Fat-Free Roux

[Kent Wang]

I gave this a try last night for a gumbo.

I toasted the flour and tried to add some water to it. I found that it was very difficult to eliminate all the clumps, so I tried to put it into blender. After blending, the clumps appeared to be gone but when added to the soup the clumps separated out. This corroborates Shalmanese's observation: "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."

However, I then put the flour in the blender with a lot more stock and then blended. This worked perfectly, the clumps were eliminated and it was able to thicken the soup substantially.

The elimination of clumps requires a much higher liquid to flour ratio than is suitable for sauces. For sauces, I think it makes sense to just use a roux -- we're not talking about that much fat anyway. For soups though, this makes a big difference as I put about a stick of butter into every gallon of gumbo.

What I don't understand is how these traditional recipes used toasted flour, without the use of a blender.

[Fugu]

Back in the early 1980's, I worked under a saucier who roasted flour and then straight from the oven, while still hot, he used a wire strainer to "sift" the roasted flour into his demiglace. A wire whisk was used to stir the Espanole sauce, there were no lumps.

This was the first and last time I've encountered this technique but it reminds me of a peanut stew from the Philippines called, Kare kare. It is thickened with roasted and ground rice.

Edited August 28, 2007 by Fugu (log)

[Mikeb19]

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?

←

I'm honestly surprised that people still use roux... In the dozen or so restaurants I've worked in (mostly in fine dining), I've only seen roux used in a single restaurant.

Usually to thicken we'd use rice flour, potato starch, corn starch, arrowroot, etc... You can also make a vegetable purée to thicken sauces and bind stews, it's not only healthier but also adds more flavour. And if you really want to impart that toasted wheat flavour, just toast up some bread, grind it up, and use that as a thickener.

[Kouign Aman]

The fat in a roux not only adds flavor but makes it much easier to stir in liquids, lump-free. I suspect that is its primary purpose.

To use flour alone, it helps to have it in a separate bowl, and add a small amount of liquid, stirring madly, and increasing the liquid a little at a time.

Like using cornstarch but even fussier.

[NealH]

No less an authority than Paul Prudhomme describes this technique in his "low-fat" cookbook "Fork in the Road".

I don't have access to it at the moment, but I recall that he considered it a passable roux when all was said and done.

[jgm]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone made a roux using schmalz or bacon drippings? Or even duck fat? It would seem that any one of those might impart additional flavor.

[Jon Savage]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone made a roux using schmalz or bacon drippings?  Or even duck fat?  It would seem that any one of those might impart additional flavor.

←

Yep.

Chicken Schmaltz - Adds a pronounced chicken flavor (not a bad thing in some cases)

Duck Fat - Did not seem to change flavor much, seems more neutral than chix fat.

Bacon fat - Great when you want a good smokey flavor.

[markemorse]

Epicurious has a recipe featuring the toasted flour/oil-less roux concept (from 1999!): Seafood and Turkey Gumbo...haven't tried it, probably won't as written.

+++

Edited August 29, 2007 by markemorse (log)

[Torrilin]

I use browned flour in some dishes (black bean soups!), because I like the flavor it imparts. The granular texture seems to happen when you undercook the flour. Once you get the flour to a state where it's in between peanut butter and natural cocoa in color, the texture issues seem to level off. It's pretty rare for me to use browned flour at the light stage shown early in the thread... it misbehaves horribly. At my normal dark color, the thickening power is reduced. You get a bit of thickening and a flavor that goes well with dark beers, savory cocoa, and many other bitter flavoring agents.

I don't think it would be wise to try and brown flour to my usual color in the oven. Fire hazard. On the stove, I tend to keep a shade reference around. If there are pockets of lighter color, it's not ready yet. Those light colored pockets can continue for a long time.

A regular brown roux doesn't give quite the same effect as browned flour. I like them both, and use them both. For me it's not really a fat/fat free issue but a flavor issue.

I keep meaning to experiment with very light shades of browned flour. There are some *very* early stages that seem like they'd make for interesting variations on veloutes and other white sauces.