I have missed something important in my previous Salt blogs that I forgot to clarify. I stated in Salt (I) that “Table salt is the only rock directly consumed by man.”
And that is absolutely true. However, I just simply stated that fact. There was no definition or explanation, just a stated fact. I was shocked, haha. The absence of an explanation or definition took me by surprise, because my writing style almost revolves around defining and explaining complex ideas (which is why Semester 01 blog posts were about classifying and defining different sciences). Now would adding that information to that blog make the statement less powerful? Maybe.
But how is table salt the only rock directly consumed by man? Haven’t you heard of rock sugar or rock candy? So what’s the deal with that…?
In some cases, names of foods are given because they resemble other foods fairly close to each other, because humans just love classifying things. Rock sugar (or rock candy when you add colors) is not technically a rock. Just like pink pepper corns aren’t technically berries from the true pepper tree (Piper nigrum). However they look, taste, and smell like a pepper berry from P. nigrum that the chefs classify them as pepper.
rock (n): [Middle English rokke, from Old French “dial.” (Norman & Picard) roke, from Vulgar Latin *rocca] consolidated or unconsolidated solid mineral matter
The key to why salt (and not sugar) can be classified as rocks is with the precise definition of mineral.
mineral (n): [Middle English, from Medieval Latin minerale, from neuter of mineralis] a solid homogenous crystalline chemical element or compound that results from the inorganic processes of nature
Understand that both salt and sugar are solids at standard room temperature (25℃ and 1 atmosphere), homogenous (of uniform structure or composition throughout), and crystalline compounds. However, sugar does not result from an inorganic process. In its most basic from, glucose sugar is produced one of the most common organic processes – photosynthesis.
Therefore, sugar is not a mineral which means it is also not a rock…and salt is still a rock (yay for eating rocks?)
Another definition of mineral could have bypassed the “inorganic processes” with an inorganic substance. However this requires me to explain that an organic substance contains carbon atoms. By this point, one would need some background in beginning chemistry.
In any case, I still enjoy the white rocks we sprinkle on food.
-As always: Just because you are reading cool articles about salt doesn’t mean you should use MORE of it! Please, be safe and healthy. Consult a (certified) doctor if you experience any unusual symptoms. Please enjoy responsibly.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Salt (III) Iodization
In the early twentieth century, the Morton Salt Company introduced iodine to their line of standard table salt. It was then when iodized salts began to become available in stores. But why add iodine to salt?
Iodine is needed to produce several hormones in the body that are synthesized by the thyroid gland (such as thyroxine and triiodotyronine). These thyroid hormones affect almost all cells within the body. The hormones control or affect metabolic rates, protein synthesis, growth hormones, and adrenaline response.
People of remote inland areas are more likely to suffer from iodine deficiency, the intake of little or no iodine in ones diet. Some of the most abundant sources of iodine can be found in the ocean. Because of this, food or food sources of the ocean are iodine-rich, and inland people who have limited access to marine products are more likely to develop iodine deficiency related problems.
Foods rich in iodine include, but not limited to: cheddar cheese, cod, eggs, fish oil, fresh fish, haddock, kelp, nori, sea food (clams, mussels, oysters, scallop, crab, lobster), sea kelp, seaweed, and sea salt
Those with low iodine intake are likely to encounter thyroid complications (such as hyperthyroidism – an excessive overgrowth of tissue around the thyroid). Also, studies have shown the best insurance on preventing mental retardation is to have a balanced iodine intake.
Some people argue that iodized salts are unhealthy or impure because of the added iodine content. To solve this, some resort to sea salts for its “purity” and “straight from the ocean” quality. The irony is that because of the nature of the sea’s high iodine percentage, there is (usually) more iodine per unit than fortified iodized table salts. The only difference between sea salts and fortified table salts is that sea salt is directly evaporated from the oceans, while table salt is first purified and ‘cleaned’ of trace minerals (whether the salt is from the ocean or salt mines) and then after refinement, the new squeaky clean salt is sprayed with a solution of potassium iodide.
From the medical standpoint, if the excess iodine were an issue (which it is not*), than the fortified salt would technically be “healthier” for you.
On the contrary, some dislike the flavor of fortified salt, and thus implement the use of kosher or sea salts. This is strictly based on a personal culinary viewpoint (or taste-point, so-to-speak) and beyond the guides of the aforementioned argument.
Why add iodine to salt to prevent the reduced iodine intake? Why not add iodine to other food products, such as sugar or other spices?
Salt is a perfect vehicle for iodine as it is used by almost all cooks to season food, it never expires (it is a rock, there are no organic compounds to break down, and if it were a preservative, why would it expire?), and the amount of salt intake per person can be estimated at a predictable rate.
*with the exception of medical predispositions the small percentage of iodine between fortified salts and sea salt is not enough to accentuate any medical condition or episode. Talk to you physician for any information about a medical disposition or risks for high blood pressure
-Just because you are reading cool articles about salt doesn’t mean you should use MORE of it! Please, be safe and healthy. Consult a (certified) doctor if you experience any unusual symptoms of a disease.
Iodine is needed to produce several hormones in the body that are synthesized by the thyroid gland (such as thyroxine and triiodotyronine). These thyroid hormones affect almost all cells within the body. The hormones control or affect metabolic rates, protein synthesis, growth hormones, and adrenaline response.
People of remote inland areas are more likely to suffer from iodine deficiency, the intake of little or no iodine in ones diet. Some of the most abundant sources of iodine can be found in the ocean. Because of this, food or food sources of the ocean are iodine-rich, and inland people who have limited access to marine products are more likely to develop iodine deficiency related problems.
Foods rich in iodine include, but not limited to: cheddar cheese, cod, eggs, fish oil, fresh fish, haddock, kelp, nori, sea food (clams, mussels, oysters, scallop, crab, lobster), sea kelp, seaweed, and sea salt
Those with low iodine intake are likely to encounter thyroid complications (such as hyperthyroidism – an excessive overgrowth of tissue around the thyroid). Also, studies have shown the best insurance on preventing mental retardation is to have a balanced iodine intake.
Some people argue that iodized salts are unhealthy or impure because of the added iodine content. To solve this, some resort to sea salts for its “purity” and “straight from the ocean” quality. The irony is that because of the nature of the sea’s high iodine percentage, there is (usually) more iodine per unit than fortified iodized table salts. The only difference between sea salts and fortified table salts is that sea salt is directly evaporated from the oceans, while table salt is first purified and ‘cleaned’ of trace minerals (whether the salt is from the ocean or salt mines) and then after refinement, the new squeaky clean salt is sprayed with a solution of potassium iodide.
From the medical standpoint, if the excess iodine were an issue (which it is not*), than the fortified salt would technically be “healthier” for you.
On the contrary, some dislike the flavor of fortified salt, and thus implement the use of kosher or sea salts. This is strictly based on a personal culinary viewpoint (or taste-point, so-to-speak) and beyond the guides of the aforementioned argument.
Why add iodine to salt to prevent the reduced iodine intake? Why not add iodine to other food products, such as sugar or other spices?
Salt is a perfect vehicle for iodine as it is used by almost all cooks to season food, it never expires (it is a rock, there are no organic compounds to break down, and if it were a preservative, why would it expire?), and the amount of salt intake per person can be estimated at a predictable rate.
*with the exception of medical predispositions the small percentage of iodine between fortified salts and sea salt is not enough to accentuate any medical condition or episode. Talk to you physician for any information about a medical disposition or risks for high blood pressure
-Just because you are reading cool articles about salt doesn’t mean you should use MORE of it! Please, be safe and healthy. Consult a (certified) doctor if you experience any unusual symptoms of a disease.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Salt (II.1)
There is something about the little grains of shiny white that we call salt which transforms any food to somehow enhance its flavors. Many are familiar with standard issue plain table salt – which one may find at a restaurant. However, many other “types” of salt are available, and some may be sitting on the shelf of a local store. For the ease of readability, the different types of salt may be referred to as a “species.”
Kosher salt (or more accurately koshering salt) is another common salt with which people cook. It is popular for its coarse flaky structure. The coarse texture gives this particular salt a unique ability to adhere to moist surfaces (like meat) and not dissolve. Despite the name, most salts are kosher certified. So cooking with it doesn’t necessarily make one’s food that much more kosher. But cooking with kosher salts can cause a slight problem.
Actually this scenario can be true with any salt which is not the species mentioned in a recipe. Consider the following:
Two jars of equal volume are filled with marbles of similar density (mass per unit volume). The first jar is filled to the rim with small marbles, the latter with large marbles. Although they are both filled to the top, would you expect them to be equal in weight? No. Because the second jar is filled with larger marbles there is more room (of air) between the marbles, and therefore less weight compared to the more compact smaller marbles.
The same principle can be applied to kosher salt and plain table salt. Because there is more room between the grains of kosher compared to grains of plain table salt in 1 unit, there is technically less salt mass in 1 cup of kosher. In smaller quantities, this is a miniscule difference. However, beyond 1 teaspoon, depending on the recipe (and the purpose of the salt) this minutia can interfere with the taste, texture, and even presentation of food.
Kosher salt (or more accurately koshering salt) is another common salt with which people cook. It is popular for its coarse flaky structure. The coarse texture gives this particular salt a unique ability to adhere to moist surfaces (like meat) and not dissolve. Despite the name, most salts are kosher certified. So cooking with it doesn’t necessarily make one’s food that much more kosher. But cooking with kosher salts can cause a slight problem.
Actually this scenario can be true with any salt which is not the species mentioned in a recipe. Consider the following:
Two jars of equal volume are filled with marbles of similar density (mass per unit volume). The first jar is filled to the rim with small marbles, the latter with large marbles. Although they are both filled to the top, would you expect them to be equal in weight? No. Because the second jar is filled with larger marbles there is more room (of air) between the marbles, and therefore less weight compared to the more compact smaller marbles.
The same principle can be applied to kosher salt and plain table salt. Because there is more room between the grains of kosher compared to grains of plain table salt in 1 unit, there is technically less salt mass in 1 cup of kosher. In smaller quantities, this is a miniscule difference. However, beyond 1 teaspoon, depending on the recipe (and the purpose of the salt) this minutia can interfere with the taste, texture, and even presentation of food.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Salt (I)
Table Salt – a mix of sodium and chloride ions.
And to think that a highly reactive metal and a very deadly gas combine to form harmless white crystals that we sprinkle on food. Actually, it is better than just crystals. Table salt is the only rock directly consumed by man. That’s right. Those tiny crystals we put on everything – rocks.
Salt composes about 3.5% of the salt water found in our oceans. Albeit a small percentage, drinking ocean water directly would be fatal. That is because no matter how much of the salt water you intake; there will never be enough water in the body to flush out the excess sodium. Eventually, the kidneys cannot filter properly and shortly thereafter you fall into renal failure, the central nervous system overloads, and your circulatory system goes into overdrive. Oh…and then you die. Interestingly enough, drinking sea water isn’t necessarily unhealthy. If you were actually stuck on a deserted island with limited freshwater supply, you can add 1 part sea water for every 3 parts of fresh water. Not only would you be extending the limited water supply, you would be making better use of it.
If you go way back to the times before sports drinks were aware of the effects of electrolytes, many athletes that suffered cramps or fatigue took salt tablets instead of drowning their kidneys with excess water. This was not only to retain the water in his system, but to increase his electrolytes – the electricity that fuels the nervous system. This method of treatment has long been executed as some athletes continued to intake more tablets, eventually leading to the opposite intended effect – dehydration (or more accurately hypernatremia) from too much salt.
Going back to the deserted island scenario, combining the 1:3 saltwater to freshwater ratio not only extends the supply of available water, but it forces your kidneys to retain water that could be lost to sweat. In effect, we would be making our own sports drink – and the central nervous system wouldn’t mind the small addition of salt.
To better grasp this concept, the nerves in our body are similar to little electric impulses. These pulses of electricity are carried by sodium and potassium ions. Both ions are needed to carry out an impulse. This is why some say that eating bananas before rigorous training helps prevent the likelihood of cramps.
And to think that a highly reactive metal and a very deadly gas combine to form harmless white crystals that we sprinkle on food. Actually, it is better than just crystals. Table salt is the only rock directly consumed by man. That’s right. Those tiny crystals we put on everything – rocks.
Salt composes about 3.5% of the salt water found in our oceans. Albeit a small percentage, drinking ocean water directly would be fatal. That is because no matter how much of the salt water you intake; there will never be enough water in the body to flush out the excess sodium. Eventually, the kidneys cannot filter properly and shortly thereafter you fall into renal failure, the central nervous system overloads, and your circulatory system goes into overdrive. Oh…and then you die. Interestingly enough, drinking sea water isn’t necessarily unhealthy. If you were actually stuck on a deserted island with limited freshwater supply, you can add 1 part sea water for every 3 parts of fresh water. Not only would you be extending the limited water supply, you would be making better use of it.
If you go way back to the times before sports drinks were aware of the effects of electrolytes, many athletes that suffered cramps or fatigue took salt tablets instead of drowning their kidneys with excess water. This was not only to retain the water in his system, but to increase his electrolytes – the electricity that fuels the nervous system. This method of treatment has long been executed as some athletes continued to intake more tablets, eventually leading to the opposite intended effect – dehydration (or more accurately hypernatremia) from too much salt.
Going back to the deserted island scenario, combining the 1:3 saltwater to freshwater ratio not only extends the supply of available water, but it forces your kidneys to retain water that could be lost to sweat. In effect, we would be making our own sports drink – and the central nervous system wouldn’t mind the small addition of salt.
To better grasp this concept, the nerves in our body are similar to little electric impulses. These pulses of electricity are carried by sodium and potassium ions. Both ions are needed to carry out an impulse. This is why some say that eating bananas before rigorous training helps prevent the likelihood of cramps.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Pasta
If I recall, two weeks ago I began talking about cooking – and its relationship to science. Cooking is like the fun science. And those experiments that produce excellent results…we can eat!
Anyways, I don’t know exactly where to start…
Pasta:
For those who actually cook in the home, I am sure one of the basic foods to become familiar with is pasta* (or noodles). Have you ever been told to add oil to the boiling water – whether in a recipe or by your grandmother (or other cooking instructor)? Sure you have! But why – why add oil?
Some chefs claim that by adding oil to the boiling water, they will help prevent the pasta noodles from sticking together during the cooking process. And this would make sense; oil makes the surfaces of objects slippery and lubricated. There is just one problem – oil floats above water. That is because water molecules are not as attracted to the oil molecules as much as they are attracted to each other, so the water would rather make bonds with other water molecules than oil. Thus the oil floats atop the water.
Although it is not exactly an experiment with laboratory standards, if one were to take 1 gallon of boiling water and add 1 tablespoon of oil with a half pound of pasta noodles and cook until al dente (lit. Italian to the tooth), about 85% of the oil would remain in the original pasta water. That means 15% (around a half teaspoon) of oil has managed to either be adhered to the pasta or temporarily be attracted to the water. In any case, is it reasonable that only half a teaspoon of oil is sufficient to lubricate enough of the half pound of pasta to prevent it from sticking? Adding more to the water would just be a wasteful use of oil. So…why have chefs said for centuries to add oil to the cooking pasta?
If it isn’t to prevent sticking, then why do it?
Pasta is composed of wheat flour, water, eggs, and salt at its most basic. By boiling the pasta, some excess starch from the flour is washed away from the noodles (this is why the pasta water is murky after cooking). This changes the surface tension of water – a property that pulls water molecules together at the surface. As more starch is released into the water, the surface tension becomes so weak that bubbles from the boiling process start to stack on top of each other.
This effect is similar to the foam you see when you go to a beach on a windy day, or the which foam that trails behind motor boats. The only difference is that the foam on the ocean is produced by proteins, while this particular example of pasta is produced by starch.
By adding oil to the pasta water, you add, not lubrication to the actual pasta molecules, but you lubrication to the starch molecules which compose the bubbles. No bubbles, no foam
However, the more practical approach to preventing foam build-up is not adding more oil, but adding more water. By adding more water and using a bigger vessel you (a) give more room for the pasta to move, which in turn yields to a more even cooking. This gives room for the pasta starch to dissipate. Also, the pasta will cook for a shorter period of time in more water (and by adding salt, which will be discussed in another blog). When the pasta is introduced to the water, the temperature of the water drops depending on the amount of water. The more water there is, the more energy there is in the pot, and less rebound time for the water to return to a boil.
To picture this a bit better, let’s consider two extremes. There is one small saucier with two cups of water and another stock pot with two gallons of water, both at a rolling boil. If I were to drop a several ice cubes into each vessel, which pot of water would return to a boil faster – two cups or two gallons?
The pot of two gallons of water, of course –
In this sense, the more water, the faster time it takes to re-boil, the faster cooking time leads to less starch. And if you’re going to be cooking in such a large amount of water, you’re probably going to use your largest pot.
A good rule of thumb: when cooking pasta, use at minimum a half gallon (for one to two servings) of water at a rolling boil. If you are planning on cooking more, use at least one gallon, maybe two. If planning to cook for more than five servings, consider more than one cook cycle (that is, cook in batches) and always leave at least three inches of headroom at the top of the pot to allow for excess starch collection.
*Please take caution when using the stove, oven, sharp instruments (knives, graters, micro-planks, cooking shears, blender, food processor), and take caution in unfamiliar kitchens. The kitchen is a dangerous place.
Anyways, I don’t know exactly where to start…
Pasta:
For those who actually cook in the home, I am sure one of the basic foods to become familiar with is pasta* (or noodles). Have you ever been told to add oil to the boiling water – whether in a recipe or by your grandmother (or other cooking instructor)? Sure you have! But why – why add oil?
Some chefs claim that by adding oil to the boiling water, they will help prevent the pasta noodles from sticking together during the cooking process. And this would make sense; oil makes the surfaces of objects slippery and lubricated. There is just one problem – oil floats above water. That is because water molecules are not as attracted to the oil molecules as much as they are attracted to each other, so the water would rather make bonds with other water molecules than oil. Thus the oil floats atop the water.
Although it is not exactly an experiment with laboratory standards, if one were to take 1 gallon of boiling water and add 1 tablespoon of oil with a half pound of pasta noodles and cook until al dente (lit. Italian to the tooth), about 85% of the oil would remain in the original pasta water. That means 15% (around a half teaspoon) of oil has managed to either be adhered to the pasta or temporarily be attracted to the water. In any case, is it reasonable that only half a teaspoon of oil is sufficient to lubricate enough of the half pound of pasta to prevent it from sticking? Adding more to the water would just be a wasteful use of oil. So…why have chefs said for centuries to add oil to the cooking pasta?
If it isn’t to prevent sticking, then why do it?
Pasta is composed of wheat flour, water, eggs, and salt at its most basic. By boiling the pasta, some excess starch from the flour is washed away from the noodles (this is why the pasta water is murky after cooking). This changes the surface tension of water – a property that pulls water molecules together at the surface. As more starch is released into the water, the surface tension becomes so weak that bubbles from the boiling process start to stack on top of each other.
This effect is similar to the foam you see when you go to a beach on a windy day, or the which foam that trails behind motor boats. The only difference is that the foam on the ocean is produced by proteins, while this particular example of pasta is produced by starch.
By adding oil to the pasta water, you add, not lubrication to the actual pasta molecules, but you lubrication to the starch molecules which compose the bubbles. No bubbles, no foam
However, the more practical approach to preventing foam build-up is not adding more oil, but adding more water. By adding more water and using a bigger vessel you (a) give more room for the pasta to move, which in turn yields to a more even cooking. This gives room for the pasta starch to dissipate. Also, the pasta will cook for a shorter period of time in more water (and by adding salt, which will be discussed in another blog). When the pasta is introduced to the water, the temperature of the water drops depending on the amount of water. The more water there is, the more energy there is in the pot, and less rebound time for the water to return to a boil.
To picture this a bit better, let’s consider two extremes. There is one small saucier with two cups of water and another stock pot with two gallons of water, both at a rolling boil. If I were to drop a several ice cubes into each vessel, which pot of water would return to a boil faster – two cups or two gallons?
The pot of two gallons of water, of course –
In this sense, the more water, the faster time it takes to re-boil, the faster cooking time leads to less starch. And if you’re going to be cooking in such a large amount of water, you’re probably going to use your largest pot.
A good rule of thumb: when cooking pasta, use at minimum a half gallon (for one to two servings) of water at a rolling boil. If you are planning on cooking more, use at least one gallon, maybe two. If planning to cook for more than five servings, consider more than one cook cycle (that is, cook in batches) and always leave at least three inches of headroom at the top of the pot to allow for excess starch collection.
*Please take caution when using the stove, oven, sharp instruments (knives, graters, micro-planks, cooking shears, blender, food processor), and take caution in unfamiliar kitchens. The kitchen is a dangerous place.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Statement of Purpose 02
A school quarter grading-period has passed, and it is time to reevaluate. I recall on my first Statement of Purpose I stressed the blogging of neurology. After one blog, I realized that this route was a dead end until some new medicine or disease is researched in the field. However, I did not want to go astray from the science realm.
I continued my science-related blogs with taxonomy. I go beyond the common major sciences (biology, chemistry, and physics) and peer into the view of other studies. Occasionally there is a look into my personal life, for example Chemistry Class, which revolves around my performance in Advanced Placement (AP®)* Chemistry.
A quick mandatory assignment temporarily deterred from the sciences. The entire class was required to read “Why Are All the Black Kids sitting together in the Cafeteria?” and blog about the commentary he annotated in a paragraph of Chapter 01 – Defining Racism.
During the week of 2009.10.19, I fell ill. Not only am I still not somewhat 100 percent, but this illness has dragged for over three weeks (soon to be a month-long illness). Luckily most symptoms are cleared; only congestion and coughing remains. Even under the curse of a fever, I managed to complete my English blog assignment. I could not resist adding some science into my blog post, thus added to the quick introduction of my condition was some information on pathology.
The blog post of 2009.10.26 seems to be the blog I truly want to continue. Cooking in relation to scientific terms is a concept that is important to the Why factor. It provides background information on what is happening during cooking, instead of going through the motions (mix, stir, blend, heat, cool, etc.).
For Quarter 02, I will answer most (if not all) the questions I set forth in Cooking – more than fun. Continue working with effective communication is a key concept in blog writing. Hopefully those who read my blogs (which I am guessing is not many) are getting a feel of the style of writing I present and can provide comments to improve my writing.
* AP® AND Advanced Placement Program ARE REGISTERED TRADEMARKS OF THE College Board™.
I continued my science-related blogs with taxonomy. I go beyond the common major sciences (biology, chemistry, and physics) and peer into the view of other studies. Occasionally there is a look into my personal life, for example Chemistry Class, which revolves around my performance in Advanced Placement (AP®)* Chemistry.
A quick mandatory assignment temporarily deterred from the sciences. The entire class was required to read “Why Are All the Black Kids sitting together in the Cafeteria?” and blog about the commentary he annotated in a paragraph of Chapter 01 – Defining Racism.
During the week of 2009.10.19, I fell ill. Not only am I still not somewhat 100 percent, but this illness has dragged for over three weeks (soon to be a month-long illness). Luckily most symptoms are cleared; only congestion and coughing remains. Even under the curse of a fever, I managed to complete my English blog assignment. I could not resist adding some science into my blog post, thus added to the quick introduction of my condition was some information on pathology.
The blog post of 2009.10.26 seems to be the blog I truly want to continue. Cooking in relation to scientific terms is a concept that is important to the Why factor. It provides background information on what is happening during cooking, instead of going through the motions (mix, stir, blend, heat, cool, etc.).
For Quarter 02, I will answer most (if not all) the questions I set forth in Cooking – more than fun. Continue working with effective communication is a key concept in blog writing. Hopefully those who read my blogs (which I am guessing is not many) are getting a feel of the style of writing I present and can provide comments to improve my writing.
* AP® AND Advanced Placement Program ARE REGISTERED TRADEMARKS OF THE College Board™.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Cooking - more than fun
Cooking is more than preparing food for eating (definition provided by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary); cooking is a science. When I prepare food (which is quite seldom), I see more than the list of ingredients followed by a set of instructions. I look at these instructions and dissect the aspects of a dish and rationalize cooking in a scientific perspective.
Why is it necessary to knead bread dough?
Why add salt to boiling water?
Why do ice cream, frozen custards and yogurts, gelato, and similar frozen desserts not freeze into a solid chunk (like a block of ice)?
How do sugars ferment into alcohols and how do alcoholic wines become vinegar?
Why deep-fat fry, pan fry, or sauté? What are the differences and its effect on the final food product?
What are the best cooking methods of foods?
What is light/white meat and dark meat and why are they different?
Why are eggs a common “binder” in recipes?
How do variations in the proportions of ingredients affect a final product of a food? (A good example I will explain later involves Chocolate Chip Cookies)
What is baking powder versus baking soda? Can they be interchanged in a recipe, what are their effects on baked goods?
How does a refrigerator or freezer cool food?
Why do oil and water (and water-type liquids) not combine well? Why add the oil to boiling water when cooking pasta?
Can a cupcake and a cake use the same recipe?
Is corn syrup bad for one’s health? (Interesting information available about corn syrup)
What is the difference between table sugar (granulated, confectioner/powder, raw), artificial sweeteners, corn syrup (dark and light), brown sugar (dark, golden, light), honey, etc. and can these different sugar (and sugar-type substitutes) be interchanged in recopies?
How does adding (or taking away) heat change food’s “chemistry”?
And the list of these questions (based on cooking) continues, and I could provide over a hundred different cooking-related inquiries.
Easily, I can go to the streets and ask with what people he/she associates baking and cooking. I can assume there will be several who mention either girls or housewives – even the women.
Why associate cooking with women? Yet again, why associate working with the lower social class? Without going too far in depth to our racism unit (in English class), it is just human nature that we categorize.
Now,
Let me relate back to cooking as a science. How many would associate cooking and science?
Probably not too many, but cooking involves science (albeit not distinctly in many cases). Chemistry, physics, biology, anatomy, botany, ichthyology, ornithology, crystallography (studying crystals, like salts and sugars), and many, many more sciences intermixed to have a foundation for cooking. Transforming raw ingredients to form succulent dishes involved thousands of years of tradition, experimentation, tasting to meld flavors or avoid certain combinations of food. Only until recently (compared to the length of human cooking) have scientists discovered the science behind some of the cooking procedures used in modern culinary compositions.
“Science: It’s what’s for dinner.”
Why is it necessary to knead bread dough?
Why add salt to boiling water?
Why do ice cream, frozen custards and yogurts, gelato, and similar frozen desserts not freeze into a solid chunk (like a block of ice)?
How do sugars ferment into alcohols and how do alcoholic wines become vinegar?
Why deep-fat fry, pan fry, or sauté? What are the differences and its effect on the final food product?
What are the best cooking methods of foods?
What is light/white meat and dark meat and why are they different?
Why are eggs a common “binder” in recipes?
How do variations in the proportions of ingredients affect a final product of a food? (A good example I will explain later involves Chocolate Chip Cookies)
What is baking powder versus baking soda? Can they be interchanged in a recipe, what are their effects on baked goods?
How does a refrigerator or freezer cool food?
Why do oil and water (and water-type liquids) not combine well? Why add the oil to boiling water when cooking pasta?
Can a cupcake and a cake use the same recipe?
Is corn syrup bad for one’s health? (Interesting information available about corn syrup)
What is the difference between table sugar (granulated, confectioner/powder, raw), artificial sweeteners, corn syrup (dark and light), brown sugar (dark, golden, light), honey, etc. and can these different sugar (and sugar-type substitutes) be interchanged in recopies?
How does adding (or taking away) heat change food’s “chemistry”?
And the list of these questions (based on cooking) continues, and I could provide over a hundred different cooking-related inquiries.
Easily, I can go to the streets and ask with what people he/she associates baking and cooking. I can assume there will be several who mention either girls or housewives – even the women.
Why associate cooking with women? Yet again, why associate working with the lower social class? Without going too far in depth to our racism unit (in English class), it is just human nature that we categorize.
Now,
Let me relate back to cooking as a science. How many would associate cooking and science?
Probably not too many, but cooking involves science (albeit not distinctly in many cases). Chemistry, physics, biology, anatomy, botany, ichthyology, ornithology, crystallography (studying crystals, like salts and sugars), and many, many more sciences intermixed to have a foundation for cooking. Transforming raw ingredients to form succulent dishes involved thousands of years of tradition, experimentation, tasting to meld flavors or avoid certain combinations of food. Only until recently (compared to the length of human cooking) have scientists discovered the science behind some of the cooking procedures used in modern culinary compositions.
“Science: It’s what’s for dinner.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
