Braising sauce question

[Mikeb19]

Mr Keller flours his meat for braises when he browns.  Perhaps--and I'm gonna just throw this up there-- he knows something we don't.

←

What TK says isn't gospel. I know many professional chefs who disagree with alot of TK's methods...

It's not that the flour protects the meat from the heat. It's that the flour browns so quickly that the meat has no chance to brown. Floured meat takes maybe 40 seconds per side to brown and 2 minutes to burn. Unfloured meat should be seared for 3 - 4 minutes. Next time you braise, try and experiment. Flour 90% of the meat and leave the other 10% unfloured. See what the unfloured meat looks like when the floured meat has browned and thats how much browned meat flavour you're adding to the braise. The rest is browned flour flavour. 

←

Since when is browned flour flavour a bad thing? I don't know about you, but I love toast, fried chicken (wouldn't be the same without being dredged in flour), etc....

Anyhow, I'm not arguing for or against flouring meat before searing and braising, each gives you a different result, neither is 'better' than the other in my opinion. When I do a braise, I usually don't flour my meat, I sear it on very high heat, and usually thicken my sauce with a little bit of puréed vegetable, if I thicken it at all (in the restaurant we reduce the braising liquid and mount with butter, but then again we start with a nice, gelatinous stock - at home sometimes shortcuts are taken, like starting a braise with water).

Back to the original question, theres many ways to thicken. Roux works, starches work, you can get a xanthan/guar gum mix for thickening at most health stores, you can purée some vegetables and add a small amount to your sauce, reduction, butter, etc...

[paul o' vendange]

Just a thought - I sear very gently. By the time all sides of, say, a lamb shoulder have been seared, 1 hour or more has passed. I don't know if this is backed by science or not (anyone have McGee down more than I do, please chime in), but the rate of melanoidin formation and caramelization is as important to me as the final result. I find that a fast sear, or a fast reduction, develops an unpleasant, "grainy" character in the final product. I go slow, wherever possible. I would guess that the interface between the pan and product - the localized heat points under a rapid sear or reduction - firing with more energy, would be chemically different than under a more gentle scenario.

Re: thickening, I just think it has to do with what kind of character one is after in the finished product. I prefer sheen, and the mouthfeel imparted by gelatin, so I use a good strong chicken stock, generally, as a starting point and thickening agent, with maybe a bit of demi or dark chicken stock (a double stock) at the end. Brown roux, braised vegetable puree, reduced jus are all great, IMHO, just different in character.

Edited December 23, 2006 by paul o' vendange (log)

[Reefpimp]

Just a thought - I sear very gently.  By the time all sides of, say, a lamb shoulder have been seared, 1 hour or more has passed.  I don't know if this is backed by science or not (anyone have McGee down more than I do, please chime in), but the rate of melanoidin formation and caramelization is as important to me as the final result.  I find that a fast sear, or a fast reduction, develops an unpleasant, "grainy" character in the final product.  I go slow, wherever possible.  I would guess that the interface between the pan and product - the localized heat points under a rapid sear or reduction - firing with more energy, would be chemically different than under a more gentle scenario.

←

I have recently come around to this way of thinking. Yes, the sizzle and snap of a fast sear is impressive and certainly time-saving--but braising is, to me, slow food; and if you're going to cook slow food, why rush any given step?

For the Maillard reaction, all you have to do is get the salient protiens above 300* f or so. That's it. I sometimes flour and sometimes don't, but I find that as my searing temps come down, I'm flouring more and more often. Burned flour==gross. Toasted flour=/= gross. Flour won't scorch on a 350* surface unless it's there a long, long time.

TK is the closest thing to Gospel I've got. But even Matthew, Mark, Luke and John disagree on specifics.

[Shalmanese]

Since when is browned flour flavour a bad thing?  I don't know about you, but I love toast, fried chicken (wouldn't be the same without being dredged in flour), etc.... 

Anyhow, I'm not arguing for or against flouring meat before searing and braising, each gives you a different result, neither is 'better' than the other in my opinion.  When I do a braise, I usually don't flour my meat, I sear it on very high heat, and usually thicken my sauce with a little bit of puréed vegetable, if I thicken it at all (in the restaurant we reduce the braising liquid and mount with butter, but then again we start with a nice, gelatinous stock - at home sometimes shortcuts are taken, like starting a braise with water).   

Back to the original question, theres many ways to thicken.  Roux works, starches work, you can get a xanthan/guar gum mix for thickening at most health stores, you can purée some vegetables and add a small amount to your sauce, reduction, butter, etc...

←

It's not. Which is why I advocate flouring the pan after the vegtables have sauteed and letting it cook slowly to brown the flour then. You get brown meat AND brown flour flavour, the best of both worlds. And fried chicken has flour for the texture more than anything else.

[russ parsons]

i'm very much an advocate of a slow sear, especially when flouring. you get a much more even browning and much less chance of scorching. high-heat is impressive looking, but braises aren't about drama.

again, though, it really depends on the final result you want.

[Qwerty]

i'm very much an advocate of a slow sear, especially when flouring. you get a much more even browning and much less chance of scorching. high-heat is impressive looking, but braises aren't about drama.

again, though, it really depends on the final result you want.

←

I'm an advocate of a quick, high heat sear. Reason being, the more raw protein you have, the more umami and flavor the meat is going to impart to the braising liquid. If you do a slow sear, then you are going to cook the meat on the inside while waiting for a nice brown crust to form, and cooked meat does not impart nearly the flavor and mouthfeel to the braise that uncooked meat does.

So a quick, high heat sear leaves the meat raw inside, then the raw meat leeches it's flavor and umami to the liquid.

Again, just my thoughts.

Not saying you can't have a good braise with a slow sear, but I don't think it will be as good as it could be.

[Reefpimp]

Sometime in the next week I will be able to do comparos: Flour v. no-flour/hi-heat v. lo-heat, and various permutations of same. We shall see. Don't know about pics because the chef at my restaurant is... well, "testy" is diplomatic, right?--but we shall see what we shall see. It would be a logical follow-on to Braising Lab #4. We can all try this regardless of whether or not its been sanctioned by the Admin Gods, right? Although it'd be cool if Chris stepped in and defined parameters since he seems to be pretty good at that sort of thing.

That said:

I think we need to see Braising Lab #5: Low heat sear V. High heat sear; and, after those results are in,

Braising Lab #6: Floured V. Nonfloured (maybe with notes on different types of flour?)

Maybe even a Braise Lab #7 for this topic, thickening of the braise liquid.

Don't lets get ego tied up in this, gentlemen. There is no such thing as bad knowlege.

Edited December 25, 2006 by Reefpimp (log)

[Qwerty]

Sometime in the next week I will be able to do comparos:  Flour v. no-flour/hi-heat v. lo-heat, and various permutations of same.  We shall see.  Don't know about pics because the chef at my restaurant is... well, "testy" is diplomatic, right?--but we shall see what we shall see.  It would be a logical follow-on to Braising Lab #4.  We can all try this regardless of whether or not its been sanctioned by the Admin Gods, right?  Although it'd be cool if Chris stepped in and defined parameters since he seems to be pretty good at that sort of thing.

That said:

I think we need to see Braising Lab #5:  Low heat sear V. High heat sear;  and, after those results are in,

Braising Lab #6: Floured V. Nonfloured (maybe with notes on different types of flour?)

Maybe even a Braise Lab #7 for this topic,  thickening of the braise liquid.

Don't lets get ego tied up in this, gentlemen.  There is no such thing as bad knowlege.

←

No ego here. As I stated earlier, I was just expressing my opinion on the matter. I acknowledge a wide variety of cooking techniques, none truly more superior than the other since the result is so subjective in nature. Of course, I like it when people agree with me Healthy debate, about cooking in particular, is always welcome on this end.

I agree with the need for further testing. Perhaps we could find a way to work the braising liquid into the picture, i.e. water vs stock, weak stock vs. heavy stock, with/without wine, etc.

[Reefpimp]

Oh, I'd just had a few at my sister's place last night; don't pay me no never-mind, I was just being pompous cause I think its funny sometimes.

So we two at least can agree that we need to do further testing:

Logically, to me, we should progress from dry into wet, and from cool into hot, and that means four different braises: low-temp no flour, lo-temp with flour, hi-temp no flour, hi-temp with flour.

Pick the one that gives the best crust/texture/fond formation and then go to work on the question of liquid. I'd recommend everybody using a decent brand of bottled water, boxed/canned stock, and wine just so we're all on the same sheet of music. Obviously if I use good fresh beef demi as an ingredient in my braise, it will taste better than somebody who just sieved all the veggies out of a can of Campbells soup. Ya folla?

Comments, thoughts, questions, concerns, complaints? Anybody got beef with me for this ?