Lately when we are in the mood for beef I've bought Sirloin Tip Roast,
browned it well (quickly, on high, in a bit of olive oil) on all sides in a
deep pot, added two cups of water, pepper and a little rosemary, covered it
and brought it down to a very slow simmer, and after two hours added
vegetables and cooked one more hour.

The result is exquisitely tender meat that falls apart and is not dry at
all, and a lovely broth (au jus, really.) (Before we eat it I skim all the
fat I can, chill it, and remove the rest.)

Tonight I made it with just baby carrots and served it with hot crusty
homemade bread and green salad. This is the best cut of beef I have found
for this cooking method.



Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

cybercat wrote:
> Lately when we are in the mood for beef I've bought Sirloin Tip Roast,
> browned it well (quickly, on high, in a bit of olive oil) on all sides in a
> deep pot, added two cups of water, pepper and a little rosemary, covered it
> and brought it down to a very slow simmer, and after two hours added
> vegetables and cooked one more hour.
>
> The result is exquisitely tender meat that falls apart and is not dry at
> all, and a lovely broth (au jus, really.) (Before we eat it I skim all the
> fat I can, chill it, and remove the rest.)
>
> Tonight I made it with just baby carrots and served it with hot crusty
> homemade bread and green salad. This is the best cut of beef I have found
> for this cooking method.

Try beef short ribs, or flanken, or 7-bone chuck roast... best braising
beef contains bones.

With the carrots don't forget the onions, garlic, potatoes, and
'shrooms. I don't like rosemary with beef... use parsley and marjoram.

Sheldon

"Sheldon" > wrote

>
> Try beef short ribs, or flanken, or 7-bone chuck roast... best braising
> beef contains bones.

I wondered about this. Does this mean that the broth will gel when
cold, like with chicken stock?
>
> With the carrots don't forget the onions, garlic, potatoes, and
> 'shrooms. I don't like rosemary with beef... use parsley and marjoram.
>

Next time. I know I would like onions, browned and still plump, in there.



Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

cybercat wrote:
> Lately when we are in the mood for beef I've bought Sirloin Tip Roast,
> browned it well (quickly, on high, in a bit of olive oil) on all sides in a
> deep pot, added two cups of water, pepper and a little rosemary, covered it
> and brought it down to a very slow simmer, and after two hours added
> vegetables and cooked one more hour.
>
> The result is exquisitely tender meat that falls apart and is not dry at
> all, and a lovely broth (au jus, really.) (Before we eat it I skim all the
> fat I can, chill it, and remove the rest.)
>
> Tonight I made it with just baby carrots and served it with hot crusty
> homemade bread and green salad. This is the best cut of beef I have found
> for this cooking method.
>
>
>
> Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
>
IMO the best beef for braising, no contest, is beef cheek. It has a rich
flavour comparable to oxtail, and there is no fat at all.

Christine

cybercat wrote:
> "Sheldon" > wrote
>
> >
> > Try beef short ribs, or flanken, or 7-bone chuck roast... best braising
> > beef contains bones.
>
> I wondered about this. Does this mean that the broth will gel when
> cold, like with chicken stock?
> >
> > With the carrots don't forget the onions, garlic, potatoes, and
> > 'shrooms. I don't like rosemary with beef... use parsley and marjoram.
> >
>
> Next time. I know I would like onions, browned and still plump, in there.
>
>
>

I make a 7 bone chuck often, but with a sort of Moroccan twist.
I brown the meat, then add lots of chopped onion, some cilantro and
parsley, a diced (peeled and seeded if you like) tomato, chopped
garlic, sharp paprika and just a bit of dried ginger and salt and
pepper.

The onions tend to give off a lot of liquid, so it is not necessary to
add too much water- maybe a cup depending on the size of the pan and
the meat--it does not need to be submerged in water.

I let it simmer on very low for 2-3 hours (covered) and then at the end
add some green olives and peas or artichoke hearts (fresh or frozen not
canned). I usually serve roasted potatoes on the side, but sometimes I
throw potato wedges in with the meat. There is very little liquid in
the pan when it is done. There is some-but not a lot. Enough to dip
bread in. My husband hates it when I put too much water in the pot.
He says "It's not soup!!" If I do put too much water in--I take the
lid of at the end and crank the heat to let some of it cook off.

We eat it Moroccan style using bread to scoop and eat.

I don't end up with a lot of "gel" in the leftovers.

It does tend to be very greasy, but it is delicious.

Tracy

Tracy wrote:

> I make a 7 bone chuck often, but with a sort of Moroccan twist.
> I brown the meat, then add lots of chopped onion, some cilantro and
> parsley, a diced (peeled and seeded if you like) tomato, chopped
> garlic, sharp paprika and just a bit of dried ginger and salt and
> pepper.

Bone-in chuck roasts were a fixture of my youth, but somewhere along
the line the supermarkets started selling only boneless ones. In fact,
about the only beef cuts still sold with bones in them are T-Bone and
Porterhouse steaks, and rib roasts. The round steaks, sirloins, chucks
are all boneless these days.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Steve Wertz wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:03:57 +1000, Old Mother Ashby wrote:
>
>
>> IMO the best beef for braising, no contest, is beef cheek. It has a rich
>> flavour comparable to oxtail, and there is no fat at all.
>>
>
> I hate to be the one to break it to you, but cheek meat is *very*
> fatty. And there's no way to trim the fat completely out of it.
>
> -sw
>
We must be talking about different cuts. Either that or Texan cattle
don't do much chewing! Or maybe it's something to do with the grass
fed/grain fed thing. I swear to you I've never seen a piece of beef
cheek with any fat on it - there is a layer of tough fibre but that
should be trimmed off by the butcher. Oxtail, on the other hand, has
obvious fat which is impossible to completely trim. You have to remove
it from the cooked dish after it's cooled down.

The meat I'm talking about is very, I suppose you would call it sinewy.
It takes a bit of effort to cut it up raw if you don't want to cook it
in the piece, but the gristle all melts down in the cooking and the
liquid sets into a pretty solid jelly.

Christine

Steve Wertz wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:07:59 +1000, Old Mother Ashby wrote:
>
>
>> The meat I'm talking about is very, I suppose you would call it sinewy.
>> It takes a bit of effort to cut it up raw if you don't want to cook it
>> in the piece, but the gristle all melts down in the cooking and the
>> liquid sets into a pretty solid jelly.
>>
>
> That collagen is mostly fat.
>
> -sw
>
Thank you, collagen is the word I was looking for - I think that, as so
often happens with rfc, we have a semantic problem. Collagen and fat are
both forms of connective tissue, but they are different substances. If
I may quote Harold McGee, at page 130:

"The major connective tissue filament is the protein called collagen,
which makes up about a third of all the protein in the animal body, and
is concentrated in the skin, tendons and bones. The name comes from the
Greek for "glue producing", because when it's heated in water, solid,
tough collagen partly dissolves into sticky gelatin. So unlike the
muscle fibers, which become tougher with cooking, the connective tissue
becomes softer....

Fat tissue is a special form of connective tissue, one in which some of
the cells take on the role of storing energy. Animals form fat tissue in
three different parts of the body: just under the skin, where it can
provide insulation as well as energy; in well-defined deposits in the
body cavity, often around the kidneys, intestine, and heart; and in the
connective tissue separating muscles and bundles within muscles. The
term "marbling" is used to describe the pattern of white splotches in
the red matrix of muscle."

When I said beef cheek had no fat I meant fatty fat, the kind that rises
to the top of the liquid and will solidify on cooling. Beef cheek is of
course loaded with collagen which dissolves and makes the liquid
unctuously sticky.

Christine

"Old Mother Ashby" > wrote >

>When I said beef cheek had no fat I meant fatty fat, the kind that rises
> to the top of the liquid and will solidify on cooling. Beef cheek is of
> course loaded with collagen which dissolves and makes the liquid
> unctuously sticky.
>

Christine, let me say, first, that this was an excellent post on the
properties of collagen and fat.

That said, "unctuously sticky" does not sound good to me.
Perhaps the meat is good, though? And you do not consume
the liquid?



Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

"Tracy" > wrote

> I make a 7 bone chuck often, but with a sort of Moroccan twist.
> I brown the meat, then add lots of chopped onion, some cilantro and
> parsley, a diced (peeled and seeded if you like) tomato, chopped
> garlic, sharp paprika and just a bit of dried ginger and salt and
> pepper.
>
> The onions tend to give off a lot of liquid, so it is not necessary to
> add too much water- maybe a cup depending on the size of the pan and
> the meat--it does not need to be submerged in water.
>
> I let it simmer on very low for 2-3 hours (covered) and then at the end
> add some green olives and peas or artichoke hearts (fresh or frozen not
> canned). I usually serve roasted potatoes on the side, but sometimes I
> throw potato wedges in with the meat. There is very little liquid in
> the pan when it is done. There is some-but not a lot. Enough to dip
> bread in. My husband hates it when I put too much water in the pot.
> He says "It's not soup!!" If I do put too much water in--I take the
> lid of at the end and crank the heat to let some of it cook off.
>
> We eat it Moroccan style using bread to scoop and eat.
>

I saved this in my "to try" file, sounds perfectly wonderful.
> I don't end up with a lot of "gel" in the leftovers.
>
> It does tend to be very greasy, but it is delicious.
>
> Tracy
>



Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

cybercat wrote:
> "Old Mother Ashby" > wrote >
>
>
>> When I said beef cheek had no fat I meant fatty fat, the kind that rises
>> to the top of the liquid and will solidify on cooling. Beef cheek is of
>> course loaded with collagen which dissolves and makes the liquid
>> unctuously sticky.
>>
>>
>
> Christine, let me say, first, that this was an excellent post on the
> properties of collagen and fat.
>
> That said, "unctuously sticky" does not sound good to me.
> Perhaps the meat is good, though? And you do not consume
> the liquid?
>
The excellence was all Mr McGee's! His book is full of wonderfully lucid
explanations.

I did not mean to use unctuous in a pejorative sense. The meat and the
liquid are both very richly flavoured. There is no need to reduce or
otherwise thicken the liquid. I use red wine, tomato paste and herbs.

Christine

"Steve Wertz" > wrote in message
...
> On 14 Jun 2006 21:59:23 +0200, cybercat wrote:
>
> > That said, "unctuously sticky" does not sound good to me.
> > Perhaps the meat is good, though? And you do not consume
> > the liquid?
>
> You'd have to cook some beef cheek meat to understand how sticky
> this stuff is. You could toss it lightly at any wall and it would
> stick like Velcro.
>
> It's very good, though. It's what's used to make barbacoa in most
> Tex-mex restaurants/roach-coaches, and you usually pay slightly
> more for it than you would any other meat.
>

hmm .. okay, food for thought. It was "sticky" that grossed me out,
not so much "unctuously."

Part of the problem with it is, when I braise beef, I am in it for the
broth just as much as the beef. And I like the kind of broth that does
not "gel" in both beef and chicken dishes. The consistency does not
put me off (I made my own chicken stock with bones for years), I just
like the flavor of the non-gelling broth better, at least in chicken.

I'm kind of new at the beef thing. For years all I knew was that everything
I tried to make with beef turned out tough unless I bought filet mignon or
grilled ribeyes, so I avoided it. I'm learning about it now.



Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

cybercat wrote:
> "Steve Wertz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 14 Jun 2006 21:59:23 +0200, cybercat wrote:
> >
> > > That said, "unctuously sticky" does not sound good to me.
> > > Perhaps the meat is good, though? And you do not consume
> > > the liquid?
> >
> > You'd have to cook some beef cheek meat to understand how sticky
> > this stuff is. You could toss it lightly at any wall and it would
> > stick like Velcro.
> >
> > It's very good, though. It's what's used to make barbacoa in most
> > Tex-mex restaurants/roach-coaches, and you usually pay slightly
> > more for it than you would any other meat.
> >
>
> hmm .. okay, food for thought. It was "sticky" that grossed me out,
> not so much "unctuously."
>
> Part of the problem with it is, when I braise beef, I am in it for the
> broth just as much as the beef. And I like the kind of broth that does
> not "gel" in both beef and chicken dishes. The consistency does not
> put me off (I made my own chicken stock with bones for years), I just
> like the flavor of the non-gelling broth better, at least in chicken.

Won't gel when served hot... and gelatin is flavorless.

Sheldon

In article
>,
Old Mother Ashby > wrote:

> cybercat wrote:
> > "Old Mother Ashby" > wrote >
> >
> >
> >> When I said beef cheek had no fat I meant fatty fat, the kind that rises
> >> to the top of the liquid and will solidify on cooling. Beef cheek is of
> >> course loaded with collagen which dissolves and makes the liquid
> >> unctuously sticky.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Christine, let me say, first, that this was an excellent post on the
> > properties of collagen and fat.
> >
> > That said, "unctuously sticky" does not sound good to me.
> > Perhaps the meat is good, though? And you do not consume
> > the liquid?
> >
> The excellence was all Mr McGee's! His book is full of wonderfully lucid
> explanations.
>
> I did not mean to use unctuous in a pejorative sense. The meat and the
> liquid are both very richly flavoured. There is no need to reduce or
> otherwise thicken the liquid. I use red wine, tomato paste and herbs.
>
> Christine

Darn...
I'd planned on using up that chunk of bottom round I have in the freezer
for this weekends beef braise, but I may go spring for a beef cheek
instead. ;-)

You've gone and given me a hankerin' for beef braised pot roast!
--
Peace!
Om

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch"
-- Jack Nicholson

Sheldon wrote:
> cybercat wrote:
>
>> "Steve Wertz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> On 14 Jun 2006 21:59:23 +0200, cybercat wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> That said, "unctuously sticky" does not sound good to me.
>>>> Perhaps the meat is good, though? And you do not consume
>>>> the liquid?
>>>>
>>> You'd have to cook some beef cheek meat to understand how sticky
>>> this stuff is. You could toss it lightly at any wall and it would
>>> stick like Velcro.
>>>
>>> It's very good, though. It's what's used to make barbacoa in most
>>> Tex-mex restaurants/roach-coaches, and you usually pay slightly
>>> more for it than you would any other meat.
>>>
>>>
>> hmm .. okay, food for thought. It was "sticky" that grossed me out,
>> not so much "unctuously."
>>
>> Part of the problem with it is, when I braise beef, I am in it for the
>> broth just as much as the beef. And I like the kind of broth that does
>> not "gel" in both beef and chicken dishes. The consistency does not
>> put me off (I made my own chicken stock with bones for years), I just
>> like the flavor of the non-gelling broth better, at least in chicken.
>>
>
> Won't gel when served hot... and gelatin is flavorless.
>
Exactly. But the hot liquid has a wonderful mouthfeel; it's not like you're eating glue, but it's sort of silky. As to chicken broth, I am having trouble working out how you would make a decent tasting broth that didn't gel to some extent.

Christine

"Old Mother Ashby" > wrote :

> As to chicken broth, I am having trouble working out how you would make a
decent tasting broth that didn't gel to some >extent.
>

Just use meat for the stock, and skin. Heck, if Campbells can do it, we can
do it, right?

What puts me off is the waste involved. You'd probably have to waste a whole
chicken
just for the stock, then cook another for the tender meat you want in the
soup.

I have just been buying canned or cartoned Swanson's broth and adding my own
roasted meat to it, vegetables and rice, whatever. But around here it is $3
for the
32-oz cans, so the expense might be equal to that of buying an extra
chicken. Still,
I am not sure I could feel comfortable throwing that much quality protein
away.



Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

cybercat wrote:
> "Old Mother Ashby" > wrote :
>
>
>> As to chicken broth, I am having trouble working out how you would make a
>>
> decent tasting broth that didn't gel to some >extent.
>
>
> Just use meat for the stock, and skin. Heck, if Campbells can do it, we can
> do it, right?
>
> What puts me off is the waste involved. You'd probably have to waste a whole
> chicken
> just for the stock, then cook another for the tender meat you want in the
> soup.
>
I don't know what Campbell's do, and I'm not sure that I want to when I
read the list of ingredients. I confess to occasionally using carton
stock for convenience, but only when I think it's not going to be
obvious. And I always feel slightly guilty about spending money on
something that I can make myself for almost no cost.

I usually make chicken stock from the carcass of roast chicken. That
includes the bones from the meal - the prolonged simmering will kill off
any germs! Not only is there no waste, it's positively economical. OK so
you throw away the vegetables, but that's not going to break the bank.
If I want meat in the soup I can always buy a breast, but I usually use
the stock f as a base, or for serving with Chinese dumplings.
> I have just been buying canned or cartoned Swanson's broth and adding my own
> roasted meat to it, vegetables and rice, whatever. But around here it is $3
> for the
> 32-oz cans, so the expense might be equal to that of buying an extra
> chicken. Still,
> I am not sure I could feel comfortable throwing that much quality protein
> away.
>
You can buy chickens for $3.00? Still, even if you can, why would you make stock out of a whole bird? If I want to make stock from fresh chicken I just buy the bones which only cost a dollar or so - at your prices I imagine you'd be able to pick them up for about 20 cents!

Christine

cybercat wrote on 16 Jun 2006 in rec.food.cooking

> Anyway, if anyone knows how to make stock that does not gel, I am
> interested!
>

Make stock that gels...add water till it doesn't...


I use cartoned stock plus stock paste a fair bit due to being lazy and not
having enough time or space to freeze homemade. I find Cambels cartoned
chicken stock and some redibase turkey paste stock make for a nice start to
an impromtu soup.

When I make homemade stock I poach a chicken in water to cover with herbs
and flavourful veggies, such as onion, fennel, carrot, parsnip, pepper
corns bay leaf etc. When the chicken is cooked I remove it and save the
flesh and return the bones to the stock pot. Let the stock simmer a hour or
so more then remove the spent veggies etc and put it in the fridge
overnight to ease fat removal. To this skimmed stock I'll add stuff like
salt, fresh veggies, noodles etc to make the soup.

--
-Alan

"Old Mother Ashby" > wrote in message
...
> cybercat wrote:
>> "Old Mother Ashby" > wrote :
>>
>>

>>
> I don't know what Campbell's do, and I'm not sure that I want to when I
> read the list of ingredients. I confess to occasionally using carton stock
> for convenience, but only when I think it's not going to be obvious. And I
> always feel slightly guilty about spending money on something that I can
> make myself for almost no cost.

You cannot make stock that does not gel if you use bones in the
stock pot. My assumption is that stock that does not gel is made
without bones. I may be wrong! Could be Campbells and Swanson
et al have chemicals they add to normal stock to keep it from gelling.
That is why I love this group, it gets me to examine the foundations
of my assumptions!

>
> I usually make chicken stock from the carcass of roast chicken. That
> includes the bones from the meal - the prolonged simmering will kill off
> any germs! Not only is there no waste, it's positively economical. OK so
> you throw away the vegetables, but that's not going to break the bank. If
> I want meat in the soup I can always buy a breast, but I usually use the
> stock f as a base, or for serving with Chinese dumplings.

Sounds like a practical idea. When I made my own stock I either roasted
or poached a whole chicken for as long as it takes to cook the meat and
leave it succulent and tender. I then cooled it, removed the meat, and
put the bones, skin, wings and meat scraps in the stock pot, often
with carcasses I froze earlier from roasted chicken dinners. Once the
stock simmered for five hours or so, I would strain it, season it, and add
vegetables and the chicken I had removed earlier, maybe rice.


>> I have just been buying canned or cartoned Swanson's broth and adding my
>> own
>> roasted meat to it, vegetables and rice, whatever. But around here it is
>> $3
>> for the
>> 32-oz cans, so the expense might be equal to that of buying an extra
>> chicken. Still,
>> I am not sure I could feel comfortable throwing that much quality protein
>> away.
>>
> You can buy chickens for $3.00?

I can buy fat roasters for 99 cents a pound--so let's say $5.00 for a
medium-sized
chicken. I use 2-3 large cans of broth as I share my home made dishes with
family.
Often legs and thighs sell for 49 cents a pound here in Raleigh, North
Carolina.

> Still, even if you can, why would you make stock out of a whole bird?

Think back. Based upon my assumption that muscle meat and skin sans bones
make stock that does not gel, I would be throwing the bones away. You bet
it would take a whole chicken for just the stock.


>If I want to make stock from fresh chicken I just buy the bones which only
>cost a dollar or so - at your prices I imagine you'd be able to pick them
>up for about 20 cents!
>
Perhaps--but honestly, this sounds disgusting to me. I have made enough
stock
to know that if I tried to make it with bones alone it would be like watery
gelatin
with little good chicken flavor. Ugh!

Anyway, if anyone knows how to make stock that does not gel, I am
interested!

I may try the sans bones method and see.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com