SC - Cool cooking event and e-"seige"cooking challenge

[CBlackwill@aol.com]

In a message dated 5/14/00 10:58:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
Etain1263 at aol.com writes:

> Okay..I agree in theory...but if you stew the chicken instead of roasting 
>  it..there ARE no "pan juices" or fat to brown the flour to make a roux!  
I'd 
> 
>  rather have a flour and water thickened broth than use lard or oil or 
>  something to brown the flour and then add the broth!

There is actually nothing wrong with a flour slurry, except for, perhaps, a 
little less flavor, and a lack of the "sheen" that a fat and flour roux will 
provide.  If these things are not important to you, or not necessary due to 
the particular type of dish, then I would say go ahead and use a slurry.  It 
will actually provide more thickening power than a roux, since the flour is 
not cooked.  Cooking ("browning") flour decreases its ability to thicken to 
some degree.  The darker the flour, the less power it has.  Gumbo roux, for 
instance, which is sometimes baked in the oven, but always cooked until very, 
very dark, has about 1/3 the thickening power of a "blonde" roux, or a 
slurry.  Of course, when you can, it is my opinion that you should always use 
a roux.  It's just one more element you add to a dish which builds flavor, 
and that's what cooking is all about, isn't it?

Balthazar of Blackmoor

Complacency Breeds Contempt