# When did demi-glace lose the roux?



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

I'm a bit puzzled; everywhere I look nowadays it seems like demi is being made without roux. Supposedly this is "modern" or something.  When you folks make demi do you use veal stock and espagnole or just reduce your glace de viande and call it demiglace?


----------



## grande (May 14, 2014)

I use a reduction, but it's mostly a question of time & how much trouble I'm willing to take. Also, what recipe my chef wants. I would guess it comes from nuveau(sp?) cuisine. Bourdain calls for a reduction in Kitchen Confidential, and that's, what, 99?
Another factor is(don't laugh) gluten free people. Weget a lot & that would change a dish from gluten free to not.
Honestly I might be the only person in my kitchen who knows classic demi. I'll sound a couple people out and get back to you.


----------



## lagom (Sep 5, 2012)

I think demi became just a glace de viandi reduction somewhere back in the late eighties as the need for shortcuts became more prevalent. The nail in its coffin has been the catch phrase "gluten free"


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

I figured that maybe the anti-gluten brigade could be driving it.  And I do know a few guys that don't feel anything should be "artificially thickened", including using roux.  To me it's a cornerstone of classic cuisine though and I'm not sure it's really "right" to call it demiglace if it's not made like demiglace.  Normally I care more about flavor and texture than pedantics and semantics, and I do make a glace de viande that I reduce down to nape...but I don't feel right calling it demiglace!


----------



## jimyra (Jun 23, 2015)

In another thread a very similar discussion is going on Hollandaise Advice. In this thread sabayon is debated, is it a dessert recipe or is it the base for making hollandaise? Basically I was told that these terms "evolve" and this is the twenty first century the classics can be anything a chef dreams up. I spent the great majority of my life in the twentieth century and believe the classics should be classics and new methods and variations should have new names. _Culinary Fundamentals_, The American Culinary Federation, 2006, Uses a roux to make Demi-glace.It sounds like your seeing a lot of stock reductions and not Demi.


----------



## welldonechef (Sep 28, 2008)

It's a relatively modern thing. The "demiglace" today isn't, it's a reduction. If you are talking classically, then it's espagnole sauce with an equal part of Veal stock reduced to half. Bring it to 1/10 and you have glace. 

It's nothing to do with gluten free.. Just the modern sauce making evolved to make things simpler. Much like béchamel used to be made with ham bone or Veal and milk... Today is much different from caramels time...


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

I don't think it's just simplicity; after all, not all modern cuisine is simple.  Look at the stuffy being done by Keller, Dufrene, Blumenthal and Atchatz.  It feels more like a repudiation of classical technique, something done on purpose. Like a statement that some want to make a break with the traditional way of doing things. And I'm cool with that but I'm not sure it makes sense to change it but use the traditional name.  Kind of like how a lot of bars will put apple schnaps in a martini glass and call it a martini even though it has nothing of a real martini (ie no gin, vodka or vermouth). We dont call it a martini just because of the glass, it's the other way around!


----------



## welldonechef (Sep 28, 2008)

When I say "simple" I'm talking about flavours. I learned the reason we got away from using the espagnole sauce to make demiglace was because the roux made the sauce taste... Like 1969. With reduction we have a clean Veal flavor. Less variables, right? 

With espagnole, we have to worry about ratio of roux, how much the roux is cooked, the amount of reduction in the espagnole sauce before mixing, etc, etc, etc. 

With straight Veal reduce, now we are talking less variables. 1 ingredient, focus on that, and how we reduce. 

At least, that's what my culinary instructors told me all those years ago when I inquired.


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

Nowadays? I don't think roux has been used much in the last 30 years for making demi. I always thought it was an offshoot of nouvelle cuisine and the "lightening" and "natural" approach that those chefs took towards food. Also, maybe given the influx of relatively inexpensive bones for making stock/demi, you no longer need to thicken your stock to achieve consistency since you can just reduce it to glace? I dunno, but maybe back in the day the chefs had to get more yield out of their bones to make costs. 

The only time I ever did it was in culinary school when we learned the "classics."

 Roux isn't really used much anymore, at least in any of the fine dining places I've worked. I might make it every once and a while to do a mac and cheese for staff meal or make a batch of chowder, but in terms of menu stuff I don't really use it. Not many people do I think.


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

Demiglace tastes like 1869, maybe 1769! If you don't like that, fine. Then why cling to the name? To me it smacks of laziness and dismissively assumes the customer won't notice the difference.


----------



## welldonechef (Sep 28, 2008)

I hear you there... Honestly, I don't see it written on many menus these days, unless the chef is trying to stroke an ego... Too many knorr cans of "demiglace" or such. 

Me? I call it what it is, a reduction. Sounds better anyway. Then again, I may be able to cook French cuisine, but I don't advertise it LOL


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

Phaedrus said:


> Demiglace tastes like 1869, maybe 1769! If you don't like that, fine. Then why cling to the name? To me it smacks of laziness and dismissively assumes the customer won't notice the difference.


Well, not really. Language and vocabulary is constantly evolving, and new meaning for old words are constantly being incorporated into how we speak as a society.

It allows people that have, say, a common idea of what a thing is (demi-glace) to recognize something new that is similar in use and execution but still different (i.e. modern demi glace). Sure, we (as a society) could come up with a new word for such things (and we often do) but using a familiar word to bridge that gap between the old and the new so that people will understand is very common.

When was the last time you actually "dialed" a phone? Did you ever "rewind" a video on you tube or on your DVR? Have you ever actually "hung up" your cell phone? Does your car window actually "roll" up or down....? Do you see my point? When I hear the term demi glace, I don't even THINK about the roux-thickened old one. My mind turns instantly to the reduction method. To me, truly, demi-glace IS a reduced veal stock.

So yeah, words change and evolve, especially as our understanding of the world of cooking and gastronomy explodes more and more every year. We need a way to bridge the gaps between the old and the new, and one way to reach that understanding is to use words.


----------



## cheflayne (Aug 21, 2004)

Most places that I have worked in the last 20 years or so do a combination brown stock espagnole without roux reduction. I say this because old school brown stock does not have tomato paste in it but espagnole does. The places I have worked use tomato paste in the final bone roasting stage, so if going by the book, you can't call the final product glace de viande either. Where does that leave us?

I used to call my brown colored reduction "Larry" but nobody knew what the hell I was talking about. No matter what I called it, it wouldn't come when I did call anyway, so I just stopped.


----------



## welldonechef (Sep 28, 2008)

cheflayne said:


> Most places that I have worked in the last 20 years or so do a combination brown stock espagnole without roux reduction. I say this because old school brown stock does not have tomato paste in it but espagnole does. The places I have worked use tomato paste in the final bone roasting stage, so if going by the book, you can't call the final product glace de viande either. Where does that leave us?
> 
> I used to call my brown colored reduction "Larry" but nobody knew what the hell I was talking about. No matter what I called it, it wouldn't come when I did call anyway, so I just stopped.


This made my night...

I routinely call water (town I'm in) stock.


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

Someday said:


> Well, not really. Language and vocabulary is constantly evolving, and new meaning for old words are constantly being incorporated into how we speak as a society.
> 
> It allows people that have, say, a common idea of what a thing is (demi-glace) to recognize something new that is similar in use and execution but still different (i.e. modern demi glace). Sure, we (as a society) could come up with a new word for such things (and we often do) but using a familiar word to bridge that gap between the old and the new so that people will understand is very common.
> 
> ...


No one is saying words don't evolve in meaning but respectfully, I think you're at once off base while missing the point. There are lots of kinds of changes and obfuscations and words with imprecise meanings. Take the way many southern people call all sodas "Cokes" (eg 'what kind of Coke do you want?', ' I'll have orange'). There are lots of regional names for things, but this isn't that. Or look at something so ubiquitous that all things like get lumped together like all tissues being Kleenex and any cotton swab being called a Q-tip. Clearly we're not talking about something like that.

No, this is kind of a willing distortion. Despite the possibility of a word changing meanings over time the way that gay went from meaning 'happy' to meaning homosexual, you can't really just change a term at will. A great example is the "footlong" sandwich at Subway. A greedy chain restaurant may decide that a foot means whatever they want but a foot has a legal definition when used as a unit of measure. Note that Subway lost that case had to actually make their "foot long" a foot long or change the name.

What we have frequently is "evolution" being used as a weasel word to just mean whatever you want it to mean. Clearly despite different approaches demiglace has a pretty clear definition in a culinary sense. The word carries a lot of cache, and demi is often called "brown gold". It's easy to see why a chef would want to trade on that prestige without doing the work. So we're back to the idea that a word or term means something or it doesn't. Maybe the culinary world really is transitioning into demiglace being something else, but IMOHO it's kind of weasely to keep pretending that everyone is agreeing to call it by the classical term until we "find a better name" for it./img/vbsmilies/smilies/wink.gif

I hope this isn't coming across in too much of a "Get off my lawn!" kind of a way!/img/vbsmilies/smilies/lol.gif I realize this is pretty pedantic but hey, no one has to read it or post if they don't want!


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

I'll note that we do of course have a lot of binders, thickeners and techniques that would have been unknown to Careme or Escoffier.  I'm not Luddite!  MG/modernist cooking is awesome and I fully embrace it.  Perhaps in a new world with many way to thicken besides roux, arrowroot, mounting butter, etc we'll see a trend towards purely looking at what a sauce is composed of without regard to how it's made.  For instance bechamel could be made with cornstarch or xanthan or some more exotic hydrocolloid.  Rust never sleeps after all.


----------



## welldonechef (Sep 28, 2008)

Phaedrus said:


> No one is saying words don't evolve in meaning but respectfully, I think you're at once off base while missing the point. There are lots of kinds of changes and obfuscations and words with imprecise meanings. Take the way many southern people call all sodas "Cokes" (eg 'what kind of Coke do you want?', ' I'll have orange'). There are lots of regional names for things, but this isn't that. Or look at something so ubiquitous that all things like get lumped together like all tissues being Kleenex and any cotton swab being called a Q-tip. Clearly we're not talking about something like that.
> 
> No, this is kind of a willing distortion. Despite the possibility of a word changing meanings over time the way that gay went from meaning 'happy' to meaning homosexual, you can't really just change a term at will. A great example is the "footlong" sandwich at Subway. A greedy chain restaurant may decide that a foot means whatever they want but a foot has a legal definition when used as a unit of measure. Note that Subway lost that case had to actually make their "foot long" a foot long or change the name.
> 
> ...


I quite agree.

You shouldn't be advertising a menu item that isn't what it's supposed to be. When I see demiglace, I tend to think of a French dish where the sauce is the star of the show. That's not my thing, so instead I would put "reduction."

For instance,

Beef tenderloin with portabellini cap, rosemary red wine reduction.

To me culinary traditions are fine. Example... a tournedos Rossini should have the classic components. There had better be toasted points, foie gras, DEMIGLACE madiera sauce, and truffles in that dish for me. Otherwise, it's not Tornados Rossini.


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

Phaedrus said:


> No one is saying words don't evolve in meaning but respectfully, I think you're at once off base while missing the point. There are lots of kinds of changes and obfuscations and words with imprecise meanings. Take the way many southern people call all sodas "Cokes" (eg 'what kind of Coke do you want?', ' I'll have orange'). There are lots of regional names for things, but this isn't that. Or look at something so ubiquitous that all things like get lumped together like all tissues being Kleenex and any cotton swab being called a Q-tip. Clearly we're not talking about something like that.


I don't understand your point because what you are talking about here has nothing to do with what I was talking about. At no point did I bring up regional words or dialects or whatever. Clearly we aren't talking about that, I agree, so why bring it up in the first place???


Phaedrus said:


> No, this is kind of a willing distortion. Despite the possibility of a word changing meanings over time the way that gay went from meaning 'happy' to meaning homosexual, you can't really just change a term at will. A great example is the "footlong" sandwich at Subway. A greedy chain restaurant may decide that a foot means whatever they want but a foot has a legal definition when used as a unit of measure. Note that Subway lost that case had to actually make their "foot long" a foot long or change the name.


I don't think anything about it changed "at will." It took a long time...no one person just decided to change it and make it so. The fact that the term gay changed from happy to now meaning homosexual proves my point....so...thanks? Words lose meaning and change meaning all the time. 


Phaedrus said:


> What we have frequently is "evolution" being used as a weasel word to just mean whatever you want it to mean. Clearly despite different approaches demiglace has a pretty clear definition in a culinary sense. The word carries a lot of cache, and demi is often called "brown gold". It's easy to see why a chef would want to trade on that prestige without doing the work. So we're back to the idea that a word or term means something or it doesn't. Maybe the culinary world really is transitioning into demiglace being something else, but IMOHO it's kind of weasely to keep pretending that everyone is agreeing to call it by the classical term until we "find a better name" for it./img/vbsmilies/smilies/wink.gif
> 
> I hope this isn't coming across in too much of a "Get off my lawn!" kind of a way!/img/vbsmilies/smilies/lol.gif I realize this is pretty pedantic but hey, no one has to read it or post if they don't want!


There's no weaseling here. I'm simply stating the fact that, as I see it, demi-glace now more often refers to an intense reduction of veal stock than the classical espagnole/veal stock reduction. I would also argue that the culinary world isn't "transitioning" to demiglace being called something else, but in fact it has already happened.

Let me put it to you this way...I've been out of culinary school for over 10 years, worked in many high end fine dining type places with famous chefs at the helm, worked in many different regions of the country, etc blah blah. I've never ONCE made a classical demi for any preparation at any of these jobs. If my chefs had asked me to run to the walk in to grab the demi, I wasn't searching for the espagnole sauce in the fridge. 


welldonechef said:


> I quite agree.
> 
> You shouldn't be advertising a menu item that isn't what it's supposed to be. When I see demiglace, I tend to think of a French dish where the sauce is the star of the show. That's not my thing, so instead I would put "reduction."
> 
> ...


Really? So re-interpreting classic dishes and making them new isn't a thing? Don't tell Thomas Keller that, who pretty much made his name doing exactly what you said he shouldn't.

Come on guys, you sound like a bunch of old men yelling at kids for their "hippity hop" and rock and/or roll" music. Get off my lawn indeed.


----------



## welldonechef (Sep 28, 2008)

Thomas Keller may remained the classics, but he does not pass off shortcuts to say he has a dish that isn't what it is. 

Yours talking about a man who made hollandaise daily for years to get it right. 

There's no "old timer" mentality here. Modern cuisine has its place. Honesty in what you're advertising does too. That's all we are saying.


----------



## brandon odell (Aug 19, 2012)

I wouldn't call a full veal reduction a "short cut" to making classic demi, or anything else with a roux. Using roux is the short cut. It takes more time and patience to do a full reduction, and has a more concentrated veal flavor. I wonder when the recipe police are going to start ticketing old Italian ladies for using heavy cream to make Alfredo sauce instead of bechamel, or adding garlic/not adding garlic. Sauce names *imply* a particular flavor or flavor profile. They do not guarantee a particular recipe was followed.


----------



## welldonechef (Sep 28, 2008)

Well, it is a shortcut because you are not using an espagnole sauce. In order to have a good demi, you need to have a great brown sauce... 

Also, seriously? Alfredo with cream sauce... If there was an old Italian lady who did that, I'd be surprised.


----------



## lagom (Sep 5, 2012)

Brandon ODell said:


> I wouldn't call a full veal reduction a "short cut" to making classic demi, or anything else with a roux. Using roux is the short cut. It takes more time and patience to do a full reduction, and has a more concentrated veal flavor. I wonder when the recipe police are going to start ticketing old Italian ladies for using heavy cream to make Alfredo sauce instead of bechamel, or adding garlic/not adding garlic. Sauce names *imply* a particular flavor or flavor profile. They do not guarantee a particular recipe was followed.


Every old italian lady i ever knew took the time to plow through the oldster recipes and they all came from the old country.


----------



## brandon odell (Aug 19, 2012)

If you know many Italian ladies, you know there are as many recipes for Alfredo sauce as there are Italian ladies too then, and they are all correct.


----------



## brandon odell (Aug 19, 2012)

welldonechef said:


> Well, it is a shortcut because you are not using an espagnole sauce. In order to have a good demi, you need to have a great brown sauce...
> 
> Also, seriously? Alfredo with cream sauce... If there was an old Italian lady who did that, I'd be surprised.


Missing the point. The point is that recipes are guidelines, not bibles, and names are there to guide the customer, not bind the chef.


----------



## welldonechef (Sep 28, 2008)

No, you miss the point. We are not talking about recipes, we are talking about the classical designation of mother sauces. Or, shall we start putting simili crab in our Nantua sauce? 

So, demiglace isn't a reduction of Veal stock. Not classically anyway. Sure, us cooks call it demi amongst each other, but it's not really. It's a reduction, or a glace de viande. 

You know it becomes important when you are trying to speak for people with dietary concerns. If you call a demiglace sauce that OK the menu, in the mind of your consumer there is an expectation. While you may balk at a straight jacket, it's there for a reason, right? 

Otherwise, how are you to have any consistency? 

When it comes to a menu item, I take a dim view of any person, no matter how famous, that calls a dish a classical name without delivering what they promised. Sure, it may be "okay" to you, but why lie on a menu? It's bad form. Call your item what it is. 

Demiglace... No... Red wine reduction. Unless you have an espagnole sauce in there. Then call it demiglace. Then again, why are you calling it demiglace anyway? Are you working in a French Michelin star restaurant? If not, call it what it is.


----------



## welldonechef (Sep 28, 2008)

Brandon ODell said:


> If you know many Italian ladies, you know there are as many recipes for Alfredo sauce as there are Italian ladies too then, and they are all correct.


I know quite a few Italian ladies... I'm married to one. And cream sauce in Alfredo? That's either French or American. Definitely not Italian. You'd get your hands rapped by an old Italian Nonna for using cream or cream sauce in Alfredo.

"usiamo burro in Alfredo, non crema o latte...!! " LOL


----------



## brandon odell (Aug 19, 2012)

welldonechef said:


> No, you miss the point. We are not talking about recipes, we are talking about the classical designation of mother sauces. Or, shall we start putting simili crab in our Nantua sauce?
> 
> So, demiglace isn't a reduction of Veal stock. Not classically anyway. Sure, us cooks call it demi amongst each other, but it's not really. It's a reduction, or a glace de viande.
> 
> ...


 The only duty you have is to fulfill your promise to your guests. If a guest is conditioned to a demi-glace tasting a certain way, whether that way is thickened or reduced, that's what they deserve. Afterall, that's what they are paying for. If the industry has evolved to now label a veal reduction, thickened slightly with tomato paste as "demi-glace", and has conditioned guests to expect a richer veal flavor when they see the words "demi-glace", then that's the right way to do things. Frankly, arguing about what to call things is pretentious. Labels only exist to convey a message to the person reading that label. They're communication, not "rules". A "demi-glace" is whatever the people using the word thinks it is. If everyone decided tomorrow to start calling rabbits "horses", then they're now "horses". It's a name, and it means whatever people perceive it to mean.


----------



## welldonechef (Sep 28, 2008)

Brandon ODell said:


> The only duty you have is to fulfill your promise to your guests. If a guest is conditioned to a demi-glace tasting a certain way, whether that way is thickened or reduced, that's what they deserve. Afterall, that's what they are paying for. If the industry has evolved to now label a veal reduction, thickened slightly with tomato paste as "demi-glace", and has conditioned guests to expect a richer veal flavor when they see the words "demi-glace", then that's the right way to do things. Frankly, arguing about what to call things is pretentious. Labels only exist to convey a message to the person reading that label. They're communication, not "rules". A "demi-glace" is whatever the people using the word thinks it is. If everyone decided tomorrow to start calling rabbits "horses", then they're now "horses". It's a name, and it means whatever people perceive it to mean.


So, by this logic, there's no use to learning the classical dishes. Call a dish whatever you want, it's your menu, or restaurant.

On the other hand, if you turn around and teach, then what are you doing? How are you preparing your apprentices for their eventual learning curve by teaching them skills and facts that they will need to unlearn?

It's not about being pretentious, it's about having a trade, and craftsmanship. You're talking about tradition, not ego.

If you want to call your Veal glace demiglace, by all means, it's your menu. If you want to talk classics, then it's a different story. If you're a mechanic, it doesn't matter if you call your crescent wrench a ratchet, it's still a crescent wrench. I mean, you can run around and call it a ratchet, but eventually someone might call you out on it.

Personally, I would never put "demiglace" on a menu. Why? The 70's are over. It won't be appreciated. Chances are very good that you would have to explain it to your servers and guests, unless they knew what demiglace was...and in your case you'd have to explain it anyway because if they knew what a demiglace was, you're not offering that... You've changed the method and ingredients...

So, why not call it what it is? Reduction. So much easier.. That is if you put it there at all? These days it's not about the sauce, it's about the dish. The meat, or the vegetables...

If I serve a lamb chop with a reduction that's cut with pomegranate molasses, I won't say demiglace with pomegranate. I'll say something like,

Grilled lamb chop with pistachio crust, crumbled feta, pomegranate glaze.

So sure, there is a lamb redux (or demi if you will) in there, but the stars are the lamb, pistachio, feta, and pomegranate. No mention there of demiglace.


----------



## grande (May 14, 2014)

I asked a couple guys at work and they've never seen the classic method. So, I guess it's been out for a while, out here.
Personally, I think you lose something by not learning the classics. A thickened sauce has a different flavor and texture than a straight reduction-not at all to say worse. I'm not crazy about syrupy reductions. 
As for terminlogy, most of my customers ask for extra gravy, so the technicalities of the name are a moot point.


----------



## welldonechef (Sep 28, 2008)

Grande said:


> I asked a couple guys at work and they've never seen the classic method. So, I guess it's been out for a while, out here.
> Personally, I think you lose something by not learning the classics. A thickened sauce has a different flavor and texture than a straight reduction-not at all to say worse. I'm not crazy about syrupy reductions.
> As for terminlogy, most of my customers ask for extra gravy, so the technicalities of the name are a moot point.


ha ha full disclosure...

I worked for a restaurant in Oxbow, Saskatchewan that had a modifier for the Bills called "Snowball"

WTF is snowball? It's where you put the gravy over everything. Like, fries, veggies, burger, whatever...

So, I feel your pain. Lol


----------



## grande (May 14, 2014)

Oh Canada! That's hysterical.


----------



## chefwolverine (May 15, 2015)

When was it made with roux? Using roux to thicken it cuts cost and flavor.


----------



## grande (May 14, 2014)

From about 1800 until about 1980, seems to be the consensus.


----------



## chefesteve (Dec 6, 2012)

Granted I went to a less than prestigious culinary school, but I was taught that Demi was half veal stock/half espagnole, reduced by half. That's also how it was presented in our method books.


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

Wow, what a kerfuffle!/img/vbsmilies/smilies/lol.gif I would be surprised if there's a reputable culinary school anywhere in the world that teaches students that demiglace isn't brown stock & espagnole, as it was done in Escoffier's day.


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

I would also point out that culinary school is the only place I have ever made it.


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

Seriously?  I guess I'm old!  And my cooking style is maybe a little dated. But I work in MN, so there's that.  I made a batch day before yesterday, brown stock from veal bones and espagnole.


----------



## jake t buds (May 27, 2013)

I thought this might be relevant : 

One must learn the rules before breaking them. If you have no rules, there is chaos. 

Having said that, the OED defines 'words' by usage, but at some point there has to be some givens.


----------



## chefesteve (Dec 6, 2012)

I've also seen a recipe for a "quick and easy demi" that claimed to be as good as the original taking no more than 30 minutes to prepare. I believe it was in an issue of Cucina Italiana.


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

I'm not even asking which is "better" which is always going to be subjective.  You can make some delicious pan sauces very quickly but they won't be demiglace.  And at the risk of belaboring the obvious gelatin isn't the best or only thickener for a sauce.  No matter what you do you simply won't get the same texture with just reduction and the gelatin in the bones as you get with a mixture of the reduced stock and espagnole.  That's why we have so many thickening agents; beurre marnier, roux, arrowroot, cornstarch, whitewash, xanan, beta carrageenen, mounted butter, masa harina, etc.  You're gonna have a boring drawing done with just one crayon, even if it's your favorite color.


----------



## chef oddball (Jul 5, 2015)

We have multiple duties as culinary leaders!

* We have a duty to the guests. remember that our guests are more informed about food than they ever have been. They watch food programs, read blogs, join forums, read critiques etc... If one is going to use classical terms then one must expect to be called to a table and verbally harangued for using a classical term and NOT fulfilling what the guests expects. I agree instead of demi-glace use a pan reduced jus, or glaze etc

* We have a duty to all who work with & under us. We should ensure they have a firm base in the classics. At this property we will not use turned vegetables, but my team know how to do it! When those we have taught leave, we want them to be able to almost brag about how much they learnt with us. I view my role as much of a teacher as a leader.

* We have a duty to the community around us. The community I am referring to is us the food service industry professionals, and even some talented amateurs! We all have our own opinions as to which of our colleagues we prefer/will visit. It's always nice to be able to say to a friend... hey let's go to Mike's place...as he puts out a good plate and knows what he's doing!   Also if we teach well then just seeing a decent kitchen on their resume will then help them to be hired.

As for the actual thread that I am replying to.... We use a pan jus reduction.


----------



## welldonechef (Sep 28, 2008)

À good read that fits with this discussion here. Names ARE important on your menu, and when you put something in writing on your menu, you should deliver. 
http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news...ays-match-the-menu-at-toronto-restaurant.html


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

welldonechef said:


> À good read that fits with this discussion here. Names ARE important on your menu, and when you put something in writing on your menu, you should deliver.
> http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news...ays-match-the-menu-at-toronto-restaurant.html


That is a completely separate issue I fail to see the point. Calling something "Wild Salmon" when it is farm raised is totally different than the evolution of a technique over a period of time. Those two things don't really correlate.

Some things are open to interpretation and some things aren't. Whether a beef is Wagyu breed cattle is not open for debate. Calling an Angus steer a "wagyu" is wrong.

If I use shallots and grain mustard instead of onion and Dijon mustard in my sauce Robert, is it sauce Robert? Can I put cheddar in a mornay or does it HAVE to be Gruyere?

Not even close to being the same thing.


----------



## welldonechef (Sep 28, 2008)

Someday said:


> That is a completely separate issue I fail to see the point. Calling something "Wild Salmon" when it is farm raised is totally different than the evolution of a technique over a period of time. Those two things don't really correlate.
> 
> Some things are open to interpretation and some things aren't. Whether a beef is Wagyu breed cattle is not open for debate. Calling an Angus steer a "wagyu" is wrong.
> 
> ...


Well, actually... If you are referring to a sauce Robert... Then you are referring to Chopped onions cooked in butter, no color. Moistened with white wine, vinegar pepper, reduced, demiglace and mustard to finish. So, mainly the shallots are your only issue there. It doesn't matter what kind of mustard you use, only that you finish it with mustard at the end. If you are going to call it a sauce Robert, then at least respect what the sauce is and use onions...

As for Mornay sauce... Classically it's béchamel, butter, gruyère and Parmesan cheese. If you are using cheddar, it's not a Mornay sauce. If you are calling it a Mornay sauce, then you are not respecting a classic.

It is the same thing as saying a steak is wagyu when it's not. If you can't differentiate between what a classic component of a sauce is verses a hack job, why are you putting the item on your menu? It's lazy. All I had to do was open my LA Repertoire de la Cuisine and I can see what the component to the sauces are


----------



## cheflayne (Aug 21, 2004)

welldonechef said:


> As for Mornay sauce... Classically it's béchamel, butter, gruyère and Parmesan cheese. If you are using cheddar, it's not a Mornay sauce. If you are calling it a Mornay sauce, then you are not respecting a classic.


Can you call it Mornay if it doesn't have stock or fumet in it?


----------



## welldonechef (Sep 28, 2008)

cheflayne said:


> Can you call it Mornay if it doesn't have stock or fumet in it?


Why would it have stock or fumet in it?


----------



## cheflayne (Aug 21, 2004)

That is the way it is in Le Guide Culinaire (Escoffier), The Great Book of French Cuisine (Pellaprat), and The New Larousse Gastronomique (Montagne).


----------



## welldonechef (Sep 28, 2008)

cheflayne said:


> That is the way it is in Le Guide Culinaire (Escoffier), The Great Book of French Cuisine (Pellaprat), and The New Larousse Gastronomique (Montagne).


Well, from what I understand, the current standard is from LA Répertoire de la cuisine for study for exams like the Red Seal exam.

If I understand correctly, When you go for your CCC, or for another equivalent exam, you are tested based on Louis Saulnier's work. (And IIRC Escofier was his mentor, right?)


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

welldonechef said:


> Well, from what I understand, the current standard is from LA Répertoire de la cuisine for study for exams like the Red Seal exam.
> 
> If I understand correctly, When you go for your CCC, or for another equivalent exam, you are tested based on Louis Saulnier's work. (And IIRC Escofier was his mentor, right?)


Oh cool. So you gotta have the right book, otherwise you are a hack job. Got it. Lol. Which book is that exactly? I want to put the book I use on my menu so my customers can know which old book to reference to make sure I'm not committing fraud. Or does it have to be La Repertoire? Will another book suffice, or only that one?

And really, if I put shallots in a Robert sauce then I shouldn't call it a Robert sauce? You see the problem here?

And if you honestly can't see the difference between evolution and/or re-interpretation of the classics and advertising based fraud ("wild" salmon, "wagyu" beef) then I don't know how to help you.

I mean, is Thomas Keller a hack because he called his brioche and raisin stuffed sole (glacaged with hollandaise as well) "veronique." Or did he do that 100's of classic French preparations and become famous for it?


----------



## welldonechef (Sep 28, 2008)

Someday said:


> Oh cool. So you gotta have the right book, otherwise you are a hack job. Got it. Lol. Which book is that exactly? I want to put the book I use on my menu so my customers can know which old book to reference to make sure I'm not committing fraud. Or does it have to be La Repertoire? Will another book suffice, or only that one?
> 
> And really, if I put shallots in a Robert sauce then I shouldn't call it a Robert sauce? You see the problem here?
> 
> ...


I see Thomas Keller thrown around here. People seem to forget that while he may have refined the classics, he also put in the work to learn them first. For example, how long did it take him to learn to make hollandaise properly?

I get it, you're trying to be cute. Hey, if you want to call your menu items whatever you want, it's your restaurant, whatever. Thing is, someday someone's going to come around and call you out. 
Before you can break the rules, you have to know and understand them first. If you're the head of the establishment, and you have cooks learning under you, then if you actually want to have any respect within the community it behoves you to know what you are teaching first.


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

welldonechef said:


> I see Thomas Keller thrown around here. People seem to forget that while he may have refined the classics, he also put in the work to learn them first. For example, how long did it take him to learn to make hollandaise properly?
> 
> I get it, you're trying to be cute. Hey, if you want to call your menu items whatever you want, it's your restaurant, whatever. Thing is, someday someone's going to come around and call you out.
> Before you can break the rules, you have to know and understand them first. If you're the head of the establishment, and you have cooks learning under you, then if you actually want to have any respect within the community it behoves you to know what you are teaching first.


You didn't answer any of the questions. I'm not trying to be cute, I'm asking you questions and opening up debate about strict following of recipes vs. taking some artistic license to re-invent older dishes and update and make them new again.

The evolution of food is an ongoing process, as is the evolution of our vocabulary to communicate it. Does mornay sauce mean the same thing today as it did 75 years ago? Does demi glace? Does sauce Robert?

If I make mornay with fumet from Le Guide and you make it from Le Repertoire, who is right? Which interpretation is correct?

Do you have a response to any of that?

And for the record, I'm well founded and versed in the classics. I'm asking these questions to illustrate a point, not profess my ignorance.


----------



## welldonechef (Sep 28, 2008)

Someday said:


> You didn't answer any of the questions. I'm not trying to be cute, I'm asking you questions and opening up debate about strict following of recipes vs. taking some artistic license to re-invent older dishes and update and make them new again.
> 
> The evolution of food is an ongoing process, as is the evolution of our vocabulary to communicate it. Does mornay sauce mean the same thing today as it did 75 years ago? Does demi glace? Does sauce Robert?
> 
> ...


To answer, I would say, it depends. If you are making Mornay sauce as it is taught in almost every institution right now, if you are going to call it Mornay, then your clientèle are going to expect that it is a sauce based on a milk product, not a sauce derived with meat products. Hence, the name of Mornay.

Then again, if you are in a region that your clientèle would expect to have a differing version of the sauce, then I suppose you could serve what you view the sauce as being.

The question really boils down to whether or not you believe the current structure of the mother sauces and it's derivatives are worth learning and placing on the menu.

What are you going to do when an ovo-lactic vegetarian orders your dish with Mornay sauce in it thinking that they would be okay with it? While you may figure that it's okay for your interpretation of the classic, here's a better question for you... Why call it something it's not?

If you want to add fumet to your Mornay sauce, then call it something different. Again, people expect that when they are getting something like a Mornay sauce that it's going to have specific points to it.

I mean, if you take your logic (and that's using another book with differing versions of ingredients in a classic dish) then you can make your béchamel with Veal velouté and add pork bones to it like they did back before Escofier changed it up. Technically you'd be right, except that's not what the standard is today.

I mean, why even have standards? Why not just call all sorts of things whatever we want? Perhaps we could serve Tournedos Rossini with truffle cream sauce instead of Madeira sauce, or maybe we serve up that shrimp sambuca dish flavoured with ouzo instead. Not the same thing. How about our "interpretation" of Steak Dianne, but we won't use the brandy in there, cause uh... Yeah, we're riffing here.

Why bother calling it something it's not? Hell, I'd think I'd rather call it something else, seeing as how you'd at least be taking credit for something you created.

I just think it's dishonest to put forth a promise of a dish, then not deliver.


----------



## grande (May 14, 2014)

A good point to make here would be the story in Jaques Pepin's autobiography about being drafted & taking a cook test for the french navy. Told to make eggs benedictine, he made a somewhat French-er version of what we would recognize as eggs benedict- and failed the test because the instructer was using an already very outmoded recipe from Escoffier involving salt cod. The definition in common use had completely changed.


----------



## cheflayne (Aug 21, 2004)

Quote:


welldonechef said:


> I mean, why even have standards? Why not just call all sorts of things whatever we want? ...
> 
> Why bother calling it something it's not? Hell, I'd think I'd rather call it something else, seeing as how you'd at least be taking credit for something you created.
> 
> I just think it's dishonest to put forth a promise of a dish, then not deliver.


Saulnier was a student of Escoffier, why not ask him, because isn't that he did?

Side note, not all fumets are meat based, Escoffier mentioned using a fish, poultry, or vegetable fumet depending upon the dish.


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

Fascinating!  It appears there's still life in the subject.  We seem to have several different tangents being explored. First is the idea of definitions:  Do they change with time?  Who originally defined them? What does that mean now? And there a consensus that the definition has changed?  I would acknowledge that they do change with time, that's obvious.  But how do we decided that the old usage is no longer in force and a new meaning has taken its place?

The next point seems to be an exploration of what makes a thing a thing.  Eggs Benedict is a very good example.  One variation we've all seen a lot of is the Salmon Benedict.  If we place our salmon on the toast and top it with an egg and sauce it are we on solid ground calling it a Benedict?  It seems to me to be fair to call it a variation as opposed to a change in how we define Eggs Benedict since we specifically list the protein in the name.

But that isn't exactly the issue with demiglace.  Are there variations of the sauce?  If so we usually use a different name, which of course some purists will also argue about.  If you dump a bottle of wine in our demi is that still demi or have we made Bordelaise?

Getting back to how we define what makes a thing a given thing, and not some other thing, let's look at Bechamel sauce.  I think of it as being thickened with roux. But what if we thicken it wish cornstarch, or arrowroot?  Is that still Bechamel?  What if we thicken it will gelatin? Still Bechamel?  At what point should we just choose another name for our concoction?

Maybe the nature of something lies in the taste and texture of a thing.  Any tweak to demiglace that doesn't change the flavor or texture is probably legitimately still demiglace (or at least I'll concede that it might be).  In my mind when you take the roux out and make it just meat jello the texture that makes it demiglace is no longer there.  I have no idea which legendary dead chef would agree with me though.


----------



## grande (May 14, 2014)

Interestingly, as an aside, Escoffiersays in his book that flour will eventually be replaced by pure starch such as cornstarch or arrowroot. I always found the wording a little ambiguous on how he'd use them, but he does say it.


----------



## cheflayne (Aug 21, 2004)

Phaedrus said:


> I have no idea which legendary dead chef would agree with me though.


Love it :~)

I have nothing but respect for the greats that came before me, without them I wouldn't be where I am today. I firmly believe a solid foundation is the cornerstone in becoming a chef. By the same token I don't hold much to the notion of there being only one *"the" *way to do any thing under the culinary sun. Even the classical French chefs of past years don't agree among themselves.

Bechamel, mornay, and hollandaise are three sauces that are perfect examples. Hollandaise/ clarified butter or no?/ melted butter or softened?/ vinegar at the start or to finish?/ etc. etc. etc.

The vast majority of facts, aren't.

At my present employment, I am called upon to make a thickened milk sauce with a scant touch of nutmeg on a fairly regular basis. Due to the popularity of gluten free at the moment, we thicken it with rice flour. When I make it, I start off with melted butter that I stir rice flour into and then cook on low heat for 7 minutes (hesitant to call it roux due to the possibilty of being pulled over to the curb by *"the"* police.) A younger sous chef asked me why I bother to make a butter/rice flour concoction first because a slurry would work just fine. My reply was that the mouth feel wouldn't be the same without the butter and I feel that using it delivers a closer flavor profile to the way I was originally shown to make the sauce 30+? years ago. I am just glad that I don't have the burden of having to come up with our public description or name for the final sauce because it keeps me from facing liability, lawsuit, or derision issues.

An interview question that I have been known to ask is "What numbers between 1 and 10 when multiplied will give you 21?" the standard answer is 3x7. I then ask " What about 5.25x4?" I don't do this to be a wise ass (although I am), I am looking at the reaction because it gives me a glimpse into how open the mind is.


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

welldonechef said:


> I mean, if you take your logic (and that's using another book with differing versions of ingredients in a classic dish) then you can make your béchamel with Veal velouté and add pork bones to it like they did back before Escofier changed it up. Technically you'd be right, except that's not what the standard is today.


So....you agree that definitions of words and standards change over time, and what was "correct" 50-100 years ago may be different today? Thank you for arguing my point for me.


----------



## welldonechef (Sep 28, 2008)

Someday said:


> So....you agree that definitions of words and standards change over time, and what was "correct" 50-100 years ago may be different today? Thank you for arguing my point for me.


.

Okay, points for you for being cute.

The point is that while it may have been the standard 100 years ago, _ it's not the * standard * today. _


----------



## welldonechef (Sep 28, 2008)

Grande said:


> Interestingly, as an aside, Escoffiersays in his book that flour will eventually be replaced by pure starch such as cornstarch or arrowroot. I always found the wording a little ambiguous on how he'd use them, but he does say it.


I was just reading over his "A Guide to Modern Cookery" and came across a few things like this.


----------



## welldonechef (Sep 28, 2008)

cheflayne said:


> Love it :~)
> 
> I have nothing but respect for the greats that came before me, without them I wouldn't be where I am today. I firmly believe a solid foundation is the cornerstone in becoming a chef. By the same token I don't hold much to the notion of there being only one *"the"* way to do any thing under the culinary sun. Even the classical French chefs of past years don't agree among themselves.
> 
> ...


Some great points here.

For the classifications of the sauce, I think that if you were to make a bechamel sauce, you are making a sauce that is thickened milk flavoured with onions, bay leaves, and cloves. If you thicken it with a rice "roux" what's the difference? The classification calls for a roux but the definition of a roux can change. It doesn't have to be wheat flour, it has to be starch.

Thing is, that's mother sauces. I agree that there are numerous ways to go about making the mother sauces (Sauce aux tomates Is a great example. In Escoffier time it was made with a roux, but today it's agreed that it's not.)

But one thing they are all in agreement in is the garnishes for classical dishes. There's a reason you memorize them, because that standard doesn't change.

As for the numbers question... I like the smart ass aspect of it. A smart ass reply to they answer you gave is that the question is misleading. You said "numbers" but does that imply rational numbers, whole numbers, etc? LOL Would an answer of 2_i_=21 be correct?

I'm not saying we need a straight jacket or anything. What I am saying is that when you are talking about garnishes for classical dishes, that's where things get sticky.

How you make your mother sauces is another issue altogether. For instance, I've seen a hollandaise thickened that doesn't need butter, but is that a hollandaise?

On the other hand, if you tell me a sauce robert is a brown sauce with mushrooms and ham, with a bit of yellow mustard whisked in, would we agree that it's no longer a Robert Sauce?

Then I guess the question is really, at which point do we change the classification of a classical standards and/or garnish? In the case of the original question, demiglace (which literally means "half glaze") isn't currently a demi by the name status but more of a glace. (glace if I remember correctly is 1/10th)


----------



## grande (May 14, 2014)

@welldonechef, remember, too, that there's nothing like the red seal exam in the states. I won't comment on the usefulness or reasonableness of a government sanctioned culinary standard- only that I think I've read people, perhaps on this very forum, perhaps Cordon Blue students trying to get help on their homework, claim vinaigrette as a mother sauce. So I'm pretty happy if people acually know the classics, even if they choose not to adhere to them too closely.


----------



## welldonechef (Sep 28, 2008)

Grande said:


> @welldonechef, remember, too, that there's nothing like the red seal exam in the states. I won't comment on the usefulness or reasonableness of a government sanctioned culinary standard- only that I think I've read people, perhaps on this very forum, perhaps Cordon Blue students trying to get help on their homework, claim vinaigrette as a mother sauce. So I'm pretty happy if people acually know the classics, even if they choose not to adhere to them too closely.


Ah, now I see what you mean.

Culibary wise.. the vinaigrette thing tickled my brain a bit there... In cold preparation there are two classifications of cold "sauces", vinaigrette and mayonnaise. Maybe that's where the issue comes from.

For standards here in Canada, we use the Gisslen and On Cooking.


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

welldonechef said:


> For the classifications of the sauce, I think that if you were to make a bechamel sauce, you are making a sauce that is thickened milk flavoured with onions, bay leaves, and cloves. If you thicken it with a rice "roux" what's the difference? The classification calls for a roux but the definition of a roux can change. It doesn't have to be wheat flour, it has to be starch.
> 
> Thing is, that's mother sauces. I agree that there are numerous ways to go about making the mother sauces (Sauce aux tomates Is a great example. In Escoffier time it was made with a roux, but today it's agreed that it's not.)


So who confirmed that tomato sauce doesn't have roux in it anymore? What about pork bones? And if we agree now that tomato sauce doesn't need roux, or even shouldn't have roux (or pork bones), why does this line of thinking not extend to something like demi-glace? At what point do we say to ourselves, collectively, that demi glace no longer refers to 50/50 espagnole and veal stock, but now just a heavy reduced veal stock? If I forego a roux to thicken my demi glace and just use reduction, is that an acceptable form of thickening? What's the difference?

Would it still be bechemel if I used all the flavoring but thickened with a slurry? Or if I used a buerre manie instead of roux? Is roux the essential ingredient in bechemel (ANY roux?) or is it the other stuff?


----------



## welldonechef (Sep 28, 2008)

Someday said:


> So who confirmed that tomato sauce doesn't have roux in it anymore? What about pork bones? And if we agree now that tomato sauce doesn't need roux, or even shouldn't have roux (or pork bones), why does this line of thinking not extend to something like demi-glace? At what point do we say to ourselves, collectively, that demi glace no longer refers to 50/50 espagnole and veal stock, but now just a heavy reduced veal stock? If I forego a roux to thicken my demi glace and just use reduction, is that an acceptable form of thickening? What's the difference?
> 
> Would it still be bechemel if I used all the flavoring but thickened with a slurry? Or if I used a buerre manie instead of roux? Is roux the essential ingredient in bechemel (ANY roux?) or is it the other stuff?


It's about what the standard is these days. If you take a look at the course books for the apprenticing trade, then you understand what the classification and standards are.

As for your question on thickening of mother sauces... Again, a béchamel for example means a thickened milk flavoured with onion, bay leaf, and cloves. How you thicken it can be with a starch and fat (and that usually means that it's wheat flour and a fat) so the answer to your beurre manier thickening a béchamel is yes, technically it's a béchamel. If you use a slurry, then yes its thickened with a starch, and so that fits the classification.

Again, it's not about HOW you make the mother sauce, it's about what the mother sauce IS. Why doesn't tomato sauce have pork bones in it? Somewhere along the line that got changed.

Tomato sauce with roux used to be taught, but today's standard has removed the roux. This is nothing new, and can easily be found by opening the book and looking at what we use today.

For example, in the states there are a few major schools teaching the apprenticing program ACFEF and they have a set standard mandated by the government of the curriculum and standards you are to complete to get your ACF certification. These are clear standards set out since 1979.


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

Someday said:


> At what point do we say to ourselves, collectively, that demi glace no longer refers to 50/50 espagnole and veal stock, but now just a heavy reduced veal stock?


Because heavily reduced veal stock is it's own thing that has its own name. If everything is being "promoted" one letter grade can we just call brown stock glace de viande?/img/vbsmilies/smilies/lol.gif


----------



## welldonechef (Sep 28, 2008)

Phaedrus said:


> Because heavily reduced veal stock is it's own thing that has its own name. If everything is being "promoted" one letter grade can we just call brown stock glace de viande?:lol:


and then we'd start calling the bones "stock."


----------

