Reducing

[chrisp]

I am a keen, if often overly ambitious, amateur cook and can just about get away with most non-professional level recipes and techniques. But despite trying and trying again for months and months I just can't get a consistent result when the recipe calls for "reducing", whether it be stock or wine or a mixture of the two.

I have, on occasion, got lucky and ended up with a lovely syrupy sauce. But more often than not, despite (as far as I can tell) using exactly the same technique the next time it may just boil right down and vanish without ever thickening up at all! Red wine will go vinegary and bitter and evaporate into nothing, and stock often performs exactly the same way, disappearing up my extractor fans without waving goodbye.

Can anyone please offer some tips to end up with a nice thick, properly reduced sauce without resorting to mixing in cornflour towards the end when I notice it's all going tits-up?

Much appreciated

Chris

[TheSwede]

A wild guess might be that it depends on the stock. A syrupy end result might be hard to get without enough gelatine in the stock.

I usually resort to the cornflour method, but then I usually base my sauces on chicken or duck stock.

Mounting with butter just before serving is a wonderful way to add viscosity, soften acids and add depth to the taste. If you have low enough temperature (40 C or so) you are supposed to be able to mount even a very thin sauce with butter without breakage, but a little cornflour makes the process foolproof.

I too would love some input from professionals on this!

[origamicrane]

hi

what are you putting into your stock?

you might need more bones in there ?

[chrisp]

hi

what are you putting into your stock?

you might need more bones in there ?

←

Well, it's usually chicken stock made from the central carcass left after I've jointed it for breasts, legs & thighs. Boiled with carrots, onion, celery, herbs etc. So maybe it is the lack of gelatine from bones. But that doesn't explain the failure of the red wine to reduce as well!

[weinoo]

Low-to-moderate heat works better than high heat. Don't over reduce - keep an eye on it.

Are you starting with the same amount of red wine and stock each time?

I'm sure the quality of the red wine you're using has an effect on the final reduction, too.

[chrisp]

Low-to-moderate heat works better than high heat. Don't over reduce - keep an eye on it.

←

Chance would be a fine thing!

Are you starting with the same amount of red wine and stock each time?

←

I've tried lots of different amounts of liquid - 50/50 stock/wine, 25/75, I even once tried to reduce an entire bottle of red and it just disappeared into a black stain.

But the low heat tip is a very interesting one. I'm pretty sure I've always been told to boil it down as fast as possible. Thanks! I'll try that one next time.

Chris

[MattJohnson]

next time you make stock, just grab a package of wings from the store. Cheap and they seem to make a difference in my stock.

[Fat Guy]

It seems to me the question relates to thickening rather than to reduction. If sauces are reducing to the point of disappearing, you're not having any trouble reducing them. Your problem is that you're not getting the thick texture you want.

The problem is that straight reduction of wine and/or stock without any sort of thickener is not really a reliable way to produce thick sauces. You would need to be starting with an already-heavily-reduced stock or a coulis in order to get syrupy end results in a predictable way. If you're just using regular-strength stock and wine, you're not likely to have great results if thick sauce is what you're after.

So, my suggestion would be to do one of two things: 1- learn about thickeners and start using the ones that work for you, or 2- accept that your sauces are going to be broth-like rather than syrupy. The latter is entirely okay -- it's the sauce-making style in many modern restaurants, where food is usually served in a broth-like sauce in a shallow, wide, rimmed bowl rather than on a flat plate.

[weinoo]

Low-to-moderate heat works better than high heat. Don't over reduce - keep an eye on it.

←

Chance would be a fine thing!

Are you starting with the same amount of red wine and stock each time?

←

I've tried lots of different amounts of liquid - 50/50 stock/wine, 25/75, I even once tried to reduce an entire bottle of red and it just disappeared into a black stain.

But the low heat tip is a very interesting one. I'm pretty sure I've always been told to boil it down as fast as possible. Thanks! I'll try that one next time.

Chris

←

In a restaurant setting, high-heat is what's usually used for reductions. But for cooking at home, I always find that coaxing things gently works better, be it reductions, sweating, etc.

[origamicrane]

hmm... I can't explain the red wine disappearing.

But some random thoughts

1. The stock you make, how long do you simmer it for when you make it?

One thought is that if you not simmering your stock long enough maybe not enough gelatine is being extracted from the bones? and when you reduce there not much left?

2. another thought is what kind of pan are you using to reduce? again a shot in the dark but maybe your pan might be a really wide one and you getting dry out at the edges before you get the stock to coagulate?

3. also when reducing i would use high heat to get the volume of liquid down to a quarter of what you started with and then drop the heat and simmer away until it gets to the right concentration you desire.

try again and document your process from start to finish and post it here, i'm sure someone will be able to spot whats going wrong.

[chrisp]

It seems to me the question relates to thickening rather than to reduction. If sauces are reducing to the point of disappearing, you're not having any trouble reducing them. Your problem is that you're not getting the thick texture you want.

The problem is that straight reduction of wine and/or stock without any sort of thickener is not really a reliable way to produce thick sauces. You would need to be starting with an already-heavily-reduced stock or a coulis in order to get syrupy end results in a predictable way. If you're just using regular-strength stock and wine, you're not likely to have great results if thick sauce is what you're after.

So, my suggestion would be to do one of two things: 1- learn about thickeners and start using the ones that work for you, or 2- accept that your sauces are going to be broth-like rather than syrupy. The latter is entirely okay -- it's the sauce-making style in many modern restaurants, where food is usually served in a broth-like sauce in a shallow, wide, rimmed bowl rather than on a flat plate.

←

Yes you're absolutely right - I am having trouble getting the syrupy thickness, but am already quite proficient at magically disappearing stock and red wine. And judging by some of the comments here it appears that getting a thick sauce just by reducing is somewhat of an inexact science, if not actually quite difficult. So why do so many of the recipes I have contain instructions such as "reduce until the sauce coats a spoon" if I couldn't, as an average home cook, be reasonably expected to do so? That's what is irritating me.

That said, thanks for all your comments and tips and I'll let you know how any further experiments pan out.

Chris

[TheSwede]

I suppose that when you read those semi-pro recipes that says "then reduce until it covers the back of a spoon", the starting point is always nice gelatinous veal stock.

I was actually thinking of trying to use gelatine as a thickener, just to see what happens.

[weinoo]

It seems to me the question relates to thickening rather than to reduction. If sauces are reducing to the point of disappearing, you're not having any trouble reducing them. Your problem is that you're not getting the thick texture you want.

The problem is that straight reduction of wine and/or stock without any sort of thickener is not really a reliable way to produce thick sauces. You would need to be starting with an already-heavily-reduced stock or a coulis in order to get syrupy end results in a predictable way. If you're just using regular-strength stock and wine, you're not likely to have great results if thick sauce is what you're after.

So, my suggestion would be to do one of two things: 1- learn about thickeners and start using the ones that work for you, or 2- accept that your sauces are going to be broth-like rather than syrupy. The latter is entirely okay -- it's the sauce-making style in many modern restaurants, where food is usually served in a broth-like sauce in a shallow, wide, rimmed bowl rather than on a flat plate.

←

A little beurre manie works nicely! I like it better than cornstarch or other things, but you still need to reduce properly for the right taste.

[origamicrane]

hmm... for the same size pot try doubling or tripling the amount of chicekn carcasses you have

[paulraphael]

Next time you make your stock, it would be helpful to put some more gelatinous bones in the stock. If you can get some chicken feet, and maybe even a bunch of wings, that would help a lot. So would pigs feet. And being more generous with the meat/bones in general would help.

Be wary of over-reducing. It's a way to get a nice consistency from gelatinous stock, but there are prices to pay. You lose a LOT of flavor, especially the subtler, brighter, more aromatic flavor compounds. And too much reduced gelatin can be gluey; it can stick your teeth together, and congeal on the plate before you're done eating.

It's worth while to look into other ways to thicken and enrichen stocks, so you're not dependent on reduction alone. I like simmering some meatier cuts in the stock at the end for enrichment. Arrowroot is one of my favorite thickeners, as long as you don't overdo it. James Peterson's Sauces book is the best resource I've seen.

Edited January 9, 2008 by paulraphael (log)

[Fat Guy]

I agree that gelatin (whether from the bones or added in some other way) is, alone, a flawed thickener. This is primarily on account of its temperature sensitivity, as Paul notes. Anybody who has made a rich stock is familiar with the phenomenon whereby, after a night in the refrigerator, your stock has the texture of Jell-O. But of course if you put that back on the stove and bring it to a simmer you have a liquid that's barely thicker in texture than water.

So that's essentially the range of thickness you'll experience as your reduced stock drops in temperature. Meanwhile, a thickener like arrowroot is going to be a lot less persnickety as the temperature drops. You'll have a pretty consistent texture for the amount of time it takes to sauce, serve and eat your food.

While there are a lot of good ways to thicken sauces, and while I don't necessarily have a favorite, I think it's useful to start out by getting yourself up to speed on roux as a thickener. It's a foundational cooking technique that's incredibly versatile and effective.

Also, again, I want to make a plea for unthickened, broth-like sauces. Many of the tastiest sauces I've had have been at the broth-like end of the spectrum. I think home cooks can really benefit from getting into the mindset of broth-like sauces, rimmed-bowl serving pieces, and spoons as part of the place setting.

[chrisp]

Next time you make your stock, it would be helpful to put some more gelatinous bones in the stock. If you can get some chicken feet, and maybe even a bunch of wings, that would help a lot. So would pigs feet. And being more generous with the meat/bones in general would help.

Be wary of over-reducing. It's a way to get a nice consistency from gelatinous stock, but there are prices to pay. You lose a LOT of flavor, especially the subtler, brighter, more aromatic flavor compounds. And too much reduced gelatin can be gluey; it can stick your teeth together, and congeal on the plate before you're done eating.

It's worth while to look into other ways to thicken and enrichen stocks, so you're not dependent on reduction alone. I like simmering some meatier cuts in the stock at the end for enrichment. Arrowroot is one of my favorite thickeners, as long as you don't overdo it. James Peterson's Sauces book is the best resource I've seen.

←

I've just ordered it on Amazon. Apparently there's an updated version (3rd ed.) coming out in October 2008 but I can't be bothered waiting that long!

[mkayahara]

Also, again, I want to make a plea for unthickened, broth-like sauces. Many of the tastiest sauces I've had have been at the broth-like end of the spectrum. I think home cooks can really benefit from getting into the mindset of broth-like sauces, rimmed-bowl serving pieces, and spoons as part of the place setting.

←

I think this is a good point, as long as it's a conscious decision that's made from the start of the process and not simply the result of an inability to hit the texture you had in mind. (Though I'm sure that's what you meant, Steven.)

Plus I don't think a broth-like sauce is fully interchangeable with something a little thicker. Personally, I *hate* broth-like sauces served on a plate that also contains mashed potatoes! And I'm not sure how satisfying it would be on, say, steak. Indeed, it's downright common (maybe even passé) with seafood, isn't it?

[TheSwede]

I'm not a big fan of broth like sauces either. It doesn't stick to the food in the right way. Nothing wrong with broths, but it isn't a sauce in my mind.

[Fat Guy]

Right, it's a whole different mindset. And you need to serve food differently. For example mashed potatoes and other purees, fritters, whatever, really need to be served on a side plate. Whereas some other vegetables, like mushrooms and peas, can benefit from being in the sauce.

I agree that a whole steak sitting in a broth doesn't work. But I did a steak dish awhile back that I thought worked brilliantly with a broth-like sauce. I made lentils with diced carrots and onions, using beef stock as the cooking liquid. I also had a couple of leftover short ribs around so I took the meat from the short ribs, diced it, and added that to the lentils -- it was just a little bit but it was a nice addition. I also had beef stock simmering in a sauce pan, to which I had added a little red wine and, right at the end, a lot of fresh thyme. I had a boneless New York strip that I cooked and sliced. I spooned the lentils into bowls, then laid the slices of steak over them, then spooned the stock-wine-thyme "sauce" over that just enough to moisten the dish but not enough to turn it soupy. I thought it turned out as a very strong, near-restaurant-quality dish. Plus we got four nice, filling portions out of one steak.

[mtigges]

hi

what are you putting into your stock?

you might need more bones in there ?

←

Well, it's usually chicken stock made from the central carcass left after I've jointed it for breasts, legs & thighs. Boiled with carrots, onion, celery, herbs etc. So maybe it is the lack of gelatine from bones. But that doesn't explain the failure of the red wine to reduce as well!

←

I recently bought a slow cooker (wonderful device). I have since been down to the local poultry guy every couple of weeks for as many backs and necks as I can stuff into the cooker. Then with water covered, some onion, carrot, celery I let it go on low until I get bored of the lovely smell. Usually 12 hours. We're talking about 6 birds worth. For about $6. This stock is just as gelatinous as the great veal stock I get from the soup/stock kitchen in the same market.

Chicken stock can be gelatinous. And its wonderful.

[mkayahara]

I think there are a couple of other key points about broth-like sauces here:

I spooned the lentils into bowls, then laid the slices of steak over them, then spooned the stock-wine-thyme "sauce" over that...

←

Right, so the broth wasn't saucing the steak alone; it was saucing the dish as a whole. Broth-like sauces, IMHO, can't be used to sauce only one item on a plate, while thicker sauces can. Also, you've got the steak sitting on a pile of lentils here (if I'm reading you right), elevating it so it's not swimming in broth.

...just enough to moisten the dish but not enough to turn it soupy.

Which is what makes it a sauce, rather than a soup. I've eaten thin sauces that were so copious that there wasn't enough food on the plate to sop them all up - often when I cooked them myself. I've also sauced appropriately and wept as I dumped the leftover liter of "sauce" down the drain.

[paulraphael]

Also, again, I want to make a plea for unthickened, broth-like sauces. Many of the tastiest sauces I've had have been at the broth-like end of the spectrum. I think home cooks can really benefit from getting into the mindset of broth-like sauces, rimmed-bowl serving pieces, and spoons as part of the place setting.

←

I love a well made brothlike sauce ... there's something about the freshness and directness of flavor that gets muted when a sauce is thickened (by any method).

It's definitely a different mindset. The right kind of plate/bowl makes a big difference. And of course, a SPOON. I've noticed a trend of restaurants making me ask for a spoon. Even thick sauces are hard to sample with a fork, and I've never liked to sop up sauces with bread. It deadens them with starch. Gimme a spoon, and gimme sauce. It's the only utensile I need 90% of the time. Rant over.

Back to broth-like sauces, I think it's helpful to think of thickness as a continuum. You can find some great consistencies in the range between creamy traditonal sauces and watery broths. Sometimes just 1/4 teaspoon of arrowroot in a quart of sauce, or little bit of reduction of gelatinous stock, can give some of the best qualities of both broth and traditional sauce.

But don't forget the spoon.

[Fat Guy]

Yes, I think there are ways to mess it up. But once you get the basics down -- don't make it into a soup, elevate your proteins on a bed of veg -- I think you get really nice, fresh, vibrant results from broth-like sauces. As Paul notes, when you make those heavily reduced thick sauces, "You lose a LOT of flavor, especially the subtler, brighter, more aromatic flavor compounds." Whereas when you work with broths you can maintain very bright flavors and get good results from fresh herbs. You also don't have to anticipate what something will taste like when it has been reduced. Instead, you just taste. It's a much easier skill to master.

Here's a good example of a top-notch restaurant dish using a broth-like sauce. I didn't have to go back far. The last time I ate out, two nights ago, I was at L'Absinthe, which is one of the better classic French restaurants left in New York City (or maybe the best of its kind). This was "free-range chicken in a black truffle broth." I don't think there's any way this dish could have been improved by a thickened sauce. Note the conservative quantity of rich broth, and the elevation of the meat over the broth. It's a totally professional restaurant dish but the style is really easy for home cooks to emulate.

[Mikeb19]

I am a keen, if often overly ambitious, amateur cook and can just about get away with most non-professional level recipes and techniques. But despite trying and trying again for months and months I just can't get a consistent result when the recipe calls for "reducing", whether it be stock or wine or a mixture of the two.

I have, on occasion, got lucky and ended up with a lovely syrupy sauce. But more often than not, despite (as far as I can tell) using exactly the same technique the next time it may just boil right down and vanish without ever thickening up at all! Red wine will go vinegary and bitter and evaporate into nothing, and stock often performs exactly the same way, disappearing up my extractor fans without waving goodbye.

Can anyone please offer some tips to end up with a nice thick, properly reduced sauce without resorting to mixing in cornflour towards the end when I notice it's all going tits-up?

Much appreciated

Chris

←

When you reduce stock, you get a nice syrupy texture because of the gelatin. When you reduce wine, the sugars are what gives you the texture. This is why sweeter wines are better for making a syrup, and why wines with less sugar evaporate into nothing. Also why gelatinous stocks reduce into nice sauces, and meat broths evaporate. I should also add, when making sauces, alot of chefs add palm sugar or honey (in the earlier stages of making it) - for flavour (a touch of sweetness is a good thing), as well as the texture sugar adds to the product.

Also, nothing wrong with using a thickener like corn or potato starch, they give a nice texture and consistent result (also when you emulsify butter into the sauce it will thicken up a little). Many restaurants use them as thickeners.

And, as Fat Guy said, sometimes it's nice to serve a flavourful broth instead of a thick sauce.

Edited January 10, 2008 by Mikeb19 (log)