I'm Just Here For The Food Part 1

I'm Just Here for the Food.

by Alton Brown.

Curiosity is a willing, a proud, an eager confession of ignorance.

-LEONARD RUBENSTEIN

Let's get one thing straight right up front. I still am not a chef. I don't have much interest in creating tantalizing new dishes, which is a good thing because I don't have the talent for it. What I am interested in is making food make sense. And food that makes sense (if that makes any sense). I want to understand what makes food tick and how to control the process known as cooking. In that regard I'm more a mechanic than a cook.In the bigger scheme I'm a student, which is ironic since I spent seventeen years as one of the worst students in the history of public education. The reason I barely made it out of high school and wasted the better part of a decade in college is that most of the cla.s.ses-biology, math, history, and chemistry-just didn't mean anything to me. I couldn't relate to the garble of formulas, equations, dates, and . . . stuff. Now, through the miracle of modern food tinkering, things are starting to make sense to me. After all, food is about nothing if not chemistry, physics, math, biology, botany, history, geography, and anthropology-with a little epidemiology thrown in for good measure. Yes, there are still formulas and equations and even a symbol or two-but now I think they're kind of cool. And the best part is that it all leads to dinner.Of course the more I learn, the more I realize I need to know. At some point, I hope to learn enough to realize that I know nothing at all. Then maybe I'll be able to s.n.a.t.c.h a pebble from Julia Child's hand.

A Mission-of Sorts

If I could choose to have any job t.i.tle, it would be culinary cartographer.

Let's say I invite you to lunch. You've never been to my house so you ask for directions. I fax you a very precise list of instructions designed to get you where you're going. Distances are calculated to the tenth of a mile and landmarks are described in Proustian detail. You arrive without a hitch.

But do you know where you are? If a tree had fallen in the road or a road suddenly closed, would you know what to do? Unless you have a global positioning system in your pocket, I'm eating lunch alone.

If only I'd sent you a map instead.

This is what's wrong with recipes. Sure, they can get us where we're going, but that doesn't mean we know where we are when we get there. And it would be a real shame to make it all the way to a souffle without realizing that scrambled eggs are just over the next hill and meringue's just around the corner.

Do you have to know how to scramble an egg before you can make a souffle or how to sear a steak to make a beef stew? No. A halfway decent recipe can get you to either of those destinations. But unless you understand where you are and how you got there, you're a hostage. And it's hard to have fun when you're a hostage.

Of course, to gain the kind of knowledge I'm talking about, we must start at the beginning-the very beginning: Cook ( v. ) - to prepare food for eating by means of heat.

A car is not defined by CD changers, mud flaps, or leather upholstery. A car is defined by wheels, a cha.s.sis, and an engine. Likewise, cooking is not defined by seasonings, glazes, sauces, infusions, dusts, rubs, or relishes. It is defined by the application of heat. Since most of us live in a world where heat is conjured by the stroke of a switch or the twist of a k.n.o.b, we're not inclined to give it much thought.

That is unfortunate. Because until a cook (the noun, that is) comes to terms with the intricate tango of matter and energy that defines cooking, he or she will remain in a world of darkness and doubt.

Case in point: I recently dined at the home of a friend who must remain nameless lest I never get invited there again. The entree featured the breast of a free-range chicken encased in a nutty, herby crust and drizzled with a citrus reduction that hinted at Gewurtztraminer. Despite the fact that half a dozen different flavors had been invited to the party, they lacked any unity or leadership and thus could not cover the fact that there was not one drop of moisture left in the meat. Were I a Fletcherite,1 I'd have been there all night. I'd have been there all night.

When I asked my hostess to share her inspiration for the dish, she enthusiastically presented a glossy food magazine in which a page was devoted to a picture of the dish and half a paragraph to the recipe, which included everything short of freeze-dried yak essence. And yet when it came to the engine and wheels, the skimpy instructions simply said "salt to taste" and "cook 45 minutes or until done." Fashionably salt-fearing and unable to recognize "done," my hostess had followed her recipe straight to oblivion. This sad end could have been sidestepped if only she had tempered her blind recipe faith with a dose of Baron von Rumohr,2 who wrote that there are three elements the cook must learn to control: who wrote that there are three elements the cook must learn to control: salt , water, and (above all) heat salt , water, and (above all) heat.

This book is the result of my own desire to "get" the basics; to really understand why a steak that tastes great when seared is gross when boiled. Or why broccoli is better blanched than steamed. Or why brining is just about the best thing you can do to pork.

I know there are those who would say "who cares? As long as I know how, why bother with why?" I can only offer that for me, until I deal with the why, I don't really know the how . . . if you know what I mean.

This book is divided by cooking method rather than food type. That's because when it comes to cooking, I think a mushroom has more in common with a steak than with vegetables. The recipes herein involve the application of heat to foods such as plants and animals. Foods that we ourselves manufacture-such as batters, custards, and doughs-are, alas, another book.

How to Read a Recipe

Before I had any actual cooking knowledge, I cooked from recipes. Unfortunately I treated them with the same lack of respect that I had for the instructions to countless model kits as a child. (Hey, I don't need anybody telling me what the Seaview Seaview looks like. I know what it looks like. You just glue this here and this here and... and...) I read recipes like a nine-year-old boy tearing through the instructions to a Ravel 1:20 scale model of an Apache attack helicopter he got for his birthday. As a result, I ruined quite a bit of food. But today, I know a better way. looks like. I know what it looks like. You just glue this here and this here and... and...) I read recipes like a nine-year-old boy tearing through the instructions to a Ravel 1:20 scale model of an Apache attack helicopter he got for his birthday. As a result, I ruined quite a bit of food. But today, I know a better way.

Sit down in a comfortable chair and read through the ingredients list item by item and ascertain whether or not the required ingredients are indeed in-house. Nothing's more frustrating than putting together that peach pie only to find that you aren't in possession of peaches.

Now go through the parts list and note specifics like chopped, diced, crushed, cooked, drained, canned, fresh, and so on. Missing such details can lead to doom. Take a cup of black beans, for instance. Are they dry, soaked, cooked, cooked and drained, canned, or canned and drained? When added to a dish, each will render a different result.

Remain seated and read through the procedure as if it were a bedtime story. Those of you with children know what I'm talking about. No matter how sure you are of the story-of its beginning, middle, and end-you cannot paraphrase, omit, improvise, or rush. It is your duty to read the story word for word . . . slowly. The same goes for recipes. You may have baked a cake before, or braised cabbage, or roasted a leg-o'-beast, but that doesn't matter.

Do the instructions call for tools? If so, how specifically? A well-written recipe will be specific when it matters and general when it doesn't. If you lack particular gear, ponder subst.i.tutes. Generally speaking, pots and pans are exchangeable as long as the size (either dimension or volume) is close to the same. However, if a recipe calls for a non-stick pan, there's probably a good reason. Requests pertaining to gla.s.s or metal baking dishes should be heeded, as should those for the use of "non-reactive" vessels (see Reactivity Reactivity). A whisk may be replaced by a hand mixer, though it usually doesn't work the other way around. A stick blender can often replace a bar blender, and a good food processor can often replace a chef's knife.

HERE ARE SOME OF THE RULES I COOK BY.

* Never measure what you can weigh. Never measure what you can weigh. * * Seasonings do not have to be carefully measured unless it's important that a certain ratio be kept between ingredients (like in a dry cure). Seasonings do not have to be carefully measured unless it's important that a certain ratio be kept between ingredients (like in a dry cure). * * Unless acid or salt content are an issue, you can subst.i.tute just about any water-type liquid for another. The taste will vary, but the consistency won't. Unless acid or salt content are an issue, you can subst.i.tute just about any water-type liquid for another. The taste will vary, but the consistency won't. * * Types of liquid can also be tinkered with. I'm not saying I would replace red wine with b.u.t.termilk, but I'm not saying that I wouldn't either. I constantly subst.i.tute one kind of vinegar for another, and the same applies to wines, spirits, and juices. Types of liquid can also be tinkered with. I'm not saying I would replace red wine with b.u.t.termilk, but I'm not saying that I wouldn't either. I constantly subst.i.tute one kind of vinegar for another, and the same applies to wines, spirits, and juices. * * If the dish in question is a baked good, don't mess around with the recipe unless it is to make proven subst.i.tutions (using baking soda and cream of tartar in place of baking powder, for example). If the dish in question is a baked good, don't mess around with the recipe unless it is to make proven subst.i.tutions (using baking soda and cream of tartar in place of baking powder, for example). * * If the food is an existing hunk or hunks of something to be cooked, you can generally mess with seasonings, herbs, spices, and so on to your heart's content. If the food is an existing hunk or hunks of something to be cooked, you can generally mess with seasonings, herbs, spices, and so on to your heart's content. * * Foods within the same family can be subst.i.tuted for one another (green onions in place of leeks, for instance), although the results will not taste exactly the same. Foods within the same family can be subst.i.tuted for one another (green onions in place of leeks, for instance), although the results will not taste exactly the same. * * Ingredients with similar flavor profiles can also be subst.i.tuted for one another. For instance, anchovies can stand in for capers. Ingredients with similar flavor profiles can also be subst.i.tuted for one another. For instance, anchovies can stand in for capers. * * Never do in a covered pan what you can do in an oven. Never do in a covered pan what you can do in an oven.

The one place you shouldn't subst.i.tute tools is in baking. Baking is all about Mother Nature, and as we all know, it's not nice to fool (or fool with) Mother Nature. If a cake recipe says "8-inch round cake pan," go to the store and buy three or four 8-inch round cake pans. You'll be glad you did.

Once you've pondered the materials, look over any times that are mentioned. Even if the time that a particular step takes is a little nebulous, a good recipe should give you approximates. If not, guess for yourself. Add up all the times and make sure you don't have any issues. Many novice cooks have decided at 5:15 P.M. to embark upon ca.s.soulet and then went to bed hungry. Review the verbs sear, grill, roast, fry, boil, braise-are you sure you know what they all mean?

You're almost ready to go to the kitchen. I usually run down to the office and make a copy of the recipe and stash the book or magazine. Not only are copies easier to work with-ever tried holding a book to your exhaust hood with a magnet?-you can make notes on them without having to ponder posterity. When the dust clears you can write your summary on the back and stash the thing in a three-ring binder. (Nerdy yes, but this kind of thinking landed me a television show.) Now to the kitchen. a.s.semble the mise en place mise en place3. The concept is simple: wash, chop, and measure all ingredients (or software software, as I like to think of it) and gather all hardware hardware before you start cooking. It doesn't matter what you're cooking or whether you'll be doing it in five minutes or five hours, before you start cooking. It doesn't matter what you're cooking or whether you'll be doing it in five minutes or five hours, mise en place mise en place can save your hide. This is especially true when you're in a hurry (a quick dinner), bleary-eyed (breakfast), or busy being charming (a dinner party where everyone comes into the kitchen and demands that you be charming). can save your hide. This is especially true when you're in a hurry (a quick dinner), bleary-eyed (breakfast), or busy being charming (a dinner party where everyone comes into the kitchen and demands that you be charming).

My own mise en place mise en place method concerns a tray and a bunch of small reusable rectangular containers. I measure each item into its own container and stack the containers on top of each other in the order they'll be used, so that the top box is the only one that needs a lid. method concerns a tray and a bunch of small reusable rectangular containers. I measure each item into its own container and stack the containers on top of each other in the order they'll be used, so that the top box is the only one that needs a lid.

With mise en place mise en place in place, check the recipe once more for hidden dangers and b.o.o.by traps. Overlooking a little phrase like "preheat oven" is an insidiously easy way to destroy a souffle (which is in turn a great way to destroy your entire day). Recipe writers do err on occasion, and it's not unknown for an ingredient to pop up in the procedural text without having been properly announced in the parts list (Internet recipes are notorious for this kind of thing). in place, check the recipe once more for hidden dangers and b.o.o.by traps. Overlooking a little phrase like "preheat oven" is an insidiously easy way to destroy a souffle (which is in turn a great way to destroy your entire day). Recipe writers do err on occasion, and it's not unknown for an ingredient to pop up in the procedural text without having been properly announced in the parts list (Internet recipes are notorious for this kind of thing).

Walk up to a cold residential oven and turn it to any temperature-say 350 F. Depending on your model, within a few minutes the oven will politely chime, telling you that the target temperature has been reached. What exactly does it mean by that? It means that the air inside the oven has reached 350 F. The moment you open the door to slide in your edible, most of that heat takes a hike toward your ceiling. Recovering that temperature can take quite a while, especially if the item you placed inside is large (say a turkey) and cold (shame on you for not bringing it to room temperature, but more on that later). At the very least, your cooking time calculations are going to go whacko and at the very worst, your food (a batch of cookies for instance) could be ruined.

Luckily you can help your oven keep its word by allowing it to continue heating for twenty minutes after it tells you it's ready to go. That will give the ma.s.s of the oven-the walls, ceiling, and floor-time to get good and hot. Once that's happened, they will be able to lend heat to the cooler air, allowing it to "recover" much faster.

If your oven is a little light in the ma.s.s department, you might consider leaving a pizza stone in it all the time as a kind of thermal regulator.

End of lecture number one, beginning of lecture number two.

The most underused tool in the kitchen is the brain. I blame the food media (yes, that of which I am a part) who have lulled us into a state of recipe slavery. We don't think think about recipes as much as we about recipes as much as we perform perform them. them.

As I have stated, I not only use recipes, I even try to memorize them from time to time so that I can ponder their finer points. But don't think for a moment that recipes can replace knowledge. For example, one of the best omelets I ever had started out as a busted hollandaise. You could collect egg recipes all your life and still miss the relationship between these two dishes.

Cooking requires not just knowledge (which can simply be absorbed and regurgitated) but understanding, and understanding requires thought. If that seems a little too Zen-like for you, try one of these experiments.

ADAPT SOMETHING.

Take a recipe that you really enjoy and feel confident making and change it around.

* Change Veal Scalopini into Turkey Scalopini.* Trade fresh mushrooms for dry in a pasta sauce.* Cook something that's usually served raw, like lettuce.* Change a "grill" to a "saute."

HOST A "REFRIGERATOR ROULETTE" PARTY

Invite a couple of friends over and ask them to bring three food items. Put the food in the middle of a table and figure out what to do with it all. This is a home version of the game that chefs have to play when they audition for jobs-an applicant is given a selection of ingredients and a set amount of time to do something with it.

What I've come to understand is that a lot of folks don't want their own food. They want Mario Batali's food, Charlie Trotter's food, Thomas Keller's food. I like that food too, but I have no desire to cook it. I want them them to cook it. to cook it.

Taking control of ingredients is the first step in taking ownership of food. If I set out to execute a recipe and decide to subst.i.tute basil for mint, or use plums instead of peaches, or red wine rather than white, I am taking the first step toward laying claim to that food. Sure, there are times when measuring is darned important. As I've said, baking rewards the cavalier with flattened cakes, tunneled m.u.f.fins, cookies that crack, and souffles that suffer. But by and large, cooking is a highly flexible craft and unless you make a point of stretching it a little every now and then you'll never know what you or it are capable of.

Recipes are written so that if you follow them to the letter the dish will succeed. This doesn't mean that if you don't follow them to the letter you won't succeed, either. And if you do mess up a few dishes in the name of education-hey, it's only food.

WHY BOTHER COOKING?.

Early man ate critters raw, so why change? There are a couple of very good reasons. Heat breaks down meat and vegetable fibers alike, making them a heck of a lot easier to chew and digest. Heat kills parasites and microorganisms that can do nasty things. And heat makes foods taste better.Many physical and chemical changes take place during cooking, from the caramelization of sugars to the coagulation of proteins. Cooking also causes chemical reactions by breaking down cell walls that normally keep reactive substances away from one another. When they do combine, these substances may give birth to a vast brood of new flavor elements. Garlic, for example, only tastes the way it does when it is cooked because two rather simple chemicals combine and then fraction to create hundreds of new compounds.Finally, the tongue does a better job of tasting when the food to be tasted is warm. (If you don't believe this, take two scoops of ice cream and microwave one of them until warm and soupy. Taste it alongside the frozen scoop. The warm liquid will taste much sweeter.)In recent years, the raw food movement has grown strong, especially in California. While I can appreciate what its proponents are attempting to do, it seems to me that the evolution of our species hinged on our ability to use fire, not only for heat and protection, but also to cook food, thus liberating more of the available nutrients.

Heat

A lot of the ink in this book is dedicated to the pondering of heat. If cooking is itself defined by the application of heat, then it seems to me that a smart cook would want to know as much as possible about this force. Here's a brief primer.

THE LOWDOWN ON HEAT.

Through the ages a lot of great gray matter has pondered the nature of heat and come up with the wrong answer. As recently as the late eighteenth century, heat was still thought to be a kind of invisible liquid, which was dubbed "caloric." Then, a guy t.i.tled Count Rumford, who happened to be the war minister of Bavaria (even though he was an American), noticed that when cannon barrels were drilled, the same amount of heat was produced regardless of the amount of material involved. He deduced from this that heat and movement are closely related, and since heat can be harnessed to do work and can travel through a vacuum, it must be a form of energy. As a reward, Rumford had a baking powder named after him.

At its most basic, heat can be described as energy. If an object is hot, you can bet its molecules are in motion. This motion can be set off by: Chemical reaction. The temperature of the human body is the result of chemical reactions-our consumption and digestion of food is tallied in calories, which are actually units of heat. The temperature of the human body is the result of chemical reactions-our consumption and digestion of food is tallied in calories, which are actually units of heat.

Mechanical friction. Rub two sticks together and you get heat; get enough of it and you can make fire. Heat is also created by the friction of electrons moving through a metal coil that provides some resistance. The cigarette lighter in your car and the coils of an electric cook top work this way. And when you place a metal pan on that coil, electrons move through it and heat the pan as well. Rub two sticks together and you get heat; get enough of it and you can make fire. Heat is also created by the friction of electrons moving through a metal coil that provides some resistance. The cigarette lighter in your car and the coils of an electric cook top work this way. And when you place a metal pan on that coil, electrons move through it and heat the pan as well.

Radiant energy. Although those versed in quantum physics would argue the point all the live-long day, for the humble cook let it suffice to say that radiation simply refers to energy that travels in waves, be they visible (photoelectrons) or not (microwaves). Waves create heat by vibrating the molecules they hit. Light waves and infrared waves carry a lot of energy, but cannot penetrate very deeply. Microwaves can penetrate deeply into certain tissues, but they carry a relatively low dose of energy. Gamma waves carry a lot of energy and can penetrate very deeply indeed, which is why nuclear weapons have a nasty reputation. Although those versed in quantum physics would argue the point all the live-long day, for the humble cook let it suffice to say that radiation simply refers to energy that travels in waves, be they visible (photoelectrons) or not (microwaves). Waves create heat by vibrating the molecules they hit. Light waves and infrared waves carry a lot of energy, but cannot penetrate very deeply. Microwaves can penetrate deeply into certain tissues, but they carry a relatively low dose of energy. Gamma waves carry a lot of energy and can penetrate very deeply indeed, which is why nuclear weapons have a nasty reputation.

DEFINITIONS.

Degrees (either Fahrenheit or Celsius) are units of heat measurement-not heat units. In the kitchen, the heat units we need to be concerned with are BTUs and calories. (either Fahrenheit or Celsius) are units of heat measurement-not heat units. In the kitchen, the heat units we need to be concerned with are BTUs and calories.A BTU BTU (British thermal unit) is the amount of heat energy required to increase the temperature of a pound (pint) of water by 1 F. (British thermal unit) is the amount of heat energy required to increase the temperature of a pound (pint) of water by 1 F.A calorie calorie is the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water from 58 to 60 F. Although any heat-producing device, from a refrigerator to a nuclear power plant, can be rated in calories, the term is usually used to describe the potential heat energy of food. So the next time you feel bad about noshing on that 378-calorie candy bar, rest easy in the knowledge that your body can, through various chemical reactions, produce enough heat to warm 13.3356 ounces of 58 F water by 2 F. is the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water from 58 to 60 F. Although any heat-producing device, from a refrigerator to a nuclear power plant, can be rated in calories, the term is usually used to describe the potential heat energy of food. So the next time you feel bad about noshing on that 378-calorie candy bar, rest easy in the knowledge that your body can, through various chemical reactions, produce enough heat to warm 13.3356 ounces of 58 F water by 2 F.

Physical reaction. Fire is a physical reaction wherein a fuel (oxygen) combusts in the presence of a catalyst (a chunk of charcoal). Fire is a physical reaction wherein a fuel (oxygen) combusts in the presence of a catalyst (a chunk of charcoal).

When it comes to getting heat to food, there are really only two methods of transferal: radiation and conduction. Radiation works on food via waves, conduction is a little trickier.

Basically, conduction is what happens when a piece of matter that's hot comes into direct contact with another piece of matter that isn't. Since heat always moves toward areas of lesser heat, the hot matter makes the less-hot matter hotter. The transferal matter in question can be anything from air to a chunk of metal. However, different types of matter react differently when hot. Metal atoms, locked in a crystalline structure, can only vibrate and pa.s.s the energy along-like those funny contraptions you see in executive offices with the series of suspended metal b.a.l.l.s; when you lift one and let it fall, the one on the far end swings up. The atoms that make up water and air are different: they're fluid and can move about freely-and this changes everything. Left to their own devices, hot gases and liquid molecules will expand and (becoming less dense) rise. As they give up their heat to other bodies, they cool and sink, thus setting up a natural convection current. Whether in an oven, a pot of water, or a desert, the effect is the same.

The faster the convection current, the more hot matter comes in contact with the item to be heated-in our case, food. This means that a blast of 150 F air can cook something faster than a 500 F oven. Don't believe it? Try this experiment: Buy an ice cream cone on the hottest day of the year and eat it in your car in the parking lot with the windows up (no air conditioning please). The cone will indeed melt, but unless you're in Death Valley it won't happen so quickly that you can't keep up with it. Now, buy an identical cone on a cold day and eat it while driving with the windows down. The cone will melt much faster-so fast in fact that you probably won't be able to stay ahead of it. Even though the air is much cooler, more of it is coming into contact with the cone, so there is more transference of heat.

What we can take from this is that although the heat is still moving via conduction, the convection rate is actually an equal if not greater consideration. This is why convection is usually considered as its own cla.s.sification of heat transference. Here it is in slightly different terms.

Let's say it's an average Wednesday night in the early Stone Age and you, an average h.o.m.o erectus h.o.m.o erectus, return to your cave with a nice big mammoth steak. You could chew it up raw, or you could: a. Build a fire and hang the hunk a foot or so over the flames. This would be cooking via convection. That means that the vapor (smoke) and the surrounding air will absorb the fire's heat, expand, and rise upward. Since hot always moves to cold, part of this thermal energy moves into the meat. The faster the air/ga.s.ses move past the meat, the quicker it will cook.

THE LUCY MODEL 1You place two pieces of food in a pot of water; one is big (Ethel, on the left), one is small (Lucy, on the right). The temperature of the water (a measurement of its heat content) is represented by the number of candies on the conveyor belt. The speed of the conveyor belt represents convection-that is, the number of heat units (or candies) being brought in contact with the food (Ethel and Lucy) via movement of the medium, in this case water molecules. Time is, of course, time.[image]

THE LUCY MODEL 2Let's say the water is set in motion (convection) by being heated to 195 F (technically a simmer). Ethel and Lucy start suckin' in the heat, but since the convection rate is relatively slow, they don't fill up very fast.[image]

b. Build a fire and allow it to die down to a bed of brightly glowing coals, then hang the meat next to but not above the coals. Now radiation is solely responsible for broiling the steak. (Unlike convection currents, which rely on the fact that heat rises, radiant energy moves equally well in all directions, which explains why food cooks under a broiler.)c. Build a fire and set a flat rock next to or over it. After an hour or so, slap the meat on the hot rock. That's cooking via conduction.4

THE LUCY MODEL 2 (CONTINUED).

Now if the water were 17 F higher, it would be boiling. That would mean a few more heat units on the old conveyor, sure, but more important, the water would be moving (convection) much faster, thus delivering more heat in less time. (Beyond the convection of the water itself, boiling water has additional movement due to the bubbles traveling upward from countless points on the bottom of the vessel). So, now you've got the same amount of heat moving into the foods in much less time. This seems like it would be a good idea, right? Well, that depends on the food.

THE LUCY MODEL 3.

Let's say that in 5 minutes both Lucy and Ethel consume 20 candies apiece. Lucy's feeling a little full, but since Ethel has far more ma.s.s, she's not even warmed up yet. Eventually Ethel will be done, but by that time Lucy will be toast-that is, overcooked.

THE DESERT AS OVENRadiant energy heats the rocks and the desert floor as well as the air itself which expands and rises in a natural convection. This rising current of air explains why birds can seem to float in the same s.p.a.ce for hours without flapping their wings. They're riding thermals. If there's enough moisture around, these thermals will eventually build thunderheads.

Of course methods may be combined and hybridized. If you hung that meat directly over glowing coals, you'd be cooking with both radiant energy and convection. If you were advanced enough to have a vessel in which to boil water, you could drop your meat in and cook it by conduction and, since the water would be moving, convection as well.