Iberian Ham

In a recent cooking competition note to note, some candidates included in their dish a preparation that they named "Iberian ham".

I will not go back to the question of the reproduction of traditional, classic ingredients or dishes, but I propose that we be astonished to see so named... what was not Iberian ham, but a kind of copy, a reproduction of such a product: the name was usurped, and I do not believe that it is "fair", in the sense of the regulation of the food trade.

And then, why make something new by naming it like something old? The innovation is hidden, instead of being highlighted.

But, in reality, this post is more about sharing an astonishment: the composition of the preparations that were proposed by the candidates who made these "copies of Iberian ham" were actually so different... that it was very difficult to recognize Iberian ham.

For me, and for many people with whom I discussed the question, Iberian ham is served in very thin slices: there is even this Spanish ceremony which consists in putting the ham horizontally, on a support, and using a long knife, to make well-sliced strips.

But, above all, this ham is a beautiful, alternating red and white areas. In the red areas, my friends who have studied this product know that the proteins have been partially hydrolyzed and have released amino acids and peptides, among other things, so that these parts have a lot of flavor. In the white areas, it is fat, and here again, the long evolution of the ham, its maturation have led to the formation of odorant compounds.
Finally, the Iberian ham is characterized by this alternation of areas of different consistencies and different tastes, and in any case powerful.

But we must not forget that there is a lot of fat in total and that this marbling is essential for the quality of Iberian ham.

But in the realisations that were submitted to me, there was no fat!
I must admit that I was a bit shocked and disappointed. Am I old-fashioned? Biased? I know that some members of the jury spontaneously made the same analysis as I did, so it is not idiosyncratic.

And here I am expressing my incomprehension/why did the competitors claim to be making a reproduction of Iberian ham when their preparation did not contain the fat that is almost the hallmark of this ham?

Close to my heart

In the last note-to-note cooking competition, one of the contestants who was shortlisted and presented his work said he wanted to make a dish that was "close to his heart".

Why not.... but is it a good strategy?

Because in the end, the jury doesn't care what is dear to its heart, and it is the preparations dear to the jury's heart that are important.

All this obviously reminds me of the paradox of the actor of this wonderful Denis Diderot, who explains well that if one dies on stage to represent a character who dies, then one is a bad actor; what one must do to be a good actor, is to give the impression that one dies on stage.

Yes, you have to remain frozen inside to perfectly control the appearance you give, the message you transmit.

In the same way, making a dish that we like is quite secondary. What counts in a contest is that you please the jury!

Of course, if we work on a subject we are passionate about, we will put more energy, more enthusiasm and more time into it than if we do something that bores us.

But we should not confuse the objectives: when we do a competition it is to win it over other competitors, right? However, knowing that everyone is marked by the same jury, the question is above all to know what the criteria of the competition are, what the personal criteria of the jurors are.

These are the real questions!

Note to note: the question of reproduction of the old

I think it is useful to discuss, for note-to-note cooking, the question of reproduction.

Note-to-note cooking, to begin with, is that form of synthetic cooking that uses pure compounds rather than fruits, vegetables, meat or fish. These compounds that are used can be pure or simple mixtures as in oil, or starch. But let's keep the idea of pure compounds.

With our compounds, what to do?

Many people are tempted to reproduce old ingredients or dishes: coq au vin, sauerkraut, applesauce, etc. Their argument is that the guests will not feel the same way.

Their argument is that the guests will find it easier to find their way around, with preparations they know. That "the public does not want anything new". And other similar arguments. But... is all this true?

On the other hand, there is the essential pitfall that a copy is generally compared unfavorably to the original.

For example, let's imagine that we produce a system that reproduces an apple: we will almost systematically be told that this "apple" is not crunchy enough, or not juicy enough, etc. But this is pure bad faith.

But this is pure bad faith, because to which particular apple is our particular production compared? Not all apples are crisp like green apples, juicy and sweet like golden apples, etc.

Moreover, real apples, even of a particular variety, do not all have the same acidity, the same sweetness, the same fiber... More generally, all apples are different, not only in terms of variety but also in terms of maturity within the same variety and on the same tree.

In other words, if it is intellectually interesting to make such a reproduction of an apple, one should be aware of the limits of the exercise.

Yes, it is interesting to make a reproduction, because the particular consistency of a Granny Smith apple, for example, has virtues that are easy to identify, this noise that the teeth make when they bite into the apple, this particular juiciness that is released when one bites, etc. And then, do we really need to do what already exists?

There are many answers to this question, starting with the fact that, perhaps, our synthetic productions will one day become more durable than natural ones.

On the other hand, our reproduction work leads us to explore particular characteristics of traditional products, which imposes specific work, and therefore specific, unexpected results.

Beauty is certainly in the way.

Before the internet site of the International Centre of Molecular and Physical Gastronomy

 

10th International Contest of Note by Note Cooking


Organized by the Inrae-AgroParisTech International Centre for Molecular and Physical Gastronomy (https://icmpg.hub.inrae.fr)
 Roisin Burke (TU Dublin), Yolanda Rigault (Paris), Heinz Wuth (Chile)Hervé This vo Kientza  (Inrae-AgroParisTech)

With the support of the compagnies Pour la Science, Belin, Louis François, Iqemusu.com.





The theme of the 10th International Note-to-Note Cooking Competition (of "synthesis cooking") was "Salty dice with fibre (no Rubik's cube).
The competitors worked for a year and a jury made a pre-selection of 10 entries.
This international jury was composed of :

    Jean-Pierre Lepeltier, International Club Toques Blanches
    Philippe Clergue, Le Cordon bleu, Paris
    Yolanda Rigault, Paris
    Heinz Wuth, Chili
    Sandrine Kault-Perrin,  Louis François Inc.





The 9 September 2022, the jury met both on the new AgroParisTech-Inrae campus and by videoconference, and after the presentations of the shortlisted candidates, the jury met and announced the prizes for this 10th International Note to Note Cooking Competition:



First Prize  ex aequo :
Dao Nguyen and Pasquale Altomonte  (Kitchen Lab), Switzerland  : Duck Dice à l’Orange








First Prize ex aequo :
Douglas Yokomi Fornari, Brazil : Over the edges


Second Prize
Maria Grazia Pena-Niebuhr, Peru :  3D Savory Present



Third Prize :
Eléonore Boisseau, France : An ocean breeze






Prizes were offered by the companies  Louis François, Iqemusu, Belin/Pour la Science, BPI.

Dois-je donner des références ?

 Dois-je donner des références ?

J'observe que, chez certains auteurs dont je doute de la compétence parfaite, je déplore l'absence de références... mais, me souvenant de la paille dans l'oeil du voisin et la poutre dans le mien, je me dis que je ne donne pas moi-même les références de tout ce que j'avance. Bien sûr, souvent (notamment pour mes conférences), je signale à mes amis que j'ai ces références absentes, que je les tiens à leur disposition, et je leur donne mon adresse email afin qu'ils puissent m'interroger, recevoir ces références et engager un dialogue, mais... au fond, pourquoi ne pas donner immédiament les références que j'ai, que j'utilise pour asseoir mes dires ?

Et la réponse est celle de la vulgarisation tout entière : parce que cela gène la lecture. Pendant 20 ans, à la revue Pour la Science, nous avons tout faire pour faciliter le confort de lecture : pas de notes en marge, pas de notes de bas de page qui interrompent la lecture (on est toujours tenté d'aller voir le renvoi)...
Mais est-ce exact ? Ne pouvons nous pas être discret, comme l'est d'ailleurs Wikipedia ? Et ne pouvons pas, comme cela est fait, avoir des références qui nous conduisent directement aux références, en préparant la remontée ?

Bien sûr, derrière toute cette question, il y a d'abord -toujours d'abord- celle des objectifs. Et puis on pourrait objecter que le jeu des références est facilement détourné : certains donnent des références, mais ce sont de mauvaises références (de sorte qu'il y a là négligence ou malhonnêteté selon les cas).
Et puis, à quoi bon donner des références si personne ne les consulte ?

Inversement, ne pouvons-nous pas espérer conduire nos amis à dépasser nos propos, à aller à la découverte de champs que nous leur ouvrons ?

Finalement, je conclus que je vais donner mes références :
1. c'est une bonne pratique
2. cela conduit à s'interroger soi-même, à chaque phrase
3. cela conduit à s'interroger sur la qualité des références que l'on donne
4. si l'on fait bien, on ne gêne pas la lecture
5. et des amis pourront découvrir de nouveaux champs.

Et c'est ainsi que je change mon billet d'hier : https://scilogs.fr/vivelaconnaissance/cuisinier-technicien-ou-technologue-ou-artiste/

Are cooks technicians or technologists? Les cuisiniers sont ils des techniciens ou des technologues ?

 Pour la réponse en français, voir : https://scilogs.fr/vivelaconnaissance/cuisinier-technicien-ou-technologue-ou-artiste/

 

And now in English

 

An important observation is to recognize that doing something (techne) is a technical work, whereas trying to improve the technique is technology. 

Also, art had many definitions, but it has something to do with emotions. 

And this preliminary  observations can be summarized with : 

Rembrandt was an artist

A wall painter is a technician. 

 

With this in hands, it should be clar that, for cooks : 

-  some of them are craftpersons, as they do technique primarily (the repeat protocols, they do not innovate really) ; mind that, in this category, you have the "art craftperson", repeating but with more emphasis on beauty than others)

- some of them are artists (their dishes are for the mind, not the body)

Now, cooks who would try to improve the culinary technique would be technologists, but if a person is spending his/her time at improving culinary techniques, he/she is a technologist... and no longer a cook.

All this is discussed in my books :

1. Cooking, a quintessential art

2. Cours de gastronomie moléculaire N°1 : science, technologique techniques culinaires.

 

Questions about custard/ Questions à propos de crème anglaise

Pour la version en français : 

https://scilogs.fr/vivelaconnaissance/on-minterroge-a-propos-de-creme-anglaise/

 

This afternoon, a salvo of questions which are, in fact, all about cooking custards.
I have illustrated and (I hope) clear and detailed explanations in Mon histoire de cuisine (Belin, Paris), but here is something to understand.





The message:

I know that white starts to coagulate at 62°C, yellow at 68°C (I read your article on Pierre Gagnaire's website), but I think that some molecules coagulate at other temperatures; am I wrong?
A related question: why does it say to cook the custard at 85°C? Could it be for pasteurisation purposes? And why does it slice at boiling point and not at 85°C?
Is it possible to catch up with a turned custard to regain the emulsion? Will this have any effect on the molecular structure or texture?
I observed that the custard was more liquid after being "blended". Is this a destruction of the molecular structure during blending?



And my answer, question by question


Here, let's start with :

I know that the white starts to coagulate at 62°C, the yellow at 68°C (I read your article on Pierre Gagnaire's website), but I think that some molecules coagulate at other temperatures; am I wrong?


One can of course answer point by point to this first question, and I will do so, but I will also take it up differently, because I think one can be clearer.

First, the poor answer, point by point:
Yes, the egg white starts to coagulate at around 62°C.
Yes, egg yolk starts to coagulate at around 68°C.
And yes, some egg molecules coagulate at temperatures other than the two above.
But first I observe that the molecules that coagulate, in the white or in the yolk, are more precisely proteins. Each protein, each kind of protein-like molecule) coagulates at a particular temperature.

Now, as I said before, I know that the answer is not correctly given, that the explanation is not clear, so I'll take it up now.

Let's consider the egg white, since the yolk behaves in principle like it, but in a slightly more complicated way.
The egg white is 90% water and 10% protein, but several kinds of protein.
Each protein coagulates at a particular temperature.
And it is indeed at 61.8°C that the first protein in the white coagulates; the others remain in the form of balls in the white, barely caught by the coagulation of this first coagulating protein (we agree: when we say "a protein coagulates", it means that many molecules of the same type of protein "uncoil" and form a large network that traps the liquid in which they were dissolved).
Then, when the temperature is increased, a second protein coagulates, which reinforces the gel that is the coagulated blank. At this stage, there are two "nets" which trap the other molecules, and it is very soft.
And when the temperature is increased further, a third protein coagulates, reinforcing the gel that is the coagulated white, then a fourth coagulation will come, and so on, the coagulated white becoming harder and harder, until it becomes rubbery.

The same applies to the egg yolk, but with different proteins, which have different coagulation temperatures.


The rest almost follows from this


A related question: why do we say to cook custard at 85°C? Could it be for pasteurisation purposes? And why does it boil and not boil at 85°C?

First of all, let's observe that you can cook custard at any temperature you want, and I don't know where my interlocutor is getting it from: 85°C.
I am not a specialist in microbiological issues, but I know that there is above all the question of the "time-temperature couple". For example, if you cook a whole egg, in its shell, at 59°C for 15 minutes, you destroy salmonella; when you cook at a temperature higher than 59°C, you can reduce the time needed for microbiological sanitation. On the other hand, care must be taken not to go too low, because when micro-organisms are at a high but not lethal temperature, they proliferate.
This is why I so often warn my cooking friends against keeping temperatures too low for a long time.

That said, yes, you can make a custard froth when you bring it to high temperature... For a reason that I will now explain, by saying first of all that a custard that is macroscopically successful, i.e. visible to the naked eye, is actually microscopically frothy.
And I would add that, contrary to what has often been wrongly taught, a custard is not an emulsion but a suspension: it is not like in a mayonnaise, where the stacking

See also :