Good stew, but dry beef. Why?

The answer must be elementary, but I can't come up with it.
I threw together a beef stew the other day, not using a recipe, but pretty much according to classical proportions and methodology as far as I can tell.
The result was very flavorful liquid and vegetables, but cubes of beef that were like drywall.
I don't recall every having this problem before and don't know why I'm having it now.

Here's the my deposition:
* cubed beef round (about 1.5") , flour dusted and well browned in rendered bacon fat and oil.
* sauteed onion/celery briefly in same
* deglazed dutch oven with 1.5 C wine
* added beef broth (2C), heated to boiling
* returned the beef and simmered 45 min.
* added parsnips, carrots, cubed red potatoes, cremini mushrooms, pearl onions for a total stovetop simmer of about 2 hrs.
* Let rest about 1 hour and then had some.

Not inspired, but a nice normal stew, except that the meat seemed to have given up any moisture it ever had and reabsorbed nothing. The veggies were all nicely cooked, flavorful, permeated with stewing liquid.

Where did I go wrong?
* added

What USDA Grade of beef did you use?
Some are of the opinion that for stew any cut and grade will do as long as you cook it long enough. Not true. I use USDA Choice chuck. -Dick

mrbarolo wrote:* cubed beef round (about 1.5").
Where did I go wrong?

I'd say that is where you went wrong. Stick with chuck for stews.

Will have to agree with Jamieson. Round doesn't hold up well in long simmers because it's really lean to begin with.

I agree that chuck is a better choice of meat.

I made a stew a few weeks ago and simmered the meat for 45 minutes. The chunks of beef chuck were quite tender. Naturally, the optical cooking time depends on the size of the cuts and on the temperature. My cuts were probably 3/4", so they should cook quicker than your 1.5" cuts. Next time, you might try tasting a bit of the meat after 45-60 minutes. You can also do the final stewing in the oven so you can better regulate temperature.

But...I also included some chucks of buffalo in that stew. Those were hard as a knot. A butcher at Zier's in Wilmette told me that buffalo has to be served rare or cooked for several hours; 45 minutes was, unfortunately, in the dead zone.

Not to pile on, but I've never understood why this stuff is sold as "stew beef" in the first place - it's wildly inappropriate for the application. You need something that has both fat and connective tissue that breaks down slowly - I agree that chuck is a good choice.

If you're stuck with the stuff, I've found that you can sometimes save it by giving it a good dusting with flour and a very hard long sear in a red-hot skillet in more fat than you ordinarily do without crowding your skillet. I sometimes do this with still-frozen meat. Or marinate it and make kebabs instead.

Mhays wrote:Not to pile on, but I've never understood why this stuff is sold as "stew beef" in the first place - it's wildly inappropriate for the application. You need something that has both fat and connective tissue that breaks down slowly - I agree that chuck is a good choice.

My understanding is that "stew meat" is whatever the butcher wants to cut up and sell. Sort of like "Hamburger meat". Sometimes it is chuck, sometimes round, etc. In fact, it isn't always cheaper than chuck, either.

The other problem is that the stew meat is generally cut too large for my taste and not uniformly.

The others nailed it already. Just because the store calls it "stew meat" doesn't mean it's appropriate for stew. They seem to think that if any meat is cut into chunks that makes it stew meat. Not so. As Mhays said above, it's the composition of the meat, with fat and connective tissue, that makes it stew meat.

I wanted to focus, though, on something you said above, which was that the meat didn't seem to absorb any liquid and was, therefore, dry. However, it's not absorption of liquid that tenderizes and moisturizes chunks of meat in a stew, it's the breakdown of connective tissue and the melting of inter-muscular fat.

If the meat doesn't have that stuff to begin with (ie, is too lean), it'll never become moist and tender. lean meat is meant for quick, high-heat cooking methods.

I haven't found anything beef round is good for (please correct me if I'm wrong). As for using it in stew, it doesn't have enough fat and connective tissue to melt down with long stewing and make the meat tender. Another vote for chuck.

Lesson learned. Thanks all, for the consensus.
Normally, chuck is exactly what I would use, but I was just wandering down the TI meat aisle, and there were the packages of round, maliciously labelled "for stew" so I impulsively grabbed them and didn't think about it. Just looking at it harder probably would have told me what I was getting into, but I was rushing.
I figured that the bare minimum integrity to the "stew" label was a cut that would be tough if cooked quickly, but would braise well. Apparently not. It does make one wonder just what round is really good for.
I believe the roast beef marinated and roasted in-house at Convito Italiano when I worked there was bottom round, and, sliced thin, it was a very good coldcut. But that's something else altogether.

Another thought - you don't need to bring it to a boil, just simmer. Sometimes cooking something too hard can kill it before it's even cooked!

I have never understood the concept between simmering and boiling. I have seen many recipes which specifically say simmer, do not hard boil. Are we not talking around a 10 degree or less difference in temp between simmering and boiling? Can this temperature difference really change anything that much? Or is there something else that happens at a boil that I am not understanding?

I'm not sure whether it makes much of a difference in terms of stews, but if you're making stock, remember the difference between a boil and a simmer is not simply a matter of temperature, but also of agitation. The agitation of a rolling boil causes fats to emulsify in a stock and makes a cloudy stock that is difficult to defat.

Good point. If that fat becomes emulsified, will it seperate back out if the stock sits in the refrigerator overnight?

That I don't know--I've never tried to see what happens.

lougord99 wrote:I have never understood the concept between simmering and boiling. I have seen many recipes which specifically say simmer, do not hard boil. Are we not talking around a 10 degree or less difference in temp between simmering and boiling? Can this temperature difference really change anything that much? Or is there something else that happens at a boil that I am not understanding?

I know from brewing beer that a hard boil has different effects on the proteins in solution than a simmer does. Specifically, a vigorous boil causes proteins to coagulate (called "hot break") evidenced by foaming. As the boil continues, the protein clumps increase in size and settle back into the solution - they look little little flakes, or maybe like egg drop soup. I'm guessing - pure speculation - that those proteins contain flavor compounds that are undesirable in beer, but may be important in a stock.

I haven't found anything beef round is good for (please correct me if I'm wrong).

How about jerky? Look here: http://blog.ruhlman.com/ruhlmancom/2009/03/charcuterie-at-home-beef-jerky.html

Other than that, though, I think you're right.

Katie wrote:I haven't found anything beef round is good for (please correct me if I'm wrong). As for using it in stew, it doesn't have enough fat and connective tissue to melt down with long stewing and make the meat tender. Another vote for chuck.

Beef round definitely doesn't have enough fat or connective tissue for any kind of stew or braising.

I've had pretty good luck marinading it overnight and then indirect grilling it over wood at around 400-450 on a rotisserie. It helps to add some fat as it cooks, you can mop it frequently, wrap a few strips of bacon on it or poke holes in it with the spit and stuff w/sausage, cheese, pepper, etc. It's not a great cut of meat, but it tends to be pretty cheap and there are some things you can do with it.

The difference between simmering and boiling is more clear if you are using chicken breasts - those skinless boneless ones. If you want any hope of eating them in a stew you CAN NOT cook them above a very light simmer. Try it.

Low and slow isn't just for your BBQ.

Katie wrote:I haven't found anything beef round is good for (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Millions of Texans would agree with me that round steak makes an excellent chicken fried steak.

Handled properly, it's also great for rouladen, braciole, not to mention milanesa and Swiss steak.

And ground, it makes an excellent steak tartare.

Another vote for Chuck-
I just buy a big chuck steak and cut it up the way I want it-
Also after the deglaze, I never ever go stove top.
That baby goes right into a nice slow 250-325 oven (temp depends on how much time I have before dinner- the more time, the lower the heat- think slow cooker, but for some reason better).
Always turns out very tender and moist
It's pretty much the same way I'd do lamb shanks or short ribs
Now I'm making myself hungry...

While I add another vote for chuck, after buying "any old Chuck" instead of specific types, I have found the hard way that all cuts are NOT the same.

A trip to Cook's Illustrated online confirmed my experience: a couple of cuts are particularly nasty when stewed or pot roasted - they remain chewy even when the connective tissue breaks down. Each time I want to make a pot roast or stew, I look up the article and review their recommendations (because I can't seem to remember more than one of them). I do remember the 7 bone being good, but there is one other cut they prefer....

I usually cut up a chuck pot roast when I'm making a braise including ordinary beef stew. However, I have always used round steak to make a pepper steak. Brown the steak in a small amount of olive oil. Add bell peppers, onions and sometimes mushrooms with a can of tomato sauce, crushed tomatoes, diced tomatoes any kind of tomatoes canned that are on the shelf and cook bring to a simmer and cover lower the heat or place in a 350 oven for 30-45 minutes. The meat will not be fall apart tender but more like the chew of a steak.
Paulette

Right, Paulette- I was just thinking that when I have round, I usually use it in a chop-small-and-sear preparation (in my case, fajitas) It works fine, especially when marinated briefly - as long as you don't overcook it.

I know it is beating a dead horse, but chuck for stew, and chili for that matter, always.

On an episode of America's Test Kitchen last week, they did an eye of round as a roast beef. They browned it in a skillet, put it in a slow oven, and then even turned the oven off to cook it as slow as possible. They pulled it out medium rare, and sliced it thin, and it looked pretty good, almost like tenderloin. Of course both Chris and the cook yummed it up when they tasted it.

Plus don't they use round for Italian Beef in some tasty places? I think it's used best for cooking lightly and slicing thin.

MelT wrote:Plus don't they use round for Italian Beef in some tasty places? I think it's used best for cooking lightly and slicing thin.

I think that many Italian Beef places are using bottom round. I know that Portillos does.

MelT wrote:Plus don't they use round for Italian Beef in some tasty places? I think it's used best for cooking lightly and slicing thin.

And top round is a popular cut for Philly cheesesteaks. Jim's in Philadelphia uses top round, while Pat's uses ribeye. Top round is very good for cutting very thin and griddling in this manner. Also, for stew beef, my favorite cut is boneless short ribs (or bone-in, if you like 'em that way, too.)