![]() |
|
Welcome to FoodBanter.com forums which provide access to the finest food and drink related newsgroups. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most newsgroup discussions and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics to the food related newsgroups, communicate privately with other FoodBanter.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact support. |
|
|||||||
| General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2
hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for another 45 mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow to cook too long, in other words is there a certain window of opportunity where the meat is just right and tender as can be? Also does it matter how much liquid I add? What happens if I almost cover the meat with liquid as oppose to 1/4 - 1/2 of the meat. Is it the liquid or the steam that tenderizes the meat? |
|
|||
|
Scott wrote:
The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2 hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for another 45 mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow to cook too long, in other words is there a certain window of opportunity where the meat is just right and tender as can be? Also does it matter how much liquid I add? What happens if I almost cover the meat with liquid as oppose to 1/4 - 1/2 of the meat. Is it the liquid or the steam that tenderizes the meat? Oh yeah 1 more question, just about every recipe never mentions turning the meat while it's simmering. Wouldn't the meat cook/tenderize more evenly if turn while simmering? |
|
|||
|
Scott wrote:
The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2 hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for another 45 mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow to cook too long, in other words is there a certain window of opportunity where the meat is just right and tender as can be? You don't mention at all what cut of meat you used for the pot roast. Chuck roast benefits very well from this long, slow cooking. Practically falling apart, fork tender when it's done (in relatively little cooking time). Makes great gravy and veggies also cook nicely in the juices. I have no idea what you cooked. Jill |
|
|||
|
jmcquown wrote:
Scott wrote: The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2 hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for another 45 mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow to cook too long, in other words is there a certain window of opportunity where the meat is just right and tender as can be? You don't mention at all what cut of meat you used for the pot roast. Chuck roast benefits very well from this long, slow cooking. Practically falling apart, fork tender when it's done (in relatively little cooking time). Makes great gravy and veggies also cook nicely in the juices. I have no idea what you cooked. Jill Chuck roast of course ![]() |
|
|||
|
jmcquown wrote:
Scott wrote: The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2 hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for another 45 mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow to cook too long, in other words is there a certain window of opportunity where the meat is just right and tender as can be? You don't mention at all what cut of meat you used for the pot roast. Chuck roast benefits very well from this long, slow cooking. Practically falling apart, fork tender when it's done (in relatively little cooking time). Makes great gravy and veggies also cook nicely in the juices. I have no idea what you cooked. Jill Wait a minute, don't the following statements contradict: long, slow cooking in relatively little cooking time |
|
|||
|
Scott wrote:
jmcquown wrote: Scott wrote: The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2 hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for another 45 mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow to cook too long, in other words is there a certain window of opportunity where the meat is just right and tender as can be? You don't mention at all what cut of meat you used for the pot roast. Chuck roast benefits very well from this long, slow cooking. Practically falling apart, fork tender when it's done (in relatively little cooking time). Makes great gravy and veggies also cook nicely in the juices. I have no idea what you cooked. Jill Wait a minute, don't the following statements contradict: long, slow cooking in relatively little cooking time Relatively short cooking time in that you don't cook it 8 hours... 1-1/2 to 2 hours is slow cooking for a 3 lb. chuck roast ![]() Jill |
|
|||
|
jmcquown wrote:
Scott wrote: jmcquown wrote: Scott wrote: The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2 hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for another 45 mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow to cook too long, in other words is there a certain window of opportunity where the meat is just right and tender as can be? You don't mention at all what cut of meat you used for the pot roast. Chuck roast benefits very well from this long, slow cooking. Practically falling apart, fork tender when it's done (in relatively little cooking time). Makes great gravy and veggies also cook nicely in the juices. I have no idea what you cooked. Jill Wait a minute, don't the following statements contradict: long, slow cooking in relatively little cooking time Relatively short cooking time in that you don't cook it 8 hours... 1-1/2 to 2 hours is slow cooking for a 3 lb. chuck roast ![]() Jill OK now what would happen if I did cook it for 8 hours? Is there such a thing as being too tender? |
|
|||
|
Scott wrote:
OK now what would happen if I did cook it for 8 hours? Is there such a thing as being too tender? What will happen is that it will begin to fall apart. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as you can they shred it with a fork. I do that deliberately at times. Shredded beef makes great sandwiches and taco filling. Brian -- If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) |
|
|||
|
Scott wrote:
jmcquown wrote: Scott wrote: jmcquown wrote: Scott wrote: The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2 hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for another 45 You don't mention at all what cut of meat you used for the pot roast. Chuck roast benefits very well from this long, slow cooking. Practically falling apart, fork tender when it's done (in relatively little cooking time). Makes great gravy and veggies also cook nicely in the juices. I have no idea what you cooked. Jill Wait a minute, don't the following statements contradict: long, slow cooking in relatively little cooking time Relatively short cooking time in that you don't cook it 8 hours... 1-1/2 to 2 hours is slow cooking for a 3 lb. chuck roast ![]() Jill OK now what would happen if I did cook it for 8 hours? Is there such a thing as being too tender? You'd have a piece of charcoal (unless you were using a slow cooker/crock pot). Jill |
|
|||
|
"Scott" wrote in message ... The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2 hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for another 45 mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow to cook too long, in other words is there a certain window of opportunity where the meat is just right and tender as can be? Also does it matter how much liquid I add? What happens if I almost cover the meat with liquid as oppose to 1/4 - 1/2 of the meat. Is it the liquid or the steam that tenderizes the meat? Think temp... not time. |
|
|||
|
"Scott" wrote in message ... The other night I made some pot roast and when I check on it after 2 hours it wasn't as tender as I like it to be so I let it simmer for another 45 mins then I got to thinking what would happened if allow to cook too long, in other words is there a certain window of opportunity where the meat is just right and tender as can be? Also does it matter how much liquid I add? What happens if I almost cover the meat with liquid as oppose to 1/4 - 1/2 of the meat. Is it the liquid or the steam that tenderizes the meat? If you go too long, it can dry and start to get tough. It is neither the liquid nor the steam that makes it tender. Tough cuts of meat come from the harder working parts of the animal. The have more collagen in the muscle, thus the toughness. By slowly heating the meat and holding it at about 163 degrees, the collagen breaks down and the meat becomes more tender. Notice how the liquid increases as it cooks? Once the collagen is gone and the fat is gone, the meat will start to dry. Moisture slows the process and gives a wider safety margin. |