Great British Menu- A Nice Happy South West Week

Piccie- Michael Caines giving the chefs his verdict. For more information on this show see http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0071y6r

A new week on Great British Menu (GBM) and we moved onto the South West (SW) region, a new judge and some new chefs. Our judge was Michael Caines, another previous participant in the show who has had some success, so he should know what it takes. This lot were a lovely bunch, nice and respectful to each other and great fun, including the judge, so we definitely don’t need a load of sniping to enjoy a week of shows, producers please take note!

Our three chefs were Henry Herbert (centre of picture), the head chef at the Coach and horses in London, originally hailing from Bristol. He started the search for his ingredients from the Holnicote Estate in West Somerset. Next up John Hooker (right of picture) from Devonshire, head chef at two restaurants; Brown’s hotel, Tavistock and 22 Mill Street in Chagford. Finally Nathan Outlaw (on left), a previous contender on GBM and a chef based in Cornwall where he has a restaurant of his own name along with a seafood and grill venue.

Henry’s starter was heather smoked Macon with pickled beetroot and shallots. John did a potted rabbit with pea mousse, hazelnuts and rye toasts. Nathan made ham hock with pea puree and cute little loaves of wholemeal bread. Michael scored Henry’s efforts a five, John’s a six, and Nathan’s seven, giving him an early lead.

Onto the fish recipes. Henry had a quirky little offering which was reminiscent of a pond; trout, crayfish, pike mousse and frog’s legs with a green watercress and celery broth. John cooked poached lobster with courgette flowers, carrot and samphire. Nathan’s dish was a cider-cured sea trout with crab sauce and sea vegetables. This time, all were able to impress, and Michael gave them all eight. And so the totals after day two were; Henry slightly behind on 13, John just before him with 14, and Nathan only just leading on 15.

Day 3, the Mains. Nathan produced a Hogget loin and belly with Bubble and Squeak, asparagus and Rosemary sauce. John also did Hogget, this time with offal and served with crisp potato, broad beans and mint. Henry cooked Gloucester old-spot pork bath chaps, with Mendip wallfish, morels, turnips and salad. Michael gave Nathan the highest score of eight, John, having undercooked his dish, managed a six and Henry a more disappointing five. The totals now were Henry with 18, John on 20 and Nathan led on 23.

Last day before one of our chefs went home and it was time for dessert. Nathan made an unusual dish of sea buckthorn meringue with yoghurt sorbet and wholemeal shortbread. John did an eyebrow raising lemon meringue with honey ice cream (lemons? From the South West?!). Henry produced a gooseberry queen of puddings with elderflower ice cream. Nathan got 7 and so did John, though Michael noted that he was marking on taste and execution rather than origins of the ingredients. Henry came in with 6. The totals were therefore; Nathan 30, John 27 and Henry 24. So Henry was out.

So, Friday brought the judging and first effort to the table was John’s potted rabbit starter. MF immediately commented on the burst of green when his plate was revealed. PL said it was rabbit terrine, at which point OP admitted the shape had disorientated him. He liked the toast, the mousse and the rabbit. MF said it was a summery dish and the mousse was beautiful with a soft, silky texture. PL proclaimed it delicious saying all the flavours worked well together; if she were the rabbit producers she would have been thrilled because the chef had turned a homely ingredient into something that showcased it in a great way. She also thought it would be easy to do for lots of people. OP agreed it was well sourced and there was a high level of skill involved. It had an earthiness to it. He felt it encapsulated the whole competition.

Onto Nathan’s attempt, the ham hock terrine. OP and PL loved the bread and the smell of the bread. PL created a bite by putting pea puree on the bread and adding ham, saying she loved to make her own. OP said it was beautiful and he loved the ham. MF agreed that it had depth of flavour and also pointed out that it celebrated many types of produce; dairy, wheat, vegetable producers and ham producers. It ticked a lot of boxes. PL said this was skilful cooking as well as a skilful concept. OP chipped in saying on a practical note it was a messy dish to eat and his was slightly all over the table, but that this was the closest he had ever seen two dishes.

Fish, and first, John’s lobster. PL said it looked colourful on the reveal but OP thought it looked disappointing. PL found the lobster beautifully cooked. MF said the courgette with the flowers had a nice crunch to them but that you couldn’t say they were particular to the SW. OP dismissed it as conventional. MF agreed. PL said she didn’t mind that. OP continued in the negative saying it was right down the middle of the road, didn’t speak of anything about a region or anything at all, it was just food. PL argued saying it was the SW, they are famous for their lobster, so is it regional-yes, is it beautifully cooked- yes. OP said you could find lobster anywhere. MF chimed in stating it was assured, technically good cookery, but lacked the wit and imagination and good humour of the first two dishes. PL thought the men were being harsh and said she thought it ticked all the boxes and was a really good dish.

Nathan’s sea trout arrived. PL thought the seaweed delicious and was delighted to find the crab as she loves it. OP said the seaweed worked extremely well when you got a bit of fish and crab and everything on your fork, it really set it all up, like a little explosion on your palate. PL said it really did show them off as well, the quality of the fish and the sweetness of the crab. MF asked; but where’s the fireworks? OP said he had more love for this dish than for the lobster, at least with this dish he was feeling a sense of journey and the different textures on the plate were much nicer. He did agree though that it was too conventional. PL summed it up saying she thought they had the same problem here that they often had, which was a very competent chef, cooking very beautiful ingredients very well, but it didn’t make their hearts beat faster. MF added that if the dish walked past you on the street you wouldn’t turn to look at it. OP called him a dirty old man and MF said well, that’s what I want, I want a bit of excitement, I want a bit of sexiness on the plate.

First main to the table was Nathan’s hogget. PL thought it was a nicely designed plate, all on the diagonal. At first the judges were not sure of the meat, then they identified hogget. OP said he didn’t like meat he couldn’t identify straight away. MF liked the texture, it was tender but had to be chewed which released more flavour. OP said to him it just tasted like slightly tough meat. He thought it was a poor choice, that there was much better quality lamb around. MF questioned the patties and OP explained they were broad bean bubble and squeak. MF wondered if they were fit for a future king and whether they were celebratory. PL said everything had been cooked carefully and she liked the asparagus but it was not wildly exciting. MF acknowledged the odd touch of originality in the bubble and squeak variations and PL identified it in the bit of belly. OP said the belly was the delicious and he would have been happy with just that. MF said it was as if the chef didn’t quite have the confidence because that was where the flavour, texture and richness were. OP summarised saying he did not think this was a good choice for this banquet, he felt the personality of the chef was nowhere to be seen and that it was good, solid pub food.

John’s hogget arrived. PL identified more of the same. MF said the liver was perfectly cooked. PL found the hogget more powerfully flavoured and OP agreed the meat had more flavour, but he still thought it tough. PL liked the potatoes and admired the fine slices with MF. MF said there was a lot of thoughtful cooking in this. OP disagreed saying he thought it was a mess and the puree was just wrong. PL agreed with that. OP said it was just a lot of ideas on the plate and there was not a marriage happening. PL confirmed her agreement about the puree saying it added nothing and said that the kidneys and liver were disappointing. MF said he loved them and disagreed with PL and OP. He thought the elements worked together, he loved the exploration of the lamb, he would say that not everyone might be as keen on offal as he is, but he thought the producers would be.

Finally desserts. Nathan was meant to come first but hit a crisis when his meringue moulds totally failed. John’s dessert was nearly ready so he agreed to go instead, making his lemon meringue the first plate to the judges. PL and OP said it looked interesting. MF thought it was a concerto of lemon. PL immediately remarked that she was not sure that a festival of lemon quite fit the brief of British produce. MF said that technically it was a very assured pudding with the delicate biscuit under the lemon mousse and the beautiful honey ice cream- text book stuff. PL remarked that they did say they could use lemon, but as flavouring. She thought this was too much lemon. MF said he just couldn’t believe that in the whole of the SW there was not a gooseberry, not a currant or a bit of rhubarb. He said with the best will in the world, even with global warming it would be a few years yet before they saw lemons sprouting in the SW. OP said let’s cut to the chase here, this pudding is in the wrong competition.

Meanwhile Nathan had started again from scratch. He tried making the meringues without a mould but they did not work, so it was back to the moulds again. He only had enough meringue for one last attempt and was running out of time. They came out, though they weren’t what he had hoped for, but at least he could send his dessert to the judges. MF immediately asked if there was something about the SW and meringue he did not know about. OP joked that there was only one chef left in the competition and he had done both puddings. MF told them to the taste the syrup. PL liked it and asked what it was. MF introduced and explained about Sea Buckthorn. He loved the dish and the soft meringue lightly toasted on top. PL announced that she thought Sea Buckthorn was an acquired taste and she had not yet acquired it. OP pushed his plate away. He said he was willing to love the dish as it was interesting but that he couldn’t. He had liked it up to the point where the Buckthorn was overused- inside the meringue. He thought it was very sweet. PL said to MF that she knew he liked to support enterprise and innovation but sometimes new ideas were the wrong ideas. MF announced that Sea Buckthorn spoke more highly of the coastal area of this country than lemons did. PL agreed, saying it was just a pity they tasted so awful. MF didn’t know how she could say that, he thought it was delicious. PL said if you had 100 people she bet half of them would never finish their pudding.

Time for the menu selection. All judges picked Menu A. Menu A was....

Nathan Outlaw!

He was very relieved. OP said his standout dish was the starter, MF loved his menu as a whole, the local sourcing and the job he had done on showing off the ingredients. OP tried to console John saying that it was very close and that it almost only came down to the lemon in the pudding. Nathan gave John a big acknowledgement as he poured his champagne. Aww.

Next week it’s Wales, and judging from the looks of death being exchanged in the preview, we leave the love fest behind and return to the bitching and pot shots. *sigh*