# Thickened gravy turns liquid next day



## icedhazelnut (Nov 26, 2002)

Why does all my gravies turn into running liquids when reheated a day or two later?

This happens all the time. What food science do I not understand? 
For example, I sauted some red and green peppers, scallions, mushrooms (I sauted the mushrooms separately because I know they have a lot of water in them and then added them to the other sauted vegetables) added my sauted chicken pieces added a little stock then thickened the mixture with flour. 

It thickened nicely, we ate sumptuously and I put away the leftovers for dinner the next night. 

When I poured the vegetables and chicken into the pan, the juice/gravy was as thin as water. Why?

Thank you,


----------



## chefmeow (Apr 14, 2004)

Are you cooling it properly, uncovered and quickly? If you are covering it tightly while it is still hot, (especially with plastic wrap) condensation builds inside the container and thins your gravy.(not to metion an unsafe cooling practice). If this is not the case, I really have no idea what in the world would cause that. I would be interested to find out.


----------



## scott123 (Dec 23, 2003)

The moisture that makes up the condensation originated from the gravy you put in the container. If the container is sealed, regardless of the condensation, no water is being added or subtracted.

My best guess is that the salt in the gravy is drawing moisture from the veggies and the chicken. If your veggies and chicken were stored separatedly from the gravy than the gravy would be the same consistency when warmed.


----------



## kuan (Jun 11, 2001)

Old flour or you didn't cook it enough. Do you recook it when you reheat?

Kuan


----------



## chefboy2160 (Oct 13, 2001)

Use roux as your thickening agent,bring your sauce or gravy to a boil, simmer for about 20 minutes and youve got good sauce you can use for the next 5 days(allowing you chill it quickly).Cornstarch thickened sauces will not reheat to there origional consistencies nor will sauces sprinkled with (wondra) flour.Trust me this works as I used to make very large quantities of demi glace(for beef gravy mostly),turkey gravy, chicken gravy, and of course that most popular bechamel made with ground sausage(yeah country gravy) to top the chiken fried steaks and biscuits with! Like kuan said reheat it to 165 and youll be cool.Good eats , Doug.........................


----------



## scott123 (Dec 23, 2003)

Kuan, it doesn't take long for the starch in flour to gelatinize (within seconds in a boiling liquid). Once it does gelatinize, the thickness of the sauce shouldn't change with reheating. Even if the sauce wasn't cooked long enough to gelatinize all the flour, it would still be the same soupy consistency the next day. Nothing would change. Flour can't revert to an ungelatinized state.

Doug, you simmer your bechamel for 20 minutes?!?!?!


----------



## chefboy2160 (Oct 13, 2001)

Scott,when you have 40 gallons of the goo in your steam jacketed kettle and you bring it to a boil and then shut it off it still continues to simmer for quite a while.Just make sure your cooks helper who is panning this stuff up for you does not scrape the skin on the inside of the pot.
Oh, I most definately agree with kuan that you did not cook your flour long enough.Doug..................


----------



## scott123 (Dec 23, 2003)

Doug, 20 minutes is way too long for bechamel, whether being cooked by it's own latent heat or via heat source. The proteins/sugars in the milk start to brown very quickly. After 20 minutes doesn't your bechamel develop a slightly beige tint? That tint, besides being unappetizing to the eye, is proof of compromised flavor.

A non milk based gravy thrives under long simmering but not a bechamel.

If your circumstances force you to cook your bechamel for 20 minutes, that's one thing. Recommending it as an "ideal" time is an entirely different story.


----------



## kuan (Jun 11, 2001)

There's short cut bechamel and there's bechamel. If you want to quickly thicken your bechamel fine, but if you want a smooth silky bechamel which doesn't taste like flour then you have to use proper technique.


----------



## chefboy2160 (Oct 13, 2001)

Your right Scott.Im sorry but 20 minutes is wrong.In my copy of the New Professional Chef (I think this is like a school book for people who are lucky enough to go to culinary school of which alas, I am not one of these) there are 2 recipes for Bechamel.The first one says "Simmer for a minimum of thirty minutes.(some chefs prefer to simmer the sauce for up to one hour)The second recipe says to just simmer the sauce for thirty minutes.
The reason you simmer the sauce is to cook the flour.If you just throw it in and serve as soon as it thickens what you will be serving is paste. When a white sauce is made properly it can be held for many hours on a steam table or soup pot. When the flour is not cooked is when the sauce will break and also will not rethermalize to its previouse consistency.When you see cream soups break the most common culprit is that the soup was not simmered to allow the flour to cook so yes , even though youve got the flour in the sauce and its thick does not mean that it will stay that way.When a cream sauce breaks it turns to a very watery consistency.
Hope this helps , just remember to cook that flour.Doug..........


----------



## scott123 (Dec 23, 2003)

Kuan, don't tell me you too simmer your bechamel for 20+ minutes.

Assuming you have cooked your roux sufficiently, any raw flour taste will disappear upon gelatinization. The prolonged cooking has nothing to do with the taste of the flour, it's for breaking down the starch particles for a more velvety sauce. Which, when making a non-milk based gravy works wonderfully. But not for bechamel. It's called "white" sauce for a reason. Not "beige" sauce.


----------



## greg (Dec 8, 1999)

The thing that will turn a bechamel an off-white color is making your roux in an aluminum pan. Simmering a sauce for 20 minutes to stabilize it and to cook out raw flour taste is common practice.


----------



## scott123 (Dec 23, 2003)

Doug, I can show you text books that say 12 hours for simmering stock and others that will swear by 4. Text books mean very little to me. What I want to hear is the science involved. Show me the chemistry behind cooking sauces to remove the raw flavor taste. If there is, I'm not familiar with it.

The starches in flour:
A. first gelatinize
B. then break down further for a smoother sauce.

Once flour gelatinizes there is no raw flour taste to be cooked away. You're not getting maillard reactions in your sauce toasting the rawness out of the flour. The starch in sauce is much like the crumb of bread. The bread hits a certain temperature, steamed is formed and the starches in the flour gelatinize. Water + flour + sufficient temperature = gelatinization. Do you eat the middle of french bread and say "that tastes like raw flour?" of course not.

Gelatinized flour rethermalizes to exactly the same consistency whether it is cooked for 5 minutes or 30. It doesn't revert. It's a physical impossibility. And you can't say that it isn't completely gelatinized in 5 minutes, either. In boiling water flour gelatinizes in seconds.

The reason behind prolonged simmering is textural. Prolonged simmering and rigorous whisking both will break down the starches to create a smoother sauce. With a carefully prepared roux and rigorous whisking, there is no difference in texture between a 5 minute bechamel and a 10 minute one (or a 20, 0r a 30). But there will be a difference in color when the proteins/sugars in the milk begin to caramelize.


----------



## scott123 (Dec 23, 2003)

Greg, how many years was it "common practice" to sear meat to seal in the juices?

I don't buy into anything because it's common practice or plastered all over textbooks. Too much of this stuff has been proven as myth. Give me the science.


----------



## kuan (Jun 11, 2001)

All this over reheating gravy? Scott's on a mission to explain the process of gelatinization. But there's more to gelatinizing starch when making bechamel. When you gelatinize the starch you actually bust the starch granule. When you further cook it you break it down further into its sugar components like dextrose and such. Did you know that corn syrup is actually made from cornstarch? Enzymes are used in breaking down the cornstarch. I just learned that today from the wife.

Maybe we're wrong when we describe the "raw" feel of starch in our mouths. We're probably tasting a big starch granule which hasn't been broken down. Nevertheless there is a difference in letting a bechamel simmer for 20-30 minutes as opposed to three minutes.

Anyway to get a nice white bechamel use clarified butter to make the roux. It's better if you can get butter without the annato color. Use a stainless steel pot like Greg says. If the color changes that means you're burning stuff. Simmer it on low heat. Sugars don't caramelize at 212 degrees F. Just watch it and have a little cold milk on the side to knock it down if you see it starting to boil.

Kuan


----------



## chefboy2160 (Oct 13, 2001)

OK Scott,for meat such as a prime rib roast well I like to carmelize the outside very quickly and then slow roast(this works well with all large roasts of different animals). Hey dude, every cook has some difference but what is proper procedure and works just is.It is not about sealing in the juices but about texture on your roast.As far as Sauces go well my friend you should reconsider your sources.The posts you have read are by some realy good chefs who are not posting to make themselves appear better than you but to just lend a helping hand to those who ask questions.Some of us kinda tend to know what works and what does not due to schooling and of course trial and error.Also I have never heard the word gelatizining used with roux or flour before.Flour is a starch while gelatin is an animal protien found in bones.Such is the reduction and sauce for Osso Buco.
Scott, proper technique is what most chefs are trained in!Yeah you can branch out and you can make whatever recipes you want but the foundation is there for a reason because others have come before us to lay it before us by there hard work.Knowledge is where you find it but can only be absorbed if you realy listen.Doug...................


----------



## icedhazelnut (Nov 26, 2002)

Thank you all for your replies, my question sure sparked a great discussion. 

Well, from what I can gather from all your responses I may be cooling improperly (in ahurry to clean up and get done) and I don't store the gravy separately. I will do both in the future and see what results I get. I did use fresh flour and I did recook. I do like to salt my serving of food on my plate. So, It might be possible that without knowing it I'm adding salt to the stored mixture compounding the problem. 

Thanks!


----------



## travelchick (Jul 27, 2004)

This is what is so interesting about cooking. Everyone has their method  

Although, I referenced my Escoffier on this and he says simmer for 2 hours. Of course, he's making a gallon...does more sauce mean longer simmer? Or not?

I don't know, I've never made a bechamel. One of those things on my list of "to do"


----------



## scott123 (Dec 23, 2003)

Kuan, I know this response comes way after the fact but I reread this post and noticed a few things that I had missed before.

First of all, the conversion of starches to dextrose (dextrinization) occurs with dry heat, not wet (the crust of bread or when making a roux).

You are correct about big starch granules being broken down to little ones by extra simmering. I still contend that 5 minutes of simmering _and_ vigorous whisking will perform the same task without compromising the milk sugars.

And, believe it or not, sugars do caramelize at 212 degrees f. We only associate higher temperatures with caramelization because of the speed involved. Caramelization can and does occur at lower temperatures, it's just decelarated.


----------



## scott123 (Dec 23, 2003)

Escoffier says 2 hours, huh? That doesn't surprise me since he simmers his stock for 12 hours, a number I find excessive as well. I have met chefs that swear by 48 hour stocks, so, you're right, to each his own.

More sauce translates into more time to _get_ to a simmer, but once your sauce is simmering the clock is the same for both a small and large quantity. Once the bechamel is removed from the heat, the larger quantity will hold it's heat longer if it isn't broken down into smaller vessels or steps taken to speed it's cooling.

Bechamel rocks! Once you do make one (cooking either 5 or 20 minutes  ) it will be a thrilling experience, I promise you.

Please let us know how it goes. And welcome to the forum.


----------



## travelchick (Jul 27, 2004)

Yes, bechamel certainly tastes good, I've eaten plenty but just never made one.

Thanks for the welcome! I just found this board and have been wanting to join a cooking forum with more serious people in it. It seems that lots of people cook by opening a can and dumping out sauce or whatever, not my preferred method so I'm very glad to be somewhere I can learn!


----------



## kuan (Jun 11, 2001)

I don't believe it. I don't believe that sugars can caramelize at 212F. Toss a handful of sucrose into a pan of boiling water and see how long it takes. The boiling point of sugar is higher than that of water, how does it burn before it boils?

Kuan


----------



## scott123 (Dec 23, 2003)

Yes, you are correct. My choice of the word 'caramelize' was a poor one. The caramelization of a pure sucrose/water solution can't occur at 212F. But the browning of a sugar/protein solution does. Maillard reactions are associated with higher temperatures because of the speed involved. They do occur at lower temps, though. Without the protein in milk, you could boil it for an eternity and it wouldn't brown. Once you have that sugar/protein combo, it's a different ball game.


----------



## nick.shu (Jul 18, 2000)

*sigh*

o.k. Kuan's point of sucrose in water having a higher density is (partially) correct. By introducing something of a higher density to water, you increase its boiling point. That is one of the reasons water is salted in cooking (by increasing the salinity of the water, you therefore increase the density, and the boiling point giving you a quicker cooking time i.e. pasta. Sugar is the same, thats why we have baume or saccharometers. A good example is the addition of sugar to egg yolks to make sabayon.

to a certain extent, scott123 is also correct - with regards to a "maillard reactions". However, the flaw in this argument, is that how can the cooked sugars that exist in the roux affect the disposition of the lactose that havent been cooked to the certain extent without excessive heat.

there within lies the enigma. or perhaps not. without excessive heat to *caramelise* the lactose, the mixture will remain white. Another factor to consider is the amount of cooking the roux undergoes. Too much and the colour and flavour taint will spread through your sauce.

the mouth feel of a raw chunk of wheat flour is both instantly recognisable and unappealing.

But anyway i digress.

To me, it sounds, possibly, that it might be too much liquid. from what you said "i added a little stock and thickened it with flour".

Some questions i have for you: what sort of flour are you using?, perhaps you should have reduced the amount of stock by half?.

Perhaps you should post the recipe here for further opinion. By doing that, the chefs here have a better feel for what could be happening with your technique.

happy cooking
Nick.


----------



## scott123 (Dec 23, 2003)

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. The sugars in the roux have no bearing on my argument. What I am contending is that milk, with or without roux, if simmered for 20 minutes, will be a shade darker.


----------



## nick.shu (Jul 18, 2000)

i see what you mean.

the tendency of the lactose to brown depends greatly on what heat the milk is cooked at, whether or not the sugars (lactose) settle on the bottom of the pot and burn, the actual composition of the milk, etc.

some factors to consider here would be such things as, the type of base of the pot used, the amount of heat applied. Another consideration would be, was the roux cooked in the same pot prior to making the bechamel, without cleaning. Another could be the strength of the flour used, how much was the roux cooked out and so forth.

Sometimes a myriad of factors combine to compund an effect.


----------



## mikeb (Jun 29, 2004)

When I make gravies I cool them quickly and uncovered, they never go 'liquid' the next day. Even better, I like to thicken sauces just by reducing them - much more flavourful, they keep very well too. 

For bechamel, the chefs I've talked to said to simmer for at least 20 minutes, one said you can even simmer it for an hour or two to make it even smoother... I usually do mine for around 20 (I'm impatient), it turns out just fine. Still bright white, nice and smooth. No discolouration...


----------



## scott123 (Dec 23, 2003)

Bright white? How long do you cook your roux?

And I should qualify that when I refer to a 'shade' darker it is a very subtle shift. It's nowhere near the change that occurs between pasteurized and ulta-pasteurized cream nor is it in the realm of milk and evaporated milk. These are extreme examples of the type of transformation that occurs, though.


----------



## mikeb (Jun 29, 2004)

The roux I cook on low heat for a couple minutes, add the milk, then let simmer for 20+ minutes after (low heat of course, stirring quite often). Maybe it is a *shade* darker - still bright white though.


----------



## greg (Dec 8, 1999)

This is still going on? I've been cooking professionally for 20 years, as have many of the other chefs who have replied on this topic. Like them, I simmer any sauce thickened with a starch for a minimum of 20 minutes. If I don't, I can taste said starch. My palate does not lie, certainly not day after day after day, ad nauseum that I've made bechamel. Even if the result would be a white sauce that was a shade darker (and it is not), I would still do so because my priority is to make food that tastes good. We can argue the science behind it and throw around terms like "maillard reaction" and "gelatinization", but the truth of the matter is that experience gives you the correct answer. The science is interesting and important, but it's not the be all, end all.


----------



## cape chef (Jul 31, 2000)

_So it is obvious to me that chefs will develop our own interpretation, only after we have mastered the "Fond" of it._ _Gastronomic literature is filled with tedious pages and trifling disputes. Bechamel has inspired more than it's far shere of this piffle. Peaple will argue about whether the correct spelling should not be bechamelle; whether the Italian version, "Balsamella from Romagna district, is the original of the bect known and easiest of the mothers sauces.In such matters prejudice will always rule, for there is no evidence one way or the other. We can only point to the apperence of sauce called bechamel during the reign of Louis XIV. and, as so often, this original sauce bore only a slight resemblance to the modern sauce. While we think of bechamel as an all purpose white sauce made with scalded milk, roux and flavorings, Careme made it by enriching veloute with cream._

*What is common to almost all accounts of bechamel in modern times is that it is prepared with a roux and scalded milk, usually flavored, and that once assembled it is "cooked gently for quite some time"*

_To add to the debate, Pellaprat and Pepin advise only five minutes of cooking._


----------



## scott123 (Dec 23, 2003)

Greg, are you implying that I have not be cooking professionally for 20 years? That my palate lies? That my priority is to make food that tastes bad?

My experience has shown me day after day, year after year, that a bechamel simmered 5 minutes and whisked vigorously has exactly the same texture as one that is simmered 20 or more.

I don't know about you, but when my experience and someone else's experience fail to coincide, I turn to science for answers.


----------



## travelchick (Jul 27, 2004)

Well heck! Now I'm going to have to make it BOTH ways just to see what I come up with!


----------



## GarryB (Dec 28, 2020)

I do not save gravy as leftovers for this very reason. My Chicken and Dumplings gravy will start breaking down, losing it's viscosity within less than an hour after it is done. The only solution I have found is to simply not save it as leftovers.


----------

