not think of it that way.

There is an enormous psychological component to cooking for me. When I am not cooking I am thinking about it. I am cooking a party later today - but will not be the one purchasing the ingredients (I made a list) and that is driving me a little nuts because I don't have that control. I'll feel better when I see whatever is purchased, and whatever it is I'll turn it into something, but I won't shake the thoughts till I'm in the flow. Then my mindset will change, my mood will elevate immeasurably, and I'll get in the proverbial groove.

It's not like this for many cooks and that's fine.

In many cases I think the exotic ingredient is already a thing of the past. I don't think there will be a large market for, say, hydrocolloids, but one can get them - and numerous other things - more readily. (Up until a few years ago, e.g., I had to get fennel pollen from a couple to-the-trade-only sources, by phone. Now, it's available on line at direct-to-consumer sites. That's the case with several things I used to have to buy the same way.)

Though I find so-called molecular gastronomy occasionally interesting, and have dined in a few of the major's restaurants and at some events dedicated to it, it's not a direction I have any desire to go. I appreciate the work involved (though, as often done, it smacks too much of artifice to me); I grab just what I can make work for me, like, e.g., the mac-and-cheese process Clark notes upthread - things of that nature. Some elements of lab-food processes work well for me; lab-food itself not so much. Again, though, sort of like my statement above, there are many things I do and numerous ingredients I use that to others seem exotic, while to me see almost run-of-the-mill. (Coincidentally, urfa is going into a sauce I'm making later.)

These are books I'll likely get for the collection. I'm sure I'll find many things of interest. Time can be constrained for me when at either home, as I am not usually there long, and cooking for clients, even the extended engagement clients, often have time restrictions, so long-process procedures (especially if substantially hands-on) are not usually possible. I'll distill and use what interests me.

I do get the home cook that loves cooking that might find some things too involved. Not only do I think there are gradations of loving cooking, one does not need to love - or even like - every element, tangent, offshoot. Were I to have the time, other than utilizing the techniques/ingredients of molecular gastronomy I find useful to me, it's not a tangent I would pursue. I find many of the processes affectively cold. I can see how others might find some of the things I do or even some of my standard ingredients and procedures equally chilling. It's a matter of various perspectives. And perspectives are often subject to change.

 

[j biesinger]

I had to get fennel pollen from a couple to-the-trade-only sources, by phone. Now, it's available on line at direct-to-consumer sites.

I didn't realize how hard this stuff is to buy until I started looking for it. I actually gave up when, out of no where, my wife found a tin in a cool little place in Boston.

As I previously stated, this isn't cooking, it is a chemistry set. I leave that stuff at the office when I go home.

I will continue to do my cooking in analog fashion, and leave the digital techniques to you and the modernists.

Name calling? I intend no disrespect, I just have a particular viewpoint that I'm trying to convey. I don't know what it means to be a modernist, and I'm not sure I'm one, but somebody certainly has to be, unless we want to be stuck using stone tools and cooking on hot rocks.

Let me try another angle.

Ignore all the exotic platings, small portions, strange combos of ingredients and get to the heart of what they are trying to do. To me, its as simple as: they are using controlled experiments to determine best practices. There's a no holds barred approach, where everything is on the table including hydrocolloids, and >$10k equipment. My assumption would be (if they are true to their methods) they would reject the use of these things if they didn't produce the best possible outcome. They aren't vainly promoting the use of centrifuges just because they are expensive and flashy, its because their experiments show that those things work best in certain kitchen applications. I could see how someone could view them as some kind of self promoting P.T. Barnum of the food world, but I think that is more of a side effect of the novel nature of these techniques (that IMO they are correctly using to their advantage to publicize their huge expense of time and money).

From what I've read, they have come upon some interesting discoveries that overturn a bit of dogma. For instance, in double blind taste testing, they could not correctly determine which duck leg was cooked confit and which was baked and later brushed with fat. The only factor to show any effect was cooking temp. This conclusion, doesn't require expensive equipment or exotic ingredients and makes cooking confit easier and cheaper for me.

For me, in the kitchen, science is my knife. It lets me take an undefined idea and cut away all the fat and gristle and reveal the underlying truth. Kevin knows this well, how sick I am of all the bs dogma that exists in cooking (especially barbecue), and how much I appreciate an opinion that's based on empirical observation. Whatever these guys do with their >$10K equipment and their weird hydrocolloids is cool by me as long as they aren't using them just to be flashy, but they indeed are the best way to do something. I can read their methods and it will give me insight into how best to do something, even if I can't do it exactly the same way.

At some point, we have to admit we don't know everything, and the only way to discover new things is to examine all possible paths and, with an unbiased eye, determine the the best path, even if it challenges cherished beliefs.

edit: I've been reading more in the thread Clark linked too. It seems as if some of my assumptions were fairly accurate.

Some of us are scientists as well as avid cooks. One thing about scientists is that they are very cynical of claims that have to be taken on faith. The authors of this book have taken a very rigorous approach to finding out and expaining why things work as they do. They are bringing the cooking processes that have made some people famous within the reach of interested cooks.

For years professional chefs with solid foundations kept telling us that "searing the meat seals in the juices." The FDA continues to tell us that we should cook poultry to 165°F, and the American Heart Association insists that eating cholesterol will kill you. All respected individuals with tons of experience. But experience is no replacement for knowledge, and that knowledge tends to come from books like this one.

We'll have to agree to disagree. It's certainly my experience -- and that of thousands of others -- that cold smoking, cooking steak SV, retrograde starch techniques for potatoes et al are all pretty straightforward techniques. Most of the things I did aren't even "modernist" per se, and I've no desire to play scientist. I want to make and eat good food.

 

[JRPfeff]

Thanks for the response Jeff, no disrespect was intended.

One note on the double blind tastings. Someone recently said:

Whether I want to or not, I have to admit there's a big psychological component to cooking

That being the case, how I cook a duck leg and whether or not I sear a steak will affect how I enjoy the food. For me, meat cooked in a water bath is a turn off. Some of the photos of the finished poultry at the eGullet thread look pretty bad. I'd send them back if served at a restaurant. The fried chicken, on the other hand, looks fantastic.

Jim

 

[j biesinger]

Thanks for the response Jeff, no disrespect was intended.

One note on the double blind tastings. Someone recently said:

quote:
Whether I want to or not, I have to admit there's a big psychological component to cooking


That being the case, how I cook a duck leg and whether or not I sear a steak will affect how I enjoy the food. For me, meat cooked in a water bath is a turn off. Some of the photos of the finished poultry at the eGullet thread look pretty bad. I'd send them back if served at a restaurant. The fried chicken, on the other hand, looks fantastic.

Jim

I guess I'm a bit sensitive, seems like I keep getting in the "science can't explain everything" debate.

The whole point of double blind testing is to eliminate bias. The taster and the preparer each have a set of sample numbers, after each sample is rated, they check back to see which preparation is preferred.

As far as the confit goes, the hypothesis was that large fat molecules had no hope of penetrating the muscle tissue. Their tastings, and inability to distinguish between samples, led them to conclude their hypothesis was correct.

By no means are these techniques dummy proof. I see a bit of chatter about how people that don't understand the fundamentals of cooking are jumping into these techniques. Also, you read how rarely these techniques are successfully applied in professional kitchens. But when they are used right, they can result in places like: El Bulli, Alinea, and Fat Duck. Really there is only one solution: try them for yourself, and make your own opinion.

I just did my first sous vide steak and have to say, it was pretty darn cool. I don't think I'd want to do it all the time, but it was special and I'm glad I had the chance to try it. I'm really looking forward to serving it to others to see their reactions, because its just so unique.

 

[Brad Benski]

Not to get into a debate of what is good or not good or "Better". I like the idea of trying new things. But I'm a tinkerer, and so it seems normal to me to "re-invent" the wheel from time to time.

Does that mean it's better because it's new. Not really. I tried the mashed potato recipe this weekend. Didn't hit the procedure right, let the second cook to 180 alittle too low so the potato was slightly undercooked. Overall I can see were the recipe is going and what it can do for texture and flavor. BUT in the end they would still be bland A** mashed potatos if not for all the butter and other stuff added in.

On the other had I was unaware of the eGullet site so now there's a new foodie world to explore...

Will I get the book, depends. Several things in the universe must line up but maybe by May 2012 I'll have it.

 

[K Kruger]

I've not read the thread (I find many on eGullet a bit of a slog) and don't know what they were comparing but I'm surprised that any thought fat was penetrating muscle in the first place. That seems so pre-high school.

Results are not the only thing that resonate for me. The process is a large part of the enjoyment. I weigh the process variables: procedures that remove too many of the elements of the 'connection', if you will, to the food and/or results don't work for me. It's hard to explain, but doing already tender steak cuts sous vide does nothing for me. While I find the results interesting I don't find the process satisfying enough to recommend it. On the other hand, I do find the results - both visually and texturally - of cooking tough cuts sous vide. Though I miss the aroma from the braising pot, I find the addition of flavors to the vac bag interesting enough to make up for at least some of the loss of the braising pot. For confit I much prefer sous vide.

This extends to other areas of 'modernist' techniques as well. I can definitely see trying the mac-and-cheese process (though I find the justification odd - what advanced cook makes mac-and-cheese with a béchamel?), but many are so machine-, chemical- or process-oriented as to cause for me too much of a detachment from the food, almost irrespective of results. I enjoyed Alinea immensely but even if money were no object I cannot imagine being more than a rare diner there.

 

[JRPfeff]

Despite my comments above, I am still interested in examining, reading, and possibly using Modernist Cuisine. Many libraries will order books based on requests of their members. It is worth trying, and if anyone is successful, we could scan and share some recipes of interest.

 

[j biesinger]

I've not read the thread (I find many on eGullet a bit of a slog) and don't know what they were comparing but I'm surprised that any thought fat was penetrating muscle in the first place. That seems so pre-high school.

eGullet seems to rave about how many comments a thread like "sous vide" has but its totally unreadable. I never think how well things are organized at tvwbb until I try reading another forum.

regarding confit conclusions, maybe they oversold the significance of their findings?

Results are not the only thing that resonate for me. The process is a large part of the enjoyment.

fair enough. I haven't been at this game long enough nor do I have as many successes, so I need results to justify my time spent. Everything I do is usually new to me, so I got to do my homework and figure out what has the highest probability of success.

On the other hand, I do find the results - both visually and texturally - of cooking tough cuts sous vide.

this is a big deal for me. I got a 48 hr short rib cook planned and I'm very excited. Unlike you, I doubt I'll be able to ever dine at Alinea, and the though of not experiencing some of these things makes me sad. Knowing I can try them at home is pretty cool.

Despite my comments above, I am still interested in examining, reading, and possibly using Modernist Cuisine.

I'm going to hold out for the abridged version. It seems possible (they've talked about it) and it only makes sense.

 

[K Kruger]

In order:

Yeah. I only occasionally go to eGullet. Pretty much when I'm referred there by a thread like this one. Several years ago they got positively anal about condensing threads. I'd post to something then get an email a day later (or an hour even) that that thread had been combined with some other one. There were a few other issues that came up around that time. I withdrew. I admire many people who post there but I just can't deal with eGullet itself.

I have not read the thread so don't know what they were comparing as far as confit is concerned. I will at at some point, probably, but I am juggling juggling these days in terms of driving, the ranch, the Okla house, a new client out west that's booked me for an extended time starting in a bit over a month, taxes, yada yada. Sometimes I do think some things are oversold (to wit: some comments in the 'original' sous vide thread), but there are many who write well, make good points, so I'll want to devote attention when I do get to it.

I get your point about needing to justify your time spent. I think, for me, it's a balance. Of course I want great results, but I also want to enjoy the process of getting there. That's a subjective thing, and there are numerous variations and gradations for each of us in terms of what we find appealing or unappealing in terms of process and technique. I do very much like to understand the science behind cooking and the new discoveries made thereof, as you know. Sometimes I just glean and use what I feel like fits me. Other times I go whole hog. It depends I guess.

It is a big deal. I think you'll very much enjoy short ribs sous vide. Maybe you won't get to Alinea (I'm not throwing in that towel) but do get his book. His flavor combinations are astute and inspiring. Much can be extracted and you don't have to necessarily make every component in a given dish. (And the pics are incredible.)

In thinking about it I have never really been 'just' a home cook. (I do not mean that at all pejoratively.) Well, not since my very early teens - a long time ago. I can't say that I know that every cook that advances past the novice stage, as you have, develops a style though I think that is likely true. It certainly was for me - and for most other professionals I know. That said, the style evolves. It morphs as skills increase, interests grow or change, new tangents become inspiring. I find it interesting (and rather amusing) to think about some of the things I used to focus on that are scarcely a thought now. I imagine you have experienced at least some of that already.

Though science is of course involved (where is it not?) this is the 'art' part of cooking - the personal art part. Like an artist who has his or her periods of watercolor, goache, oil, then maybe sculpture, collage, etc., many of us do the same thing, moving into and out of areas in food and cooking that draw us (or repel us - or one then the other), sometimes dabbling, sometimes immersing, but always seeking what resonates at the time.

 

[Clark Deutscher]

I think the one thing that everyone can agree on is that everyone is interested in talking about these books, seems they are popping up everywhere now a days.

As for the egullet stuff, it is a very very hard forum to follow, I've only posted about 30 times in over a year. Like Kevin said they combine threads to the point where you actually can't find info you were trying to find. It really is odd. I've only started about three topics over there and for every one of them I received an email saying it was moved to another thread, usually within 30 minutes! Having said that I do check it out every couple of days as a lurker, I find it a great place for ideas with really talented people. As well everyone there is always willing to help out, just like here.....

I fall in the middle for the book. I spend a lot of time thinking about food. I have only been cooking for three years, before that I couldn't have made macaroni and cheese. I plan basically all meals I cook with a fair bit of detail and especially those I cook for others. The only catering I do is for charity jobs and for those I am an absolute control freak and work on my own. For me the taste is the most important, time not so much. I don't have kids though so that makes it much easier. Having said that I know I will buy the books at some point and absolutely share them. I think any knowledge is good. It doesn't mean you have to cook a steak for two days but when you have a couple days you could try, who know's maybe it's better, maybe not, never hurts to try. But a lot of the things in the book are not all together crazy or even more time consuming than normal (see the home made pasta or the cheese sauce for the macaroni). Some people do get carried away however and suggest that the only way to cook things is sous vide and so forth, my impressions is not that from the book, although it is from some people testing it!

As for the so called modernist cuisine on it's own I think it actually gets a bad wrap. THe restaurants practicing molecular gastronomy and so forth are very fancy and one could claim elitist, understandably. I can understand people who don't want 30 course tasting menus and so forth with decorative plates. I just don't feel that that will always be the way this type of food is perceived, really adding xantham ghum to pasta is technically modernist and if one was not told it was there they would not pick it out, it can look like any mac and cheese dish. I can see this stuff taking off when more restaurants adopt some of the techniques, really a sous vide machine is not really harder than a crock pot once when has used it.

Here are a couple articles, one for the book and one against, interesting in both perspectives.

Hope some of this made sense!

Clark

 

[j biesinger]

I think any knowledge is good.

well said Clark. Its just information.

Maybe you won't get to Alinea (I'm not throwing in that towel) but do get his book. His flavor combinations are astute and inspiring. Much can be extracted and you don't have to necessarily make every component in a given dish. (And the pics are incredible.)

my wife and I were all but there until we did the math and figure out what a full tour plus wine service would set us back and we had a hard time justifying the expense.

I do have the cook book. I've made the shallot marmalade a few times and love the recipe. Its so simple and bullet proof. The only full dish I've made was the asparagus dish with the deconstructed hollandaise.

 

[Ryan S]

Bumping an old thread....Several replies to various things in no order.

Science is a huge part of cooking, whether or not people want to admit it. Understanding what's going on and making it work for you isn't some cheat or other bs, it's improving your skills.

"Modernist Cuisine" is an amazing book set, instructional manual and cookbook. I was amazed and surprised when it was gifted to me from a friend, I wouldn't have spent the money myself. I have not tried the bbq sauces yet, but they look for the most part quite doable. M.C. is so massive that it's difficult to say "Well, read 1-100 to 1-123, then 3-21, and finally 5-10 through 5-30." It can be used as a simple recipe resource, but the first half of volume 2 (traditional cooking methods) alone should be one that any serious home cook should read to better understand what's going on. The authors of M.C. know they're tweaking a lot of people's sensibilities and take some time addressing that. Microwave ovens were unheard of 50 years ago at home and are ubiquitous now. Many of the tools they use will probably end up going that way in a shorter amount of time. Sous Vide appliances are down to $300 or so now, and can be built from parts yourself for $100 or less in some cases.

"Ratio", "Ad Hoc at Home", and "On Food and Cooking" would probably be the three books I'd encourage on a starting home cook. Far more directly applicable and would get someone up to a very serviceable level if they take them all in (and good reference as needed).

Alinea was amazing. It's a very particular experience, and certainly not for everyone.

I did most of the burger recipe from M.C. (it's a LOT like Heston Blumenthal's "Perfect" burger--his research chef left to go work on M.C.). It's definitely got a few things that make it better. It is a LOT of work compared to just throwing together burgers and going to town, particularly if you make the buns. I would skip the buns and buy 'em from a good baker, personally. Was it the greatest burger ever in the world? No. Better than every other burger *I* have ever made? Probably. Realistically, I won't ever re-make the whole burger in their recipe. I'll use a few things from it to improve my regular burgers, though. I don't see a need for the smoke-infused lettuce when you can just add some bacon on there, for instance.

Smoking is similar to Sous Vide. Prep well, start the cooking mechanism, add food, stand back and wait, checking intermittently. A stoker or guru (recommended in M.C.) makes them even more similar, removing your interaction just that much more. You just miss out on the smell. This week, I'm waiting on a beef cheek to cure so I can smoke and sous vide it into pastrami.

(EDIT--you DO get some smoke smell with the SV! On long swirls, the particles from the smoke can diffuse through the plastic and make the water smell smoky. Kind of awesome)

 

[j biesinger]

This week, I'm waiting on a beef cheek to cure so I can smoke and sous vide it into pastrami.

do me a favor and post this.

I just autotuned my sous vide controlled and it seems like I'm good to go. My plan is to do stuff similar to your beef cheek, but I won't have MC to work from. Your post will be a good starting point for me.

 

[Lawrence M.]

I didn't realize how hard this stuff is to buy until I started looking for it. I actually gave up when, out of no where, my wife found a tin in a cool little place in Boston.

Are you talking about Christina's food and spice? If so, I live down the block from it. Best spice store ever! let me know if you need anything and I'll ship it to ya.

 

[JRPfeff]

There's another article on Myhrvold and Modernist Cuisine in this month's Smithsonian Magazine.