Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Hervé This: Salt doesn't dissolve in oil, silly

ROB MIFSUD

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 12:41 PM EDT 08/05/08

The guru of molecular gastronomy debunks culinary myths - not to dehumanize cooking but to make eating more pleasurable ...Read the full article

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

  1. Yves Farges from Canada writes: Great article & well written. Understanding the processes at work to make a particular dish outstanding is the key to not only enhanced flavours, but new subtle additional tastes.

    Personally, oil-covered Maldon Sea Salt seems to defeat the purpose of the salty, dry crunch when used as a finishing salt, but the point made in the article is valid.

    Chefs are professionals, alway open to new ideas to produce better results, so the concepts in Molecular Gastronomy have found an attentive audience in Canada.
  2. G Montcler from Canada writes: Last week, Le Figaro reported on the findings of 100 chefs from the UK and the EU ranking the best retaurants in the world.
    One of the unanimous finding was that molecular gastronomy was a crock and should be dismissed.
  3. guy tozer from Saskatoon, Canada writes: I have been cooking for 50 years, and am darn good at it. In no way am I going to change my habits, because some person writes a book and says, salt doesn't dissolve in oil, or water boils at 212 degrees. Molecular gastronomy my a$$.
  4. Stew Griffin from Canada writes: Actually, "the basics" state this about boiling water:

    Water boils at 100 degrees C, at 1 atmosphere of pressure.

    If you take a heavy lid and place it on the pot of boiling water, the pressure will rise to an equilibrium determined by the point where some steam escapes the pot. The higher pressure will result in a temperature exceeding 100 degrees C.

    Hence, we have the pressure cooker.
  5. George BrownIII from Christmas Island writes: Like dissolve like, I was thought in high school. Just like when water is boiling you can lower the flame as no more energy can be added. And you cant teach new tricks to old dogs like guy tozer.
  6. Kevin Dooley from Canada writes: Yeah, all this science stuff is crazy. What we need is more old wives tales and ineffective techniques that are undertaken without understanding what they're supposed to accomplish.

    The truth is that even tried and true cooking techniques can be improved with a little science. My personal experience is that even simple common techniques like making a roux suddenly started to work much better and more quickly after I took the time to understand what was happening to the starch on a molecular level, and how they are able to hold fat molecules in suspension. Oh, I thought, that's why I have to stir, and that's why it suddenly coagulates if I don't add enough milk, and that's why a roux-based cheese sauce doesn't have a layer of oil on top unlike what happens if you just melt cheese in milk. And understanding that means that I can see other places where I could use a roux not just as a thickener but to help integrate the fats, and I can see how other starch-based dishes like risotto work. And that in turn tells me that I can make unusual risotto-like dishes with other starchy grains, and what to expect when I try it.

    Maybe I'm unusual, but I find that it helps to understand what's actually going on when I cook.
  7. old Curmudgeon From Ottawa from Canada writes: Wow, I am an electrical engineer, with NO chemistry training beyond high school, and I cook rudimentary dishes once a week... Out that entire article, I only learned one thing (the collagen dissolving temp.) And even then, they did not fully explain how to tenderize the meat.

    Everything else in there is basic chemistry that everyone should know. Salt does not dissolve in oil. Wow! what a revelation! NOT!

    To find out that world-renowned chefs did not even know that is rather surprising... What the hell do they teach in culinary school!

    And the poster is right. You CAN get water above 100dC, if you increase the pressure. Not sure how much temperature rise you would get with only a "heavy lid", though. Probably not more than a degree or two. You need to crank that pressure up a lot to get 120dC. About the same pressure in your car's radiator (which tends to run at around 120dC)
  8. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    I remember in Moliere someone discovering that what he had been speaking all his life was prose.

    Man has been doing molecular cooking since time immemorial.

    If this is the first invention the French have come up with in the new Millennium, future looks bright for France.
  9. X. T. from Canada writes: And here's another myth: Marble/Granite boards are cooler so it is more suitable for pastry works.

    The truth is, those materials are not 'Cooler' than anything else in your room. The fact that it feels cooler on touch actually means it transmit heat a lot easier than, say, a wooden board.

    I have been using wooden board all my life to do all kinds of pastry works, including making/working with puff dough. It never failed because those boards are 'hotter'.

    I say they use those stone boards because stones are expensive and they are food snobs. I am open to the challenge from some 'chefs' on a food joust.
  10. Oakville Curmudgeon from Canada writes: Perhaps M. This would agree, as would some posters here, it is all about process. If you master the basic processes, even without fully understanding the science involved, but appreciating that something is happening, then you are a far better cook. And many degrees beyond those who slavishly adhere to recipes without a feel or understanding of what it is they are doing. This group generally has a kitchen full of expensive gadgets and walls of cook books.
  11. James W from GTA, Canada writes: Molecular gastronomy is progress,isn't it?

    We have emerged from artful splashes of colourful sauces surrounding a pyramid of food, to equally tasteless foam formations, without the food.
  12. Graham Brown from Sarnia, writes: I don't even know what that article was about. Some French scientist figured out 2500 things about cooking food? And chief among them is the fact that sodium chloride doesn't ionize in a liquid fat medium? Jeez, stop the presses.
  13. Name Witheld from Vancouver, Canada writes: I think that the important thing to note about M. This, is that he is a Physical Chemist, not a 'molecular gastronomist'. I'm a materials engineer (ie: the physical properties of metals, plastics and ceramics) and I studied physical chemistry for years. I'm also told I'm an excellent cook. I recall one physical chemistry professor who often used foods to illustrate the concepts of physical chemistry - like why foods last longer when refrigerated, compared to being stored at (or above room temperature), his demonstration of 'cryo-cooking' to char a steak at -180C (with liquid oxygen), or his explanation of why foods cook faster in a pressure cooker. Best quote ever: "...I don't think that Col. Sanders was a thermodynamics man..." When you consider that all cooking is simply the product of chemical reactions, the opportunities to experiment are endless - ever wondered why a chef might use a torch on a creme brulee, instead of baking? Why espresso tastes so much better than regular coffee? Why bread bakes fluffier on a rainy day? Fascinating. If you consider cooking as a science, you'll be better able to adapt recipes, to different conditions more effectively than you would by trial and error. And isn't that the marque of a true professional? The ability to get the same results every time, despite changes in conditions, tools, etc?
  14. guy tozer from Canada writes: George BrownIII from Christmas Island: Kind of goes along with the old saying,"if it ain't broke, don't try and fix it,eh?
  15. Allan Martel from Canada writes: For a real expert in the biochemistry of cooking, see the book Cookwise with whole chapters on how to get your baking to turn out to your personal taste; other chapters on the role of gluten and why you need some whole wheat flour in a rye bread recipe; etc.

    A marvelous book with clear application in my kitchen every week.
  16. Albin Forone from Canada writes: So French! Recall that the 1789 Revolution reflected "the emerging discipline of understanding the physical and chemical structure of [politics] and the scientific processes of [government] - vive le difference!
  17. edward prior from Montreal, Canada writes: Name Witheld From Vancouver: interesting observations, but your last question is what gives it away: No. While it might be convenient to get the same results no matter what change in conditions, such is never absolutely possible, hence the glory that is cuisine itself: the odd mistake, the odd variation in the temperature of the fire, the slight crack in the clay pot - in a word: serendipity, without which, the vast range of cuisine would not be possible.
    For me, the true glory of preparing food lies in its infinite variation, not in replicating exactly what I served last night or at the last dinner party.
  18. Sissy Schuss from Canada writes: The attached picture is crying out for a Rick Mercer add your own caption edit but where to start?
  19. Wulfher SkullSplitter from Winnipeg, Canada writes: G Montcler from Canada, why exactly is molecular gastronomy was a crock? Where is your argument? Unfurling the riddles of our world requires science, this applies to cooking just as it does anything else.
  20. steve allan from Welland, Ontario, Canada writes: Where's Professor Irwin Corey win you need him?
  21. Name Witheld from Canada writes: Edward Prior, you're right: if you work too hard to produce the same results every time, you end up with... McDonald's! (A science in itself) What I meant was that a cook with knowledge of food science would have a better understanding of how variations in equipment, timing, or ingredients can affect the meal, and be better able to change a recepie to get the best results - or experiment more effectively to IMPROVE the results.
  22. Tinfoil Hatt from Kitchenaire, Canada writes: I've always wanted a cookbook that explained the principles of good cooking, rather than just listing a bunch of recipes. When I cook I rarely use recipes--it's usually more of an intuitive process based on past experiences, tossing things together in an attempt to reproduce a remembered flavor, etc. I do quite well with this approach, but a rational set of principles based in part on scientific knowledge would be helpful. Art and science work quite well together, if you give them a chance.
  23. Alison Linton from Bowmanville, Canada writes: Quite an article from Herve, but as a chef instructor, I am compelled correct some of the good scientists comments on stocks. There are at least 4 mistakes in his discription.
    First off, a stock is never made with meat. Bones always make the best stock, as we are interested in the flavour that is extracted from the pores in the bones. Cold water is the only way to achieve this result as the pores release flavour slowly as the water heats.

    Secondly, fat should never be in a stock pot. It will only render during the cooking process and will need to be removed later. The process you speak of meat in water refers to 'boiled beef' which many think of as 'simmered beef brisket'. In this case, the water should always be at just below the boiling point (98 degrees celcius).

    Herve is correct about the equilibrium being achieved by using both cold and hot water, however more of the juices will be kept in the meat when the beef is placed in the hot liquid, as it acts like a sealant.
    To sum it up, as I told my students today, " While baking is a science, if you apply too much science to cooking, the affect can negatively influence creativity and instinctual flair...the taste is all that really matters in the end."

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top