Chapter 8Food Texture

Characteristics – Fattiness, Cooking

Method, Protein, and Body

Chapter 8 Outline

• Aperitif: Canoe Restaurant & Bar

• Textures in Food

• Fattiness in Food

• Cooking Method and Protein Interactions

• Overall Food Body Wine and Food Texture Interactions

Chapter 8 Key Concepts

•Food texture sensations•The impact of animal or

vegetable fats and oils•Light-to-light and rich-to-rich

matching

How is Food Texture Traditionally Defined?

• A standard scientific definition of texture is “the arrangement of the particles or constituent parts of a material that gives it its characteristic structure”.

• The following sensations can be identified as part of food texture and tactile sense:  smoothness, stickiness, graininess, fibrousness, and consistency.

Food Texture Considerations

• Whether light, medium, or full-bodied depends on a number of factors.

• Primary elements: fat level, cooking method, and an overall feeling of body.

• The above texture elements interact to impact the perception of the body, power, or weight of a particular dish.

• Texture preferences are somewhat driven by cultural and personal differences.

Fattiness in Food

• Fats can be separated into numerous categories: saturated/unsaturated, fats/oils, invisible/visible, vegetable/animal, etc.

• When considering pairing, it is important to establish whether a fat is natural or an added textural element.

• Natural fats are found in foods like: dairy products, meats, seeds, and nuts.

Fattiness in Food (2)• Added fats are found in: oils,

shortenings, lard, butter, and margarine, and used for flavoring and mouth-feel.

• The main objective of assessing fattiness in food from a texture perspective is determining mouth-feel characteristics such as smoothness, richness, and moistness.

• Generally, a richer, fatter dish will require a richer, more full-bodied wine to compliment it.

What Impact does Cooking Method and Protein Type Have

on Texture Sensations?• Poaching or steaming maintains a light

texture.• Frying or grilling provides additional texture.• A lighter protein prepared using a more

robust cooking method will create a more powerful texture to supersede the texture of proteins in the higher body levels based on protein type alone.

Ascending Levels of Body in Proteins and Cooking MethodsProtein Cooking Method Protein Anticipated

Body Levels

Moist Dry

White Fish

Poached, Steamed

XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX Very Light

Chicken Poached, Steamed

Grilled White Fish Light

Veal Stewed, Braised

Grilled, Pan-Seared

Chicken Light to Moderate

Game Birds

Braised Pan-fried, Grilled, Fried

Veal Moderate

Pork Stewed, Braised

Roasted Game Birds Moderate to Full

Beef Stewed Roasted, Grilled Pork Full

Lamb Stewed, Braised

Roasted, Grilled Beef Robust

Venison, Elk

Stewed, Braised

Roasted, Grilled Lamb Powerful

Grilled, Blackened

Venison, Elk Very Powerful

Cooking Methods and Protein Interactions

• The cooking method employed in the creation of dishes has a significant impact on the texture of the finished product.

• These methods impact the fat content retained, the protein, and the collagen structure of the of the final dish.

Moist vs. Dry Methods

• Moist heat cooking methods:Moist heat cooking methods: are those where heat is conducted to the food item by a liquid and include: steaming, boiling, and braising.

• Dry heat methods:Dry heat methods: are those where heat is conducted to the food item by: hot air (roasting, baking), hot metal (grilling, blackening), radiation (broiling), and hot fat (stir-frying, sauté, pan-frying, deep-frying).

Overall Body• The overall food body is based on a person’s

perception of the overall power or body of the prepared dish.

• The following factors are considered: protein type, fat level, cooking method used, what the item is served with, and basically the range of texture factors that provide a feeling of weight or structure throughout the mouth.

• The most basic assessment of food body is based on a continuum from light to very rich.

• The type of food item and temperature at which it is served impact the perception of its food body.

FoodFood

Rich

Light

WineWine

Take care to ensure the rich food does not overpower the

light wine

Take care to ensure the rich wine does not overpower the

light food

Always a reliable

combination

Usually reliable unless the

combination is too rich

Light Rich

Light to Rich Pairing Light to Rich Pairing ImplicationsImplications

What Wine Elements Interact with Food

Fattiness and Body?• Wine tannin levels, • alcohol levels, • the presence and level of oak, • and overall body all have a strong

relationship with food fattiness.

Chapter 8

Lagniappe“Something extra”

Body and Texture Matches in Food and Wine

Results from Exercise 8.2

The old adage of “white wine with fish and red wine with meat”

• Based on perceived texture and body rather than color.

• The following findings are based on perceptions of an earlier class using Exercise 8.2 in Chapter 8.

• Your perceptions may vary based on wine selections and food item preparation.

Textures in Wine

• A variety of terms and techniques to assess the level of texture in wine.

• ‘Mouth-feel’ wheel. Characteristics included: – surface smoothness, – drying sensations, – dynamic elements, – weight, complexity and ripeness.

• Too complex for even experienced wine judges.

Primary Wine Texture Elements

• Tannin level• Level of alcohol • Presence and level of oak• Overall feeling of body

Issues:• High level of correlation among these

elements • Study focus - tannin and overall body

Definitions – Wine Texture

• Tannin level: – Defining factor on the smooth (soft) to

rough (hard) continuum.– Create tactile sensations of dryness,

puckeriness and astringency.• Body:

– The consistency or viscosity of wine. An impression of weight, size and volume.

– Influenced primarily by the presence of alcohol.•Also, the presence of sugars, glycerol and

tannins in wine.

Textures in Food

• Whether a food item is light, medium or full-bodied depends on a number of factors.

• Primary considerations include:– Type of protein– Fat level in the protein or additional

plate elements (natural or added)– The cooking method employed– Overall feeling of body across all of

the food dish elements.

Wine Wine TypeType

WineWineNo.No.

WineWine Wine Wine ProducerProducer

Chicken Chicken enen

PapillotePapillote

Grilled Grilled Pork Pork LoinLoin

Braised Braised BeefBeef

Mean Mean (n = 24)(n = 24)

across all across all foodfooditemsitems

White A Riesling,Riesling,DryDry

Bonny Bonny Doon, NVDoon, NV

5.73 (2.08)

5.88 (1.81)

5.01 (1.48)

5.54 (1.77)

Red B Pinot Pinot NoirNoir

Gallo of Gallo of Sonoma, Sonoma,

20032003

5.00 (.93)

7.19 (1.73)

6.31 (2.73)

6.17 (1.93)

Red C MerlotMerlot Clos du Clos du Bois, Bois, 20012001

3.63 (1.30)

7.06 (1.15)

6.25 (2.60)

5.65 (2.29)

Red D CabernetCabernetSauvignonSauvignon

J. Lohr, J. Lohr, 20022002

2.50 (.76)

6.13 (1.64)

6.00 (2.27)

4.88 (2.35)

Across Wines

4.21 (1.81)

6.56 (1.63)

5.89 (2.18)

5.56 (2.11)

Table 1: Mean Level of Match and Standard DeviationsTable 1: Mean Level of Match and Standard Deviations

Table 1 Explained• Provides the mean level of match

determined by a group of 8 students. • The standard deviation is in parentheses

under each mean value and provides on indication of agreement on match (a low s.d. indicates strong agreement).

• Each row is a type of wine (Riesling, Pinot, Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon). The bottom row is the mean for all wines.

• Each food item column (chicken, pork and beef) provides the average level of match with each wine.

What do the mean levels of match indicate?

• Riesling provided a neutral match for across all three proteins. But, with much disagreement among students (standard deviation [s.d.] is relatively high).

• The Pinot provided a neutral match with the chicken and a good match with the pork and beef. But, with substantial disagreement for the beef dish in particular.

What do the mean levels of match indicate (2) ?

• The Merlot had a good match with the pork and beef. The match with the chicken dropped to a refreshment level. There was substantial disagreement in match level with the beef dish.

• The Cabernet Sauvignon had a neutral to good match with the pork and beef dishes. The match with the chicken dish was the lowest of all wines.

What does this indicate overall?

• The pork dish was perceived as the most wine-friendly at this tasting.

• The Pinot Noir was perceived as the most versatile to serve with this selection of food dishes.

• The braised beef dish lacked consensus on level of match. This may be due to the “bridging” technique of cooking with wine.

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

1

2

3

4

Wine Dominates

Food Dominates

Grilled Pork Braised BeefChicken

A B C D

A

B C D

A B C

D

A = Riesling A = Riesling C = MerlotC = MerlotB = Pinot Noir B = Pinot Noir D = Cabernet SauvignonD = Cabernet Sauvignon

FIGURE 1: Mean Deviation-From-Body Match for Food Items with 4 Wines

Figure 1 Explained

• Figure 1 was created based on resulting of a mixed tasting using figure 8.6 from Chapter 8.

• If the food body dominated, the bar is above the line (a positive value).

• If the wine body dominated, the bar is below the line (a negative value).

Deviation from Body-to-Body Match: Chicken

• The Riesling and Chicken en Papillote had the closest body match and was perceived as nearly equal.

• Pinto Noir was perceived as the next closest.

• The Merlot and Cabernet clearly dominated this relationship.

Deviation from Body-to-Body Match: Pork

• Pinot Noir had the closest match with the grilled pork followed closely by the Merlot.

• The Riesling and Cabernet were clearer not a close body match with the grilled pork.

Deviation from Body-to-Body Match: Braised Beef

• The Merlot had the closest body match with this dish.

• The Cabernet Sauvignon slightly dominated the relationship.

• The beef slightly dominated the Pinto Noir and completely overpowered the chicken dish.

So What!

• Table 1 and Figure 1 point out the strong relationship between evaluators perception of match and deviations from body-to-body match in wine and food.

• Supports the notion of pleasant sensations through a matching perspective.

Additional Reading

Harrington, R.J. & Hammond, R. (2007) Body Deviation-from-match: The Yin and Yang of Wine and Food Pairing? Journal of Culinary Science & Technology.

King, M.C., Cliff, M.A. & Hall, J. (2003). Effectiveness of the ‘mouth-feel’ wheel’ for the evaluation of astringent subqualities in British Columbia red wines. Journal of Wine Research, 14(2-3), 67-78.