A little more than a week ago Dave Arnold posted a great, new technique: pressure infusion using a conventional iSi whipper! Just think of it – the whipper has been around for decades, and years a go Ferran Adrià pioneered it’s use for espumas. Several have suggested it’s use for carbonation of fruit. But no one had thought of utilizing the whipper for infusions – until August 11th when Dave Arnold of Cooking issues posted the results of his experiments in “Infusion Profusion: Game-Changing Fast ‘N Cheap Technique”. The first blogger to pick up the technique and post about it on August 12th was Linda of playing with fire and water who termed it a revolutionary technique. A couple of days later, on August 17th Aki and Alex of Ideas in food posted a combined pressurized infusion of basil and marination of mozzarella. And then on August 20th James of Jim Seven describes his results comparing conventional cold brewed coffee to cold pressure brewed coffee. It’s really fascinating how fast the idea spread, and it illustrates the benefits of an open and sharing approach to food innovations.

The science behind this is quite simple: in the pressurized canister nitrous oxide (N₂O) dissolves and penetrates the food. When the pressures is suddently released (and it is important to release pressure as fast as possible) the sudden pressure drop causes the dissolved gas to nucleate and form bubbles which expand and disrupt cells, thereby releasing flavor compounds. The physical phenomenon is known as cavitation.

A single N₂O charger contains 8 g of gas corresponding to 0.1818 moles or a volume of 4.1 L at 25 °C and 1 atm pressure. The volume of the chargers is 0.01 L which gives an impressive initial pressure in the chargers of 445 atm! With an approximate volume of 0.7 L the pressure in an empty whipper charged with a single charge would be nearly 6 atm. When liquids are added the volume decreases, but the effect on the head pressure will depend on the type of liquid added. The solubility of N₂O in water is 0.15 g/100 mL at 15 °C, meaning that with 100 mL of water, the head pressure would be roughly 10% higher than in an empty canister (that is, if the solubility is independent of pressure – I’m not quite sure about this). However, since N₂O is a rather non-polar molecule the solubility in ethanol or even oils is much greater than in water, with a resulting lower head pressure. But since flavor delivery is mediated by the dissolved gas suddenly nucleating and bursting cell structures, infusions using ethanol or oil will actually be more effective than those with water because more gas can be dissolved in these solvents (besides the fact that ethanol and oil are better solvents for flavors than water).

Thinking about how I could utilize the pressure infusion technique I came to think about the problems I ran into with hay like off flavors in the parsley and banana flavored marshmallows I made for TGRWT #2. The off flavors can be traced back to 3-methyl-2,4-nonanedione which likely stems from oxidation of unsaturated fatty acids or polyenes. Crushing parsley inevitably leads to oxidation (possibly also enhanced by mixing intra and extra cellular comounds/enzymes), but with pressure infusion – practically in the absence of air – seems to be much gentler than crushing according to Dave’s initial report (as judged by color). So I did a quick experiment with this, infusing a couple of sprigs in 2 dL of water for about 2 minutes. This was by no means enough, and the water had only a faint aroma of parsley (vodka would of course have been much better for the flavor extraction). But it was a clean parsley aroma, and the water was perfectly clear.

I recently stumbled over “Norwegian egg coffee”. At first I thought it was a joke, but it turned out that this is indeed an “egg coffee” – coffee prepared with an egg! I have never heard about it here in Norway, but the fact that it’s popular among Americans of Scandinavian origin in the Midwest suggests that it could be something immigrants brought with them from Norway (feel free to fill me out on the historic origins of this!). I mentioned egg coffee to my mom, and although she had never heard of it before, she did mention that skin or swim bladders from fish were used when boiling coffee to help clearify it. In fact the Norwegian name for this – klareskinn – literally means “clearing skin”. The English name is isinglass (thank’s Rob!). Could it be that the fish skin originally used was replaced by eggs, perhaps due to a limited availability of fish in the Midwest? After all, both are good protein sources.


Egg coffee is amber colored and you can clearly see some precipitate from the egg-coffe mixture. If serving the coffee warm it seems to be difficult to totally avoid the precipitate unless you filter the finished coffee through a cheese cloth or filter paper. The coffee in this picture has not been filtered yet.

When looking into the chemistry behind this it isn’t as strange as it may sound. Fish skin as well as eggs contain proteins. The addition of proteins while preparing the coffee serves two purposes: 1) it helps the coffee grounds to flocculate, allowing them to sink faster to the bottom of the pot (this effect is probably more pronounced when using eggs) and 2) the proteins bind irreversibly to astringent and bitter tasting polyphenols in coffee to form insoluble complexes that will precipitate. The end result is a clearer coffee with a pleasant and mild taste. The bitterness is only barely noticeable, but the coffee still has enough “body” so it doesn’t feel too thin!

Norwegian egg coffee
80 g coarsly ground coffee (rouhgly 200 mL)
1 egg
100 mL cold water
2.5 L boiling water
250 mL cold water

Mix coffee with an egg and 100 mL cold water to a thick paste. Add this mixture to the boiling water, stir carefully and leave to boil for 2-3 min. Remove pot from stove and add the remaining cold water. Let the grounds settle for a couple of minutes, skim off any floating particles, filter through a fine meshed sieve, a cheese cloth or filter paper and serve.

The first time I made this I stirred quite a bit to break up the big lumps. But I was curious whether stirring had any influence on the amount of fine particles, so I repeated the whole process with as little stirring as possible. The lumps of ground coffee where significantly larger, but I couldn’t really see a difference on the prepared coffee. There was however a small difference when looking at the glasses from below (see picture below). My conclusion so far is that there is not a big difference, and that it’s OK to stir a little at the start to break up the biggest lumps. This will also allow a more complete extraction of the ground coffee.

Difference between much (left) and little (right) stirring as the coffee boils as seen from the precipitate at the bottom of a glass of egg coffee.

The addition of the cold water helps formation and settling of the precipitate. Home brewers talk about a “cold break” when they cool wort rapidly in order to precipitate proteins which have been extracted from the malt. And while we’re talking about beer chill haze also comes to my mind. This is the cloudiness that occurs upon cooling beer, and again it’s caused by precipitation of protein-polyphenol complexes. The effect of adding only 10% cold water to the still hot egg coffee is of course limited, and won’t really be enough to give a “cold break”. But since egg coffee has a pleasant taste even when cold, I have decided to cool a whole pot of egg coffee before filtering it. I may post more on how this turns out later, but initial tasting suggests that it’s going to be a very nice iced coffee!

The interesting thing about the protein-polyphenol complexes is that we also encounter them when drinking wine (a quick reminder here that polyphenols is a group of compounds which includes tannins). There’s a nice experiment you can do to illustrate this which has been published on Khymos previously. When we drink red wine, the tannins react with proteins in our saliva to form water insoluble protein-tannin complexes. A precipitate is formed and as a result, the lubricating properties of the saliva are lost and our tongue feels rough and dry. In other words, we experience the astringency of the red wine. To ilustrate this, try the following (I was first introduced to this experiment at the 2004 International workshop of molecular gastronomy in Erice):

Take a sip of a dry red wine, preferably rich in tannin. Keep the wine in your mouth for 10-20 seconds without swallowing. Spit it into an empty glass and watch how a precipitate forms (this might take a minute or two). Notice how the color changes from red to light red or even pink (see picture below). Rinse your mouth by chewing a piece of bread and drink some water. Take a small sip of the wine that you just spat out (if you dare!). Since the tannins of this wine have already reacted with your saliva, it is as if they were removed from the wine, leaving a fad and flat wine without much taste at all.

Top: red wine. Bottom: formation of precipitate in red wine mixed with saliva.

The saliva flow rate and the concentration of proteins varies from person to person (the latter with a factor of 20). Furthermore the flow rate and protein concentration also varies throughout the day and is also influenced by what you are eating/drinking and even by the smell of food. As a consequence, a person with a high saliva flow rate and/or a high concentration of proteins is more likely to approve of a red wine rich in tannins than someone with a low saliva flow and a lower protein concentration. Knowing this, you should not be surprised that wine preferences can be very individual.

An updated version of “Texture – A hydrocolloid recipe collection” is now available for download (version 2.3). The longer I work on this, the more I realize that it will never really “finish” – there’s always more to add. And believe me – my todo list is still quite long (and I even have some feedback which I haven’t had time to incorporate yet). But I thought that since it’s more than a year since the last update, it was about time to share with you the things that have been changed. Major changes and updates include:

Pictures: This is the biggest visual change! Some recipes are now equipped with pictures which may give you an idea of the texture AND they indicate that the recipe has indeed been tested. But I need your help to add more pictures to the recipe collection (please follow the link to read more about how you can contribute pictures)! And of course - a big thanks to those of you who have already contributed your pictures!

Recipes: Recipes have been added and the total number is about 310 now. I’m getting a little more picky now with regards to which recipes I add. Ideally each new recipe added now should illustrate something new.

I should mention that I’m very grateful for feedback from readers and users of this recipe collection. Thank you very much with helping me improve the document! If you find typos, wish to comment on something or have suggestions on how to improve the collection, please do not hesitate to write me an email at webmaster (at) khymos (.) org or just write a comment in the field below.

Please head over to the download page for the links.

I prefer my coffee black, and politely decline when offered milk and sugar. However, if offered salt I would probably smile and say “Yes, please!” Salt???! It turns out that adding salt to coffee is not as weird as it may sound at first. There is a tradition for adding a pinch of salt to coffee in Northern Scandinavia, Sibir, Turkey and Hungary. And when available, such as in coastal areas where fresh water from rivers mixes with the salt sea, one would simply use brackish water when preparing coffee. This water typically has a salt content of 0.5-3%, which is lower than the average 3.5% in seawater. This results in a more intense taste and more foaming. And if living far from the sea, the Swedish food blogger Lisa Förare Winbladh let me know that in Northern Sweden one would deliberately add salt if using melt water from glaciers for making coffee. But tradition aside, is there a scientific explanation of this widespread tradition of preparing coffee with addition of salt?

The first thing that comes to mind is that salt reduces bitterness. And to be more precise it is the sodium ion (Na⁺) that interferes with the transduction mechanism of bitter taste. But interestingly the mechanism behind this is not fully understood! One of my very first blog posts was about tonic water and how one by adding salt can suppress the bitter taste and make tonic water more or less sweet. It’s a fascinating experiment that you should try at home. Expect to use about 1,5-2 g salt for a glass with roughly 1,5 dL (150 g) of tonic water. It’s a good idea to start with a little salt and taste it as you go.

Try adding a little salt to tonic water – the effect is quite surprising: The characteristic bitterness from the added quinine disappears!

Bitterness is an important flavor in coffee, but under less-than-optimal extraction conditions it can be too dominant. Generally bitter tasting compounds are less water soluble than other coffee flavors, hence the bitter compounds are extracted towards the end of the brewing. High temperatures (close to boiling) and long extraction times also favor bitterness. In that respect the coffee percolator is known to produce rather bitter, over-extracted coffee due to near boiling temperatures, and such coffee would most likely benefit from a little salt! And before the percolator came the ground coffee was just put into the boiling water and then left to settle. I can really imagine how brackish water could actually benefit

But the salt need not be reserved for over-extracted coffee. I’ve tried using salt both in a drip coffee maker and in the filter basked when pulling an espresso. The tests were very un-scientific, but the tiny amount of salt does dampen bitterness and change the coffee taste (but the coffee does not have a salty taste). Since I lack cupping experience, I certainly lack the language to describe how salt influences the taste, so I leave it up to you to try it out! And maybe some baristas with cupping experience can fill me out on this and do some tests?

In stead of just using plain salt with coffee, cured ham would signal rafinesse if served in central Europe, whereas in Northern Sweden there is a tradition for serving dried meat with coffee. The Swedish author Mikael Niemi describes this in his novel Popular music from Vittula:

“… and then the pièce de résistance among all the sweetmeats: a hard, brown lump of dried reindeer meat. Salty slices were cut and placed in the coffee, chunks of coffee-cheese stirred in, and white sugar lumps were held between the lips. And then, fingers trembling, we all poured the coffee mixture into our saucers, and slurped our way to heaven.”

With cured ham, apart from the salt-coffee interaction, one also has the combination of meat and coffee. From previous flavor pairing rounds TGRWT #1 and #5 (chocolate/coffee and coffee/meat respectively) we have seen that coffee and meat in some ways approach each other and are actually a good combination. A secret tip BTW is to add a little coffee to your beef stocks for extra depth and richness – this works because coffee shares many impact flavors with browned meats due to the Maillard reaction.

Now I’m curious – are you aware of coffee-salt combinations in your own country? Please tell me about it! And if you try a pinch of salt in your coffee – how did it taste?

Update: Read about my tests of coffee with salt at Tim Wendelboe’s coffe shop

–
Some articles that discuss the role of sodium ions (Na⁺) in suppression of bitter receptors:

Breslin, P. A. S; Beauchamp, G.K. “Suppression of Bitterness by Sodium: Variation Among Bitter Taste Stimuli” Chemical Senses 1995, 20, 609-623.

Breslin, P. A. S; Beauchamp, G.K. “Salt enhances flavour by suppressing bitterness” Nature 1997 (387), 563.

Bresling, P. A. S “Interactions among salty, sour and bitter compounds” Trends in Food Science & Technology 1996 (7), 390. (free download)

Keast, R. S. J.; Breslin, P. A. S. “An overview of binary taste–taste interactions” Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14(2), 111.

In addition to suppression of bitterness, salt can enhance sweetness at low concentrations and umami flavors at higher concentrations (more about this in part 5 of “Practical tips for molecular gastronomy”).

If Richard Wiseman’s fork balancing trick is not challenging enough, why not try the fork balancing trick I did for part 8 (where I encourage experimentation in the kitchen) of my Ten tips for practical molecular gastronomy series. You only need two forks, two skewers, a wine cork and a little patience. If interested you can read more about the physics behind the balancing fork trick.

As the name suggests, the TGIF posts are a little less serious than what I otherwise post here at Khymos. I hope you enjoy it

Miss Silvia is full of surprises! She’s been around the house for a year, but only now did she reveal one of her hidden capabilities. Did you know that you can make scrambled eggs with the steam wand of your espresso machine? Me neither. It’s a brilliant idea and one can wonder why no one has done this before. I mean, espresso machines have been around for a while. And as it turns out – according to Kelly’s comment below this was done in San Francisco back in the 90′s. It seems as if the credits for rediscovering these scrambled eggs should go to Chef Jody Williams (and thanks to Jessica at FoodMayhem for posting this). I’ve tried it several times and it works very well. I’d even say that this gives you another reason to purchase an espresso machine with a proper steam wand! Many other reasons can be found in my first post about Miss Silvia.

This is how I make the scrambled eggs: I crack 3 eggs in a 600 mL pitcher (normally used for steaming milk) and press the steam button on my Rancilio. After approx. 10 seconds I empthy the wand of water and wait for another 30 seconds to allow pressure to build up before I start steaming the eggs. Notice that I didn’t even whisk the eggs with a fork – the whirling effect of the steam wand is strong enough to get the eggs properly mixed. With my Miss Silvia it takes about 50 seconds before the steam breaks through to the surface. The eggs actually set in the pitcher and I used a spoon to scoop the eggs out and put them on a plate. Scroll to the end of the post for a video illustrating the whole process.

Make sure you clean the steam wand very well after using it for eggs. The best way of softening the protein residues is to immerse the steam wand in cold water.

I have tried to add a little milk to 3 eggs before steaming, but interestingly I wasn’t able to get this mixture to set properly. I say interestingly, because even though the scrambled eggs failed I figured that steaming perhaps could be a good way of preparing custards. Holding the pitcher one has pretty good control of the temperature, and also very efficient aeration. It could even that this is a more robust way of preparing a custard? This needs experimenting – and you are more than welcome to join me! And why stop with custard? How about a sabayon? Basically any egg based sauce could be prepared with a steam wand.

Update (added on October 25th)
In the comments there was a question about what would happen with egg whites. I had 3 leftover eggwhites so I added some sugar and tried to steam them. They fluffed up very fast and I was not able to control the process. I spooned the result onto a plate and as you can see the result was quite regrettable. The whites lost a lot of liquid.

I also tried to make a simple sabayon using 1 egg yolk, 30 g sugar and 60 mL of white wine. I got a frothy texture, but when I poured into a glass it separated quite fast. I think the main problem here is scale – on such a small scale it’s really difficult to control the temperature. I presume that this could be easier to control by tripling the amounts.

[Found via the Norwegian food blog Ordentligmat]

One of the more curious cookbooks I own is a German one entitled “Kochen und Backen nach Grundrezepten” (Cooking and Baking with Base recipes). It was first written in 1932 and has been updated regularily ever since. Each section typically has a standard recipe which indicates the ratios to use followed by suggested variations (just like The improvisational cook). It also has nice summaries of dos and don’ts (just like BakeWise and CookWise), and what really makes the book stand out is that is so compact yet still comprehensive. It’s one of those books I actually use when cooking. Many other books have a little too much text – you have to read a lot to pick up the key points. Anyway – the reason I mention this is that as I read about the new “Ratio” book by Michael Ruhlman (MR books, MR blog), the German cookbook was the first book that came to my mind.

“Ratio: The Simple Codes Behind the Craft of Everyday Cooking” just appeared this month and promises that it “will unchain you from recipes”. That’s a good thing, because by knowing a couple of basic ratios you can cook anywhere without bringing your recipes. I’m quite fond of books like that and look forward to leaf through it once I get my hands on a copy. Bakers have been using ratios for ages, better known as Baker’s percentages, so the concept is not new. When baking bread, knowing that you need 6 dL for each kg flour will make a decent bread (but not necessarily an exceptional one!). Ruhlman extends the concept and describes 33 useful ratios for the kitchen. One examples is cookies, and it’s as simple as 1-2-3: 1 part sugar, 2 parts fat and 3 parts flour. Add flavor according to taste and baking powder and/or eggs for a lighter texture. Now that’s what I call a short recipe! The only thing that puzzles me is why the book has 272 pages… That’s a good 8 pages to explain each ratio But for an experienced cook the only thing you actually need is the ratio. And if you take a close look at the cover it actually displays several of the ratios. I’ve copied them into the table below so they are easier to read. You can find the remaining ratios (covering Stocks & Sauces, Farçir, Fat-based sauces, Custards) in the Barnes & Noble preview of the book. And if you combine these ratios with some of the flavor pairings from “The flavor bible” you should be ready for a lot of fun in the kitchen!

I recently found an interesting article on how an electric field can be used for maturation of wine (New Scientist news coverage of the article). Applying a AC field of 600 V/cm for 3 minutes resulted in an accelerated aging of wine and according to the authors of the paper, it made “harsh and pungent raw wine become harmonious and dainty”. They observed changes in concentrations of higher alcohols, aldehydes, esters and free amino acids. But I was quite surprised that they don’t say anthing about astringency and polyphenols (tannins). I’d expect some changes there as well, but alas it’s so much more difficult to measure the polyphenols than the low molecular compounds. A sensory panel identified both positive and negative effects of the electric treatment which helped identify an optimum treatment. Apparently several Chinese wine manufacturers are testing the technology on a pilot scale now. Many people have a romantic impression of how wine is made, but the extensive catalogues of “corrective chemicals” available to the modern wine maker should perhaps make you reconsider the romatic idea of wine making. Even professor Hervé Alexandre at the University of Burgundy has given the technology a thumbs up: “Using an electric field to accelerate ageing is a feasible way to shorten maturation times and improve the quality of young wine”. Who knows – maybe you’ll soon be drinking a wine that has been zapped?

Moving from industrial scale wine upgrading to kitchen scale gadgets: In his latest “curious cook” column Harold McGee writes about different gadgets that supposedly can change the flavor of wines. To the better of course. He mentions the Wine wand which is supposed to speed up aeration of wines. The promotional explanation on the web page sounds quite dubious, take for instance the claim that the wine wand can “accelerate the aerating process of wine by replicating the natural frequencies of air and oxygen, and infusing them into the wine”. Complete nonsense! Harold McGee however mentions that he did several blind tests and found that there were differences. I guess we can’t exclude the possiblity that there could be some kind of reactive surface on these wands. From the pictures there seem to be some small (glass?) beads in a hollow cylinder. I can’t find any information about the surface. Perhaps it’s been activated or coated with a metal? In that case we could have plenty of surface chemistry going on. If it’s only glass however – well – then I’d just leave the wine to mature in it’s glass bottle.

The other object he mentions is the Clef du Vin or wine key which is more interesting from a chemical perspective. The active part consists of a metal disc which (in a preferred embodiment to quote the patent jargon) consists of 95% copper, 3% gold and 2% silver. According to the description in the patent application, the device is capable of an “accelerated and gauged oxidation-reduction of the wine”. Dipping the disc into a glas of wine for one second is supposed to equal one year of cellar aging. Metals can catalyze many reactions, and there are many reactive compounds in wine so I wouldn’t be surprised if something happens. Considering the fact that sulfurous compounds (such as hydrogensulfide for instance) are very potent, and that sulfur has an affinity to several metals such as gold, copper and silver it seems plausible that the metal disc may actually remove some sulfides from the wine by adsorption and in turn influence the flavor. However, in the course of one second only a small fraction of the wine has been in contact with the metal disc, so I can’t really see how this should be sufficient. It would in a way be strange if only desirable reactions are catalyzed (i.e. only undesirable compounds are degraded/removed). Anyhow – I’d really like to see a peer reviewed paper on this. For someone with spare time and access to a GC-MS this should be a nice project

A stainless steel “soap” is believed to remove garlic stains from your fingers

Interestingly there is a totally different product that relies on the same chemistry: the steel soap. It is typically shaped like a standard soap bar and consists of plain normal stainless steel. It’s supposed to remove garlic, onion and fish smell from your fingers. It works by rubbing your hands against it under running water. I have one, but to be honest it’s hard to really say if it works or not – perhaps some have more experience with it? I had a friend of mine analyze my stainless steel soap by XPS and he gave me the following elemental composition for the six most abundant elements: 70.6% iron, 18.5% chromium, 8.2% nickel, 1.4% manganese, 0.7% molybdenum and 0.3% copper. This is more commonly known as 18/8 steel where 18 denotes 18% chromium and 8 denotes 8% nickel and it’s what all your forks and knives and other stainless steel tools are made of (which of course means that just about any stainless steel object you have in the kitchen should serve the purpose to remove odor from your fingers). Of the metals present here molybdenum in particular is used industrially for desulfurization of oil. Based on a paper on hydrodesulfurization I speculate whether the mechanism could be something like this:

A proposed mechanism for desulfurization on the surface of a “steel soap”

A sulfur compound exemplified here with a thiol (R-SH) reacts with the steel soap surface and the S-H bond is cleaved. Then the S-C bond is cleaved homolytically to yield radical species. The alkyl radical abstracts hydrogen from the surface and escapes whereas sulfur remains bound to the surface. The surface could be regenerated by removal of sulfur with hydrogen. All in all the chemistry of a steel soap seems plausible to me, but I’m not sure whether the effect is significant effect when it comes to removing that garlic smell from my fingers.

Since I got my immersion circulator in December I’ve discovered that there are two critical questions that always come up as I hold a piece of meat in my hands, ready to cook it sous vide: At what temperature should I cook this? And for how long? Despite the fact that two books were published on sous vide last fall it is the short yet comprehensive guide “A Practical Guide to Sous Vide Cooking” by Douglas Baldwin that I’ve found most useful to answer these questions. Those who have followed the eGullet thread on sous vide cooking will probably recognize Douglas Baldwin as one of the major contributors alongside Nathan Myhrvold. Out of curiosity and eager to learn more I therefore emailed Douglas and asked if he would be interested in doing an email interview.

ML: From your homepage I see that you are a PhD student in applied mathematics, how did you become interested in sous vide?

DB: I have always loved to cook. Before last January, though, I mainly cooked slow food. That is when I saw sous vide mentioned in one of Harold McGee’s NY Times articles. Wow. Cooking meat at its desired final core temperature is so obvious! As a mathematician, I kicked myself for never asking “if overcooked meat is bad, what temperature should the meat be cooked at?” A question which many mathematician would instantly answer, “just above the temperature you want it to end up at.”

A quick search of the web led me to the massive eGullet thread on sous vide cooking. While the thread contains a treasure-trove of practical information — especially Nathan Myhrvold’s posts — it left me with a lot of unanswered questions. Being an academic, I turned to the scientific literature for answers; as expected, I found many answers and many more questions.

ML: Your excellent sous vide resource, “A Practical Guide to Sous Vide Cooking” has a wealth of information. What drove you to write this article? And have you ever considered publishing it in a peer reviewed journal?

DB: Thank you. I’m very glad to hear you find my guide to be useful.

As a scientist, I am driven by two things: an insatiable curiosity to learn everything I can about a topic and the desire to freely share what I have learned with the world (so others can extend and build on what I have done). After spending hundreds of hours researching sous vide cooking and discovering how much of the information online was incorrect (and potentially dangerous), I felt compelled to write up what I had learned and post it as soon as possible. I am still actively working on my guide, and hope to complete another major revision in February.

I have not submitted my guide to a peer reviewed journal because its intended audience is chefs and foodies. Though I did ask a number of food scientists to review my guide for technical accuracy, and I was recently asked to referee a paper for the Journal of Food Science.

ML: From your viewpoint, what is the biggest advantage of sous vide over conventional cooking?

DB: Control. Precise temperature control gives incredible choice over the doneness and texture of meat, poultry and fish. Tough cuts can be made tender. Tender cuts are the same perfect doneness from edge-to-edge. Fish and light meat are moist and flavorful. Pork and poultry no longer needs to be brined to be juicy (because they can be made safe without being cooked well-done).

ML: Do you think sous vide cooking will ever become so common that the equipment will be available in regular kitchen stores? And if yes – when will that be?

DB: I don’t think sous vide cooking will ever be so common that immersion circulators will be sold next to microwave ovens. But I fully expect them to be as common as smokers in 5–10 years. Like smoking, sous vide cooking requires a little knowledge and planning — an easy request of the average Khymos reader, but a lot to ask of most consumers. This is unfortunate, because I find sous vide cooking to be convenient, energy efficient, and versatile.

ML: What kind of equipment are you using yourself at home for sous vide? And how often do you typically cook sous vide?

DB: I use a Minipack-torre MVS31 chamber vacuum sealer and a PolyScience 7306C immersion circulator for most of my sous vide cooking. I usually attach the immersion circulator to a full-size countertop food warmer with a lexan lid I made — the lid limits evaporative cooling and the food warmer speeds the (initial) heating of the water and limits heat loss from the bottom and sides of the water bath. I also have a couple Iwatani butane blowtorches, a used PolyScience immersion circulator, a couple PID controllers from Auber Instruments, a Ranco ETC temperature controller, a FoodSaver vacuum sealer, and a bunch of thermocouples and meters from ThermoWorks.

I eat food cooked sous vide almost everyday. As a single guy, I batch cook most my meat in single servings pouches, rapidly chill and then freeze them until needed. While this `cook-freeze’ sous vide is very convenient, the freezing and reheating of the meat does causes small, but noticeable, degradation in taste and texture.

ML: Have you compared DIY bagging with zip-lock bags, food saver bags and vacuum chamber packs? I know that liquids are challenging with the food saver, but does the bagging method affect flavor (or even texture)? Does the small amount of oxygen in the DIY version have any effect?

DB: For meat, different bagging methods have little or no effect on flavor and texture. The primary purpose of bagging is to allow the efficient transfer of heat from the water (or steam) to the food (while still keeping the food and water separated). Sealing the food in a bag has the added benefit of preventing evaporative losses of flavor volatiles and moisture. Even when using a chamber vacuum sealer, the majority of bags have high levels of residual oxygen. The main difference between using a zip-lock bag and a chamber vacuum sealer is the extent to which the bags balloon when heated; (when heated over about 65C/150F) both bags will start to balloon because of the vapor pressure of the liquid in the bag, but the zip-lock bag will balloon more because the residual air in the bag will also expand. It is important that the food is kept from floating to the surface of the water to prevent uneven heating.

While meat can easily be cooked in a zip-lock or food saver bag, fruit and vegetable compression requires a chamber vacuum sealer. Moreover, zip-lock and food saver bagged vegetables balloon excessively in the 85C/185F water bath they are (typically) cooked in because it very difficult to remove all the air in the bag.

Liquid in the bag is indeed problematic when using a food saver, but is easily solved by freezing the liquids before bagging. (Although, I might add that freezing often traps air bubbles in the liquid which cause the bag to balloon more than it would have if a chamber vacuum sealer was used.)

ML: What are your favorites cuts of meat for sous vide?

DB: With the faltering global economy in mind, I love showing off sous vide cooking’s ability to transform inexpensive cuts of meat into something amazing. Consider the humble chuck roast, a flavorful cut of beef which is usually relegated to stews and hamburger because of its abundant connective tissue. Vacuum sealing, cooking for 24 hours at 55C/131F, and searing to a beautiful mahogany color transforms this humble cut into something akin to prime-rib! Pork shoulder vacuum sealed with lard and cooked for 24 hours at 68C/155C, torn into bite-sized hunks and fried in a little oil is always a hit at my dinner parties. Even the the lowly chicken breast can be made into something moist and flavorful by pasteurized in a 60C/140F water bath (see my guide for pasteurization times).

ML: Is there any meat that you would prefer not to cook sous vide?

DB: I don’t like some types of fish cooked sous vide. When cooked too slowly, the enzymes in the fish remain active and cause the flesh to become mushy. [This can be mitigated by using a water bath temperature 5--10C/10--20F higher than the desired final core temperature and using a needle temperature probe inserted through closed-cell foam tape to determine when the fish is done heating.] Also, fish which is not extremely fresh will taste too fishy because the flavor volatiles remain sealed in the bag with the fish —this is a particularly irksome problem for me in land-locked Colorado.

ML: Some critics claim that with sous vide, even though you brown the surface, you loose some flavor since temperature is kept so low (I believe this applies especially for pork). Do you share this experience?

DB: It is a very reasonable concern, but can be mitigated by quickly searing the meat before vacuum sealing and cooking. While the initial Maillard reaction occurs noticeably above 150–180C/300–350F, many of the subsequent reactions can occur at the low temperatures used in sous vide cooking. Personally, I feel searing after cooking is sufficient and almost never take the time to pre-sear my meat.

ML: From your experience, what is most difficult to achieve when cooking sous vide?

DB: A great sear without overcooking the meat. While a blowtorch works wonders on beef and (most) pork, it tends to burn poultry. A pan with a little oil over medium heat (so the oil is between 150–180C/300–350F) works fairly well for poultry, but may overcook the meat before the surface is golden brown.

ML: With Keller’s recent book “Under pressure” and your guide (and an extremely long thread at eGullet) being available now: Which areas would you say need further exploration?

DB: Sous vide cooking is still relatively young and there are hundreds of interesting questions yet to be answered! Some of the questions I’m currently interested in are: How long does it take all the soluble collagen to unfold into gelatin at 55–65C/130F–150F? What is the role of enzymes when cooking at low temperatures for long times? Is it better to thaw the meat or cook it from frozen? If cooking from frozen, how long does it take to heat a piece of meat (such as foie gras) stored at -80C/-110F? Which foods can be frozen or refrigerated after cooking (and for how long?) without significantly degrading taste or texture? How and why should fruits and vegetables be cooked sous vide? Why does fish retain so many more of their essential fatty acids when cooked sous vide (compared with conventional cooking methods)? . . .

In addition to the many unanswered questions, there are also many topics which are understood but have yet to be discussed in sufficient detail. For example, many people’s intuition about clamp and chamber vacuum sealers is wrong. The importance of food shape in predicting heating times has not been discussed — spherical and cylindrical foods heat much faster than slab shaped food. The relatively fast onset of warmed-over-flavor after the food is removed from its vacuum pouch is absent. And even how large and powerful the water bath needs to be for a given quantity of food has not been discussed.

Hopefully I, Nathan Myhrvold, or someone else will have the time and resources to answer all these interesting questions.

ML: Thank you very much!

An updated version of “Texture – A hydrocolloid recipe collection” is now available for download (version 2.2). There are two file sizes available: screen resolution (~1 MB) and high resolution for printing (~5 MB). Some recipes have been added bringing the total number up to about 270 recipes. Apart from this the version includes corrections of typos and updates of indexes and the supplier list. There is a new index for alcoholic preparations plus a small glossary. Again I should mention that I’m very grateful for feedback from readers and users of this recipe collection. Thank you very much with helping me improve the document! If you find typos, wish to comment on something or have suggestions on how to improve the collection, please do not hesitate to write me an email at webmaster (at) khymos (.) org or just write a comment in the field below.