Workbook

Separation Anxiety

 

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

 

 

Pushing It

 

We're fleshing out another old exercise from these pages, that combo of balsamic ice cream and strawberry. It would make me really happy to include an olive oil component, a little more overt than the financier. I don't know, I like the whole 'vinegar and oil' idea.

There were a few initial thoughts on how to inventively approach this: sugar encapsulation, maltodextrin powder, a tableside application... But these were either logistically impractical, 'boring', or take some element of control out of our hands. Most fun would be to incorporate it into a mousse component.

 

So at this point, we're still adjusting, still pushing it to the point where the mousse still 'works' yet the oil flavor comes through. Perhaps I'm still sticking too much to the idea of a conventional 'mousse'. What about a sweet approach to aioli or mayonaisse? Or perhaps there are new directions which I'm just learning about as I write: 'whipped' oils and oil gelation. Hopefully there will be more to report on that end... 

Download: Vanilla-Olive Oil Parfait-Workbook 30.3.09

Chasing Tradition

 

I've often mentioned my equal love and respect for both the 'old school' and the 'new', and how each can really serve to inform the other.

While I've enjoyed a handful of decent versions over the years (La Brea Bakery's sticks out in my mind), one thing that I've never actually gotten around to mastering myself is that specialty of Bordeaux, the canele. But I'm always game to make up for my lack of breadth, even when it comes at the suggestion of one of our line cooks, who just happens to have had a bit of pastry experience. I'm not too proud to learn a trick or two from anyone.

Bill and Shelly began working on the batter a couple days before, allowing ample time for the crepe-like mixture to rest. Like its delicate cousin the macaron, the canele is a fussy preparation for just a few ingredients. Recipe proportions differ wildly among the several I've looked at; the important variables of vessel, time, and temperature equally contribute to the characteristic dark color, crisp shell, and moist and airy interior.

     

They decided to try both the traditional copper molds, as well as the more accesible silicon forms. And while we debated the virtues of coating the molds with beeswax or butter (even honey-butter), the fact that we didn't happen to have any wax lying around made the point moot.

I'm looking forward to spending more time with Bill's recipe and nailing it down. These things are addictive.

Download: Canele-Workbook 20.3.09

   

Contemplating Starch

 

I finally got around to this project after many months of hibernation. The concept came from a presentation given by Aki Kamozawa and Alex Talbot, where the dynamic duo discussed starch and low temperature cooking, specifically as it applies to potatoes and rice. The idea put forth was that cooking starch at its precise point of gelatinization will provide some measure of integrity and eliminate the probability of a gummy potato puree or a pasty risotto. And always looking to provide a practical angle, Alex and Aki demonstrated how risotto could now be made a la minute, as opposed to a lengthy 15 minutes of constant stirring or less-than-ideal par-cooking followed by reheating.

As we were chatting after the demo, it came up that they had yet to apply the technique to a sweet rice pudding. This was way back in September or October; if I'm good at anything, it's procrastination.

     

I began with the rice (arborio) per the Ideas in Food method: loosely wrapped in cheesecloth, cooked for 30 minutes at 65C, and then chilled down and rinsed to release some of the excess starch. From this point, the rice can held for a couple of days; it's certainly 'cooked' to some degree, but still far from a pleasant al dente.

As I set out the other day, I asked Alex if they had come to a fixed ratio of liquid to rice, and he had suggested I try a proportion of 4:1. I cooked the rice in milk and vanilla alone, uncovered, and at a fairly agressive simmer. I was called away in the middle of it, but it took no more than 9 or 10 minutes. Once tender, it was off the heat and in with a splash of heavy cream, sugar, cocoa nibs, dried apricot, lemon zest, and rosewater. The flavor combination came out of a long-ago project Monica and I had worked on, but unrelated to rice. I wanted a creamy pudding, but not too loose, for reasons dictated by its final destination...

Download: Rice Pudding-Workbook 16.3.09

   

I love feuille de brik. I had brushed, layered, wrapped, and otherwise folded enough phyllo back in my earliest years of cooking, that to this day I still avoid it. But brik does all the things you only wish phyllo could do. Here we rolled the rice pudding into long, thin strudels, then sauteed them in clarified butter.

     

   

It's a tasty morsel, but a difficult component for us to work into the menu. But I'm excited to see where else this pondering of starch can take us.

Bespoke

 

This project has been germinating for several weeks. We finally picked up momentum, and armed with some more detailed information and opinion, we've begun to sort out this business of stabilizers. Not only have more and more people been talking about it lately, but I've always felt like I was taking a lot for granted by using a commercially blended product. And the basic knowledge of what works and how (and why in a particular synergy) is good to have as it can lead to other things.

The idea was pushed forward when a pastry chef colleague down the street mentioned his dismay at the fact that the most readily available (at least in NYC) commercial sorbet stabilizer contains both whey and gelatin. It has bugged me too, but not enough that it kept me awake at night, that is, until I began to think about it more. It should be a given that our sorbets are, if not dairy free, then at least vegetarian. I promised that I would find the ideal solution for our own knowledge and our conscience.

The first step was to break down the Cremodan stabilizer into its labeled constituents: gelatin, locust bean gum, cellulose gum, guar gum, whey protein concentrate, and dextrose. I have all of these ingredients on the shelf, with the exception of the whey, which I'm trying to get rid of anyway. I wanted to consult a food scientist (who has had a particular interest in ice cream) on what was and wasn't necessary, and what first steps I could take to constructing my own blend.

The advice I got was that the whey powder provided no function whatsoever, and neither did the cellulose gum- carboxyl methyl cellulose or CMC- at least in this application, and when guar and locust bean gums are being used. Hands down, in his opinion, the best single stabilizing ingredient is simple gelatin. It's water-holding abilities, viscosity, mouth feel, and that it melts at body-temperature, all make it ideal. This was awesome, but it deflated my enthusiasm somewhat, as I was hoping to remove gelatin from the equation. His second choice would be locust bean gum alone or in tandem with guar gum. Our dialog on the subject is by no means finished (at least I hope not), but this was a great place to start.

I also wanted to take a look at some other 'handmade' formulas. The one that everybody seems to reference can be found in Francisco Migoya's recent book, Frozen Desserts. Now, I have to confess that I don't own it, and have only skimmed a copy, but I think it's a great resource. The components in his formula mirror that of the Cremodan blend, but at least now we get a sense of their proportions.

The next logical step would be to conduct a simple side-by-side comparison of these four variations: the commercial Cremodan stabilizer, the bespoke blend, gelatin, and finally the LBG/Guar combo. I'll apologize in advance to any real scientists out there; despite our wish to be as accurate as possible, there is certainly some inherent margin of error in our measurements. I also didn't assemble a true control (a sorbet with no stabilizer added), nor did I record every possible variable.

 

   

I chose a basic raspberry sorbet as our test subject. Looking at some general usage guidelines, I chose the percentage of each stabilizer based on their common ranges (even on such a small scale- tenths of grams- it could make a difference) while also trying to hit a fairly rounded measurement. We began with the four identical syrups, all prepared in the same manner. The Cremodan (A) was dosed at 2.25%, the Migoya blend (B) at 2.5%, gelatin (C) at 3%, and finally the gum duo (D) at 2.5%. Once prepared, matured, and cooled, I assumed that these syrups would tell us something before fruit was added and spun. As predicted, the A and B syrups appeared identical- slightly opaque but quite fluid. The gelatin-based syrup was crystal clear, with the texture of a just barely set gel. Syrup D was by far the thickest, with a good deal of elasticity; I immediately determined that the locust bean/guar percentage could be lowered by at least a half of a percentage point, if not more.

     

An equal measurement of each syrup was added to an equal measurement of raspberry puree. Each mixture was spun and then stored in a sub-zero F freezer. And though the anticipation was killing me, I decided to let them sit undisturbed for 48 hours. Only after some degree of storage would we be able to see how the stabilizers do their intended job. The first visual observation would be its volume or overrun. There were no noticeable differences among the group, though I don't know that such a small batch size would give us such clues.

Onto the taste test. I didn't notice any real difference in flavor, with the exception of sorbet D; the slight gumminess did seem to mask the raspberry flavor more than the others. Texturally, D was, of course, the least pleasant as predicted. The gelatin-stabilized sorbet had a more noticeable body and mouth feel than A and B; in terms of texture alone, my friend was right- gelatin won.

The other factor I wanted to look at was it's rate of melting. Here, the results become harder to analyze. The first to begin melting were A and D. After 10 minutes, the order of fastest melting to slowest was D, A, C, and then B. Yet after 20 minutes, the order had changed: B, A, C, followed by D. Taking into account which sorbet had which stabilizer, it made sense that C was among the slowest, yet D didn't contain the gelatin that A and B both had. For kicks, I stuck a thermometer into each fleeting scoop t the 30 minute mark, and surprisingly the temperatures ranged from 50F/10C down to below 40F/4C. I wouldn't think that any of these stabilizers would affect the temperature, and as you can see from the photo below, the scoops sat out within about a foot of each other. I wonder then, why such a broad difference?

     

So what did we learn? That the gelatin and LBG/Guar versions provided noticeably different results compared to the commercial blend and the bespoke attempt at replicating that blend. Yet on the whole, with the exception of an over-dosing in sorbet D, the sorbets were remarkably similar, more so than I would have thought. The verdict? As yet undecided, at least until I run more detailed tests. But I certainly feel just a bit smarter for having put in the effort!

While I didn't faithfully record the resulting data and observations for you, here are the syrup recipes that I started with:

Download: Raspberry Sorbet.Stabilizer Trial-Workbook 7.3.09

 

 

The Last Drop

 

One more bit with the instant coffee...

I'm long overdue in brushing up on my dipping skills. I like the bold clean look and softer centers of molded bonbons, but there's still a patient pride I find in producing a tray full of cut and dipped ganache.

     

This much-needed practice also allows me a chance to revisit and refine my coffee ganache. The original method would involve infusing 100g of ground espresso into 800g of heavy cream. The first issue there is the batch-to-batch variation due to infusion time and temperature. Second, once those spent grounds are strained out, I've lost almost 25% of the cream due to absorption into the coffee; apart from the sheer waste of it all, it throws off the fat percentage. Enter instant coffee.

   

Though I offer a revised version of the original here, I do concede that I'll occasionally want to work with a special coffee in the old way. I'm sure there is a happy medium between the two...

     

Download: Coffee Ganache-Workbook 5.3.09

Vintage

 

Working through a dish for a special 'vintage' dinner- multiple courses meant to evoke classical fin de siecle cuisine. The assignment stumped me for a couple of weeks, but I eventually settled on a dessert straight from an Escoffier menu: Bombe Nero. The big decisions revolve around presentation and how elaborate I want to get.

But it got me to thinking that I've never put my long-trusted chocolate ice cream through the formulaic wringer. Believe it or not, I haven't actually made it in some time, at least outside of our consulting projects. It works just fine, but I'm always interested in seeing if we can tune things that much finer.

They say the most difficult sorbet to perfect is lemon, where the sugar and flavor balance can adversely affect the texture. The same could be said of chocolate ice cream; in addition to dairy and egg fat, we must also contend with added cocoa butter.

I have a couple of formulas and sets of guidelines to look at; through reverse engineering I'm eager to see how it matches up. Below are the original and revised recipes, as well as the finer details...

• Starting with the butyric fat, my 660g of milk falls perfectly within the target range, at 2.6% or 26g.
  
• The original is a 'Philadelphia-style' ice cream- one that contains no egg yolks (I still don't know exactly why it's referred to as 'Philadelphia'; if anyone can clear this up for me I'd love to hear it!). I'm not opposed to the idea of adding a little more richness, and as we'll see in a moment, the recommended 1% egg fat (10g fat from 30g egg yolk) and it's 3g of lecithin may just be benfecial as well.
  
• The trimoline comes in at 5% of the total, quite close to a 6% guideline, so I'm happy.
  
• The whole milk contributes 61g of nonfat milk solids, so to reach the 9% total, I've increased the original measurement of milk powder up to 30g.
  
• Stabilizer, of course, remains around 4%.
  
• Before we calculate the total fat for the recipe (9%), we must first deal with the chocolate. A little more than half, or 5.5% of the total, comes from cocoa butter. I decided to switch to Cluizel's 85% couverture from the lower percentage chocolate*. The company's literature states that cocoa butter accounts for 48% of that particular chocolate; a round 140g measurment of chocolate will then yield 67g of cocoa butter. This brings me slightly above the standard- closer to 6%- but I'm fine with that. Cluizel chocolate is famous for not containing any lecithin, the emulsifier found in virtually all chocolate. As mentioned above, the lecithin in the added egg yolk may be of use in the grand scale of things.
  
• And finally, before I can determine how the sugar falls into place, I must add the sugar brought to the recipe by the chocolate. The Cluizel contains 85% cocoa solids, which leaves 15% sugar. My 140g of chocolate will then add 21g of sugar, which when added to the the existing sugar is quite close to the recommended 8%.

With that, I have only a slightly new, but hopefully slightly improved, recipe. If anything, I'm armed with that much more knowledge.

Download Chocolate Ice Cream (Original)-Workbook 3.3.09

Download Chocolate Ice Cream (Revised)-Workbook 3.3.09

*There is of course the option to use cocoa paste, or unsweetened chocolate, as well as a boost from cocoa powder. Though I'm sacrificing a few percentage points of cocoa solids, I prefer the flavor and texture with the 85%. In general, it's good to remember that the balance of lower conent is made up from sugar; I don't know about you, but sugar usually costs less when it comes from a bag, much less than when it's added to chocolate!

 

 

Revision

 

Alternate title: Old Mousse, New Tricks

Alternate alternate title: Building a Better Mous(s)e Trap

 

The fine folks at the San Francisco Baking Institute apparently found me worthy enough to receive their new tome, Advanced Bread and Pastry: A Professional Approach. It's a mammoth book, and what's great about it is the breadth of coverage within, but also the finer details offered. And both traditional and contemporary (to a point, anyway) approaches seem to be given equal emphasis. I have a feeling I will use it often as a solid reference, replacing similar but dated texts on my bookshelf.

Browsing through the chapter on frozen desserts, I was pleased to see all of the formulas and charts similar to the sorbet and ice cream material I've posted here. It all reminded me of how we can use the same approach (or basic understanding) to refine, or rewrite altogether, many of the old 'rules' and standards. A lot of this inspiration came to me via Olivier Bajard. When I took his entremet class way back in 2001, the highlight was his breaking down and formulation of simple chocolate mousse, based on an equation much like that of ice cream, where the sugars, fats, and cacao content of the ingredients all fit in to a nice tidy structure. It was a lot of information to process all at once; I stopped taking notes and ended up just taking a picture of the dry erase board he used to make his case. I still have it somewhere, no doubt buried in a box full of other culinary miscellanea.

Bajard displayed a distinct sensitivity to sugar content, which in excess simply covers up the other flavors we try to develop. All these years later I'm still slowly working it into my repertoire, but one of the most important things I took from him was his low sugar pate a bombe. Traditionally, mousses get structure and volume from this element- a cooked sugar syrup poured into whole eggs, and whipped until cool. The problem lies in the fact that half to two-thirds of a conventional pate a bombe is sugar. Bajard shared his method, which amounts to an anglaise/sabayon of sorts, comprised of water, dry milk, glucose and egg yolks that performs in much the same way.

Using our gianduja parfait as an example, this method introduces only 25g of glucose, as opposed to almost 150g of sucrose to achieve the same result in the conventional way. That's about a tenth the sweetness, which really lets the complexities of the chocolate and gianduja to come through.

Download: Gianduja Parfait-Workbook 14.2.09

     

     

   

Calcium Proficiency

 

A casual observer might say I've become a little too preoccupied with milk, whether it be isolating its solids or its percentage in an ice cream base. Two other pressing issues led me to begin investigating the calcium content of various other ingredients. One, of course, relates to last week's post on pectin. The other goes back a few months to a conversation I had with Chad, about alginate-calcium spheres and the alternative techniques that mimic the effect. We had both recently played around with delicate yogurt 'orbs', but without the boost of any added calcium (usually calcium lactate gluconate). It seemed obvious that since most of us have concentrated calcium at hand in the form of milk powder, wouldn't that work too? He hadn't tried it either, but sent along a graph listing the natural calcium content of a dozen or so common foods. If anything, it inspired me to flesh that list out a bit.

The nutrition labels on virtually all packaged foods, I discovered, don't really offer much useful information. Calcium is listed in terms of daily value, not actual content. Luckily I stumbled on what is likely the best single document for such figures, the data logged by the USDA on over a thousand fresh or processed foods. This list is a behemoth, and it requires sifting through a lot of commercial products to uncover some basic ingredients. But once we do get a better handle on such numbers, we then have to figure out exactly how it reacts with other ingredients and in what concentrations we must apply them to acheive our desired effects.

Download: USDA National Nutrient Database-Calcium

 

But let's bring pectin back into the fold. Last time, I started with the familiar and basic, apple or high methoxyl pectin, which gels in high sugar/low PH environments with the application of heat. I don't know that it's worth going into the chemical nature of their differences (not that I'd be the one to do it anyway), but suffice it to say, low methoxyl pectin sets in the presence of calcium. Such a difference comes into play in the manufacture of, let's say, low sugar jams. I've worked with LM pectin (sometimes referred to as NH) off and on over the years, but with little understanding of the chemistry or how to determine correct proprtions or the results they would then give. Although I've used it in glazes (where we take advantage of its thermo reversible properties) and even tuiles and nougatine-like mixtures, a lot more attention is given to its HM cousin, at least in pastry circles.

When looking for more than a brief overview of things like the one I just gave, I often find myself leaving culinary texts behind in favor of technical papers on the subject. As I mentioned to a food scientist friend the other day, these things aren't exactly written in kitchen language; it can be frustrating parsing through all the chemistry-speak and diagrams of molecule chains just to extract a few useful nuggets of information. But it can be worth the effort, and I often feel energized and excited by such discovery.

Rather than chase more advanced applications, I wanted to first nail down some parameters. I've seen one or two LM pectin-based versions of conventional pate de fruit, and every once in a while I'll give them a go. But the results often vary wildly, and I had no idea how the formula was structured, or how it might need to be altered when plugging in other ingredients. Even in the technical literature, perecntages of pectin and calcium are given as wide variables. My goal was to establish those ratios in a low-sugar pate de fruit by using that most common source of calcium, milk.

I pieced together some general information to set out on my first attempt: LM pectin is generally dosed in a range of 0.5-1.5%, 2 to 3g per cup of liquid makes up the middle and will give a sufficient gel. When it comes to the calcium needed, the proportion can range anywhere from 10 to 40 milligrams per gram of LM pectin. Again, that's a big window. Knowing that I'm looking for a fairly firm set, I pushed those numbers to the high end of the scale.

Download Blood Orange Pate de Fruit (Dry Milk)-Workbook 10.2.09 

I decided to go with a full 1.5% of pectin, mixed with ten times its weight in granulated sugar. In determining the measurement of milk powder, I guessed as to how much I might want for flavor, and then went back to see if I was in the proper range. As 10g of milk powder contains 123mg of calcium, starting with that measurment would put me within the acceptable range of 30mg per 1g pectin. I have discovered, by accident, that you can get a premature set by incorporating the calcium too soon, so I allowed the pectin to dissolve fully before adding my milk powder. The resulting texure and flavor was near perfect; the only problem was a slight graininess as some of the milk powder didn't get a chance to fully hydrate. This tells me that next time, I either have to grind it to a finer consistency, or to perhaps prepare a solution of it. But what if I were to add just plain milk?

Download Blood Orange Pate de Fruit (Skim Milk)-Workbook 10.2.09

Using the same structure as the first recipe, I plugged in an amount of skim milk that I thought might provide the necessary calcium without diluting the blood orange too much. Substituting 75g of milk gave me a total of 94mg of calcium (as opposed to 123mg from the dry milk) and a slightly lower proportion of 25mg per 1g pectin. It didn't seem too far off, and besides, I might be able to determine a tighter range, and if this was too low, I'd certainly find out. For sure, the fluidity of the milk makes it much easier to incorporate, and though the color was not as intense, I was happy with the flavor and texture, which was softer, but only slightly so.

In the end, now have a much cleaner, more vibrant facsimile of a pate de fruit. I'll let you do the math, but remember that the conventional version made with HM pectin has a sugar concentration as high as 80%. Here, it's a fraction of that. While I didn't take into account any naturally occuring calcium in the blood orange, I think this will become a good standard to apply to an infinite number of liquids, and a starting point in exploring new applications...

 

   

Catalog

The purpose of this project is to not only document the recipes and concepts we're working on everyday, but also to point the sources of inspiration behind them and to offer insight into the mechanical nuts and bolts. As you've probably come to discover, so many of our decisions are rooted in our growing knowledge of technique, but more and more it's about understanding the make up and function of the ingredients themselves. This true 'molecular' approach that frightens so many actually becomes a form of liberation, expanding our range of choices. That's not to say there is no more soul left in modern cooking; if anything I'd say there is more potential for satisfaction and expression now than ever before. It's just nice to be able to answer a question that begins with the word 'why'.

Over time I've been casually collecting and cataloging all manner of data. Working in metric (while living in the US) alone requires conversion charts; this year, I've resolved to better memorize celsius conversions too. Cooking really does require a basic knowledge of physics and chemistry, so having as much of this information at hand as possible makes our work much easier. I've also been indexing such things as cooking methods and flavor pairings; you never know when such a reference will come in handy. But lately, I've been digging deep into the physical makeup of ingredients, which we can better exploit when we know how they work in a recipe. I try to udpate all of this information as much as possible, as tiring as it may be.

The following are among the very basics that every chef should have on file, if not commited to memory, then at least printed out and at arm's length in the kitchen:

Download: Temperature Conversion

Download: Metric Weight And Measure Conversions

Download: Standard Temperature Measurements

 

I end up doing a lot of recipe conversion when submitting stuff to the media, typically from metric into imperial volume, so I constantly add to this chart:

Download: Metric Volume Conversions

 I put this outline together last year, which can be handy when I'm stuck for an idea:

Download Index Of Methods and Preparations  

 

But it's the ingredient info that I've focused on as late. It's helpful to know that an egg yolk is 50% water and 50% solids, or that 33% of it is fat, or that it contains 2g of lecithin. Or that sorbitol has a sweetening power of 55 while fructose clocks in at 130 (sucrose is 100 on the scale). If you have to make a chocolate substitution, knowing to allow for the 3.5% percent difference in milk solids (or even more, the 4% difference in cocoa butter) between Valrhona's Jivara and Equatorial milk couvertures will prevent potential disaster in a recipe. When traveling deeper down the road of hyrdocolloids and other synergies, you become aware of even smaller, yet no less important constituents, like calcium, or enzymes, or ph level.

The internet has of course been instrumental in this acquisition of information. I can boast of a fairly modest collection of well-worn cookbooks; but while I could find a lot information hidden within (the time scour through them bein another matter), a faster, focused Google search opens up that research field significantly. Why pore through books when you can download access to the USDA database? It's best to cross-reference things from more than one source, just to make sure your facts are straight. And don't overlook all of that literature you get (and likely throw away) from your purveyors; you can always glean something on the technical side of things.

 

  

It was in the spirit of this ongoing quest for information that I recently found myself doing a bit of research on the avocado. Knowing its water content (76%), solid content (24%), and total fat (14%) will come in handy one day when making a sorbet or ice cream, for sure. But considering the fat content, and a related question from a colleague about coconut and maltodextrin-based powders, I began to wonder if the technique would work with avocado, or if the high water content would simply work against it. 

To test it in the kitchen, I started with an average just-ripe avocado, which peeled and pitted yielded a convenient 150 grams of flesh. I loaded it into the food processor with 20g of olive oil and a dash of sugar to get the puree going. I scaled out 75g of tapioca maltodextrin and began to pulse it into the puree (For those unfamiliar with the product, maltodextrin has a very low density; that 75g equals about 4 cups in volume). The puree quickly absorbed that initial 75g. In went more, until I hit 150g, an almost equal weight of fruit and maltodextrin; as the consistency had barely changed in the process (though the flavor had), I chalked it up to a lost cause. But I learned something along the way, which was the whole point of the exercise.

I generally prefer solid materials when working with maltodextrin; sure olive oil powder is great fun, but the dillution factor just doesn't make sense in the end. Instead, I prefer things like nut pastes as a base. Simple peanut butter, for instance is a fairly dry product, with only about 2% water (apparently this was the factor in the recent salmonellla scare- it wasn't sufficient enough water activity for the bacteria to grow, but once introduced into the product, remained active) but also solid and thus requiring much less maltodextrin to 'powderize'. In addition to peanut butter powder, we also quite like our pistachio version.

Download: Pistachio Powder-Workbook 29.1.09