The difference between roux and beurre manié has bothered me for years. Both consist of 1 part flour to 1 part butter. Both are used to thicken liquids. But roux is cooked in a pan for a few minutes over relatively low heat while whisking and beurre manié is mashed in a bowl with a fork until it forms a smooth paste (you need butter at room temperature for that). Making roux is one of those culinary rites of passage, which I found strange because I thickened sauces happily for years with no roux. The first sauce I learned to thicken about 10 years ago was a cream sauce for poached fish from Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking. It called for thickening with beurre manié, which was so incredibly easy, reliable, and delicious that I used that method whenever I needed a thickener. Eventually, I found out that beurre manié is supposed to be a lazy way of thickening. One should cook the flour and butter first to "cook out the flour taste." Even Julia herself said that in one of her shows.
There was a good discussion of beurre manié and roux on Michael Rhulman's blog, where no one seemed to agree on anything (these were mostly professional chefs, so I assumed they knew what they were talking about). Some people claimed that if roux is not made with clarified butter, it has less thickening power. Others claimed that sauces thickened with beurre manié would thin out after several minutes of simmering, particularly if you double dip when tasting since your saliva contains a starch digesting enzyme. Proteins, enzymes, catalysts, and other big "sciency" words were summoned to give more weight to the arguments that seems quite empty to me.
Cooks are funny people. They have this awe of "food science." If Alton Brown or Harold McGee said something with the word "protein" in it, it seals the deal. After all, science is always right. Well, that's not really science to me. That's just regurgitation of something someone said. Real science is all about setting up a proper experiment with good controls and that's what I decided to do to answer this thickening question once and for all.
I made 4 sauces:
- bechamel with roux
- bechamel with beurre manié
- velouté with roux
- velouté with beurre manié
- same pot
- exactly the same amount of liquid, flour, butter (I didn't clarify it), and salt
- same simmering duration (3 minutes after combining hot liquid with flour/butter)
This sealed the deal! Beurre manié wins. I am a one pot kind of girl and roux requires a whole other pot, so that you can cook your flour/butter. Beurre manié requires just another little bowl and a fork, which can easily go into the dishwasher.
39 comments:
I too have wondered about that "nasty raw-flour taste" that Juia and others have described, and I too have never discerned it. I even have been known to shake up flour and water in a jar and add it to stews to thicken them, with no unfortunate taste results. Sometimes we have to rely on our own brains and experience.
Thank you for your little experiment and post. It was very helpful to me!
Nessa
I learned to make roux in Home Ec. class. I’ve never tried making beurre manie - but I'm going to now. The best meal of my life was beurre blanc on halibut at Mangia Pasta in Bend, Oregon.
Great post. I just made a recipe that called for buerre manie and it waws a first for me. Liked the idea very much and will use it in future recipes. I think the only time you need to make a roux is when you want it to be dark like in gumbo or jamalaya.Have also heard about the flour and water (or any liquid) in the jar. Both easier than a roux. But then they say:to each his own...
about flour and water shaken in a jar... that's a totally legit way of thickening and is called a slurry. Works great for stews where you are not looking for the thickener to add richness. In sauces, you usually need a little richness as well. that's where beurre manie comes to the rescue.
Cheers,
-Helen
Thanks for the experiment! As a chemist I highly value the testing of ideas. It's well and good to have a theoretical framework and explanation, but almost all scientists with a lab know that in a complex system, which food most certainly is, you must always test, ideally in multiple ways, to cover all the bases.
I can see a few remaining uses for roux:
- If you want a darker roux to add some flavor.
- If you do not have any butter at room temperature, it's about as easy to do a tiny saucepan of roux as to attempt to microwave the butter
- If you are going to be making the sauce all in one pot anyway, it's easy to start with a roux.
Great post as always.
Hi Tom,
Great points! About microwaving the butter to soften it... it doesn't work as it will melt it in parts. That is one draw back on beurre manie. Since I usually only need 1 Tbsp of butter for it, I cut it into 4-5 slices and it becomes mashable in about 5 minutes.
About one pot... since most of the sauces that require a roux, ask you to add hot liquid, you need to warm up this liquid in another pot (I guess you can also microwave it in something), but I can't think of any roux based sauce that's a one pot deal.
Another thing I don't really like about roux is the necessity to measure you liquid. If your sauce is too thin, you can't easily add more roux (unless you get out another pot and make some more), and if your sauce is too thick and you ran out of stock, too bad. With beurre manie, I always make more than I think I need and add it a bit at a time. Once the sauce is desired thickness, I stop.
Cheers,
-Helen
Excellent experiment. Very informative.
Interesting! I'm a roux fan myself, but largely because I like the process. It forces you to slow down and pay attention. I'm not big on measuring and timing, so making a roux means watching and smelling. No matter how stressful my day has been, I'm always nice and centered by the time my roux is ready. Not quite as good as yoga, but in the same vein. :) Still, it's good to know that a beurre manie is an option when I'm pressed for time.
I have tasted the "nasty raw flour taste", in a roux that my husband made without cooking it out (and it was awful!), but, then, he used a LOT of flour (more than a quarter cup), so of course it would be noticeable.
Also, a dark roux is part of the flavor profile of some dishes, notably gumbo. My cousin-in-law from New Orleans has a story about how, when she made gumbo for the first time as she was a teenager, her recipe said to cook the roux until it was "the color of a hazelnut". Instead of guessing or asking someone, she actually went out and bought hazelnuts so she could compare them.
Thank you for this post - I really appreciate the effort you made to provide this information.
Hi Jess,
Great to hear from you! A brown roux is a totally different story. Since I don't cook Cajun, I've never made one. My comparison was mostly what one should use to thicken pan sauces, gravies, etc.
There are a lot of things that can go wrong when working with either roux or beurre manie that will make them taste bad: wrong proportion of flour to butter to liquid, lumpiness, etc. Sauces with beurre manie are simmered for a few minutes too. So if done correctly, there is not much difference between a blond roux and beurre manie.
Cheers,
-Helen
Wonderful post. I love that you busted this kitchen myth. Nothing blowing up as on "Mythbusters" but very interesting -- and much more relevant for someone like me.
Whenever someone instructs me to do something a very specific way in the kitchen, I want to know why.
No sense in extra steps (or extra pots to wash) unless there is a good reason.
That whole raw flour taste thing does seem to be one of those lines that everyone used, and I too wondered if it actually had a discernible taste...thank goodness you've cleared it up for us all! Beurre manie all the time for me now...it's always been my favorite truth be told.
Thank you for this experiment. Like you, I am a fan of the scientific method.
But I have tasted that "flour-y" taste and I wonder if it depends on:
1. The amount of roux/beurre manie
2. The type of flour (hard vs. cake)
3. Butter content of the butter.
Hmmm...maybe I'll have to do my own experiment. Right after I solve my current mystery of "the apple crumble that wouldn't brown).
MG
Er, that should be FAT content of the butter. Not enough coffee yet!
MG
Hi guys,
I am so glad this topic has generated such a lovely discussion. Let me address a couple of things. First of all, I only had one taster: me :) To do a proper experiment, you'd need way more testers, particularly since taste is a very personal thing. Second of all, there are many problems that can result in the nasty raw-flour taste. One is not getting flour to dissolve well in liquid. If you end up with lumps (even tiny ones), it will taste icky and floury. Another problem is using too much roux or beurre manie. My sauces tend to be on the runny side, but for my experiment, I used the proportions normally used for veloute and bechamel (1 Tbsp butter - 1 Tbsp flour - 2/3 cup liquid).
Anyway, to make a long story short, you need to make sure you use whatever thickener you decide on properly and take my experiment with a grain of salt. Try setting up your own experiment to decide for yourself. It only takes 30 minutes or so.
Cheers,
-Helen
Hi there,
Nice post. However, there's a flaw here that I think you and your commenters are making.
It is true that a roux is a simple method of combining fat and flour. However, when I (and most people, I think) hear "roux," we think of the long-cooked fat/flour combination that is essential to many Cajun and Creole dishes.
You don't think that way, of course. You are looking at roux as something to merely thicken another substance. This is borne out by your statement:
"Making roux is one of those culinary rites of passage, which I found strange because I thickened sauces happily for years with no roux."
So do you want to know why it is a rite of passage? It's because cooking a darker roux (in a pan, not in the oven) actually does take some patience, skill, and fearlessness. It's easy to burn, requires almost constant attention and exact heat adjustments, and will leave a permanent, nasty scar if you make a mistake.
Of course, those types of roux are not used for thickening -- they are used for color and, most important, flavor.
If you're just talking about mashing up flour and butter raw, or mashing and then just swishing around in a pan for a few minutes -- well, that's minor league, IMHO. That's cool, though -- your post was all about thickening.
But no, that's not a rite of passage, so I would caution you against being too dismissive.
Go make a real roux -- bordering on the color of chocolate syrup -- without burning it. Let us know how that goes.
Because THAT is the rite of passage. ;)
Keep up the great work.
Hi there,
I agree that Cajun roux might be tricky to make and have absolutely no expertise in that cuisine. Since my blog is mostly about european cooking, I was talking about what most european cuisines mean by a roux, which is blond roux. Comparing a brown roux to beurre manie is like comparing apples and oranges. That would be really silly.
Cheers,
-Helen
Thanks. And cooking a blonde roux vs. a beurre manie is comparing apples to apples. Thanks for the wonderful insight.
I realize this discussion is old, but other folks had a similar discussion on a different website, and there was some good info
http://www.cheftalk.com/forum/thread/51472/beurre-manie-question
Good thing someone made an experiment and share on this site. It was helpful now I truly understand the difference between the 2 thickening agent and may help me on my upcoming exam in culinary. :)
About that bad flour taste: But remember, with all due respect, Julia Child is the one who recommended blanching bacon to rid it of that awful salty, smoky flavor.
Tim
I don't get the need for a second pan. I have always just made my room in the pan I'm making the sauce in.
If you want to reduce your stock or drippings before adding them to the roux, you need a second pan.
Thanks for your experiment. Saves me the time and answers my very same question as yours. Much appreciated! :-) ..... Roux's retired in my kitchen from now on!
Forget the flour. Use corn starch. works great. doesn't break down. no flour taste. been doing it for years.
Interesting conversation. I am a chef for the past 17 years and had the benefit of working in New Orleans, the home of a dark roux. In this moment i am tipping my hand because i have experienced great rouxs and the love of cooking. You yourself have tipped you hand by saying that you only did beurre manie before. I feel by reading into it that this experiment was done to prove that beurre mane was better. They both have different applications. If you are making a 5 hour gumbo, please use roux. If you are finishing a simple cream or stock sauce for your two pieces of white fish at 8:30 at night for you and your lover, by all means please use a beurre manie. One does not have to be better than the other of from a professional standpoint, to hear someone say beurre manie "wins" over a roux, discredits your cooking knowledge and aptitude from a glance. Great post, great comments. Bonne Chance
Brown roux used in gambo is a completely different matter. It's role is not just thickening, but flavoring the dish. If the goal is just to thicken a sauce that will be served soon and not saved for the next day, beurre manie works just fine and is faster and easier to work with. The only down side is that if the sauce is saved for the next day, it could thin out a bit, but that's rarely the use case I am dealing with.
You made me laugh. This was a fun read.
I was wondering! Thank you. Chef Keller, one of the best in America, uses beurre manie instead of roux for all the recipes in his per se cookbook. It seems he agrees!
Thank you for the clarity. Im case not yet done, a comparo of arrowroot, potato, corn and other starches would be instructive. Bon appetit.
Totally get that this is a really old thread, but still wanted to comment. Love the experiment! In my house we keep gluten free flour (ie Bob's 1-to-1) on hand just for thickening. It thickens so much better than regular flour and doesn't have to cook out the "flour taste". If you're really in a hurry, you can pull out your hand blender and smooth out all the lumps in a measuring cup before adding it to your pot.
I have been cooking for 40+ years, and began thickening sauces with a cornstarch/water mixture, or an Arrowroot/water mixture. Arrowroot makes a more glistening sauce and won't make it opaque if for example you want a clear or translucent sauce.
Living in France in my mid-twenties I encountered a slew or sloux same pronunciation (not French by the way but something an ex-pat chef buddy of mine use when in a rush) and yes, you guessed it: Flour and water. Continuing to live and cook in France for 5 years and studying at Cordon Bleu & Lavarenne I learned a bit more about, reduction thickening, of course the combined sauces, demi glacé (if you think about it, gelatin thickened and a reduction sauce) among other things and the beurre manié which I use on occasion.
I often use one of my liquid ingredients instead of water, wine or stock that is part of the sauce being made or the soup/stew.
Something I didn't see mentioned but it may have been is that the facility of a Beurre Manié is in the fact that when thickening any amount of liquid you can add little buttons of it at a time and more easily control the thickening to the point you desire. Roux's or slurries are less easy to control the amounts, though a controlled drizzle is possible I've on occasion just put in too much.
Certain dishes are just better with a roux, gumbo, and crawfish etouffé to name a couple and the debates on whether to use a blonde roux, a tan roux, a red roux or a dark roux are never ending! Just remember, the darker your roux the less thickening it can do, and you'll need on average anywhere from 20-50% more flour and of course the corresponding oil or butter, between the various stages of cooking, blonde to dark. A dark roux will easily take twice the amount of flour as a blonde or tan one.
What about adding hot liquids to roux? I never have...
I agree with all of your science, because I use both. What you didn’t try, was reheating the two sauces. There you will find a marked difference. The beurre manié will break and the roux will not. Just an fyi.
In my experience, nasty flour taste comes from a slurry if you do not heat the sauce. Also there is no reason that melted butter or microwaved (partially melted partially softened) butter cannot be used in a Beurre manié it comes out fine.
(PS you can also use olive oil but obviously it is not Beurre manié at that point but olive oil manie)
Came across this post today because I'd never heard of a Buerre Manie. My grandmother, from Louisiana, always used a roux and taught me to make them in every shade and what each one was for! Great comments here from everyone and 'Unknown', I especially appreciated your comments about the flour to fat ratios for different roux, which reflects what I was taught. Next time I'm making a white sauce, I'll give the buerre manie a try-thanks. :-)
Loved this!
old thread maybe...but always relevant imho.
After all, we have all been eating all of our lives, since the dawn of mankind!
Older single male, having to learn to cook for himself a long time ago, I would just cook longer when the sauce(gravy) was too thin, in the hopes of reducing the water content, the results were usually fine as I spiced the dish liberally.
I always wanted a simple method of thickening to add that "je ne sais quoi" to the dish I was preparing.
I've just finished reading some 20+ articles on beurre manie, and so I can see how well it would work for me, without even trying it.
In the next few days, I will test this method, and might even report back here to comment on it!
Thanks to the original poster!
Andre
The funny thing is that the flour isn't uncooked, or at least not totally, because you're supposed to simmer the sauce more after you add it. You just won't get thetoasty flavor that comes with darker rouxs, but it's not a replacement for dark roux anyway.
Post a Comment