I am looking at doing a recipe for roast in a pressure cooker:
http://allrecipes.com/recipe/220860/...ker-pot-roast/

The recipe calls for coating the meat with flour and then browning it in a
saute before the first major round of pressure cooking. Can someone tell
me what role does the flour play here?

I am gluten free, and I would actually prefer to avoid starch. Is there a
substitute for the wheat flour here that might work well? What about a nut
flour like almond?

--
W

"W" > wrote in message
...
>I am looking at doing a recipe for roast in a pressure cooker:
> http://allrecipes.com/recipe/220860/...ker-pot-roast/
>
> The recipe calls for coating the meat with flour and then browning it in a
> saute before the first major round of pressure cooking. Can someone tell
> me what role does the flour play here?
>
> I am gluten free, and I would actually prefer to avoid starch. Is there
> a
> substitute for the wheat flour here that might work well? What about a
> nut
> flour like almond?
>
> --
> W

Use sweet rice flour.
>
>

On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 02:35:39 -0700, "W" >
wrote:

>I am looking at doing a recipe for roast in a pressure cooker:
>http://allrecipes.com/recipe/220860/...ker-pot-roast/
>
>The recipe calls for coating the meat with flour and then browning it in a
>saute before the first major round of pressure cooking. Can someone tell
>me what role does the flour play here?
>
>I am gluten free, and I would actually prefer to avoid starch. Is there a
>substitute for the wheat flour here that might work well? What about a nut
>flour like almond?


The flour aid in browning and it also acts as a thickener for the
liquid. If you really must avoid gluten just leave it out. I have
no idea how other flours would react.

As for being gluten free. all of us are. We are born with no gluten
in our bodies. OTOH, if you eat a gluten free diet you should avoid
flour. Celiac people have to avoid it, but it seems to be trendy for
no good reason for a lot of people.

On 8/5/2016 4:35 AM, W wrote:
> I am looking at doing a recipe for roast in a pressure cooker:
> http://allrecipes.com/recipe/220860/...ker-pot-roast/
>
> The recipe calls for coating the meat with flour and then browning it in a
> saute before the first major round of pressure cooking. Can someone tell
> me what role does the flour play here?
>
> I am gluten free, and I would actually prefer to avoid starch. Is there a
> substitute for the wheat flour here that might work well? What about a nut
> flour like almond?

Perhaps try a light coating of corn starch on the raw meat and then
saute in a skillet before placing in a pressure cooker. The 'browning'
is essential before braising. Any other "flour" derived from potato or
rice probably works, also (?) but I don't have experience with either of
those substitutes for wheat flour. All act as a thickener for the
'gravy' which is the finishing touch, taste and 'feel' for a really good
pot roast.

Sky

================================
Kitchen Rule #1 - Use the timer!
Kitchen Rule #2 - Cook's choice!
================================

On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 02:35:39 -0700, "W" >
wrote:

>I am looking at doing a recipe for roast in a pressure cooker:
>http://allrecipes.com/recipe/220860/...ker-pot-roast/
>
>The recipe calls for coating the meat with flour and then browning it in a
>saute before the first major round of pressure cooking. Can someone tell
>me what role does the flour play here?
>
>I am gluten free, and I would actually prefer to avoid starch. Is there a
>substitute for the wheat flour here that might work well? What about a nut
>flour like almond?

http://www.arrowheadmills.com/produc...uckwheat-flour

W wrote:
>
> I am looking at doing a recipe for roast in a pressure cooker:
> http://allrecipes.com/recipe/220860/...ker-pot-roast/
>
> The recipe calls for coating the meat with flour and then browning it in a
> saute before the first major round of pressure cooking. Can someone tell
> me what role does the flour play here?

I would skip the flour and just sear the heck out of the roast on all
sides before cooking. If you want thickening, you can always add the
flour to the juices at the end.

On 8/5/2016 8:39 AM, Sky wrote:
> Perhaps try a light coating of corn starch on the raw meat and then
> saute in a skillet before placing in a pressure cooker. The 'browning'
> is essential before braising. Any other "flour" derived from potato or
> rice probably works, also (?) but I don't have experience with either of
> those substitutes for wheat flour. All act as a thickener for the
> 'gravy' which is the finishing touch, taste and 'feel' for a really good
> pot roast.
>
> Sky

Cornstarch is a natural thickener. Certainly. And before the gluten
free folks jump on the bandwagon and declare corn starch evil:

"Yes. Gluten is a protein found in wheat and other cereals. Gluten is
not present in corn starch, which makes it an excellent substitute for
flour in many recipes. In many baked goods like bread and cake, however,
gluten plays an important structural role, and gluten containing
ingredients, like flour, are necessary."

Cornstarch is a wonderful addition to a great crispy coating for frying.
It also thickens sauce or gravy very smoothly. I've always been a
huge fan of Argo cornstarch.

Jill

jmcquown wrote:
>Sky wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps try a light coating of corn starch on the raw meat and then
>> saute in a skillet before placing in a pressure cooker. The 'browning'
>> is essential before braising. Any other "flour" derived from potato or
>> rice probably works, also (?) but I don't have experience with either of
>> those substitutes for wheat flour. All act as a thickener for the
>> 'gravy' which is the finishing touch, taste and 'feel' for a really good
>> pot roast.
>
>Cornstarch is a natural thickener. Certainly. And before the gluten
>free folks jump on the bandwagon and declare corn starch evil:
>
>"Yes. Gluten is a protein found in wheat and other cereals. Gluten is
>not present in corn starch, which makes it an excellent substitute for
>flour in many recipes. In many baked goods like bread and cake, however,
>gluten plays an important structural role, and gluten containing
>ingredients, like flour, are necessary."
>
>Cornstarch is a wonderful addition to a great crispy coating for frying.
> It also thickens sauce or gravy very smoothly. I've always been a
>huge fan of Argo cornstarch.

I always use cornstarch to thicken pot roast/stew gravy, I find wheat
flour too gloppy. Cornstarch is also an excellent meat tenderizer,
what Chinese restaurants use for stir frying.
http://www.seriouseats.com/2011/04/v...ornstarch.html

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 6:11:23 AM UTC-10, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
> >Sky wrote:
> >>
> >> Perhaps try a light coating of corn starch on the raw meat and then
> >> saute in a skillet before placing in a pressure cooker. The 'browning'
> >> is essential before braising. Any other "flour" derived from potato or
> >> rice probably works, also (?) but I don't have experience with either of
> >> those substitutes for wheat flour. All act as a thickener for the
> >> 'gravy' which is the finishing touch, taste and 'feel' for a really good
> >> pot roast.
> >
> >Cornstarch is a natural thickener. Certainly. And before the gluten
> >free folks jump on the bandwagon and declare corn starch evil:
> >
> >"Yes. Gluten is a protein found in wheat and other cereals. Gluten is
> >not present in corn starch, which makes it an excellent substitute for
> >flour in many recipes. In many baked goods like bread and cake, however,
> >gluten plays an important structural role, and gluten containing
> >ingredients, like flour, are necessary."
> >
> >Cornstarch is a wonderful addition to a great crispy coating for frying.
> > It also thickens sauce or gravy very smoothly. I've always been a
> >huge fan of Argo cornstarch.
>
> I always use cornstarch to thicken pot roast/stew gravy, I find wheat
> flour too gloppy. Cornstarch is also an excellent meat tenderizer,
> what Chinese restaurants use for stir frying.
> http://www.seriouseats.com/2011/04/v...ornstarch.html

What a Chinese restaurant will use is baking soda to make that weird ass soft meat. I've done it before but have not in decades because it's kind of disgusting.

I will marinate strips of meat with cornstarch, shoyu, and sometimes garlic, for a few minutes before frying at high heat. It's a totally different process and the meat comes out just beautifully.

On 8/5/2016 10:20 AM, Gary wrote:
> W wrote:
>>
>> I am looking at doing a recipe for roast in a pressure cooker:
>> http://allrecipes.com/recipe/220860/...ker-pot-roast/
>>
>> The recipe calls for coating the meat with flour and then browning it in a
>> saute before the first major round of pressure cooking. Can someone tell
>> me what role does the flour play here?
>
> I would skip the flour and just sear the heck out of the roast on all
> sides before cooking. If you want thickening, you can always add the
> flour to the juices at the end.
>

Tha works, too. Er, except, it's not wise to add the "thickener"
(wheat, rice, corn, whatever flour) afterwards. The 'thickener' should
cook along with everything else as to 'meld' Otherwise, there's too
much of the 'raw' (flour) taste .. .. .. .. and that has to get 'cooked'
away. Hopefully, that makes sense, eh?! There's nothing like a good
'roux' to work wonders!!

Sky

================================
Kitchen Rule #1 - Use the timer!
Kitchen Rule #2 - Cook's choice!
================================

"W" > wrote in message
...
> I am looking at doing a recipe for roast in a pressure cooker:
> http://allrecipes.com/recipe/220860/...ker-pot-roast/

Something that confuses me in this recipe is it asks for four cups of water,
maximum. That barely raises water 1/4 of the way up the roast, and it's a
thin layer at the bottom of the cooker. The recipe says that after cooking
the meat you sould add eight potatoes and three whole onions into the water
to make the stew. The recipe stresses that the water must cover the
vegetable. There is no way that this much vegetable would be covered by
even eight cups of water. How are we supposed to deal with that?

--
W

On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 06:07:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 02:35:39 -0700, "W" >
>wrote:
>
>>I am looking at doing a recipe for roast in a pressure cooker:
>>http://allrecipes.com/recipe/220860/...ker-pot-roast/
>>
>>The recipe calls for coating the meat with flour and then browning it in a
>>saute before the first major round of pressure cooking. Can someone tell
>>me what role does the flour play here?
>>
>>I am gluten free, and I would actually prefer to avoid starch. Is there a
>>substitute for the wheat flour here that might work well? What about a nut
>>flour like almond?
>
>
>The flour aid in browning and it also acts as a thickener for the
>liquid. If you really must avoid gluten just leave it out. I have
>no idea how other flours would react.
>
>As for being gluten free. all of us are. We are born with no gluten
>in our bodies. OTOH, if you eat a gluten free diet you should avoid
>flour. Celiac people have to avoid it, but it seems to be trendy for
>no good reason for a lot of people.

It's not just (or even necessarily) gluten that some people have
problems with flour. I have a wheat intolerance, but not a gluten
intolerance.

On 8/5/2016 11:24 AM, W wrote:
> "W" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I am looking at doing a recipe for roast in a pressure cooker:
>> http://allrecipes.com/recipe/220860/...ker-pot-roast/
>
> Something that confuses me in this recipe is it asks for four cups of water,
> maximum. That barely raises water 1/4 of the way up the roast, and it's a
> thin layer at the bottom of the cooker. The recipe says that after cooking
> the meat you sould add eight potatoes and three whole onions into the water
> to make the stew. The recipe stresses that the water must cover the
> vegetable. There is no way that this much vegetable would be covered by
> even eight cups of water. How are we supposed to deal with that?
>
> --
> W
>
>

Do not measure the water. Add the water until it goes about 1/3 the
height of the roast. There's probably a mark on the side of the pan
indicating the maximum liquid level. Be mindful of that. After the meat
is done, remove it and add the vegetables. Add more water if you need
to. It's doubtful that you will need to. Do not get into the habit of
measuring liquids when braising meats.

On 2016-08-05, W > wrote:

> The recipe stresses that the water must cover the
> vegetable. There is no way that this much vegetable would be covered by
> even eight cups of water. How are we supposed to deal with that?

Ignore it.

Most liquids ina pressure cooker never leave the cooker. In fact,
waaaay too many meats have water added, so you actually end up with
more liquid in the P/C than when you started. Fact!

I make it a point to NOT put in as much water as recommended.
Claiming water needs to cover the spuds is jes silly. I never cover
any foods. That's pretty much the entire point of using a pressure
cooker. I put in jes enough water to never completely evaprorate.
Less water to leech out the meat juices. Yer basically "steaming" the
food at a higher temp.

nb

On 8/5/2016 5:24 PM, W wrote:
> "W" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I am looking at doing a recipe for roast in a pressure cooker:
>> http://allrecipes.com/recipe/220860/...ker-pot-roast/
>
> Something that confuses me in this recipe is it asks for four cups of water,
> maximum. That barely raises water 1/4 of the way up the roast, and it's a
> thin layer at the bottom of the cooker. The recipe says that after cooking
> the meat you sould add eight potatoes and three whole onions into the water
> to make the stew. The recipe stresses that the water must cover the
> vegetable. There is no way that this much vegetable would be covered by
> even eight cups of water. How are we supposed to deal with that?
>
> --
> W
>
You will also get a lot of liquid from the meat as it cooks. You may
be surprised how much liquid you get.

On 8/5/2016 2:41 PM, Sky wrote:

>> I would skip the flour and just sear the heck out of the roast on all
>> sides before cooking. If you want thickening, you can always add the
>> flour to the juices at the end.
>>
>
> Tha works, too. Er, except, it's not wise to add the "thickener"
> (wheat, rice, corn, whatever flour) afterwards. The 'thickener' should
> cook along with everything else as to 'meld' Otherwise, there's too
> much of the 'raw' (flour) taste .. .. .. .. and that has to get 'cooked'
> away. Hopefully, that makes sense, eh?! There's nothing like a good
> 'roux' to work wonders!!
>
> Sky

Use corn starch and you won't have a flour taste. Been using it for pot
roast for 50 years so far.

On 8/5/2016 6:18 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2016-08-05, W > wrote:
>
>> The recipe stresses that the water must cover the
>> vegetable. There is no way that this much vegetable would be covered by
>> even eight cups of water. How are we supposed to deal with that?
>
> Ignore it.
>
> Most liquids ina pressure cooker never leave the cooker. In fact,
> waaaay too many meats have water added, so you actually end up with
> more liquid in the P/C than when you started. Fact!
>
> I make it a point to NOT put in as much water as recommended.
> Claiming water needs to cover the spuds is jes silly. I never cover
> any foods. That's pretty much the entire point of using a pressure
> cooker. I put in jes enough water to never completely evaprorate.
> Less water to leech out the meat juices. Yer basically "steaming" the
> food at a higher temp.
>
> nb
>
I recall what you went through figuring out how to cook a roast with
potatoes in a pressure cooker at XXXX thousand feet. I'm pretty sure
you've tinkered with a pressure cooker enough to explain how much
(little) liquid it needs to work. I have never used one. They flat out
scare me. Besides that, I don't see any reason to cook a roast fast in
water.

Jill

I've never cooked in a pressure cooker but I've canned a lot of veggies in a pressure canner.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

On 8/5/2016 5:24 PM, W wrote:
> "W" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I am looking at doing a recipe for roast in a pressure cooker:
>> http://allrecipes.com/recipe/220860/...ker-pot-roast/
>
> Something that confuses me in this recipe is it asks for four cups of
> water,
> maximum. That barely raises water 1/4 of the way up the roast, and it's
> a
> thin layer at the bottom of the cooker. The recipe says that after
> cooking
> the meat you sould add eight potatoes and three whole onions into the
> water
> to make the stew. The recipe stresses that the water must cover the
> vegetable. There is no way that this much vegetable would be covered by
> even eight cups of water. How are we supposed to deal with that?
>
> --
> W
>
You will also get a lot of liquid from the meat as it cooks. You may
be surprised how much liquid you get.
--------------------------------

Yes! I always get terribly confused when someone calls a joint of meat a
'roast'. When I saw the header I thought he meant a pressure fryer.

--
http;//www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 06:07:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 02:35:39 -0700, "W" >
> wrote:
>
> >I am looking at doing a recipe for roast in a pressure cooker:
> >http://allrecipes.com/recipe/220860/...ker-pot-roast/
> >
> >The recipe calls for coating the meat with flour and then browning it in a
> >saute before the first major round of pressure cooking. Can someone tell
> >me what role does the flour play here?
> >
> >I am gluten free, and I would actually prefer to avoid starch. Is there a
> >substitute for the wheat flour here that might work well? What about a nut
> >flour like almond?
>
>
> The flour aid in browning and it also acts as a thickener for the
> liquid. If you really must avoid gluten just leave it out.

Agree. I just brown the *dry* meat. Flour is unnecessary unless
people want gravy as soon as they lift the lid off. W can use "his"
favorite thickener (like cornstarch or arrowroot) *after* the roast is
cooked if he wants a thick gravy instead of jus.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On 8/6/2016 3:22 AM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 06:07:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 02:35:39 -0700, "W" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am looking at doing a recipe for roast in a pressure cooker:
>>> http://allrecipes.com/recipe/220860/...ker-pot-roast/
>>>
>>> The recipe calls for coating the meat with flour and then browning it in a
>>> saute before the first major round of pressure cooking. Can someone tell
>>> me what role does the flour play here?
>>>
>>> I am gluten free, and I would actually prefer to avoid starch. Is there a
>>> substitute for the wheat flour here that might work well? What about a nut
>>> flour like almond?
>>
>>
>> The flour aid in browning and it also acts as a thickener for the
>> liquid. If you really must avoid gluten just leave it out.
>
> Agree. I just brown the *dry* meat. Flour is unnecessary unless
> people want gravy as soon as they lift the lid off. W can use "his"
> favorite thickener (like cornstarch or arrowroot) *after* the roast is
> cooked if he wants a thick gravy instead of jus.
>
+2! Why mess around with alternate "flour" when regular flour is
completely unnecessary? The Maillard effect goes a long way towards
added flavour. Oh, and the recipe calls for two packets of dry onion
soup mix which might account for all the water...

Having said that, I've never cooked anything in a pressure cooker.

Good luck, W, with "Jen's Pot Roast".

Jill

Sky wrote:
>
> Gary wrote:
> > I would skip the flour and just sear the heck out of the roast on all
> > sides before cooking. If you want thickening, you can always add the
> > flour to the juices at the end.
> >
>
> Tha works, too. Er, except, it's not wise to add the "thickener"
> (wheat, rice, corn, whatever flour) afterwards. The 'thickener' should
> cook along with everything else as to 'meld' Otherwise, there's too
> much of the 'raw' (flour) taste .. .. .. .. and that has to get 'cooked'
> away. Hopefully, that makes sense, eh?!

A rhyme he Hi Sky! :-D

Yes, what you say makes perfect sense. I guess I worded that wrong. When
I say thicken at the end, I should have said thicken near the end
(before cooking is done). If I'm cooking whatever for a couple of hours,
I'll thicken it maybe 15 minutes before it's done cooking. I do that
even when making homemade spaghetti sauce. I'll simmer it for hours
,then near the end if it needs thickening, I'll add a can of tomato
paste and more spice. Stir in well and simmer for a bit longer.

That said, for a long time I didn't know about cook the flour to
eliminate the raw taste. To make a flour sauce/gravy, I would add flour
to melted butter, stir then immediately add the milk or broth. I've
found that once adding flour to the butter, best to stir and cook just
that for about a minute before adding the liquid.

Once I learned this, I've eliminated the "cream of" soups for
gravy/sauce.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> On 8/5/2016 2:41 PM, Sky wrote:
>
> >> I would skip the flour and just sear the heck out of the roast on all
> >> sides before cooking. If you want thickening, you can always add the
> >> flour to the juices at the end.
> >>
> >
> > Tha works, too. Er, except, it's not wise to add the "thickener"
> > (wheat, rice, corn, whatever flour) afterwards. The 'thickener' should
> > cook along with everything else as to 'meld' Otherwise, there's too
> > much of the 'raw' (flour) taste .. .. .. .. and that has to get 'cooked'
> > away. Hopefully, that makes sense, eh?! There's nothing like a good
> > 'roux' to work wonders!!
> >
> > Sky
>
> Use corn starch and you won't have a flour taste. Been using it for pot
> roast for 50 years so far.

I actually do that more often for thickening, Ed. It's so easy. Someone
mentioned here that if you use cornstarch, it breaks down upon reheating
the meal. I've never noticed that problem so far.

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 3:13:56 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:

> Yes! I always get terribly confused when someone calls a joint of meat a
> 'roast'. When I saw the header I thought he meant a pressure fryer.

Considering how many "roasts" in the U.S. are boneless, there doesn't
seem much point to calling it a "joint".

Apart from standing rib roast, I can't remember the last time I roasted
beef with a bone in it. Perhaps never.

In any event, the "roast" under discussion here is actually a braise
at lightning-speed in a pressure cooker. Bit of a misnomer, but life
is full of them.

Cindy Hamilton

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 3:13:56 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
>
>> Yes! I always get terribly confused when someone calls a joint of meat a
>> 'roast'. When I saw the header I thought he meant a pressure fryer.
>
>Considering how many "roasts" in the U.S. are boneless, there doesn't
>seem much point to calling it a "joint".
>
>Apart from standing rib roast, I can't remember the last time I roasted
>beef with a bone in it. Perhaps never.
>
>In any event, the "roast" under discussion here is actually a braise
>at lightning-speed in a pressure cooker. Bit of a misnomer, but life
>is full of them.
>
>Cindy Hamilton
>

All the time here) I often have to wait for the conversation to expand so
I know what is meant) I am sure some might have similar problem with none
USIANS!

To me 'Roast' is a method of cooking.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On 8/6/2016 5:05 AM, jmcquown wrote:

> +2! Why mess around with alternate "flour" when regular flour is
> completely unnecessary? The Maillard effect goes a long way towards
> added flavour. Oh, and the recipe calls for two packets of dry onion
> soup mix which might account for all the water...
>
> Jill


That seems like a lot of soup mix for a pot roast. A month's supply of
sodium.

On 8/6/2016 8:19 AM, Ophelia wrote:

>> In any event, the "roast" under discussion here is actually a braise
>> at lightning-speed in a pressure cooker. Bit of a misnomer, but life
>> is full of them.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>
> All the time here) I often have to wait for the conversation to
> expand so I know what is meant) I am sure some might have similar
> problem with none USIANS!
>
> To me 'Roast' is a method of cooking.


It does get confusing as some of the meats best for braising are labeled
pot roast of chuck roast. Of course, the process of braising them is
referred to as making a pot roast. Many people are not familiar with
the term "braising" even though they have done it for years.

OK. now it is time for a VODKA martini, whatever that is.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

On 8/6/2016 8:19 AM, Ophelia wrote:

>> In any event, the "roast" under discussion here is actually a braise
>> at lightning-speed in a pressure cooker. Bit of a misnomer, but life
>> is full of them.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>
> All the time here) I often have to wait for the conversation to
> expand so I know what is meant) I am sure some might have similar
> problem with none USIANS!
>
> To me 'Roast' is a method of cooking.


It does get confusing as some of the meats best for braising are labeled
pot roast of chuck roast. Of course, the process of braising them is
referred to as making a pot roast. Many people are not familiar with
the term "braising" even though they have done it for years.

OK. now it is time for a VODKA martini, whatever that is.
-------------------

Phew! That sounds like a jolly good idea. I will join you with a nice G&T!

Chin chin!



--
http;//www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Gary wrote:
>Sky wrote:
>> Gary wrote:
>> > I would skip the flour and just sear the heck out of the roast on all
>> > sides before cooking. If you want thickening, you can always add the
>> > flour to the juices at the end.
>>
>> Tha works, too. Er, except, it's not wise to add the "thickener"
>> (wheat, rice, corn, whatever flour) afterwards. The 'thickener' should
>> cook along with everything else as to 'meld' Otherwise, there's too
>> much of the 'raw' (flour) taste .. .. .. .. and that has to get 'cooked'
>> away. Hopefully, that makes sense, eh?!
>
>A rhyme he Hi Sky! :-D
>
>Yes, what you say makes perfect sense. I guess I worded that wrong. When
>I say thicken at the end, I should have said thicken near the end
>(before cooking is done). If I'm cooking whatever for a couple of hours,
>I'll thicken it maybe 15 minutes before it's done cooking. I do that
>even when making homemade spaghetti sauce. I'll simmer it for hours
>,then near the end if it needs thickening, I'll add a can of tomato
>paste and more spice. Stir in well and simmer for a bit longer.
>
>That said, for a long time I didn't know about cook the flour to
>eliminate the raw taste. To make a flour sauce/gravy, I would add flour
>to melted butter, stir then immediately add the milk or broth. I've
>found that once adding flour to the butter, best to stir and cook just
>that for about a minute before adding the liquid.
>
>Once I learned this, I've eliminated the "cream of" soups for
>gravy/sauce.

No kinda flour, I think it's better to thicken a pot roast with
barley. I very often use a 5 lb top round to fill a 10 qt pot with a
thick beef barley soup. Still gets a couple three diced onion, a
pound of carrots pared/diced, a red bell pepper diced (adds color), ~6
ribs celery diced, a pound+ 'shrooms, a few sprigs curly leaf parsley
minced, a couple three bay leaves, a big pinch marjoram, s n'p. With
barley it needs no taters, no onion soup mix (blech), no garlic with
barley and 'shrooms. Start by tying, seasoning, and browning beef
roast (med heat, no burning, tying makes for easier flipping without
stabbing). Cover with water and braise/LOW simmer browned beef until
cooked about half way through (fork to test), then add everything
else. Remove meat before it falls into shreds and is still sliceable,
continue cooking until barley thickens soup to your liking. Adjust
seasoning, I use msg, enables for far less sodium. I measure
everything by eye and to taste... I'd typically use the full pound of
barley, if too thick add water. If you have dehy wild 'shrooms adds
more flavor, plain button 'shooms work, canned works too. Slice roast
and serve hot/cold with horseradish sauce with a big bowl of steaming
soup. Send your Pressure Processor to the scrap heap... the very best
it can do is recreate canned soup.

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 8:19:24 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 3:13:56 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
> >
> >> Yes! I always get terribly confused when someone calls a joint of meat a
> >> 'roast'. When I saw the header I thought he meant a pressure fryer.
> >
> >Considering how many "roasts" in the U.S. are boneless, there doesn't
> >seem much point to calling it a "joint".
> >
> >Apart from standing rib roast, I can't remember the last time I roasted
> >beef with a bone in it. Perhaps never.
> >
> >In any event, the "roast" under discussion here is actually a braise
> >at lightning-speed in a pressure cooker. Bit of a misnomer, but life
> >is full of them.
> >
> >Cindy Hamilton
> >
>
> All the time here) I often have to wait for the conversation to expand so
> I know what is meant) I am sure some might have similar problem with none
> USIANS!
>
> To me 'Roast' is a method of cooking.

It's that, here, too. I'm inconsistent in my use of terms:

A braised chunk of beef is pot roast (always a piece of chuck for me,
although others prefer other cuts).

A roasted chunk of beef is roast. I've had some success with eye round,
although it's not a favorite. Generally, I prefer standing rib roast,
aka prime rib. I do like getting beef that's graded USDA Prime for this,
but sometimes I settle for USDA Choice.

Other things I roast are chicken, turkey, and pork loin, although that's
always qualified: "What's for dinner?" "Roast chicken" (or "roasted
chicken").

It's a funny old world.

Cindy Hamilton

"Cindy Hamilton" wrote in message
...

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 8:19:24 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 3:13:56 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
> >
> >> Yes! I always get terribly confused when someone calls a joint of meat
> >> a
> >> 'roast'. When I saw the header I thought he meant a pressure fryer.
> >
> >Considering how many "roasts" in the U.S. are boneless, there doesn't
> >seem much point to calling it a "joint".
> >
> >Apart from standing rib roast, I can't remember the last time I roasted
> >beef with a bone in it. Perhaps never.
> >
> >In any event, the "roast" under discussion here is actually a braise
> >at lightning-speed in a pressure cooker. Bit of a misnomer, but life
> >is full of them.
> >
> >Cindy Hamilton
> >
>
> All the time here) I often have to wait for the conversation to expand
> so
> I know what is meant) I am sure some might have similar problem with
> none
> USIANS!
>
> To me 'Roast' is a method of cooking.

It's that, here, too. I'm inconsistent in my use of terms:

A braised chunk of beef is pot roast (always a piece of chuck for me,
although others prefer other cuts).

A roasted chunk of beef is roast. I've had some success with eye round,
although it's not a favorite. Generally, I prefer standing rib roast,
aka prime rib. I do like getting beef that's graded USDA Prime for this,
but sometimes I settle for USDA Choice.

Other things I roast are chicken, turkey, and pork loin, although that's
always qualified: "What's for dinner?" "Roast chicken" (or "roasted
chicken").

It's a funny old world.

------------------------------

It certainly is Thanks for the explanations


--
http;//www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On 2016-08-05, jmcquown > wrote:

> I recall what you went through figuring out how to cook a roast with
> potatoes in a pressure cooker at XXXX thousand feet. I'm pretty sure
> you've tinkered with a pressure cooker enough to explain how much
> (little) liquid it needs to work.

I went back to using my "big orange" (Le Creuset) in the oven. I
figured cooking the bone-in shoulder roast ina hot/dry environment
would make most of the liquid evaporate, like at sealevel. Silly me!

Turns out the pork shoulder was also 'water-added'. Again, I ended up
with more liquid than when I started. This 'water-added' nonsense is
getting outta hand. Next thing you know, Nestle's will be selling
pork shoulder bottled water. 8|

nb

On 8/6/2016 9:49 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 8/6/2016 5:05 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>
>> +2! Why mess around with alternate "flour" when regular flour is
>> completely unnecessary? The Maillard effect goes a long way towards
>> added flavour. Oh, and the recipe calls for two packets of dry onion
>> soup mix which might account for all the water...
>>
>> Jill
>
>
> That seems like a lot of soup mix for a pot roast. A month's supply of
> sodium.

Agreed. Why worry about a little gluten when you're adding all that
other chemical stuff?

Jill

On 8/6/2016 12:16 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2016-08-05, jmcquown > wrote:
>
>> I recall what you went through figuring out how to cook a roast with
>> potatoes in a pressure cooker at XXXX thousand feet. I'm pretty sure
>> you've tinkered with a pressure cooker enough to explain how much
>> (little) liquid it needs to work.
>
> I went back to using my "big orange" (Le Creuset) in the oven. I
> figured cooking the bone-in shoulder roast ina hot/dry environment
> would make most of the liquid evaporate, like at sealevel. Silly me!
>
I sometimes use a crock pot after browning the boneless chuck roast,
sans flour.

> Turns out the pork shoulder was also 'water-added'. Again, I ended up
> with more liquid than when I started. This 'water-added' nonsense is
> getting outta hand. Next thing you know, Nestle's will be selling
> pork shoulder bottled water. 8|
>
> nb
>
Sorry to hear about the added water. I tend to rinse the chuck roast
and pat it dry before before putting it in a skillet to brown it. Then
it goes into either the crock pot or the Belgian cookware that looks
like Le Crueset. Slow simmered on the stove. Could also be put in the
oven. Oh, and it must have a bay leaf.

Jill

On 08/06/2016 08:14 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 8:19:24 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 3:13:56 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes! I always get terribly confused when someone calls a joint of meat a
>>>> 'roast'. When I saw the header I thought he meant a pressure fryer.
>>>
>>> Considering how many "roasts" in the U.S. are boneless, there doesn't
>>> seem much point to calling it a "joint".
>>>
>>> Apart from standing rib roast, I can't remember the last time I roasted
>>> beef with a bone in it. Perhaps never.
>>>
>>> In any event, the "roast" under discussion here is actually a braise
>>> at lightning-speed in a pressure cooker. Bit of a misnomer, but life
>>> is full of them.
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>
>>
>> All the time here) I often have to wait for the conversation to expand so
>> I know what is meant) I am sure some might have similar problem with none
>> USIANS!
>>
>> To me 'Roast' is a method of cooking.
>
> It's that, here, too. I'm inconsistent in my use of terms:
>
> A braised chunk of beef is pot roast (always a piece of chuck for me,
> although others prefer other cuts).
>
> A roasted chunk of beef is roast. I've had some success with eye round,
> although it's not a favorite. Generally, I prefer standing rib roast,
> aka prime rib. I do like getting beef that's graded USDA Prime for this,
> but sometimes I settle for USDA Choice.
>
> Other things I roast are chicken, turkey, and pork loin, although that's
> always qualified: "What's for dinner?" "Roast chicken" (or "roasted
> chicken").
>
> It's a funny old world.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>
OK, why do we "bake" a ham instead of "roast"ing it?

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 09:49:26 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On 8/6/2016 5:05 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>
> > +2! Why mess around with alternate "flour" when regular flour is
> > completely unnecessary? The Maillard effect goes a long way towards
> > added flavour. Oh, and the recipe calls for two packets of dry onion
> > soup mix which might account for all the water...
> >
> > Jill
>
>
> That seems like a lot of soup mix for a pot roast. A month's supply of
> sodium.

That's up to him/her to figure out. The poster asked about alternate
flour - didn't ask for a recipe critique. If s/he wanted that, I'd
say find a new one because this one sounds awful.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 13:19:10 +0100, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

> To me 'Roast' is a method of cooking.

It is! You roast a roast.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2016 13:52:12 -0700, Whirled Peas >
wrote:

>On 08/06/2016 08:14 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 8:19:24 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 3:13:56 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes! I always get terribly confused when someone calls a joint of meat a
>>>>> 'roast'. When I saw the header I thought he meant a pressure fryer.
>>>>
>>>> Considering how many "roasts" in the U.S. are boneless, there doesn't
>>>> seem much point to calling it a "joint".
>>>>
>>>> Apart from standing rib roast, I can't remember the last time I roasted
>>>> beef with a bone in it. Perhaps never.
>>>>
>>>> In any event, the "roast" under discussion here is actually a braise
>>>> at lightning-speed in a pressure cooker. Bit of a misnomer, but life
>>>> is full of them.
>>>>
>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>>
>>>
>>> All the time here) I often have to wait for the conversation to expand so
>>> I know what is meant) I am sure some might have similar problem with none
>>> USIANS!
>>>
>>> To me 'Roast' is a method of cooking.
>>
>> It's that, here, too. I'm inconsistent in my use of terms:
>>
>> A braised chunk of beef is pot roast (always a piece of chuck for me,
>> although others prefer other cuts).
>>
>> A roasted chunk of beef is roast. I've had some success with eye round,
>> although it's not a favorite. Generally, I prefer standing rib roast,
>> aka prime rib. I do like getting beef that's graded USDA Prime for this,
>> but sometimes I settle for USDA Choice.
>>
>> Other things I roast are chicken, turkey, and pork loin, although that's
>> always qualified: "What's for dinner?" "Roast chicken" (or "roasted
>> chicken").
>>
>> It's a funny old world.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>OK, why do we "bake" a ham instead of "roast"ing it?

Smoked/cured ham is baked... because essentially it's already cooked
but often needs the heat from short term baking to kill bacteria, a
smoked/cured ham is almost in the same league as tube steak.
Fresh ham is roasted... same as roast pig... fresh ham is far better
than cured ham, no comparison. Compared to roast fresh ham cured ham
may as well be SPAM. In some twenty years I'm the only one on RFC who
has prepared a fresh roast ham. A fresh ham is the king of roasts...
compared to fresh roast ham prime rib is TIAD.

On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 11:35:49 PM UTC-10, W wrote:
> I am looking at doing a recipe for roast in a pressure cooker:
> http://allrecipes.com/recipe/220860/...ker-pot-roast/
>
> The recipe calls for coating the meat with flour and then browning it in a
> saute before the first major round of pressure cooking. Can someone tell
> me what role does the flour play here?
>
> I am gluten free, and I would actually prefer to avoid starch. Is there a
> substitute for the wheat flour here that might work well? What about a nut
> flour like almond?
>
> --
> W

Browning a pot roast before braising is a common practice. I used to do that. I also use to insert slivers of garlic into the meat before browning. These days I don't bother doing either. I can make a delicious pot roast either way so I do the simple thing - just put that roast in there with water and start braising. Your pot roast might not turn out that tasty but it's not going to be because you didn't brown it first.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2016 07:09:40 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> Use corn starch and you won't have a flour taste. Been using it for pot
>> roast for 50 years so far.
>
>I actually do that more often for thickening, Ed. It's so easy. Someone
>mentioned here that if you use cornstarch, it breaks down upon reheating
>the meal. I've never noticed that problem so far.

Am I the only person who uses potato flour? I doesnt suit everything
but its great for thickening and compliments things like roasts
perfectly.