Pot Roast

[Marlene]

In reading Molly Steven's All About Braising, (yes, I managed to snag the book too!), she does talk about this particular pan and indicates that it is good for the smaller cuts like, chicken legs, chops and ribs. So if as Fat Guy says, my all clad is good for pot roasts, my slow cooker doubles in a pinch for stews and chillis, and I keep this pan, I should be pretty versatile.

One of the things Molly talks about is making sure there isn't much room between the lid, the sides and the meat. With a 6 3/4 dutch oven, I'm afraid I'm going to have too much room between the lid and the meat. Remember, I'm not buying big cuts here. Yes, I can take care of that with a parchment lid as well.

I think I just talked myself into keeping this pan Although just as an experiment, I'll try one pot roast in this, and the other one I bought in my All Clad.

[Safran]

Marlene, life is short. You LIKE the Le Creuset and yes, you'll use it. Use that beautiful All-Clad for the Pot Roast. Period.

Now, start planning on what you'll be cooking in that gorgeous Le Creuset, no matter what they call it. Just imagine the rice dishes, etc...wow....

Edited February 4, 2005 by Safran (log)

[Fat Guy]

The Le Creuset becomes a much more compelling keeper if you plan to serve from it. It's an attractive vessel that can be placed on the dinner table for a dramatic, rustic presentation of short ribs and the like. This is why it's called a buffet casserole -- because you're supposed to place it on the buffet or table as a service piece.

[Dave the Cook]

. . . .

I would say that while this item is no doubt as good as any other Le Creuset piece for braising short ribs, lamb shanks and other short-ish items, it may get maxed out by a significant pot roast. Two inches is the minimum thickness for something even to be considered a roast, most roasts are at least three inches thick, and a bottom round roast or round tip roast is likely to be in the four-inch range or more if it's a big one.

. . . .

←

The seven-bone roast, which many consider to be the best cut for pot roast, is rarely more than two-inches thick. A three-inch seven-bone would be in the range of five-to-six pounds. This is a piece of meat for eight to ten people, or for significant leftovers (neither is a consideration in Marlene's case). If it's not a roast (and a number of other perfectly acceptable pot roast candidates, including brisket are of similar shape), what is it? On the other hand, if it does qualify as a roast, this is a perfect pot for it -- a wide, flat bottom of sufficient depth, with a domed lid for circulation.

Another benefit of this design is the ease with which you can brown the roast. The lower profile is much easier to negotiate than the tall sides of a Dutch oven when flipping a three-pound piece of meat.

[forever_young_ca]

I would keep it Marlene. The combination of the Le Crueset and the All Clad should be a very useful in your kitchen for all kinds of dishes.

Besides it is so darn pretty!

[Fat Guy]

There are plenty of roasts that will fit in that pan, and plenty that won't (look here at the photos of the eye round roast and chuck roast). The ones that are wide and flat and closer to two inches thick will fit very well. (The two inch measure is just the definition from CBB). The ones that are rounder and have diameters of three or four inches will push the limits of the space. With a built-for-purpose Dutch/French oven, you don't have to worry about that. With this pan, you need a Dutch/French oven as a backup. Marlene appears to have that backup, and doesn't appear to have to make a choice -- she can keep both -- so I don't think she is going to face any problems.

[Marlene]

I would keep it Marlene.  The combination of the Le Crueset and the All Clad should be a very useful in your kitchen for all kinds of dishes.

Besides it is so darn pretty! 

←

It is certainly cute!

There are plenty of roasts that will fit in that pan, and plenty that won't (look here at the photos of the eye round roast and chuck roast. The ones that are wide and flat and closer to two inches thick will fit very well. (The two inch measure is just the definition from CBB). The ones that are rounder and have diameters of three or four inches will push the limits of the space. With a built-for-purpose Dutch/French oven, you don't have to worry about that. With this pan, you need a Dutch/French oven as a backup. Marlene appears to have that backup, and doesn't appear to have to make a choice -- she can keep both -- so I don't think she is going to face any problems.

←

Yay! Fat Guy says I can keep it. (now I know how my son felt when I told him he could keep the kitten he found )

Seriously, it never ever occured to me to do a pot roast in the All Clad, for all they call it a Dutch Oven. I just don't know why. Now I have Molly's braising book, a dutch oven and a sort of braising pan, I am all set for the first course in the upcoing eGCI semester.

[Dave the Cook]

There are plenty of roasts that will fit in that pan, and plenty that won't (look here at the photos of the eye round roast and chuck roast. The ones that are wide and flat and closer to two inches thick will fit very well. (The two inch measure is just the definition from CBB). The ones that are rounder and have diameters of three or four inches will push the limits of the space. With a built-for-purpose Dutch/French oven, you don't have to worry about that. With this pan, you need a Dutch/French oven as a backup. Marlene appears to have that backup, and doesn't appear to have to make a choice -- she can keep both -- so I don't think she is going to face any problems.

←

(The less said about eye round roast the better.)

I'm having trouble visualizing how you're going to sear a flat roast, or even a decently-sized chuck eye in that All-Clad. There's just not enough flat surface. That means you need a back-up for it, too -- a good-sized saute pan in which to do your browning.

You do have one of those, don't you Marlene?

[Marlene]

(The less said about eye round roast the better.)

I'm having trouble visualizing how you're going to sear a flat roast, or even a decently-sized chuck eye in that All-Clad. There's just not enough flat surface. That means you need a back-up for it, too -- a good-sized saute pan in which to do your browning.

You do have one of those, don't you Marlene?

Um, no. In fact I don't. Ok, that's not completely true. I have this no stick thing that doesn't have a lid that I sometimes use. But it's not a saute pan.

Now what?

[Safran]

[quote... That means you need a back-up for it, too -- a good-sized saute pan in which to do your browning.

You do have one of those, don't you Marlene?

Um, no. In fact I don't. Ok, that's not completely true. I have this no stick thing that doesn't have a lid that I sometimes use. But it's not a saute pan.

Now what?

←

[fifi]

See where this is heading, Marlene? *Marlene adds saute pan to shopping list*

Back to pot roast . . . Dave brought up the eye of round cut. I will add to that the bottom round and other hunks of pure lean protein. Is there anything that can be done to make those edible? They are often on sale at attractive prices if you are just looking at the pennies per pound for protein. But I am stumped. I have thought of stuffing it with bacon somehow but have never tried it.

Not pot roast, but I did try doing a high heat roast using a Barbara Kafka technique to medium rare. After we shut down the smoke alarms, opened up the house in 32 degree F weather to clear the smoke, still no good.

Slice it and move it over to the braising thread?

Years ago when my sister had a couple of bottomless pit young guys to feed, she would pressure cook it with plenty of garlic and crab boil, chill it and thinly slice it for sandwich meat. That was pretty good.

But, has any one figured out how to make a pot roast?

[Fat Guy]

It's hard to get accurate dimensions from the online vendors that sell these products, but I'd again mention that the closeups from Marlene's camera create the appearance of more curvature than there actually is in these vessels. Both the Le Creuset buffet casserole and the All Clad Dutch oven have a good deal of flat bottom. The Le Creuset has more, certainly. But The All Clad utensil appears to be almost 11" across at the top, and I would think it could easily accommodate a roast 9" across for browning purposes. Even if the sides are starting to slope up at the 8" diameter mark, there is some flexibility in a piece of meat, which is not likely to be more than 9" in the longest dimension unless it's brisket or plate. If the piece of meat is really wide, like a brisket, then the Dutch oven isn't the best utensil for it unless you have a truly massive Dutch oven. I don't. For brisket I usually just use one or two of my 9.5"x13.5" rectangular baking dishes and cover with foil. In terms of browning, note that the stovetop is not the only option. If you have a good broiler, you can brown under the broiler on a half-sheet pan or broiler pan or 12" cast-iron skillet, with much less splatter than the stovetop method. This is the method preferred by James Beard in Theory and Practice of Good Cooking.

[ladyyoung98]

I picked up a lovely inside blade pot roast the other day.  It's been quite a while since I made a pot roast, and the last time I recall I did it in my slow cooker.  This one is a little big for the slow cooker as my slow cooker is round not oval,unless I cut it in half, which somehow seems wrong to me (I don't know why it does, but it does). 

So I'm looking for suggestions and recipes to try this a different way. Help me!

←

i love using my slow cooker and mine is round as well and i dont like cutting mine up either if its too big....but ive found that those oven cooking bags can come in real handy for that and you can put all the same things in it to cook with the roast that u would use in the slow cooker as well... and because the bag is closed its pretty much self basting (if one needed to baste) and it comes out nice and tender and ready to fall of any bones it might have

[fifi]

I am also a fervent user of cooking bags. They come in handy for big pieces like Aggie Brisket.

But wait! There's more! I have found the perfect braiser for Marlene . . .

You won't believe this one.

(I just had to share that. I stumbled onto it while looking for little clay pots.)

[Dave the Cook]

Truly massive Dutch ovens present their own problems, not the least of which is burner space. I've used the broiler method, most significantly when making cassoulet for about 30 people. I don't remember how many lamb shanks it called for, but browning them off on the stove would have taken forever. I'm not convinced that the lack of fond doesn't make a subtle difference in the finished dish, though. It wouldn't matter so much in cassoulet, where there's so much other stuff going on, but I'm not so sure a relatively simple pot roast.

I'm on record elsewhere as being in favor of the baking-dish braise, the oven bag and the ad hoc foil-pouch braise. But all of these techniques have their advantages and drawbacks. Of special concern is the level of liquid, and the ability to turn. Otherwise, what's the difference between a braise and boiled beef?

[Marlene]

My husband surprised me with this set yesterday:

The big one is 7 1/4 US quarts and the little one is 2 US quarts, plus the cute spatula. Apparently they had this set on sale at Costco.

I've gone from having no Le Crueset to having a little family of them.

Pot roast is on the menu tonight.

[Dave the Cook]

Geez, Marlene. Aren't you going to tell us which pot you'll be using? (Pot roast on the menu here, too -- done in a 3-quart saute pan.)

[hwilson41]

My husband surprised me with this set yesterday:

The big one is 7 1/4 US quarts and the little one is 2 US quarts, plus the cute spatula.  Apparently they had this set on sale at Costco.

I've gone from having no Le Crueset to having a little family of them.

Pot roast is on the menu tonight.

←

That would be your basic $300 pot roast, right ? I really think this demands very thorough pictures to document the occasion. Can't wait to see the end result.

THW

[Marlene]

I'm using the braiser. After all, Don went out of his way to get that for me first. How could I not?

Here's the start:

The roast, from which I stupidly removed the netting from first

So it kiind of exploded on me:

Carmelized some onions and carrots. Added brown sugar and garlic

Added beef stock and scraped up all the brown bits:

Put the roast back in, sort of re-tied

Added some water and a little red wine.

I've covered it with the lid and put it in the oven at 300. I'll turn it every 30 minutes or so. Do I have enough liquid? Too much? Next time I'll leave the damned netting on

[fifi]

Looks good to me. That is about the level of liquid I shoot for. I am not so sure that your meat "explosion" is a bad thing. It gives you a bit more surface area to let more flavor in . . . maybe.

[Marlene]

i'm wondering if I should turn it down? Maybe to 250? It seems to be bubbling quite a bit

[maggiethecat]

i'm wondering if I should turn it down?  Maybe to 250?  It seems to be bubbling quite a bit

←

Sure, adjust the heat a little, but keep an eye on it.

[Safran]

Oh Marlene! Pot roast looks good. What time do you want to serve it? You could probably bring it down a wee bit if you feel it's bubbling too much.

BTW: Nice, nice, nice Le Creuset! I had completely forgotten Costco! You're set for life. (are these Valentine gifties??)

[Marlene]

K, I've turned it down to 250. As I'm turning it every 30 minutes, I'll be able to tell whether that's too much or too little. It went in around 2:30, I'm figuring to serve it at 6:30 or so?

Well, he didn't say they were Valentine's gifts.

[snowangel]

Marlene, you were right to take that netting off. It's full of stuff that melts when it gets hot (like elastic).

And, as fifi said, the "explosion" just gave you more surface area for browning and those yummy bits.

You should be good to go at 6:30. If it seems done before you want to eat, just turn the oven off. What are you serving with the roast?