Hollandaise sauce

[paulraphael]

2 hours ago, Anna N said:

 Over in the breakfast thread we seemed to get very much off topic discussing how to make hollandaise. This seems a much better place to discuss that. @rotuts  suggested that I try to recover a broken holidays by adding another egg yolk. I knew that was one option but I was not sure it was going to work being inexperienced in this technique. So I opted for the tablespoon of water as a cheaper option.  It worked very well. Perhaps the next time I would use a yolk. 

 

The classic repair method is to beat an egg yolk with about 15ml cool water or heavy cream. Then whisk the broken sauce into this emulsion, very slowly at first. Once you have a decent quantity of repaired sauce, you can go much faster. You'll lose a bit of lightness because you're deflating the sabayon, but the result should as smooth and stable as new. 

 

If your holding temperature goes above 158°F, the sauce will probably break. It can also break from losing too much water to evaporation, so it should be kept covered.

Edited February 25, 2017 by paulraphael (log)

[kayb]

6 hours ago, blue_dolphin said:

 

Beautiful breakfast, @Anna N!  What method did you use for your hollandaise.  I've tried a number of "fool-proof" recipes but so far have not found a "blue_dolphin-proof" method !

 

I've had good luck beating the eggs wtih lemon and a little hot sauce, putting them in a measuring cup, and the measuring cup  in a pan of hot water on a bare simmer, then using my hand-held blender while I slowly stream the melted butter. Then you can take it off the heat, leave it in the water, cover it, and it'll generally stay plenty warm for service.

 

[Tri2Cook]

5 hours ago, Anna N said:

 Over in the breakfast thread we seemed to get very much off topic discussing how to make hollandaise. This seems a much better place to discuss that. @rotuts  suggested that I try to recover a broken holidays by adding another egg yolk. I knew that was one option but I was not sure it was going to work being inexperienced in this technique. So I opted for the tablespoon of water as a cheaper option.  It worked very well. Perhaps the next time I would use a yolk. 

Or just continue to use the water unless you want to experiment for fun. Harold McGee showed in an article he wrote years ago that the emulsifiers in the yolk from a single egg are sufficient to emulsify a ridiculous amount of fat (something in the area of 5 or 6 gallons if I remember correctly)... as long as the water phase remains sufficient to avoid overcrowding of the fat droplets that form the emulsion. Water will almost always pull a broken water/fat emulsion together.

[Martin Fisher]

1 hour ago, Tri2Cook said:

something in the area of 5 or 6 gallons if I remember correctly

 

Yeah! 

"The figure I came up with for that same ordinary yolk was on the order of 100 cups. Something more than 6 gallons of oil! Of course I didn't just add the oil straight, gallon by gallon; that would have been a waste of oil and work. After adding a certain amount of inexpensive soy bean oil, I took a small portion -- around a teaspoon -- of the mixture and then added more oil to just that portion. I repeated this subdivision several more times, periodically adding water to prevent the emulsion from breaking solely on account of crowding. When all the additions and multiplications were done (if a portion containing one-tenth of the yolk absorbs 1 tablespoon of oil, then the whole yolk would have absorbed 10) that astonishing figure emerged: 1 yolk, 100 cups of oil. It seemed impossible, so I did the whole experiment again from scratch. There were some differences, but the result was of the same order of magnitude. There can be no doubt that the egg yolk is a prodigious emulsifier." -- The Curious Cook, Harold McGee, pg 118.

[kayb]

7 minutes ago, DiggingDogFarm said:

 

Yeah! 

"The figure I came up with for that same ordinary yolk was on the order of 100 cups. Something more than 6 gallons of oil! Of course I didn't just add the oil straight, gallon by gallon; that would have been a waste of oil and work. After adding a certain amount of inexpensive soy bean oil, I took a small portion -- around a teaspoon -- of the mixture and then added more oil to just that portion. I repeated this subdivision several more times, periodically adding water to prevent the emulsion from breaking solely on account of crowding. When all the additions and multiplications were done (if a portion containing one-tenth of the yolk absorbs 1 tablespoon of oil, then the whole yolk would have absorbed 10) that astonishing figure emerged: 1 yolk, 100 cups of oil. It seemed impossible, so I did the whole experiment again from scratch. There were some differences, but the result was of the same order of magnitude. There can be no doubt that the egg yolk is a prodigious emulsifier." -- The Curious Cook, Harold McGee, pg 118.

 

This qualifies as a "Well, I'll be damned" fact. Always a good day when I learn something new. Thanks.

[rotuts]

"""    There can be no doubt that the egg yolk is a prodigious emulsifier """

 

 and a tasty one.  that's why I'll find any excuse to add one more

[Okanagancook]

Brilliant.  Applies to mayo too I would imagine.

[rotuts]

indeed

 

it does.

 

imagine that Perfect Sizzling Steak w Bearnaise Sauce that had one more yolk in it !

[rotuts]

I seem to have Lost my Way some time back.

 

looking up some Fantastic  -aise sauces , Ive been making Grave, yet to me , tasty errors :

 

bearnaise sauce

 

I make my Bernaise w reduced dry red wine.  not white as some Rx's ive seen just now do , and not with no wine at all.

 

anyone else do this ?

 

am I Alone at the Top ?

Edited February 26, 2017 by rotuts (log)

[gfweb]

bearnaise rouge

Edited February 26, 2017 by gfweb (log)

[rotuts]

Try It , You'll Like It.

 

same dry red sipped while cooking and eating that Steak

 

BTW

[Tri2Cook]

2 hours ago, DiggingDogFarm said:

 

Yeah! 

"The figure I came up with for that same ordinary yolk was on the order of 100 cups. Something more than 6 gallons of oil! Of course I didn't just add the oil straight, gallon by gallon; that would have been a waste of oil and work. After adding a certain amount of inexpensive soy bean oil, I took a small portion -- around a teaspoon -- of the mixture and then added more oil to just that portion. I repeated this subdivision several more times, periodically adding water to prevent the emulsion from breaking solely on account of crowding. When all the additions and multiplications were done (if a portion containing one-tenth of the yolk absorbs 1 tablespoon of oil, then the whole yolk would have absorbed 10) that astonishing figure emerged: 1 yolk, 100 cups of oil. It seemed impossible, so I did the whole experiment again from scratch. There were some differences, but the result was of the same order of magnitude. There can be no doubt that the egg yolk is a prodigious emulsifier." -- The Curious Cook, Harold McGee, pg 118.

Thanks! I was going to see if I could find that article and edit a link into my post. Now I don't have to, that's exactly the one I was talking about.

[paulraphael]

McGee's talking about mayonnaise, which is a little easier than hollandaise, because milk fat is trickier to hold in an emulsion (after it's de-homogenized) than liquid oils. You might be able to make a hollandaise with a minute amount of yolk. But it would likely be even less stable than a normal version, which isn't all that stable. 

 

It's correct that you'd need to add proportionally more water if you're using proportionally less yolk. There needs to be something to emulsify the butter fat into. And fixing a hollandaise emulsion that's broken is harder than making one in the first place. 

[JoNorvelleWalker]

This thread was supposed to be about using a siphon.  I have made hollandaise using a siphon and while OK, in my opinion a siphon only adds difficulty and mess for the home cook.  I can see the convenience of a siphon in a commercial kitchen where the hollandaise can be held in a water bath for service.

 

In a home kitchen nothing beats a copper pot over direct heat.  And as I have found the CSO at 125 deg F. holds the hollandaise indefinitely.

 

 

 

[Thanks for the Crepes]

1 hour ago, JoNorvelleWalker said:

In a home kitchen nothing beats a copper pot over direct heat.

 

This is what I do, but in my little vintage Revere Ware 1 qt. pot. It's mostly stainless, but has a copper bottom. It works fine for me as long as I give it my undivided attention, and I DO mean complete attention.

[Tri2Cook]

7 hours ago, JoNorvelleWalker said:

This thread was supposed to be about using a siphon. 

Not really. The thread is titled "Hollandaise Techniques". The first question related to using a siphon but that's just one technique that can be covered under the blanket of the thread title. Anna asked about repairing a broken Hollandaise, which brings up other techniques that can be covered under that same blanket. But I agree that the siphon is a bit overkill for home service unless you're configuring it so it will foam and hold it's shape on the plate.

[paulraphael]

7 hours ago, JoNorvelleWalker said:

This thread was supposed to be about using a siphon.  I have made hollandaise using a siphon and while OK, in my opinion a siphon only adds difficulty and mess for the home cook.  I can see the convenience of a siphon in a commercial kitchen where the hollandaise can be held in a water bath for service.

 

In a home kitchen nothing beats a copper pot over direct heat.  And as I have found the CSO at 125 deg F. holds the hollandaise indefinitely.

 

The siphon is nice if you have a lot of stuff going on, want to do the hollandaise well in advance, and don't want to worry about it at all.

 

But more importantly, it's going to give a different texture. You get a lighter-than-air pillow of hollandaise that you can't get any other way. If you want a more traditional consistency, I don't know if the siphon will work. Traditional methods (whisk or blender) probably make more sense.

 

Another question is cooking methods. A lot of people who whip the hollandaise in a siphon cook it sous-vide. I've only done this once, but see the advantages as far as perfect control over thickness, perfect cooking, and indefinite holding.

Edited February 26, 2017 by paulraphael (log)

[paulraphael]

Also, the OP asked about hydrocolloids, presumably to stabilize hollandaise. This seams like a no-brainer of an idea, but I haven't heard of anyone having good luck with it. I've added a bit of xanthan and couldn't discern any difference. So I looked through the literature, and found no recommendations for doing it, and one scientific paper that strongly recommends against it. It seems that chefs who stabilize just about everything else agree with the scientists.

 

The only counter example I've found is a derivative technique on the Ideas in Food site. It's more of spheriphication technique than a stabilizing one.

Edited February 26, 2017 by paulraphael (log)

[Nyleve Baar]

My son, in a moment of inspiration, used a milk frother to make a small amount of hollandaise for his eggs benedict. It worked incredibly well. Seems to me he just put everything in at the same time and let it froth. I was pretty impressed.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Nyleve Baar (log)

[JoNorvelleWalker]

Staff note: This post has been split from Copper Cookware: The Topic

 

On 10/4/2022 at 6:11 AM, paulraphael said:

 

Falk makes their own laminated material, and they also sell it to Mauviel and Bourgeat. Exact same stuff. This arrangement explains why Falk is often a little cheaper. 

 

I love my copper pans. They feel great to use. But the real-world performance advantage is very, very subtle. On an electric cooktop I can't imagine it would be noticeable at all. Because copper's biggest advantage is responsiveness, and electric ranges (with the exception of induction, which won't work on copper) are very slow and imprecise to respond. 

 

Other things that copper does well, like spreading heat evenly, other materials can match. 5mm of aluminum heats every bit as evenly as 2.5mm of copper. But on most electric ranges, you don't need evenness from your cookware, because the burner has even coverage. 

 

So get copper if you're salivating for it. But don't expect it to improve your cooking. 

 

I would not prepare Hollandaise in 5mm aluminum on any heat source.  As I said, responsiveness on an electric stove is achieved simply by lifting the pan from the heat.  This is not rocket science.

 

[paulraphael]

On 10/4/2022 at 1:14 AM, JoNorvelleWalker said:

 

I would not prepare Hollandaise in 5mm aluminum on any heat source.  As I said, responsiveness on an electric stove is achieved simply by lifting the pan from the heat.  This is not rocket science.

 

 

It's not rocket science, but it's a workaround. 

 

I'm living part time with an electric range now ... waiting for the market to come out of its death spiral before renovating the kitchen. This is one of those flat-top radiant things. One thing that makes me crazy is that it regulates temperature by cycling on and off. And it's a slow cycle. So you get zero meaningful feedback about the heat by looking at the thing. And if you're using responsive cookware, temperature goes up and down and up and down all the time. There's no good way to control this.

 

I wouldn't use 5mm aluminum for a hollandaise either. But I've happily used All-clad trip-ply (aluminum and stainless) saucepans for this. I prefer my copper because of general awesomeness, but the thinner laminated aluminum gives just as much control. At lease within my ability to notice or care about it.