It's safe to say my goals for this second blog were ambitious. A year's worth of daily posts- what would amount to a couple of books' worth of material- might require a discipline just outside my reach. I almost made it 100 days, but after a few bits of computer-less travel, the backlog began to mount, and keeping up seemed futile. Obviously the work and the documentation continue, I just don't want the focus to shift to the presentation of it, away from the 'doing' of it. It's important to remind myself that the blog is just the vehicle, not the primary catalyst nor a substitute for real work.
But, oh, have we been busy.
One of the many new developments and projects has been my ongoing collaboration and dialog with a noted food scientist. In addition to other discussions I'm engaged in and things I'm reading, this cook-scientist relationship has begun to affect my overall approach to cooking over the last few weeks, and not necessarily in the obvious way. It's a complex thing that I can't quite verbalize yet.
I feel a subtle shift not only in my perception- of looking at cooking methods and ingredients in a more holistic sense- but also of intention. So much of what we do represents a rote means designed to take us to a specific end. I'm now beginning to understand how to work from the other end: 'Here's something cool, what can I do with it?', rather than, 'This is what I want, how do I make it?' The former requires more time, thought, and attention. The latter simply relies on a solution that doesn't necessarily translate to knowledge; it's an intellectual band-aid of sorts. It's the difference between writing a recipe and following one. It's pushing yourself to answer every question with yet another question. I don't know, I'm still figuring it out. But it's a fun process.
Among the dozens of ideas (practical and theoretical) I've been discussing, one grabbed my attention not because it offered any solution, but rather it spawned question after question. Long story short, a discovery was struck by scientists researching ice cream: used in a very specific percentage, locust bean gum has a tendency to repel the casein in milk, resulting in phase separation. In simplistic terms, the milk will essentially split into a whey layer and a casein/fat layer (this is usually corrected with the use of carrageenan). Under 0.1% there isn't enough locust bean gum to create the separation, and over 0.15%, the mixture becomes too viscous for the split to occur. But intentionally hitting the middle was an experiment I just wanted to see for myself.
So the questions begin, by trying to exploit a problem that scientists have tried to fix. What, if anything, can we do with this? How do we better control the result? Can we speed up the process? What happens when we introduce other ingredients and which phase will that ingredient join? What happens with different forms of dairy? Even if it is a dead end, it's a process that taught me something new and spurred further thought. I could never have imagined this as an end result; it can only be a starting point for something else. In some small way, I think this little trick represents my own evolving thoughts about cooking, the fundamentals upon which everything rests.
So as I pick up after a month of cyber-inactivity, I'll leave you with a favorite milk related pre-dessert, a star anise-infused chocolate shot, and a few thoughts to ponder about cooking and life in general: How often do we ask ouselves questions? How do we go about finding the answers? And are we asking the right questions?
Download Milk Chocolate Shot-Workbook 1.5.09