Atelier d'activités pratique note à note / Note by Note activities

Désolé pour mes amis qui ne parlent pas l'anglais : ce billet nécessitera l'utilisation de Google translate.

One word of explanation: I produced this after I did a workshop yesterday for a Swiss laboratory, after a  lecture. These are very easy experiments producing new food, and in particular note by note food.



Wöhler sauce

This one is a synthetic sauce, like a wine sauce.

1. in a pan, add 200 g water
2. add phenolics, tartaric acid, salt, msg, a spoon of grilled corn starch, and one small glass of ordinary oil.
3. put to the boil while whipping.

Wöhler was a remarkable German chemist.


 Würtz

Wurtz are gelified foams.

The protocole is the following:
1. in a large bowl, put 5 g gelatine
2. add 200 g aqueous solution
3. add  100 g sugar
4. heat until the gelatine is dissolved
5. whip extensively while cooling (put the pan in a larger pan with cold water or ice) until a large volume of foam is obtained
6. store in the fridge for gelification of gelatine.

The name is from Charles Adolphe Würtz, a famous chemist from Alsace.


 Gibbs

This is a soufflé that you can make in some seconds, but more precisely, it is a chemically coagulated gel.

The protocole is:
1. In a large bowl, put 1 tea spoon of coagulating proteins (such as egg white powder).
2. Add 2 spoons of water
3. Add oil while whipping until the system is like a white mayonnaise sauce  (probably about 200 g of oil)
4. Put this emulsion in small cups
5. Heat the cups in the microwave oven, until you observe an expansion by about 40 %: you get the chemically coagulated emulsions.

Now, repeat the experiment, but before cooking (step 5), add sugar (50-100 g), a pinch of salt, food colorant, odorant compound.

The name is from the famous American physical chemist Josiah Willard Gibbs.



Record volume for whipped egg white and Geoffreys

You have to know that today, we have the world record of the largest volume of foam from one egg white: we made more than 40 litres.
And if you try  to beat this record, be ready to spend some time, and have multiple collaborators, with large vessels.

1. put one egg white in a vessel
2. whip
3. when it is fully whipped, add 1 spoon of sugar, and whip
4. then add one spoon of a liquid (with no fat : apple juice, etc.), and whip
5. while whipping, add alternatively sugar and liquid
6. when the volume is more that can be stored in one vessel, divide in two vessels and whip the two
7. and so on until you beat the record.

In the end, you can add color, taste (sugar, salt, citric acid...), odorant compounds (taking into account that oil can "kill" foams).

Also in the end, you can distribute volume of foams in cups or glasses, and cook in a microwave oven, until a chemically gellified foam is obtained, and this is a Geoffroy, from a French chemist of the XVIIIth century.


Conglomeles

Conglomeles are artificial plant tissues. They are made from alginates pearls with liquid core, glued together.

1. In a large vessel, dissolve  2 g of sodium alginate in 300 g water
2. Mix with a blender
3. In 1 L of orange juice, add 200 g of calcium lactate.
4. Pour drops of orange juice in the water with alginate
5. Recover the pearls and rince them.

For making conglomeles :
6. put the pearls in a bowl
7. in a pan, heat water with citric acid, sugar and gelatine
8. Pour this liquide on the pearles and cool unti it is set.


 Liebig (sheets of dressing)

Liebigs are physically gellified emulsions.

The idea is to make an emulsion using gelatine as a surfactant. When cooling, it will gelify.
1. In a large vessel, put 1 g of gelatine
2. Add 100 g of vinegar
3. whip oil added slowly until a thick consistency is reached.
4. Pour this emulsion on a silicone sheet or in an oiled plate
5. put in the fridge
6. when gelified, detach the "sheet" of dressing.

Justus von Liebig was a German chemist. He began his studies in Giessen, and finished in Munich.


 Diracs

Diracs are artificial meats.

In order to choose the right consistency (not too hard, not too soft), one has to make the following experiment:
1. In one large bowl, pit 50 % water and 50 % egg white proteins. Mix thoroughly.
2. Take a sample of this mixture and put it in a small cup or glass.
3. Then add 50 % water to the remnant, mix and keep a sample in another cup or glass.
4. And repeat, forming a series of glasses with decreasing quantities of proteins.
5. Put all glasses in the microwave oven and heat: you will get coagulated masses in decreasing order of toughness.

 Select now the consistency that you need, and make it again, adding finally color, odor, taste, and cook.

For emulsified diracs, you have to add oil in the dirac preparation before cooking.
For aerated or foramy diracs, whip the water+protein mixture before cooking.

Paul Adrien Marie Dirac was one founding father of quantum physics. He was from England.






 Chocolate Chantilly

This one is not "note by note", but it is frequently asked.  It is a chocolate mousse without eggs, with a very delicate consistency as whipped cream.

1. in a pan, put 200 g water
2. add 225 g of ordinary chocolate
3. Heat until the chocolate has melted and makes an emulsion
4. Put the pan on cold water or ice and whip until the consistency changes (as well as color: becoming whiter).
5. Stop immediately whipping. You can store it in the fridge.

Questions and answers !

    Could you give a brief explanation of who you are and what you do?

I am a physical chemist, one of the two founders of molecular gastronomy, one of the two creators of molecular cooking, but the founder of note by note cooking.
As I am saying that we are what we do, I have to add that I spend my days doing science with my scientific research team (molecular gastronomy) in the laboratory. My goal is to make scientific discoveries... and I do some, such as quite recently the whole set of possible gels, but also "dynagels"... and many other.
I pursue many scientific questions as well, because I dream day and night to make new discoveries.
As a very side activity, I am inventing one new food preparation per month for now more than 18 years, and I give them first to my friend Pierre Gagnaire (they are freely given on his internet site.
Nowadays I am trying to help the creation of molecular gastronomy teams in all universities of the world,.
And I promote note by note cooking as well.

    For people who might not know, what exactly is molecular gastronomy?

Simple : molecular gastronomy is a scientific activity, which means that we are looking for the mechanisms of phenomena. More precisely, we are looking for the mechanisms of phenomena occurring when one cooks.
For example, if a cake expands during cooking, we ask the question "why", and we study it with the scientific method... in the hope to make a scientific discovery. Of course, we are happy to know why, but the goal is more fundamental.

    How did you get the idea to start experimenting with food?

Because in 1980, I was preparing a cheese soufflé, and the recipe was advising to add the yolks two by two. Why two by two, and note four by four, or one at a time?
This question was the beginning of my research focused on "culinary precisions" (tips, proverbs, old wives tales, etc.)

I must say also that, at that time, I was preparing my meal in a very small room, in which I had my personal lab... and this is why I had the other idea to use hardware from chemistry in order to cook,  which enventually led to molecular cooking ( I introduced the idea in 1980, but I gave the name in 1998 only).

    Whats the craziest dish you've ever made and can you walk us through your thought process for that dish?

Crazy? I don't know what it means, but I can tell you that I was very happy the morning (5.00 AM) when I made  the first "chocolate chantilly" ! In particular because I had take the bet, against a world known pastry chef, that it would work, and he thought that no, because -he told me- "one cannot add water to melted chocolate". Indeed, he did not undesrtand that I was not proposing to add water to chocolate, but rather chocolate to water.
Other funny ideas : uncooking the egg (I did it first in 1997), or puffed butter, or the "ultima sweet", or "wind crystals"...
But one important thing : you ask me about "crazy dishes"... whereas I am more interested in wonderful scientific discoveries ! For example, my recent demonstration that there are only slightly less than 1500 different kinds of gels of class 2. Or the discovery of dynagels !

The process of invention? It is always so obvious that it is as for magicians: one is deceived when one knows the trick.
For example, for the chocolate chantilly, I was considering whipped cream. It is obtained from milk: it is an emulsion. When it rests, you get cream, which is a more concentrated emulsion. And when you whip, you make a foamy emulsion. I thought that you need water and fat to make the "artificial milk", and I realized that chocolate is mostly fat, hence the idea.
For uncooking the eggs, I simply wanted to understand why eggs can coagulate, and more precisely why they become rubbery after more than 10 minutes. The invention of the "perfect egg" (today I call them "eggs at 6X°C") was a consequence.

    What are you looking forward to trying in Singapore?

This is very clear :
1. I hope that a molecular gastronomy laboratory will be created, and active, in scientific research
2. I hope that note by note cooking can spread
3. I hope that chefs will appreciate the distribution of knowledge, in order to make the technical component of cooking more easy... so that they  can focus on "art" !
4. I promote all over the world the idea that Knowledge is very important, because it can be a link between people from different culture. I should even say  that I would love to have more rationality in this world. And we have to fight intolerance, and ignorance, for example.

    How would you apply molecular gastronomy to Singapore cuisine?

Very simple. Indeed, the question of Singapore cuisine is primarly a question of art. And I shall explain that here, art does not mean "beautiful to see", but rather beautiful to eat. Culinary art has to focus on the flavour, not the ingredients or the appearance. But at the same time, artists are humans with a culture, that is with a certain way  of making "artifacts", pieces of art. The technique is common to all countries: grilling, boiling, braising, whipping, infusing, macerating, emulsifying, dividing...
Over technique, there is art, and also love (social component). We have to analyse in order to understand... and improve !

    Molecular gastronomy as a technique doesn't seem as popular in restaurants today as compared to five years ago, why do you think this is so? Or has molecular gastronomy changed in the past few years?

Excuse me to tell you that you that you make a confusion, because you write that molecular gastronomy is a technique. No : molecular gastronomy is a science of nature, as I said before. The first technique that was devised from molecular gastronomy was molecular cooking, and it became a culinary style under the name of molecular cuisine. But this is the past !
Nowadays, the advanced culinary artists focus on "note by note cooking", i.e. really "synthetic food". Much more exciting.
But let's come back to your question : molecular cuisine not as popular as before ? Yes... because it is everywhere and nobody can display  it as new... but all chefs have siphons, low temperature cooking, various gelling agents, etc. A chef saying to journalists that he is a pionneer because he uses such technique would be ridiculous. But molecular cooking is everywhere.
And today, the novelty is not to use molecular cooking techniques with wild ingredients, as it was done some years ago. To my knowlege, the only real novelty is note by note cooking... and trust me: there will  be a shock wave about that in the next years. Only i 2018, there were events about note by note cooking (I invented it in 1994) in Alsace, Poland, Greece... and today in Singapore !

    What are your views on the rising locavore movement in the food scene these days?

As the head of the Human Department of the French Academy of Agriculture, I know that we shall have a huge problem in the next future, of feeding people. All possibilities will have to be explored, but note by note cooking is a solution, and not locavority.

    How can we work towards more sustainability in the F&B industry?

Note by note cooking, I tell you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Questions de stratégie scientifique

Cela fait des décennies que je ne cesse de poser cette question  : comment faire des découvertes ?

La question est évidemment essentielle, en science, et, pragmatique, j'ai fait une collection d'idées stratégiques, pour avancer dans la réponse.

Voici ce que j'ai à ce jour :

(1) Transforming adjectives and adverbs into quantitative parameters (introduction of new concepts);
(2) Looking for the mechanisms of phenomena;
(3) Focusing on oddities, contradictions, discrepancies and ''symptoms'';
(4) Designing ''microscopes'';
(5) Making science from a technical question;
(6) Refuting a theory;
(7) Solving a problem;
(8) Assuming that any fact, result, observation, phenomenon should be considered as a particular example of general categories that we have to invent;
(9) Looking behind the â ordinary: this means not accepting what was accepted;
(10) Making the contrary of what was always proposed;
(11) Looking deeply enough to what an experiment can reveal, and work deep enough to see the impact.
(12) It is good to see the tree but one should also see the forest
Which ones are missing ?

On voit que c'est en anglais... mais la communication scientifique se fait dans cette langue.
Je ne détaille pas... mais cela est fait dans un article que l'on trouve en ligne :
http://www.chemistryireland.org/docs/news/Irish-Chemical-News-2017-Issue-5.pdf

N'hésitez pas à me communiquer des idées supplémentaires !

Tous les chemins mènent à Rome

Comment faire une découverte scientifique ? Pour montrer que la question est difficile, j'ai comparé le scientifique à un marcheur dans une région qui serait divisée en deux par la "ligne du présent" ; derrière, le passé, et devant le futur. Notre scientifique peut se tourner vers le passé, c'est-à-dire regarder l'histoire des sciences, et il voit alors des montagnes, qui sont les grandes découvertes du passé : la relativité, la mécanique quantique... Mais il n'est pas historien des sciences, et il doit regarder plutôt vers l'avant, où se trouvent les montagnes qu'il doit découvrir. Où sont-elles ? Evidemment, il ne les voit pas... sans quoi elles seraient déjà découvertes : nous devons faire l'hypothèse qu'il y a, devant lui, un épais brouillard dans lequel il doit avancer.
Avancer... Mais dans quelle direction ? Quel chemin le conduira-t-il vers une montagne ? La question est bien difficile, d'autant que même la méthode qui consisterait à avancer dans une direction d'élévation n'a rien de sûr : après quelques pas en montant, il pourrait y avoir une descente.

Alors ?

 Alors il y a cette image merveilleuse :

Oui, tous les chemins mènent à Rome, dit le dicton... et c'est peut-être dans le cheminement plutôt que dans la direction qu'il faut chercher les découvertes. Et la métaphore précédente, aussi séduisante qu'elle soit, n'est peut-être pas juste. Bien sûr, il y a des "faits", mais on lira utilement, à cette occasion, les réflexions d'Antoine Lavoisier, de Michel Eugène Chevreul ou de Jean-Baptiste Dumas, qui, plus ou moins s'accordent sur la nécessité de ne pas se limiter à recueillir des "faits", mais à les rapprocher, pour en chercher des analogies, tout en sachant bien que le fait est déjà une abstraction.