Fat-Free Roux

[Shalmanese]

The purpose of making a roux is to brown the flour in hot fat so that the "raw" taste is cooked out and brown flavours are developed. However, the same effect could presumably be achieved without any fat by, say, toasting it in a low oven until it's equally browned and then mixing with water to form a slurry. Searching on the web, I've found a couple of references to doing this but it doesn't seem to be too common.

It seems to me that this would be a no-brainer for anybody on a low fat diet. You can cook large batches of flour at once and it apparently keeps for at least 6 months. Is there some hidden drawback to this approach? Does it not taste the same? Is it too much work?

[beccaboo]

I make a Pennsylvania Dutch potato soup recipe that has something like a really low-fat roux. You rub a small amount (like a tablespoon) of fat into a lot (like 1/2 cup) of flour, then toast it on the stove. After it's browned, you whisk it into the rest of the soup. It tastes good and thickens well. You could try it in place of your normal roux and see how it works: I think the trick in this case is thoroughly rubbing in the fat first.

[BeJam]

I make a Pennsylvania Dutch potato soup recipe that has something like a really low-fat roux.  You rub a small amount (like a tablespoon) of fat into a lot (like 1/2 cup) of flour, then toast it on the stove.  After it's browned, you whisk it into the rest of the soup.  It tastes good and thickens well.  You could try it in place of your normal roux and see how it works: I think the trick in this case is thoroughly rubbing in the fat first.

←

John Folse's recent "encylopedia of cajun and creole cooking" has a recipie for an oil-less roux made in the oven. It is simply baked as you suggest but stirred to ensure even browning. Unfornunately I'm not near my copy of the book to refer to it first hand, but a google search for oil-less roux turned up a couple of recipies.

In fact his recipie's here

The only difference I've hear is that you loose the flavor of the fat.

Edited November 8, 2005 by BeJam (log)

[chefboy24]

why bother take the fat out?

16 oz of roux thickens a gallon of liquid (i'm pretty sure, but i should check my prochef)? which would be 8 oz of fat for a gallon of liquid. fat is an essential part of your diet.

if you don't feel like using butter, use olive oil.

[mrbigjas]

my great-aunt-in-law was from the southeast texas coast, and she always made her gumbo starting with browned flour rather than a roux. in fact one time she browned up a bunch of flour and sent it to my brother in law so he could make gumbo.

unfortunately i never got the rest of her recipe and she's dead now...

edited to clarify: to my knowledge she was never the least bit worried about fat. she musta done it that way because she liked it.

Edited November 8, 2005 by mrbigjas (log)

[jsolomon]

If fat-free is the goal, and the raw flour taste in the thing you want to remove, why not use corn starch as a replacement?

[fud]

If fat-free is the goal, and the raw flour taste in the thing you want to remove, why not use corn starch as a replacement?

←

Key to asian thickeners for sure. Corn Starch is a nice alternative if you are aiming to thicken and not flavour.

I thought fat was fundamental to Roux because it binds the flour into paste and so it flavours and thickens. I guess if you want the browned flour flavour then oven browning would work. If you just want to thicken, cornstarch works. I just like saying the word "Roux" and when you say it to guests they get this excited look on their face like you're making nuclear fusion.

I guess it's like saying "demi-glace"

[Shalmanese]

Cornstarch has different thickening powers to wheat starch. And I don't see why it's neccesary to bind it into a paste. You can thicken liquids by just mixing raw flour with cold water and heating except you supposedly get a raw flour taste and none of the browning.

In fact, unless theres a marked flavour difference, I can't see the disadvantage to the fat free method. With the normal method, it's sometimes hard to judge how much roux you need since a darker roux thickens less. Often, your left with a liquid thats too thick or too thin. With the fat free method, you can make a huge batch all at once and keep it in your pantry and then just thicken as you go along until you reach the right consistency. If you really want the butter/bacon fat/whatever flavour, theny you can add it as well.

I'll try an experiement when I have time to see if it works as promised.

[FoodMan]

I guess with all things being equal, you cannot call browned flour a roux which by definition has fat. It could be a good alternative, but it is not roux.

Please do let us know how your experiments go.

[Kent Wang]

Cornstarch is completely different. In large amounts it will make your soup gooey, not just thick.

[highchef]

You can buy dry roux in a jar, several different brands. However...it takes a lot more for some reason. The one time I tried it, I had to use half a jar. I do not see the sense in buying it, when basically it is just flour either browned in the oven, or on the cook top in a cast iron skillet. The fat in roux is there to help carry the flavor and add body to the dish. If you are trying to cut calories, then go for it. All dieting etc. begins by cutting out or cutting down. I'd rather just cut down.

jmtc. P

[McDuff]

Roasting flour in this way is called "torrefaction", I think, and I used to have to do it for a madman French chef I worked with one summer. We used about a cup of clarified butter in the bottom of a 20 qt Hobart bowl, then added about as much flour as we could without it spraying all over the kitchen. then we put it into a large roasting pan in a not too hot oven and stirred it often. He would use it just like cornstarch, mixing it with cold liquid before adding it to hot stock. the advantage is that you don't have all the fat going into the sauce, which in the distant past of saucemaking, was all skimmed off as the sauce cooked. Theoretically you can retrieve all the fat back out of the sauce, along with insoluble parts of the flour, as it is only the starch that is doing the thickening. Read The Saucier's Apprentice by Raymond Sokolove, and Sauces by James Peterson. You might as well read Escoffier on the subject also.

[Shalmanese]

Well, I did some experimenting. I put about 1/4 cup of flour in a white ramekin so the browning would be more obvious and placed it in a 150C/300F oven.

Here is the flour prior to putting in the oven:

Here it is at 50 minutes (the white flour on the left is raw to compare the difference):

Here it is at 1:05:

And here it is at 1:25:

As you can see, it starts off slow and then browns relatively quickly. Browning seems to be even. Here is a close up:

[Shalmanese]

In order to compare the oven roux with conventional roux, I decided to make a veloute sauce. The sauce would be made purely from roux, chicken stock and salt to taste. The consistency I was looking for was what the french called nape which means to coat the back of a spoon. In addition, I was looking for the pan bottom to be visible when a spoon was dragged through the sauce.

3 equal portions of homemade chicken stock were portioned up:

One would use the oven roux, one would use a canola oil and flour roux and the final one would use a butter and flour roux. A 4th glass using raw flour and water was used as calibration.

Below, from left to right, you have the flour paste (3 level tsp of flour), the oven roux (15 level tsp of flour), the oil roux (6 level tsp of flour) and the butter roux (6 level tsp of flour):

Making notes:

Oven roux: This was the first one I made, placed 1 level tsp of flour in the chicken stock and stirred to dissolved. Placed in saucepan and let come to a simmer, stirring with a spoon. Made up another 4 tbsp by shaking vigourosly with some cold water and adding to the pan, then another 5 tbsp and then a final 5 tbsp in order to reach nape stage. The extra water accounts for the excess volume. Stirring was done using a spoon.

Flour paste: made a slurry of water and 3 tsp of flour via stirring. Placed in saucepan and let come to the simmer, stirring with a spoon. Mixture became nape immediately with no further need to adjust fluids.

Oil roux: Portioned out 6 tbsp of flour and added to a pan filled with cold oil. Cooked, stirring with a whisk until the roux became as close to the colour of the oven flour as possible, then added stock and stirred with a whisk until thick. Mixture was slightly runny and required some evaporation to become nape.

Butter roux: Portioned out 6 tbsp of flour, put large knob of butter into warm pan and let cook until no bubbles emerged, added flour and cooked until roux became as close to the colour of the oven flour as possible. This was hindered by the yellow colour of the butter. Added stock and stirred, mixture required slight evaporation to become nape.

All 3 veloutes were then seasoned to taste using plain table salt (iodised).

[Shalmanese]

Tasting Notes:

Oven Roux: Due to the larger amount of flour, the flour taste was very evident. This sauce was significantly darker than the other two and tasted more browned. There was a very strong mushroom flavour to it, like dried shittake, even though the stock did not contain any mushrooms. Was very full bodied and rich, however, there was a very gritty texture that was unpleasant. After tasting, a coating of very fine, insoluble granules of flour were left on the back of your tounge. This was very unpleasant and detracted significantly from the taste.

Oil Roux: The flour taste was very evident in this, it was slightly less rich and a bit more one dimensional compared to the other sauces. This was probably the most "Chickeny" of the 3 with not much rounding out of the flavour. There was some slight grit but it wasn't noticable unless you were specifically looking for it.

Butter Roux: This was by far my favourite of the 3. I used to believe the choice of fat used only contributed a minimal flavour but the difference between this and the oil roux was night and day. This had a far more rounded, almost sweet flavour. The chicken was restrained and softened to great effect. There was a tiny bit of mushroom flavour again. Initial impression was that this was smoother in texture than the oil roux but close comparison indicated that they were about the same. However, the mouthfeel is better, probably due to the emulsifying effects of the butter. This would be my No 1 choice every time.

In order to determine how the lack of fat affected the oven roux, I stirred in a knob of butter about equivilant to the amount I used in the butter roux. However, for some unknown reason, even though the butter I used was unsalted butter, adding it to the oven roux made it unbearably salty. Apart from the salt, all I could taste was the mushroom flavour. Texture wise, it seems as if it was slightly less gritty although I'm not sure since I couldn't directly compare.

In order to try and see why the oven roux was so gritty, I used the last of my oven roux to make a flour + water paste. The roux was placed in a airtight bottle along with the water and shaken for 3 minutes. However, it seems that the baking singificantly decreased the solubility of the flour as the flour refused to dissolve in the liquid. The slurry was added to a pan and whisked vigourously and continuously until it came to a simmer, then it was allowed to cook down for 30 minutes until it reached nape. The texture of this sauce was much better than the previously one on the tounge, there was very little perceptible grit but still more than the oil/butter rouxs. However, that after taste of insoluble flour still remained.

So, in conclusion, it seems as if, for an oven based roux and a fat based roux of the same appearance, the oven based roux behaves as if it were actually significantly darker when cooked. The colour of the sauce as well as the amount of roux required to thicken all lead to this conclusion. In order to make a good sauce using an oven roux, shaking, rather than stirring is required to integrate the flour and water fully and long cooking helps in getting rid of the grittiness. however, some grittiness still inevitably remains.

The final verdict seems inconclusive. I loved the butter roux but that may have been simply because it was actually cooked to a lighter stage than the oven roux. The texture was also horrible in the oven roux but that may have been due to poor technique. The ability to gradually add more roux until the desired thickness is reached is a big plus for the oven roux. In the end, I would still have to go with an old fashioned butter roux for best flavour and texture but an oven roux would be a viable alternative for quick everyday use.

[mrbigjas]

wow, great job, shalmanese. thank you!

i wonder if that last experiment you did with the oven roux (shaken into slurry, then whisked, and simmered for 30 minutes) would explain why my g-a-i-l used it for gumbo with good results. that's exactly the kind of treatment it would receive in a soup recipe...

[scott123]

With the fat free method, you can make a huge batch all at once and keep it in your pantry and then just thicken as you go along until you reach the right consistency.

←

No, you can't. I used to make 'dry' roux all the time. Flour has a trace amount of fat. By toasting it in this fashion, you're accelerating the oxidation process. Although it's fine to cook with immediately, if you stick it in a jar in your cupboard for a few days it will be rancid the next time you use it. Nothing's worse than spending a half hour (or more) on a sauce only to find out you used rancid roux.

As far as the dry roux behaving as if it were significantly darker when cooked when compared with a fat based roux of the same appearance, it's a matter of perception. Anything wet will appear darker. You just have to take this into account and toast your dry roux to a lighter shade than it's wet counterpart. If you make dry roux a few times, the adjustment becomes second nature.

One huge player in the wet vs. dry roux game is the conductivity of fat. Fat conducts the heat in such a way that all the flour particles, with careful stirring, are being toasted evenly. With dry roux, oven or pan, you can stir until your arm just about falls off and you won't get the even toasting you get with fat. That even toasting plays a huge role down the line in consistency and taste.

[Shalmanese]

No, you can't.  I used to make 'dry' roux all the time.  Flour has a trace amount of fat. By toasting it in this fashion, you're accelerating the oxidation process.  Although it's fine to cook with immediately, if you stick it in a jar in your cupboard for a few days it will be rancid the next time you use it.  Nothing's worse than spending a half hour (or more) on a sauce only to find out you used rancid roux.

Interesting, I didn't know that. One site says baked flour can keep for 6 or more months. Might the level of refinement have something to do with it? Diffferent white flours contain different amounts of the wheat germ. Maybe using a very highly refined flour would slow the process down.

One huge player in the wet vs. dry roux game is the conductivity of fat.  Fat conducts the heat in such a way that all the flour particles, with careful stirring, are being toasted evenly.  With dry roux, oven or pan, you can stir until your arm just about falls off and you won't get the even toasting you get with fat. That even toasting plays a huge role down the line in consistency and taste.

←

If you have a look at the pictures, oven baked flour is remarkably regular in browning. I couldn't spot any variation at all. Pan toasting might be different.

[fud]

Shalmanese that is awesome. A true empiricle test versus what I usually do which i sit here and theorize!

Good stuff! Now I'd love to find out the WHY to your conclusions:

My guesses

- When you bake flour you remove it's ability to form gluten (??) so it won't mix with water

- There has to be something with animal fat and how it bonds with flour as opposed to oil

I remember toasted flour has a really bitter taste

[scott123]

No, you can't.  I used to make 'dry' roux all the time.  Flour has a trace amount of fat. By toasting it in this fashion, you're accelerating the oxidation process.  Although it's fine to cook with immediately, if you stick it in a jar in your cupboard for a few days it will be rancid the next time you use it.  Nothing's worse than spending a half hour (or more) on a sauce only to find out you used rancid roux.

Interesting, I didn't know that. One site says baked flour can keep for 6 or more months. Might the level of refinement have something to do with it? Diffferent white flours contain different amounts of the wheat germ. Maybe using a very highly refined flour would slow the process down.

One huge player in the wet vs. dry roux game is the conductivity of fat.  Fat conducts the heat in such a way that all the flour particles, with careful stirring, are being toasted evenly.  With dry roux, oven or pan, you can stir until your arm just about falls off and you won't get the even toasting you get with fat. That even toasting plays a huge role down the line in consistency and taste.

←

If you have a look at the pictures, oven baked flour is remarkably regular in browning. I couldn't spot any variation at all. Pan toasting might be different.

←

I'm not making this up Heat, light and air all contribute to accelerating the demise of fat. Any unsaturated/unhydrogenated fat will succumb to these elements over time, it doesn't matter. They're equal opportunity rancidifiers.

I have to agree that when I saw your final picture I was impressed by the homogeneous appearance, but I'm afraid the naked eye isn't telling the complete story here. The size of the flour particle necessitates a microscope in order to witness the uneven coloration. Without the superior conductivity of fat, you're going to get uneven flour particle browning.

[Shalmanese]

Have you tried toasting and then freezing the flour? I'm heading off on holiday tomorrow so I have no chance to experiment but I'll investigate further when I get back. I am intrigued by this.

[chiantiglace]

you can make red roux with just red wine, no butter. But that is for other applications containing a demi-genre rather than veloute

[suzilightning]

hello-

i got my butt spanked for this inquiry in the gumbo cookoff:

http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=61289&st=180

ok- still haven't got this stuff down. post 190 on the page

[Jason Perlow]

This is an evil, evil topic and all of you are going to hell.

[davebr]

I first learned about the fatless browned flour roux when I lived in the carribean. The old ladies did this for some of their soups and sauces. The origins of Creole cuisine did after all come from the carribean.

I do too prefer butter for the fat in the roux. It just seems to brown with the flour making for a deeper, richer flavor.