Beef stew failure

[cbread]

A silly predicament, failed stew. I'm not a trained cook, but gosh, stew has always worked fine for me. It's not rocket science. Brown the beef. Finish cooking fully immersed in liquid. What can go wrong?

Much of the beef in this particular stew was unpleasantly chewy and verging on tough after something like 90 minutes of stewing fully immersed in liquid.

The particulars:

I didn't salt the beef quite as heavily as I usually do.

I deeply browned the stew beef by frying in peanut oil deep enough to cover.

Not quite as deeply browned as I usually do, but I was experimenting to see if slightly less aggressive browning could improve the moisture and texture of the finished product.

Sauteed some onions, celery and carrots.

Heated beef broth, red wine, and some tomato liquids juiced from some extra tomatoes from a neighbor.

Added the sauteed onion, celery, carrots and the browned beef to the liquid.

Cooked the stew covered, and checked the beef for tenderness from time to time as it cooked.

After an hour and a half of slow cooking on the stovetop, the beef was still overly chewy and unpleasant. I've never had a stew fail me before. This beef seemed like it just wouldn't fully cook.

Did I buy the wrong beef? It was marked as stew beef. Now I can't remember if it was marked as chuck or round. There was some marbling. Nothing visually appeared off to me.

I haven't added wine in the past, but I was improvising and it seems like wine is part of many beef recipes cooked in copious volumes of liquid. So, maybe the wine? I'm flummoxed. 90 minutes; did I give up too soon?

Edited September 13, 2010 by cbread (log)

[Soundman]

Sounds like you may have cooked it too hot, how hard was it simmering?

Also not sure about this step 'I deeply browned the stew beef by frying in peanut oil deep enough to cover.'

Is that your normal method? Sounds OTT for browning, more like deep frying, which is bound (IMO) to shrink and toughen the meat.

[Dakki]

What size were the pieces of meat? Maybe 90 minutes just wasn't long enough for all the collagen to break down. (I'm not a big stew guy, just assuming the principle is the same as in pulled pork, brisket, barbacoa etc.)

[rlibkind]

If the procedures you outlined above are the ones you usually use and it works fine, please disregard the following comments.

What seems unusual to me is the fact that you're browning it fully submersed in oil. If the oil is hot enough not to be significantly absorbed by the meat, it's too hot which means you're overcooking the beef even before you start. If it's not hot enough, the meat absorbs too much oil. You don't want the browning process to do much if any cooking; rather, it just provides the beginning of the maillard reaction to produce and intensify flavors.

To my mind, you're cooking a soup rather than a stew if the liquid is totally covering the meat: too much of the flavor goes into the liquid and not enough retained in the meat. What you really want is a braise, with liquid coming maybe halfway up the height of the meat.

Of course, the problem may have simply been the meat, or rather, the individual animal that provided it. Beef of the same cut and grade can be completely different animal to animal.

As for timing, depending on how much meat you were cooking and the form and size of the pieces, 90 minutes may not at all be adequate. Many of the braises I do, usually involving 2-3 pounds of meat, take two to three hours in the oven (starting by putting the covered pot [cover slightly ajar to help prevent boiling] in a cold oven and setting temp to 200 for first 90 minutes then raising to 250 until done). Be careful not to overcook, though; that actually dries out the meat. As soon as you can easily puncture the meat with a fork or knife tip, it's done.

[percival]

Sounds like chuck. You shouldn't be deep frying to brown. That would definitely toughen the meat. Flouring will help browning. High heat, just a few minutes per side. Remove and use the wine to scrape the fond. Simmer and check every 30 or so, turning and adding liquid if needed. And if it's too tough, keep cooking. If you're not sure how long you're going, do the vegetables separately or they'll turn to mush. For a pot roast, I can easily go 5-6 hours. If you've got 2" cubes, try simmering for 2 hours and check. Keep adding 30 mins till you like the texture.

[budrichard]

You need to purchase a cut such as 'Chuck' USDA Grade Choice and cut and trim yourself to assure yourself of what your are getting otherwise you could have purchased who knows what from what and any Grade.

As already mentioned, submersing in fat to brown is not required.

If you want to use the Supermarket 'Beef Stew', slow cook it in a crock pot for a few hours.-Dick

[IndyRob]

I'm guessing it wasn't cooked long enough. Since you didn't brown it as much, this may have added to the work the braise needed to do.

I did a random survey of some stew recipes and the shortest time I found was 1 3/4 - 2 hours. I know I've done more than one pot roast that stubbornly refused to obey the clock.

[nickrey]

If it was chewy because of fat and connective tissue, it needed longer cooking. You can tell this by mouth feel. If it was just leathery, it was the wrong cut and no amount of extra cooking is going to make the meat tender.

[Doodad]

I bet it was round or something and not a proper stew meat.

[cbread]

Wow. Fast replies! Thank you all! I should clarify and expand a few things. I guess I may use the term "stew" inaccurately; the meat was chunks approximately 1 1/2". For the 90 minutes in liquid I cooked at a very slow boil or simmer, just a few bubbles once in a while. Definitely not a fast boil. And yes, my stew is something like beef in a soup. It's unapologetic comfort food.

This time, since I added wine, not my usual routine, I checked a cookbook. Bittman's "How to Cook Everything" said to cook 30 to 60 minutes till tender. That led me to assume that 90 minutes was a bit much. Usually, I have just cooked till the beef is near fall apart stage.

The deep oil was am attempt to brown all sides in one step. I usually pan fry to brown. I have been assuming that browning should put a deep crust on each chunk, but it sounds like I am going too far, too fast. I may be taking Anne Burrell's "brown food tastes good" maxim too far.

I am a bit unsure - why pan frying to brown one side at a time would be preferable to deeper fat to brown all sides at one time - assuming a given heat. I have been assuming that for the most part, heat is heat, other than that too slow in deep oil will let the oil soak in.

Sounds like the wine is unlikely to be the issue.

I think I will go to the real butcher's shop for my stew beef in future. The bad stew in question was beef from my local super market. One less variable in quality to worry about.

Once again, thank you for all the help. Something so simple as a stew isn't so simple after all.

[cbread]

You need to purchase a cut such as 'Chuck' USDA Grade Choice and cut and trim yourself to assure yourself of what your are getting otherwise you could have purchased who knows what from what and any Grade.

As already mentioned, submersing in fat to brown is not required.

If you want to use the Supermarket 'Beef Stew', slow cook it in a crock pot for a few hours.-Dick

Supermarket 'Beef Stew' is exactly what it was.

[Jaymes]

I'm no food chemist, and also no expert. I've just been making beef/lamb/etc. stew for about four decades according to the way my grandmama taught me, and haven't given it much thought, if any, so my observations might be wrong.

But...

Seems to me that by browning the meat in that much oil, you kinda defeat the purpose. Isn't it to get a good crust/caramelization on the meat and to put some nice brown scrapings in the bottom of the pot? I wouldn't think that with that much oil, you'd build up any fond. And I always thought a nice fond gave you that deep, rich flavor that good stew has.

I actually use as little fat as I think I can get away with so that I don't have to drain it, and I can keep all that flavor in the pot. I do dredge the meat chunks in seasoned flour, and then watch carefully to be sure it doesn't burn. I do this in my heavy Dutch oven, which is wide enough to properly fry the meat, so that I can keep all of the flavor in one pot. I fry them a few cubes at a time, and then set aside until all the cubes are browned.

After all the meat is nicely browned and a good fond is built up, I return all the meat to the pot, add the liquids and aromatics and onions, garlic, etc., and simmer for about a half-hour or so. Then add carrots & celery & turnips or whatever. Then simmer until the meat is almost tender, and add the potatoes last.

I dunno. Works for me. And I've used every sort of beef there is - whatever's on sale. Certainly including supermarket "stew meat."

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I very much doubt that the "supermarket meat" was the problem. After all, that's pretty much why stewing was invented - to make cheap/tough meats palatable.

_____________________________

Edited September 13, 2010 by Jaymes (log)

[HungryC]

It's not the cut of the beef....even the toughest, gnarliest beef will soften with enough cooking.

The culprit was the deep frying...which is definitely not accomplishing the same thing as a browning in a small amount of fat. Foods long-fried in lots of fat will definitely toughen (ever had rubbery fried chicken? even fried shrimp and oysters get unpleasantly hard & chewy if deep-fried too long). The whole point of pan-browning is to caramelize the meat--you want some of the liquid (blood, frankly) to seep out a bit and brown on the outside of the meat cubes. You're not trying to cook the beef--just trying to get some flavor (and color) that will provide depth of flavor to your stew. A faster frying in lots of fat just doesn't achieve the same thing. Check out some stew recipes: well-written ones specify that the meat is browned first, and the instructions are usually pretty explicit about not crowding the pan, even going so far as to suggest you brown the meat in batches.

A deeper-fat frying also won't allow any sort of good "crust" to build up on the bottom of the pot...another source of flavor and color--the fond will cook into the stew once liquid is added.

[budrichard]

"It's not the cut of the beef....even the toughest, gnarliest beef will soften with enough cooking."

There is a difference between a stew or other slow cooked beef dish that has flavorful beef with structure and not mush. Using any old cut or 'Super Market Beef' and cooking it long enough (crockpot comes to mind) will certainly make the beef fall apart but at what cost?

It is possible to have a nice stew or beef Bourguignon with beef that stays in cube form, is not stringy and has taste and substance but you need to acquire a USDA Choice cut such as chuck at the minimum.-Dick

[HungryC]

"It's not the cut of the beef....even the toughest, gnarliest beef will soften with enough cooking."

There is a difference between a stew or other slow cooked beef dish that has flavorful beef with structure and not mush. Using any old cut or 'Super Market Beef' and cooking it long enough (crockpot comes to mind) will certainly make the beef fall apart but at what cost?

It is possible to have a nice stew or beef Bourguignon with beef that stays in cube form, is not stringy and has taste and substance but you need to acquire a USDA Choice cut such as chuck at the minimum.-Dick

I'm thinking of dishes like stracotto, where the beef's so-called "stringiness" is a desirable outcome. Heck, modern Americanized stracotto recipes tell you to shred the beef with two forks, should you be too impatient to allow the cooking to achieve the desired texture. Not all stews seek to achieve your previously stated ideal of texture. Many peasant dishes from other cultures do indeed cook the meat into a consistency you might find unacceptable--but I've eaten many a delicious stew fashioned from ingredients that are far below "choice".

Edited September 13, 2010 by HungryC (log)

[Jaymes]

"It's not the cut of the beef....even the toughest, gnarliest beef will soften with enough cooking."

There is a difference between a stew or other slow cooked beef dish that has flavorful beef with structure and not mush. Using any old cut or 'Super Market Beef' and cooking it long enough (crockpot comes to mind) will certainly make the beef fall apart but at what cost?

It is possible to have a nice stew or beef Bourguignon with beef that stays in cube form, is not stringy and has taste and substance but you need to acquire a USDA Choice cut such as chuck at the minimum.-Dick

True, but the OP's complaint was not that the beef turned to "mush."

It was that the beef was "was unpleasantly chewy and verging on tough."

And my personal opinion is that the problem was the prolonged deep frying, perhaps followed by insufficient stewing time, rather than it being a cheap cut of "supermarket stew meat."

Which I believe likely had no bearing on it whatsoever.

_________________________

Edited September 13, 2010 by Jaymes (log)

[Alcuin]

This time, since I added wine, not my usual routine, I checked a cookbook. Bittman's "How to Cook Everything" said to cook 30 to 60 minutes till tender. That led me to assume that 90 minutes was a bit much. Usually, I have just cooked till the beef is near fall apart stage.

30-60 minutes? I can't really see any tough meat becoming tender in that amount of time. I usually go at 250F in the oven (easier to control the temp that way for me) and start checking at 2 hours. I also always use chuck, but that's just because I think it ends up less dry. Anything else would break down fine, it just might be a bit dry if it's in chunks big enough to have to cut with a knife and fork.

I also use as little oil as possible to brown-gives you much more fond (brown deliciousness left on pan to deglaze with wine).

[cbread]

Thank you for all the help! I will take all suggestions to heart and make better stew soon. For browning, I always work in batches and will continue to do so. I will use choice grade chuck from a good butcher shop. I will dredge in flour first, do less browning, in far less fat, and then when cooking in liquid, cook longer till done and won't believe every cookbook's times - I too was a bit surprised by Bittman's suggested 30 - 60 minutes.

[IndyRob]

Isn't stew, by its very definition, one of those peasant dishes that exists in order to provide a use for inferior cuts? Isn't the designation of 'stew meat' meant to describe cuts that aren't good enough to be used for anything else?

[Chris Hennes]

Absolutely. While of course you can make a great stew with high-quality chuck, you absolutely CAN make a great stew with a "lesser" cut. I'm convinced that the sole culprit here was the deep frying step. Not only are you losing all the flavor from not getting a fond, you also have inferior heat transfer from the oil to the meat (as opposed to from the metal of a pan to the meat), resulting in it taking much longer to brown. A minute or two per side in a very hot pan is the best, then a quick deglaze with your wine, stock, or water, then you're off to the races.

[IndyRob]

I'm put in an awkward position of disagreeing with Chris while he was agreeing with me (at least on one point). But fond development is not at issue (if it were, I would agree with Chris on this point). Flavor was not part of the original problem. It was texture/toughness.

I would find it plausible that deep frying the meat might cause a resistance to braising by either sealing out the braising liquid, or by just absolutely murdering the meat in the first place.

But cbread said the meat was browned less than usual. I think that regardless of the wisdom of using that much oil, the browning was clearly not as much as previously experienced by other methods. And there is no better heat transfer medium than deep fat. Far better than a pan. No pan could ever introduce 375 degrees on every square millimeter of a morsel. Frankly, this might be an innovation (if not wasteful of oil). A fond can come off a braised meat just as it might leave a pan.

I'm more convinced than ever that cbread's last sentence in the original post is absolutely correct. Just gave up on it too soon.

[percival]

Actually, all the scientific experiments to date have shown that there is no "sealing" effect to browning, frying, etc.

And 375 degrees is nothing compared to a 600-800 degree cast iron skillet. When I put color on a steak, I can do it in 30 seconds, without oil. Oil can't get that hot -- 475 at best -- without burning, and burn isn't brown. 375 on all sides will cook the meat. The goal is to get the Maillard reaction to happen -- browning -- on the surface, while not dehydrating the interior. You indeed get more heat to the meat by deep frying, but that is the opposite of what you want. You want to get the least amount of heat to the meat, while browning the outside.

Other than that, yes, it's the too short cooking time that's the reason for the toughness. I'm surprised no one's called out Mark Bittman's 30-60 minute recommendation. I don't know of any cut of stew meat that will be tender in that amount of time. Maybe if I diced them into 1cm squares...

[IndyRob]

Actually, all the scientific experiments to date have shown that there is no "sealing" effect to browning, frying, etc.

A link or two to those would be interesting. Thanks.

And 375 degrees is nothing compared to a 600-800 degree cast iron skillet. When I put color on a steak, I can do it in 30 seconds, without oil.

Cool. I do that too. My fillets sear at around 765 degrees. But that has nothing to do with stew meat. In my estimation, you'll ruin the stew meat in less that 30 seconds.

Edited September 14, 2010 by IndyRob (log)

[Chris Hennes]

Why would searing your stew meat the same way you sear a steak ruin it? The point is to brown the outside without cooking the inside: to achieve that, meat-to-metal contact is going to be the best, both for flavor and texture. Then you go low-and-slow in a high-humidity environment to break the collagen down without turning the meat into leather.

[IndyRob]

Why would searing your stew meat the same way you sear a steak ruin it? The point is to brown the outside without cooking the inside: to achieve that, meat-to-metal contact is going to be the best, both for flavor and texture. Then you go low-and-slow in a high-humidity environment to break the collagen down without turning the meat into leather.

Because you have smaller pieces. As you say - "The point is to brown the outside without cooking the inside" The stew meat at my supermarket comes in at about 1 inch in the longest direction, A proper steak at the same place has a minimum dimension of 1.75 inches and is far more tender a cut.

You simply cannot look at any piece of meat and think "that plus Maillard = good". It doesn't work like that.