Thread: Combining tastes in cooking.

Is there some science behind the ways some flavours seem to compliment each other when it comes to cooking?

I know someone like Heston Blumenthal has gone into this in great depth but ,as for as I know he proceeds according to a "hit and miss" , or "suck it and see" methodology.

I would be curious to know whether it is possible to feed a flavour into a sensory apparatus connected to software which could gives a likelihood of the flavour that had been input being "compatible" or interesting when combined with a second flavour (or combination of flavours).

I think it is fairly obvious that extremely strong flavours would normally be set against bland flavours but I think there is far more to it than that (I am guessing "balance" is very important ) and I wonder if any proper scientific studies have been done along those lines.

Cooking is LOADED with science. That's part of what makes it so much fun. If you're a big taste nerd, you might look into molecular gastronomy. There are chefs out there who own restaurants (very expensive ones) dedicated to the science of tickling the taste buds, so to speak.

If you like to hear about the general science involved in cooking, I've been a long time fan of Alton Brown. Probably the best TV chef ever.

thanks .I will look into it.Thanks for the steer.

You might like this: The Flavour Thesaurus | Flavor pairings, recipes and ideas for the creative cook.

this isn't cooking but . . .

I remember as a kid the first time I ate cottage cheese and raisins. i remember thinking how much I liked cottage cheese and how much I liked raisins but the thought of putting them together made me gag. I was wrong. I still have it once in a while. (not the healthiest thing to eat though.)

I do find the varying responses of people to texture to be fascinating. For instance, my wife hates the texture of mushrooms. She can even pick out when I've chopped them up and added them to my marinara. It's like she's programmed to find that one specific texture.

I can't eat regular yogurt because of the texture. It's actually hard to swallow. Yet, I love Greek yogurt and tapioca pudding.

Gastronomy is a weirdly interesting thing.

Originally Posted by geordief

thanks .I will look into it.Thanks for the steer.

He gave you a bovine?

Originally Posted by shlunka

Originally Posted by geordief

thanks .I will look into it.Thanks for the steer.

He gave you a bovine?

I try to help when heifer I can.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Gastronomy is a weirdly interesting thing.

I can drink buttermilk but I have to pretend that it is liquid cottage cheese. Weird, huh? If I don't pretend I get the taste of rotten milk.

(I HATED buttermilk as a child.)

Nowadays I have no idea what I'm going to like. I've been on chemotherapy and it totally screws up my taste buds. I now find I don't like the taste of butter. And it changes as my taste buds regrow. The only thing I can reliably know I'll like is steak.

Originally Posted by shlunka

Originally Posted by geordief

thanks .I will look into it.Thanks for the steer.

He gave you a bovine?

which reminds me of the ongoing feud between the UK and Australia regarding "our" Marmite and "their" Vegemite (Bovine> Bovril> Marmite).

I am utterly convinced that Vegemite is a poor substitute for Marmite and I know that this will never be accepted amongst Australians who are happy to hate it
.
I surmise that the reasons for the different interpretations is in part blind prejudice but I wonder if there is anything physiological to it.

For N.Americans or Europeans who may be unaware of what these products are , they are types of yeast extract.

I make and can my own marinara......and have a brother in law who will NOT EAT VEGE'S except for tomato's!! *chuckle*

He had about 15 of them and loved it!

Sometimes what may taste good to you might not taste that good to others. It is difficult therefore to add the right amounts of spices and herbs for you never know what people will enjoy.

My partner never combines food when she eats.She starts with what she likes best and will often leave the bits that she doesn't .But she will never have a bit of this and a bit of that at the same time.

I mean she will eat all the chicken first , then proceed to the cereals or potatoes and then to the vegetables.

I am completely the opposite (which may be why I notice it so much) and always take 2 items together so that when I come to the end of the plate everything disappears at the same time.

If I had too eat one item I would find it boring.

Once we had a French guest (who tried getting us to eat raw salmon by the way) who cooked for us .

When I put salt on my food she was taken aback and quite miffed and said it was impolite to the chef as he had salted it "as intended".

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I do find the varying responses of people to texture to be fascinating. For instance, my wife hates the texture of mushrooms. She can even pick out when I've chopped them up and added them to my marinara. It's like she's programmed to find that one specific texture.

I can't eat regular yogurt because of the texture. It's actually hard to swallow. Yet, I love Greek yogurt and tapioca pudding.

Gastronomy is a weirdly interesting thing.

Supposedly, some people genetically can't even taste certain compounds, or it tastes very different, like cilantro.

I can tell you that salt and sugar are complimentary tastes because a little salt makes sweets sweeter and a bit of sugar makes salt taste saltier.

Fats can actually be tasted on the tongue and it is not just simply the mouth-feel that gives fatty foods that unctuous taste.

The meat taste, that sizzle on the steak, is mostly umani, which is chemically close to MSG. It is also found in the brown crust on bread and in soy sauce.It is from sugars and proteins reacting together. The reactions are called the Maillard reaction and it is glycolization, both worth looking up on Wikipedia.

Sweet, sour, and bitter are tastes to be balanced too. For example, Seville oranges are quite bitter but made into preserves with sugar they become marmalade.

There is a lot more to the combining of flavours than just the ones we can taste on our tongue because we also use our nose and eyes to inform us about what we are putting into our mouths. Restaurants are quite careful about lighting because oddly coloured food is unnatractive to most people. Eggs can look very strange under cold white flourescent lights.
For scent think about how few people will eat Roquefort cheese because even though it actually tastes quite nice it smells like dirty socks.

I am aware of this stuff mostly because I lost my sense of smell a few years ago and was surprised at how tasteless many of the foods I used to like became.

And a bit of bacon grease makes everything taste great!

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Gastronomy is a weirdly interesting thing.

I can drink buttermilk but I have to pretend that it is liquid cottage cheese. Weird, huh? If I don't pretend I get the taste of rotten milk.

(I HATED buttermilk as a child.)

I like the occasional (very) short glass of buttermilk. Mostly, I use it for fried chicken. It's up there with egg nog when it comes to controversial drinks. You either love it or hate it, I suppose.

Originally Posted by DianeG

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I do find the varying responses of people to texture to be fascinating. For instance, my wife hates the texture of mushrooms. She can even pick out when I've chopped them up and added them to my marinara. It's like she's programmed to find that one specific texture.

I can't eat regular yogurt because of the texture. It's actually hard to swallow. Yet, I love Greek yogurt and tapioca pudding.

Gastronomy is a weirdly interesting thing.

Supposedly, some people genetically can't even taste certain compounds, or it tastes very different, like cilantro.

Funny thing, that. I never realized some people HATE cilantro. I make salmon with a lemon, pepper, and cilantro cream sauce. I put it in my pico de gallo, too. I can't imagine not liking cilantro!

I wonder if that's related to some people liking hot sauces better. Maybe it just doesn't taste the same as it does to people like me. I can only handle the second hottest sauce at BDubs and even that isn't very hot compared to what some places serve.

Funny thing, that. I never realized some people HATE cilantro.

That's me. To me, it tastes like dish detergent.

Originally Posted by geordief

My partner never combines food when she eats.She starts with what she likes best and will often leave the bits that she doesn't .But she will never have a bit of this and a bit of that at the same time.

I mean she will eat all the chicken first , then proceed to the cereals or potatoes and then to the vegetables.

I am completely the opposite (which may be why I notice it so much) and always take 2 items together so that when I come to the end of the plate everything disappears at the same time.

If I had too eat one item I would find it boring.

Once we had a French guest (who tried getting us to eat raw salmon by the way) who cooked for us .

When I put salt on my food she was taken aback and quite miffed and said it was impolite to the chef as he had salted it "as intended".

She sounds like me!! and you like my spousy!!

Originally Posted by AlexG

Funny thing, that. I never realized some people HATE cilantro.

That's me. To me, it tastes like dish detergent.

I like it when I make..Cerviche.....and only if it is very very fresh

Originally Posted by AlexG

Funny thing, that. I never realized some people HATE cilantro.

That's me. To me, it tastes like dish detergent.

Same here but I still like it.It is the combination with other foods that I like (a lot) .But I understand why others wouldn't approach it.

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by geordief

My partner never combines food when she eats.She starts with what she likes best and will often leave the bits that she doesn't .But she will never have a bit of this and a bit of that at the same time.

I mean she will eat all the chicken first , then proceed to the cereals or potatoes and then to the vegetables.

I am completely the opposite (which may be why I notice it so much) and always take 2 items together so that when I come to the end of the plate everything disappears at the same time.

If I had too eat one item I would find it boring.

Once we had a French guest (who tried getting us to eat raw salmon by the way) who cooked for us .

When I put salt on my food she was taken aback and quite miffed and said it was impolite to the chef as he had salted it "as intended".

She sounds like me!! and you like my spousy!!

She , the French guest told us she had prepared meals for Madonna (in Paris I think) so perhaps she was giving herself one or two extra airs.

She came back with lobsters and so we cooked them but to tell the truth I would have preferred crab as I don't enjoy complication at mealtimes (well crabs are also messy and fiddly but they are somehow more down to earth plus the taste is every bit as good).

The raw salmon was like a bucket of cold water. We had to show willing but had never had raw fish in large (or any size really) pieces till then and my partner is normally very fussy about cooking it to death .

Originally Posted by geordief

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by geordief

My partner never combines food when she eats.She starts with what she likes best and will often leave the bits that she doesn't .But she will never have a bit of this and a bit of that at the same time.

I mean she will eat all the chicken first , then proceed to the cereals or potatoes and then to the vegetables.

I am completely the opposite (which may be why I notice it so much) and always take 2 items together so that when I come to the end of the plate everything disappears at the same time.

If I had too eat one item I would find it boring.

Once we had a French guest (who tried getting us to eat raw salmon by the way) who cooked for us .

When I put salt on my food she was taken aback and quite miffed and said it was impolite to the chef as he had salted it "as intended".

She sounds like me!! and you like my spousy!!

She , the French guest told us she had prepared meals for Madonna (in Paris I think) so perhaps she was giving herself one or two extra airs.

She came back with lobsters and so we cooked them but to tell the truth I would have preferred crab as I don't enjoy complication at mealtimes (well crabs are also messy and fiddly but they are somehow more down to earth plus the taste is every bit as good).

The raw salmon was like a bucket of cold water. We had to show willing but had never had raw fish in large (or any size really) pieces till then and my partner is normally very fussy about cooking it to death .

I am very used to raw fish and love it.

However, it has to be very very very fresh.....and as I am spoiled in that aspect......

I worked in Norway in the past . I don't think they were very sophisticated regarding cuisine but one thing I remember is that they used to actually leave fish to age before cooking it because (I think) it held together better after a day or so..

We also used to dry cod in the open (tied together 2 by 2 at the tail and hoisted up in the air on "clothes lines" ) where they would dry even under the snow in the same way as unprotected food will dry in the freezer after a few months.

Originally Posted by geordief

I worked in Norway in the past . I don't think they were very sophisticated regarding cuisine but one thing I remember is that they used to actually leave fish to age before cooking it because (I think) it held together better after a day or so..

We also used to dry cod in the open (tied together 2 by 2 at the tail and hoisted up in the air on "clothes lines" ) where they would dry even under the snow in the same way as unprotected food will dry in the freezer after a few months.

I live in fishing as in industry areas...we never age fish....EVER EVER EVER....it is best fresh...and I know my daughter was told that in Switzerland (where she works and lives) and she looked at the person and said, "ARE YOU NUTS?"

Or are you talking Lutefisk?


FISH is not needed to be aged UNLESS you are SMOKING IT.

Fresh or I won't touch it with a ten foot pole....great way to get pretty darn sick.

However, cherviche is a different animal.

No I am quite sure it wasn't Lutefisk. We had all kinds of fish there .Dried and salted. They were experts in fish -that is all there was up there -no Agriculture as such .I can't remember if I actually ate what they had in the way of aged,fresh fish but I am sure that if they were used to it that it would have been unlikely to make them sick.

Perhaps they aged it in the fridge .That wouldn't make anyone sick.Most of the fish we buy in the shops is already a lot less fresh than what you get if you fish it yourself.

But they definitely pointed it out to me that spanking fresh fish didn't always suit them.

Originally Posted by geordief

No I am quite sure it wasn't Lutefisk. We had all kinds of fish there .Dried and salted. They were experts in fish -that is all there was up there -no Agriculture as such .I can't remember if I actually ate what they had in the way of aged,fresh fish but I am sure that if they were used to it that it would have been unlikely to make them sick.

Perhaps they aged it in the fridge .That wouldn't make anyone sick.Most of the fish we buy in the shops is already a lot less fresh than what you get if you fish it yourself.

But they definitely pointed it out to me that spanking fresh fish didn't always suit them.

I am used to fish right out of the ocean.

If it has a slight smell.

I will not even put it on my fork.

If they aged it...it must have been salted or such.

I don't buy fish in a store......I go to the docks.

Originally Posted by geordief

No I am quite sure it wasn't Lutefisk. We had all kinds of fish there .Dried and salted. They were experts in fish -that is all there was up there -no Agriculture as such .I can't remember if I actually ate what they had in the way of aged,fresh fish but I am sure that if they were used to it that it would have been unlikely to make them sick.

Perhaps they aged it in the fridge .That wouldn't make anyone sick.Most of the fish we buy in the shops is already a lot less fresh than what you get if you fish it yourself.

But they definitely pointed it out to me that spanking fresh fish didn't always suit them.

My husband is Norwegian, by the way!! *S*

Well will he back me up? My hosts were in the Lofoten Islands so that may not be quite the same as down South where most people live.

We also used to have whalefish (it tastes like horse) as well as turbot that was so large it was loaded by cranes onto pallets from the boats..

Originally Posted by geordief

Well will he back me up? My hosts were in the Lofoten Islands so that may not be quite the same as down South where most people live.

We also used to have whalefish (it tastes like horse) as well as turbot that was so large it was loaded by cranes onto pallets from the boats..

His family (he was not born there) is from Mandal.
We have visited.

I am sure, just like any other country....eating habits and food is different depending on region! *S*...

But, great experience for you...and frankly...I did NOT like NORWEGIAN food....at all...and his father hated lutefisk! *L*...I asked him "HOW can a NORWEGIAN, full blooded NOT like it?"

He just looked at me and gave a funny face and we both started laughing!

What about the sweet goat cheese that looks like brown fudge? That is quite unpleasant on its own but not too bad when you have it with a scotch pancake.

My father used to get presents of it in the post from an old Norwegian friend who ,imagine he may have met during or before the war.It was not popular .

Originally Posted by geordief

What about the sweet goat cheese that looks like brown fudge? That is quite unpleasant on its own but not too bad when you have it with a scotch pancake.

My father used to get presents of it in the post from an old Norwegian friend who ,imagine he may have met during or before the war.It was not popular .

I have had so many versions of goat cheese....I simply detest it. I think it's one of those things that you either love or hate!

@geordief
Also interesting how some combos become cultural classics, and yet, what do the two food sources have in common in real life (or is it that they are so unrelated — diametrically opposed along some taste spectrum or axis — that they compliment/balance each other or perhaps accentuate that spectrum/axis)?

• Lamb & mint jelly
• Turkey & cranberry sauce
• Chocolate & milk
• Fish & lemon juice
• Liver & onions
• Bacon & eggs
• Pork chops & applesauce
• Apple pie & cheddar cheese
• Tomato & cheese ("parmesan", also the basis for pizza)

@AlexG
Ditto, cilantro = dish soap (and it's amazing how many Mex etc restaurant workers never heard of such a thing)

If you ever come upon a herd of goats you will know the reason for that probably.They have an odour that is a step up from the aroma of a visiting tom cat.You know they are around before you see them.

The goat cheese taste has notes (if that is the correct term) of that .

However this particular cheese I am talking about has most of that cooked out and it is the only sweet goat's cheese I know of.

Originally Posted by geordief

If you ever come upon a herd of goats you will know the reason for that probably.They have an odour that is a step up from the aroma of a visiting tom cat.You know they are around before you see them.

The goat cheese taste has notes (if that is the correct term) of that .

However this particular cheese I am talking about has most of that cooked out and it is the only sweet goat's cheese I know of.

we have herds of them...ya just wanna be UPWIND

One of my favourite dishes is kid goat.I only had it the once but it was nicer than lamb.

I have never seen it in the shops or heard of it in restaurants but I am sure it must be .

Originally Posted by geordief

One of my favourite dishes is kid goat.I only had it the once but it was nicer than lamb.

I have never seen it in the shops or heard of it in restaurants but I am sure it must be .

People eat that here. Locals mostly.....no thanks *laughing*

ikies

When I was doing fieldwork in Africa goat was quite commonly served¹, I remember one barbecue where there were whole goats roasting on spits -- quite nice.

1. As were some sort of rodent that the waiter said was "rat" but was probably a gerbil or something, hedgehog and fish.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

@geordief
Also interesting how some combos become cultural classics, and yet, what do the two food sources have in common in real life (or is it that they are so unrelated — diametrically opposed along some taste spectrum or axis — that they compliment/balance each other or perhaps accentuate that spectrum/axis)?

• Lamb & mint jelly
• Turkey & cranberry sauce
• Chocolate & milk
• Fish & lemon juice
• Liver & onions
• Bacon & eggs
• Pork chops & applesauce
• Apple pie & cheddar cheese
• Tomato & cheese ("parmesan", also the basis for pizza)

that is what got me thinking in the first place.Is there a way to quantify those relationships?

Can computer software make sense of any of this (not to improve mealtimes of course - it is just curiosity on my part)

But how many parameters go into one taste?

As you say the cultural is an additional parameter.

On a more basic level I imagine that there are all the various "bitter/sweet" ,"homogeneous/textured" oppositions (I am my of my depth now and searching for terminology but you probably know what I am getting at).

for me
liver and onions and bacon and lots of chili.....*L* to smother it all!

FIsh and LIME JUICE Cerviche

Apple pie and ice cream!

Tomato and avocado!!

Turkey and Dressing

Lamb stuffed with garlic in a white wine sauce!

Pork chops with BBQ sauce....

different takes on the subject

Originally Posted by PhDemon

When I was doing fieldwork in Africa goat was quite commonly served¹, I remember one barbecue where there were whole goats roasting on spits -- quite nice.

1. As were some sort of rodent that the waiter said was "rat" but was probably a gerbil or something, hedgehog and fish.

Ah but was it kid goat? I only had kid goat so I can't say that adult goat is less tasty but I would guess (just a guess) that where you were they might not have been wealthy enough to eat the young animal normally.

Originally Posted by geordief

Originally Posted by shlunka

Originally Posted by geordief

thanks .I will look into it.Thanks for the steer.

He gave you a bovine?

which reminds me of the ongoing feud between the UK and Australia regarding "our" Marmite and "their" Vegemite (Bovine> Bovril> Marmite).

I am utterly convinced that Vegemite is a poor substitute for Marmite and I know that this will never be accepted amongst Australians who are happy to hate it
.
I surmise that the reasons for the different interpretations is in part blind prejudice but I wonder if there is anything physiological to it.

For N.Americans or Europeans who may be unaware of what these products are , they are types of yeast extract.

Yes, there is a physiological component to it. Australians have more highly evolved taste.

Originally Posted by geordief

Originally Posted by PhDemon

When I was doing fieldwork in Africa goat was quite commonly served¹, I remember one barbecue where there were whole goats roasting on spits -- quite nice.

1. As were some sort of rodent that the waiter said was "rat" but was probably a gerbil or something, hedgehog and fish.

Ah but was it kid goat? I only had kid goat so I can't say that adult goat is less tasty but I would guess (just a guess) that where you were they might not have been wealthy enough to eat the young animal normally.

True, it was a very poor country and the animals we ate were normally fully grown...

Originally Posted by Warron

Yes, there is a physiological component to it. Australians have more highly evolved taste.
)

It was only a matter of time (50 hrs and 38 minutes)

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Originally Posted by geordief

Originally Posted by PhDemon

When I was doing fieldwork in Africa goat was quite commonly served¹, I remember one barbecue where there were whole goats roasting on spits -- quite nice.

1. As were some sort of rodent that the waiter said was "rat" but was probably a gerbil or something, hedgehog and fish.

Ah but was it kid goat? I only had kid goat so I can't say that adult goat is less tasty but I would guess (just a guess) that where you were they might not have been wealthy enough to eat the young animal normally.

True, it was a very poor country and the animals we ate were normally fully grown...

Agree goat (stewed) can be very good indeed. Had some once in a Filipino restaurant in Dubai which was sensational.

By contrast the most horrible thing I've eaten in the course of duty was, without doubt, sea cucumber in Taiwan. Flavour of mud and consistency of semi-congealed snot. Repulsive. And not easy to manage with chopsticks. But - of course - a "delicacy" for honoured guest, presumably good for virility on account of the shape of the bloody things when alive. So second helpings for me. Thank God the rice wine was strong.

Jellyfish, on the other hand (also in Taiwan), was surprisingly nice, with quite firm texture and a hot sauce to provide contrast with the rather bland flesh.

Texture plays an underappreciated role in food, I think.

Originally Posted by geordief

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

@geordief
Also interesting how some combos become cultural classics, and yet, what do the two food sources have in common in real life (or is it that they are so unrelated — diametrically opposed along some taste spectrum or axis — that they compliment/balance each other or perhaps accentuate that spectrum/axis)?

• Lamb & mint jelly
• Turkey & cranberry sauce
• Chocolate & milk
• Fish & lemon juice
• Liver & onions
• Bacon & eggs
• Pork chops & applesauce
• Apple pie & cheddar cheese
• Tomato & cheese ("parmesan", also the basis for pizza)

that is what got me thinking in the first place.Is there a way to quantify those relationships?

Can computer software make sense of any of this (not to improve mealtimes of course - it is just curiosity on my part)

But how many parameters go into one taste?

As you say the cultural is an additional parameter.

On a more basic level I imagine that there are all the various "bitter/sweet" ,"homogeneous/textured" oppositions (I am my of my depth now and searching for terminology but you probably know what I am getting at).

There are some obvious basic principles in the list, especially the need to "cut" fatty dishes with acidic relishes, or conversely to mollify acidic things with fat (fruit with cream) and sugar.

But less obvious is garlic and rosemary with lamb whereas sage with pork, thyme with beef and tarragon with chicken. Pork also has affinity with vinegar far more than other meats. There is no doubt these classic matches are hard to beat but why they work so well I do not know.

And then wine/food combinations add another dimension. Lamb with Bordeaux is unbeatable. It seems to be the tannin that again cuts the fattiness of the meat. So tannins do a similar job to acidity, in some cases, but along a different axis. Tomatoes and tannin are not a good mix. And watercress is horrible with wine of any sort, as are my personal bete noire, salted peanuts…...

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

• Tomato & cheese ("parmesan", also the basis for pizza)

I thought Mozzarella was the basis for pizza. Am I missing something here?

Originally Posted by Warron

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

• Tomato & cheese ("parmesan", also the basis for pizza)

I thought Mozzarella was the basis for pizza. Am I missing something here?

The basis for Pizza is a flat disk of bread dough, everything else is toppings.

Originally Posted by Warron

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

• Tomato & cheese ("parmesan", also the basis for pizza)

I thought Mozzarella was the basis for pizza. Am I missing something here?

Well I think it's really the tomatoes, but yes the cheese in question is mozarella, not parmesan. But the observation about cheese (of whatever kind) and tomato fits the general acid/fat combination rule I was talking about.

Also, slightly randomly, the British put milk in their rather tannic Indian tea, which softens the tannin and makes it easier on the stomach. Which fits the alternative fat/tannin combination rule.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Originally Posted by Warron

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

• Tomato & cheese ("parmesan", also the basis for pizza)

I thought Mozzarella was the basis for pizza. Am I missing something here?

The basis for Pizza is a flat disk of bread dough, everything else is toppings.

Well you are right of course, though I tend to think of the base as an inert substrate.

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Originally Posted by Warron

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

• Tomato & cheese ("parmesan", also the basis for pizza)

I thought Mozzarella was the basis for pizza. Am I missing something here?

The basis for Pizza is a flat disk of bread dough, everything else is toppings.

Well you are right of course, though I tend to think of the base as an inert substrate.

Inert? Hardly. A good dough is essential for a good pizza.

Originally Posted by geordief

that is what got me thinking in the first place.Is there a way to quantify those relationships?

Okay, so, first you need to develop/identify metrics, such as sweet, sour, bitter, salty etc, but obviously they alone won't do. I suppose that it could be researched chemically. Maybe by the kinds of odor receptors in the nose because most of what we perceive as taste is actually smell.

Each receptor consists of a protein chain that traverses the cell membrane seven times.

When an odorant substance attaches to an olfactory receptor, the shape of the receptor protein is altered, leading to a G protein activation.

An electric signal is triggered in the olfactory receptor neuron and sent to the brain via nerve processes.

All odorant receptors are related proteins and differ only in some amino acid residues (indicated by tiny green, blue and red disks at bottom of diagram below).

The subtle differences in the protein chains explain why the receptors are triggered by different odorant molecules.

Poster for Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2004

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

@geordief
Also interesting how some combos become cultural classics, and yet, what do the two food sources have in common in real life (or is it that they are so unrelated — diametrically opposed along some taste spectrum or axis — that they compliment/balance each other or perhaps accentuate that spectrum/axis)?

• Lamb & mint jelly
• Turkey & cranberry sauce
• Chocolate & milk
• Fish & lemon juice
• Liver & onions
• Bacon & eggs
• Pork chops & applesauce
• Apple pie & cheddar cheese
• Tomato & cheese ("parmesan", also the basis for pizza)

@AlexG
Ditto, cilantro = dish soap (and it's amazing how many Mex etc restaurant workers never heard of such a thing)

Some of your combinations can be explained by basic kitchen practice and available materials.

For example bacon and eggs are a fast, one pan meal, often served with hash brown potatoes.
(The hashed potatoes were usually the extra potatoes boiled for last night's supper.)
If you fry the bacon first then there is fat to fry the potatoes and eggs.
Since it is fast and easy we used it for breakfast.

I prefer cheddar on my pizza.....

Originally Posted by babe

I prefer cheddar on my pizza.....

How horrible. Would that be with or without pineapple rings, seeing as you are in Hawaii?

Originally Posted by AlexG

Inert? Hardly. A good dough is essential for a good pizza.

We used to have a fantastic Italian bakery near our old house. They used to do marvelous thin crust pizzas. My favourite had no cheese at all, just paper thin slices of potato sprinkled all over with rosemary. The bases were to die for, and of course, they used the best olive oil available.

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by babe

I prefer cheddar on my pizza.....

How horrible. Would that be with or without pineapple rings, seeing as you are in Hawaii?

mixed with some mozzerlla and and some parmesan ......and I am not crazy about pineapple cooked...I prefer some sun dried tomato's and black olives and green peppers....and Canadian bacon....

How Horrible? Why so rude?

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by babe

I prefer cheddar on my pizza.....

How horrible. Would that be with or without pineapple rings, seeing as you are in Hawaii?

mixed with some mozzerlla and and some parmesan ......and I am not crazy about pineapple cooked...I prefer some sun dried tomato's and black olives and green peppers....and Canadian bacon....

How Horrible? Why so rude?

I've eaten American "cheddar", that's why.

I don't think the US understands cheese at all. That jibe about "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" contained a grain of truth about US attitudes to cheese. Come to France and see the difference.

Originally Posted by adelady

Originally Posted by AlexG

Inert? Hardly. A good dough is essential for a good pizza.

We used to have a fantastic Italian bakery near our old house. They used to do marvelous thin crust pizzas. My favourite had no cheese at all, just paper thin slices of potato sprinkled all over with rosemary. The bases were to die for, and of course, they used the best olive oil available.

You are both quite right and I was previously being flippant.

Originally Posted by babe

I am not crazy about pineapple cooked

Careful how you use fresh pineapple as it contains bromelain — an enzyme that digests protein. For example, if you try to make pineapple jello with fresh pineapple (instead of cooked pineapple or canned pineapple — which is cooked), the jello will never "set" because the bromelain will break down the proteins that cause the jello to set. Blech! Conversely, you can use it as meat tenderizer.

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by babe

I prefer cheddar on my pizza.....

How horrible. Would that be with or without pineapple rings, seeing as you are in Hawaii?

mixed with some mozzerlla and and some parmesan ......and I am not crazy about pineapple cooked...I prefer some sun dried tomato's and black olives and green peppers....and Canadian bacon....

How Horrible? Why so rude?

I've eaten American "cheddar", that's why.

I don't think the US understands cheese at all. That jibe about "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" contained a grain of truth about US attitudes to cheese. Come to France and see the difference.

WE have award winning cheddars...expand your horizons!

Originally Posted by exchemist

Come to France and see the difference.

Come to the Granville Country Store in Granville MA, and try their cellar-aged cheeses.

(Yep, it's a cottage industry ^{— Ha ha ha, get it? Cottage cheese!})

Really though, it's a breath of fresh air compared to what Americans generally eat.

(Especially after Granville stopped selling Limburger cheese — . Seriously.)

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

Originally Posted by exchemist

Come to France and see the difference.

Come to the Granville Country Store in Granville MA, and try their cellar-aged cheeses.

(Yep, it's a cottage industry ^{— Ha ha ha, get it? Cottage cheese!})

Really though, it's a breath of fresh air compared to what Americans generally eat.

(Especially after Granville stopped selling Limburger cheese — . Seriously.)

Well that's great news. Seems on a number of fronts in the US a fightback is starting to take place against the industrialisation of food and drink. I read that microbrewing scene is going very well and there are even outbreaks of edible bread from time to time.

Here in London, beer (real ale) is doing OK but bread is still going downhill compared to when I was young, thanks to dominance of the odious Chorleywood Process, which reduces the time for the dough to rise, but at the cost of flavour, texture, and digestibility. Luckily there are now over 200,000 French people in London and around us a lot of them due to the local schools, so we are getting a few French bakeries popping up.

Originally Posted by exchemist

the industrialisation of food and drink

That's a good way to describe it, and it's one thing that America does well. Unfortunately.

I'd think that someone would at least cheaply develop the flavors of "real" bread to throw into the useless dreck masquerading as bread in America so it would taste real.

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by babe

I prefer cheddar on my pizza.....

How horrible. Would that be with or without pineapple rings, seeing as you are in Hawaii?

mixed with some mozzerlla and and some parmesan ......and I am not crazy about pineapple cooked...I prefer some sun dried tomato's and black olives and green peppers....and Canadian bacon....

How Horrible? Why so rude?

I've eaten American "cheddar", that's why.

I don't think the US understands cheese at all. That jibe about "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" contained a grain of truth about US attitudes to cheese. Come to France and see the difference.

WE have award winning cheddars...expand your horizons!

Cheddar comes, or should come, from Cheddar in Somerset. Whatever you have, it is not real cheddar. Nevertheless I'd give it a shot, provided the award is an international one and not a purely US one.

we have some incredibly famous award winning cheese's coming out of Humboldt County Califorina!!

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

Originally Posted by exchemist

the industrialisation of food and drink

That's a good way to describe it, and it's one thing that America does well. Unfortunately.

I'd think that someone would at least cheaply develop the flavors of "real" bread to throw into the useless dreck masquerading as bread in America so it would taste real.

But the texture (both crust and crumb) would still be wrong, which is so important with bread.

Until the early 80s the bread from regular bakers in England was often good. I recall as a student eating bread from the "Cadena" bakery in the local branch of Woolworths in Oxford, so it was absolutely standard, what everybody bought, and very good it was. But by the time I got back from Dubai in the late 80s, the Chorleywood Process reigned supreme. It was all baked off-site and the supermarkets had started the fake process of half-baking it centrally and then finishing it off in the store, to give an illusion of reality, plus the illusory smell. But it was and is shite. And now we get chi-chi bread shops that miss the point and think good bread is all about shoving extraneous things into it like nuts and seeds, or that sourdough (for some reason) is the only real thing. The kids that run them are all under 30 and have simply never known ordinary decent bread. France however has always kept its bread culture: often people shop for bread twice per day, to catch the morning and afternoon baking for lunch and dinner respectively. You need the bread to go with the cheese, of course. Very agreeable, civilised and cheap.

I find I can almost always judge a restaurant by its bread. If the bread is mass-produced, the cook doesn't know his business, or doesn't care.

I can't give chapter and verse but I seem to remember the best selection of bread I came across was in Holland (perhaps Scandinavia and Germany are similar, I don't know).

At the time it was a great novelty that they would slice it for you fresh in the shop.

French bread was also good but I seem to remember it was made to be eaten there and then (the white stuff anyway) , which would explain why they needed to shop for it for each mealtime as it wasn't going to keep.

Another odd bit of "information" I seem to remember is that in order to make "French bread" you were supposed to need French water as the chemical reaction didn't work properly otherwise.

From the time I spent in France though I feel I can say that food (well cooking I suppose) was elevated to far too high a level of importance and I am sure I would have died of boredom if I had remained there to endure their national "religion" (I get the impression that they have toned it down since I left but it may have spread across the channel where I do my best to ignore it)

I agree with the standard of American food when I was there in the 70s. I was amazed that the wealthiest country in the world at that time didn't seem to set store by the quality of the food it bought in the shops (or the TV it watched).

I still can't understand it.

I also agree with "I find I can almost always judge a restaurant by its bread. If the bread is mass-produced, the cook doesn't know his business, or doesn't care"

Originally Posted by geordief

I can't give chapter and verse but I seem to remember the best selection of bread I came across was in Holland (perhaps Scandinavia and Germany are similar, I don't know).

At the time it was a great novelty that they would slice it for you fresh in the shop.

French bread was also good but I seem to remember it was made to be eaten there and then (the white stuff anyway) , which would explain why they needed to shop for it for each mealtime as it wasn't going to keep.

Another odd bit of "information" I seem to remember is that in order to make "French bread" you were supposed to need French water as the chemical reaction didn't work properly otherwise.

From the time I spent in France though I feel I can say that food (well cooking I suppose) was elevated to far too high a level of importance and I am sure I would have died of boredom if I had remained there to endure their national "religion" (I get the impression that they have toned it down since I left but it may have spread across the channel where I do my best to ignore it)

I agree with the standard of American food when I was there in the 70s. I was amazed that the wealthiest country in the world at that time didn't seem to set store by the quality of the food it bought in the shops (or the TV it watched).

I still can't understand it.

I also agree with "I find I can almost always judge a restaurant by its bread. If the bread is mass-produced, the cook doesn't know his business, or doesn't care"

t is all about the yeast.

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by geordief

I can't give chapter and verse but I seem to remember the best selection of bread I came across was in Holland (perhaps Scandinavia and Germany are similar, I don't know).

At the time it was a great novelty that they would slice it for you fresh in the shop.

French bread was also good but I seem to remember it was made to be eaten there and then (the white stuff anyway) , which would explain why they needed to shop for it for each mealtime as it wasn't going to keep.

Another odd bit of "information" I seem to remember is that in order to make "French bread" you were supposed to need French water as the chemical reaction didn't work properly otherwise.

From the time I spent in France though I feel I can say that food (well cooking I suppose) was elevated to far too high a level of importance and I am sure I would have died of boredom if I had remained there to endure their national "religion" (I get the impression that they have toned it down since I left but it may have spread across the channel where I do my best to ignore it)

I agree with the standard of American food when I was there in the 70s. I was amazed that the wealthiest country in the world at that time didn't seem to set store by the quality of the food it bought in the shops (or the TV it watched).

I still can't understand it.

I also agree with "I find I can almost always judge a restaurant by its bread. If the bread is mass-produced, the cook doesn't know his business, or doesn't care"

t is all about the yeast.

No, as I've explained it is also, critically, about the proving time.

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by babe

t is all about the yeast.

No, as I've explained it is also, critically, about the proving time.

What ,a longer prove gives a better taste or is it a better texture?

For (40 plus) years I kneaded my dough thinking I would eventually get it right but now I have read that there is no need to knead and a sloppy barely touched dough is fine.

I do it that way for the most part now and I prefer the chewiness I get from that way. (plus it is miles easier)

Originally Posted by geordief

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by babe

t is all about the yeast.

No, as I've explained it is also, critically, about the proving time.

What ,a longer prove gives a better taste or is it a better texture?

For (40 plus) years I kneaded my dough thinking I would eventually get it right but now I have read that there is no need to knead and a sloppy barely touched dough is fine.

I do it that way for the most part now and I prefer the chewiness I get from that way. (plus it is miles easier)

The big difference between traditional baking and the Chorleywood process is that in the latter a lot more yeast is used, the dough is mixed very violently by a powerful mechanical mixer, and then only left to rest for a couple of hours before baking. This saves a lot of time and space in the bakery so has been seized on by commercial bakers.

As I understand it, the big difference is that with a traditional resting time of 12 or 24 hrs, the yeast reacts further with the dough and partially digests it. This changes the consistency of the finished bread and makes it more digestible to eat. I don't know about how much mixing is needed, but obviously not as much as the Chorleywood process requires.

I stress I am not a baker, just a scientifically literate person who has been wondering what the hell happened to the delicious bread of my youth - and where can I find it again today. (I have rowed for most of my life and rowers usually eat a lot of starch. When I was in the school 1st VIII I ate most of a large loaf per day, mostly on its own. So the taste was quite important.)

Originally Posted by exchemist

The big difference between traditional baking and the Chorleywood process is that in the latter a lot more yeast is used, the dough is mixed very violently by a powerful mechanical mixer, and then only left to rest for a couple of hours before baking. This saves a lot of time and space in the bakery so has been seized on by commercial bakers.

As I understand it, the big difference is that with a traditional resting time of 12 or 24 hrs, the yeast reacts further with the dough and partially digests it. This changes the consistency of the finished bread and makes it more digestible to eat. I don't know about how much mixing is needed, but obviously not as much as the Chorleywood process requires.

I stress I am not a baker, just a scientifically literate person who has been wondering what the hell happened to the delicious bread of my youth - and where can I find it again today. (I have rowed for most of my life and rowers usually eat a lot of starch. When I was in the school 1st VIII I ate most of a large loaf per day, mostly on its own. So the taste was quite important.)

Is the answer not just as simple as"the free market" ?

Your tastes and requirements are out of step with the market in general.

Bakeries have been subsumed into departments of the supermarket and the workers there have less pride and leeway in their output.

Those that remain as independent businesses have to charge a bit more as they don't have the business to charge the same.

On the plus side (as a pure guess) the standards of those that remain are probably higher than your common or garden bakeries back in the day.

So you can still get good products but you will have to pay extra (and hunt them down) or eat in good cafes or restaurants .

Originally Posted by geordief

Originally Posted by exchemist

The big difference between traditional baking and the Chorleywood process is that in the latter a lot more yeast is used, the dough is mixed very violently by a powerful mechanical mixer, and then only left to rest for a couple of hours before baking. This saves a lot of time and space in the bakery so has been seized on by commercial bakers.

As I understand it, the big difference is that with a traditional resting time of 12 or 24 hrs, the yeast reacts further with the dough and partially digests it. This changes the consistency of the finished bread and makes it more digestible to eat. I don't know about how much mixing is needed, but obviously not as much as the Chorleywood process requires.

I stress I am not a baker, just a scientifically literate person who has been wondering what the hell happened to the delicious bread of my youth - and where can I find it again today. (I have rowed for most of my life and rowers usually eat a lot of starch. When I was in the school 1st VIII I ate most of a large loaf per day, mostly on its own. So the taste was quite important.)

Is the answer not just as simple as"the free market" ?

Your tastes and requirements are out of step with the market in general.

Bakeries have been subsumed into departments of the supermarket and the workers there have less pride and leeway in their output.

Those that remain as independent businesses have to charge a bit more as they don't have the business to charge the same.

On the plus side (as a pure guess) the standards of those that remain are probably higher than your common or garden bakeries back in the day.

So you can still get good products but you will have to pay extra (and hunt them down) or eat in good cafes or restaurants .

That's the classic free market answer, I realise. But as the CAMRA experience showed in the 1970s, it takes organisation to articulate the tastes of the minority such that business sits up and takes notice. In the case of keg beer, the Monty Python sketch about Watney's bloody Red Barrel also did a massive amount to help ridicule the stuff and start to turn the tide. There is a campaign for real bread, as it happens, which I follow with interest……...

Meanwhile its the market changes demanded by our local French community that are helping me out.

Originally Posted by geordief

French bread was also good but I seem to remember it was made to be eaten there and then (the white stuff anyway) , which would explain why they needed to shop for it for each mealtime as it wasn't going to keep.

An oddity I still find in America is the idea of "day-old bread" with their mass-produced stuff, but most of these breads will sit around at home for days if not weeks after the wrapper is opened!! As if day-old bread matters.

Originally Posted by exchemist

The big difference between traditional baking and the Chorleywood process is that ...

As I understand it, the big difference is that ...

I stress I am not a baker, ...

... but quite informative nonetheless. Thanks.

I do make my own bread and have done so continuously for over 40 years.However I have never noticed that a longer prove improved my efforts (occasionally I set aside some of the dough because I don't have free tins available and put them in the oven the following day -well after the first batch has been finished).

This is very likely down to my own lack of skill and appreciation (and willingness to experiment at all -I am pretty easily pleased)

With all my practice I have never been able to quite match what I might get from a good baker's ( even as a once off).

I thought I would learn it by practice but I think there may be secrets of the trade that I am not privy to.

Originally Posted by geordief

With all my practice I have never been able to quite match what I might get from a good baker's ( even as a once off).

My breads got better after I learned to be mean to the dough. You have to really batter it around to develop the gluten instead of kneading to gently massage it. Pick up the lump of dough and just smash it onto the counter, roll it, twist it, literally punch it down.
Otherwise you just get soft sticky flabby flacid dough instead of strong resilient springy smooth dough.

I don't bake. Gave that up about 20 years ago.....

Originally Posted by babe

I don't bake. Gave that up about 20 years ago.....

The way I do it hardly qualifies as baking but does give good results (just not cordon bleu).

I just mix some dried yeast into some strong flour (the more gluten the lighter the bread) ,mix in a bit of water and salt to the consistency of cake mixture and leave it without any attempt to knead until it rises (you can leave it in the fridge in the oven tin and it can be any shape you want , even pancake shape).

Transfer it carefully to the oven because if you give it a knock it can fall down.

It really is "instant bread" although it may take a long time to rise.

You don't have to watch it or think about it.If you have a non stick tin there is hardly any cleaning up either.

Personally I often make it 4 parts white to one part brown although I never measure.

Originally Posted by geordief

Originally Posted by babe

I don't bake. Gave that up about 20 years ago.....

The way I do it hardly qualifies as baking but does give good results (just not cordon bleu).

I just mix some dried yeast into some strong flour (the more gluten the lighter the bread) ,mix in a bit of water and salt to the consistency of cake mixture and leave it without any attempt to knead until it rises (you can leave it in the fridge in the oven tin and it can be any shape you want , even pancake shape).

Transfer it carefully to the oven because if you give it a knock it can fall down.




It really is "instant bread" although it may take a long time to rise.

You don't have to watch it or think about it.If you have a non stick tin there is hardly any cleaning up either.

Personally I often make it 4 parts white to one part brown although I never measure.

I can!

I can all my own organic marinara.....dill pickles and all of our albacore tuna.....I am talking 218 1/2 pint of that alone a year..

I cook from scratch and most of my cooking is absolutely Eastern European.....as that is where my family is from.

But I don't bake, EXCEPT ...for fresh picked blackberry pies...*S*...we all have our weaknesses!! *grin*

Well I have an oven that is never switched off as it is an kerosene fired range. So baking is that much simpler as it is always at the required temperature (if you need a different temperature you just move things around).

It is also perfect for proving (at the back) if I need to do that in a hurry (1 hour).

Originally Posted by geordief

Well I have an oven that is never switched off as it is an kerosene fired range. So baking is that much simpler as it is always at the required temperature (if you need a different temperature you just move things around).

It is also perfect for proving (at the back) if I need to do that in a hurry (1 hour).

I think you are the baker.....and I am the entrée lady!! *S*

you are much more talented than I!!

Originally Posted by geordief

I have an oven that is never switched off as it is an kerosene fired range.

I'm not familiar with kerosene ranges or ovens. Could you explain this a little more? Thanks.

I am guessing you may be from the States as they are a little less well known over there I think.

This is the website for Aga ranges ( they are not the only manufacturers of course).

AGA - The Official Home of AGA for North America

They would be mostly popular in the UK I would say and they are great for heating the kitchen as well as being an always on cooking tool

Most commonly you would have 2 ovens and a hotplate but you can also have the larger model with 4 ovens (hot ,warm, simmering and plate warming).

They are very expensive to run (and buy although they have come down a lot) and not really ecologically friendly but they do a good job when it comes to cooking in my opinion as they are always on and I think the indirect heat is better than the gas for making bread.

Also handy for toast .

Do we call it propane here?....Same thing???

No ,not propane. Kerosene is another name (the American name I thought ,actually) for paraffin.

EDIT : they are almost the same paraffin may be slightly more refined and thinner than kerosene.

It is liquid and I think it is used as aviation fuel.Paraffin is used in hurricane lamps as well as firelighters when somehow made solid.

Propane is a gas and is used for cooking ,I think (I get confused with butane which is very similar but burns at a higher temperature and is not safe indoors).

The ranges I am talking about burn liquid kerosene at a steady rate under the main hotplate and after 5 or 6 hours the whole contraption gets hot enough to warm the room steadily and also heat up to 4 ovens at different temperatures.

It is very nice but is a devil in the summer as it is not designed to be turned off really (the newest models do try to get around that but I am not sure if they are worth bothering with)

Originally Posted by geordief

No ,not propane. Kerosene is another name (the American name I thought ,actually) for paraffin.

EDIT : they are almost the same paraffin may be slightly more refined and thinner than kerosene.

It is liquid and I think it is used as aviation fuel.Paraffin is used in hurricane lamps as well as firelighters when somehow made solid.

Propane is a gas and is used for cooking ,I think (I get confused with butane which is very similar but burns at a higher temperature and is not safe indoors).

The ranges I am talking about burn liquid kerosene at a steady rate under the main hotplate and after 5 or 6 hours the whole contraption gets hot enough to warm the room steadily and also heat up to 4 ovens at different temperatures.

It is very nice but is a devil in the summer as it is not designed to be turned off really (the newest models do try to get around that but I am not sure if they are worth bothering with)

Thank you for correcting me!!!!! *S*

We burn Propane for our BBQ's here.....and Mainland Natural Gas.