Butter and cream

[Margaret Pilgrim]

I don't get the negative connotation re butter and cream in either the pro or home kitchen (re Culinary Duplicity thread). I use butter and cream whenever I think they will add to the flavor or texture of a dish.

I've spent the greater part of my (substantial!) years saying "No" to various foods, and have found that in the long haul, it is quantity and not specific foods that are the culprits. My cooking philosophy is to maximize the essential natural flavor of what I'm cooking, and I agree that overuse of fats can dilute this. But assuming that the cook is staying within this perimeter, I have no problem with dishes rich in butter or cream. We cook everything "fresh" and "from scratch", serve reduction+butter sauces several times a week, and buy heavy cream by the quart with no guilt.

[Jinmyo]

Margaret, you are on the side of good and walk hand in hand with the angels.

[polly]

Couldn't have said it better myself

[Bux]

If my daughter has said anything quotable, and I believe she has said many things worth listening to, her best line has been "You know why this tastes good? Butter."

[Fat Guy]

There are at least three general objections to butter and cream, one of which is neurotic, one of which is historically driven, and one of which has to do with experience.

The neurotic objection has to do with the calories and the saturated fat and all that. It just so happens that we've been living at one end of a pendulum swing for awhile, and we have been conditioned to fear butter and cream (as well as rendered animal fats and the like). This conditioning is so overwhelmingly powerful that even those who understand intellectually that the case against butter and cream is weak can occasionally be heard to make nervous "heart attack on a plate" comments when staring down a plate of serious French food, and restaurants engage in endemic dishonesty about how much fat they really use. (I note, based on following the literature closely for the past four or so years, that the pendulum will likely swing the other way soon.)

The objection I find more compelling is that butter and cream -- the quick-cooking fats -- became overly relied upon as a result of the establishment of the modern restaurant kitchen and the a la minute scheme of food preparation. They are a way to maximize flavor in a short period of time. Other methods of maximizing flavor -- the longer, slower cooking methods that don't tend to rely on much fat at all -- were reduced in standing and influence.

There is also the objection based on experience: Butter and cream in the hands of an incompetent cook create heaviness and fattiness, and we have all been victims of incompetent cooks.

But in the hands of a skilled cook butter and cream create lusciousness and silkiness without apparent weight. They are useful ingredients when employed properly, and not used as crutches. And taken in moderation they -- like most things -- are not likely to be harmful.

[Kim WB]

If my daughter has said anything quotable, and I believe she has said many things worth listening to, her best line has been "You know why this tastes good? Butter."

My youndest son comes up with some amazing quotes, too...and relating to this on butter, a few days ago while eating an ear of fresh corn, he said " you almost don't have to eat the corn...just sucking on it is enough"

[Bux]

Of course my daughter says this as a professional after working in a couple of top kitchens.

The best words to come out of the mouth of a child lately have been "You can't teach a new dog old tricks." It's absolutely true, sometimes children and novices just have to learn the hard way by experience.

[APPS411]

There are at least three general objections to butter and cream, one of which is neurotic, one of which is

historically driven, and one of which has to do with experience.

I hope you all don't think I'm in the "neurotic" category for originally posting butter and cream comment in the cheats thread.

I don't condone the use of them, just think they need to be used in moderation. The cases that I were referring to went entirely overboard on the quantity used. So much that the oil slick formed on my palate covered up every bit of flavor that the dish in question was trying to exhibit.

If you're paying good money for what you expect to be a great tasting meal and the majority of what you taste is butter then why not spend that good money on a nice stick of normandy butter and a quart of cream, rent a video, sit on the couch and go to town.

The butter should be a carrier of the flavor of the food, not the other way around.

Here's an example. There is a famous dish called BBQ shrimp served in New Orleans at Mr. B's Bistro. These extremely flavorful shell and head on extra large Gulf shrimp are sauteed in a sauce made from worchestire sauce, lemon juice, garlic, crushed pepper corns, hot pepper and butter. Actually the recipe (from Mr. B's) calls for 6-8 full ounces of cubed butter per serving. (www.mrbsbistro.com)

The sauce is very rich and good. But of course it's going to be rich w/ that much friggin butter in it. You eat the shrimp and sop up the sauce w/ french bread.

I've had the dish a few times and heard from many other that had it and loved it. So I decided to have about 20 of these BBQ shrimp lovers over for a dinner party and try the recipe out myself. But instead I left out a majority of the butter and added some substitutions for the creamyness to see if they could tell the difference. Instead of wisking in the full recommended 6-8 ounces of cubed frozen butter into the sauce at the end, I added a bit of buttery belgian beer, only an ounce or so of butter and a bit of slurry to make up for the lack of thickening that the full 6-8 ounces would have provided.

When served, everyone said that it was more flavorfull than the original. The flavor of the shrimp was more prevalent in the dish.

Point being. Some flavors get masked when too much butter or cream is used.

And it makes me wonder what some dishes that I have eaten would have tasted like and what flavor would have been better expressed had there been less of the products in question used.

[Kim WB]

Instead of wisking in the full recommended 6-8 ounces of cubed frozen butter into the sauce at the end, I added a bit of buttery belgian beer, only an ounce or so of butter and a bit of slurry to make up for the lack of thickening that the full 6-8 ounces would have provided. 

I'm sorry, but working on the premise that the only stupid question is an unasked one, what is slurry?

However, there are many stupid questions. 15 years ago in my Lamaze class, when told that ice chips may be helpful during labor, a prospective father asked how to make them. It is actually rather frightening to think of how stupid some people are..and this one was breeding!

[Fat Guy]

A slurry is a paste made from flour and water. You mix it into soups, sauces, and the like to thicken them -- kind of like how you thicken gravy with Wondra.

[jaybee]

There is also the objection based on experience: Butter and cream in the hands of an incompetent cook create heaviness and fattiness, and we have all been victims of incompetent cooks.

A similar argument is made by gun control advocates.

[Fat Guy]

"Butter and cream don't make bad dishes; people make bad dishes."

[Kim WB]

There is also the objection based on experience: Butter and cream in the hands of an incompetent cook create heaviness and fattiness, and we have all been victims of incompetent cooks.

A similar argument is made by gun control advocates.

No, the "guns don't killpeople, people kill people" line is from the NRA, not the gun violence prevention people.