HOME > Chowhound > Home Cooking >

Pot Roast

m
McKinney777 Dec 9, 2010 06:08 AM

I made pot roast last night.
4.75 lb roast, cooked at 325 for about 3.5 hours. It came out sorta tough or rubbery.
I cooked it in a roasting pan, with about 1.5" of beef stock and one beer of liquid, lightly covered with foil.

The vegetables tasted good as did the broth (I pulled some liquid aside and mixed in flour and incorporated back and brought to boil)
It was a thick roast and I almost cut it in half before I seared it and put it in the roasting pan.
Did I just under cook it as in not enough time braising? The internal temp was about 170.

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. r
    rhoneranger RE: McKinney777 Dec 9, 2010 06:55 AM

    I think your problem may have been the lightly covered foil. I use a dutch oven with a heavy lid when making pot roast. This keeps all the juices in and keeps the roast from drying out. It may have needed extra time as well. Pot roast needs to cook until the connective tissue breaks down and the meat relaxes.

    1 Reply
    1. re: rhoneranger
      m
      McKinney777 RE: rhoneranger Dec 9, 2010 07:01 AM

      I used the Emeril recipe and it calls for covering with foil.
      I'm thinking it was under cooked then??? Some of the connective tissue was still connected.

    2. monavano RE: McKinney777 Dec 9, 2010 07:05 AM

      What cut did you use?
      If it was round-bottom round, eye round etc....it's not a braising meat and it will be dry when cooked for that long. Best to serve these med/rare to med at most.

      3 Replies
      1. re: monavano
        m
        McKinney777 RE: monavano Dec 9, 2010 08:44 AM

        I used boneless chuck roast.

        1. re: McKinney777
          monavano RE: McKinney777 Dec 9, 2010 08:52 AM

          Hmm...chuck should have worked here...maybe you needed more liquid. I put in enough liquid to cover the meat etc by 2/3, and a tight lid would really help too.
          I think your heat and time was ok....perhaps go lower and slower next time as I would have expected the connective tissue to have rendered.

          1. re: monavano
            boyzoma RE: monavano Dec 9, 2010 02:10 PM

            It definitely needs to be tightly covered with a lid. My favorite is to use something with the bone in, however. Gives it much more flavor. and as monavano said, low and slow will give you the best flavor. It should be fork tender. I do mine in an old electric skillet (and add in onions, carrots and potatoes all in one pot) then make gravy out of the juices.

      2. dave_c RE: McKinney777 Dec 9, 2010 11:58 AM

        A general rule of thumb for pot roast is 1 hour per pound. 170F seems low for a pot roast, but I usually shoot for fork tender.

        Chuck is my go to cut for pot roast.
        For amount of liquid, I generally add enough to cover half to 3/4ths of the meat. Your 1.5" of liquid probably covered about 50% of the roast so that should have been good.

        My conclusion/comment is the roast needed a bit more time in the oven.

        1 Reply
        1. re: dave_c
          m
          McKinney777 RE: dave_c Dec 10, 2010 02:25 PM

          Ok, I'm hearin more time and I had the same problem with some pork loins...so, I just need to let them both cook longer.
          I think the liquid was ok too.
          The reason I put the foil on is because Emeril's show had him lightly covering it with foil.
          Keeping in mind this was suppose to be a cola braised pot roast. I switched out the cola for a IPA beer.
          I did add an extra pint of beef broth because it didn't look like it came up the meet far enough and I was using a big roasting pan.
          The left overs are in the oven right now cooking for another hour...how much worse could it be.

          Thanks all, love this forum.

        2. TrishUntrapped RE: McKinney777 Dec 9, 2010 01:43 PM

          Two things - more liquid and if using foil you need to tightly cover it so no steam escapes. That's how my mom made it. She made that foil darn near airtight and never looked at the pot roast again until it was just about ready to serve. Fond memories.

          1 Reply
          1. re: TrishUntrapped
            SilverlakeGirl RE: TrishUntrapped Dec 10, 2010 02:32 PM

            "Not looking at it " was a revelation for me.

            Boneless Chuck Roast was recently just .99 cents in the markets here in LA. I bought two, freezing one. I made the first which was good but I did coddle it and put in potatoes as well as root veggies.

            I then used Pioneer Woman's Pot Roast recipe that calls for NO potatoes, and no peeking. It was vastly superior.

          2. m
            magiesmom RE: McKinney777 Dec 10, 2010 02:42 PM

            I would expect to cook a thick roast of that weight for at least 4 hours, and it must be covered very tightly.

            2 Replies
            1. re: magiesmom
              m
              McKinney777 RE: magiesmom Dec 10, 2010 04:03 PM

              I'm looking forward to the next one.
              One question; do you think it's ok to cut the roast in half, top to bottom and make two smaller (thinner) roasts? Or, just stick with all the above suggestions and more liquid, longer time and tighter lid/foil?
              I do like the potatoes, but my experience is that you can never freeze the dish if you use potatoes.
              I would seriously consider frozen peas right at the end next time.
              I'll let you all know how the left over tastes. It's cooking in the over right now, and the house smells great.

              Edit: I just tasted the meat again after about 2 hours in the oven in a small stock pot.
              Delicious. It was undercooked for sure. Can't wait to make this again.

              1. re: McKinney777
                m
                magiesmom RE: McKinney777 Dec 10, 2010 06:08 PM

                You could cut it in half, but why rush? A nice thick pot roast is a treat. I often use chuck and if I season it before browning with salt pepper and crumbled bay leaf and garlic, it is very tasty IMO.

            2. Helvella RE: McKinney777 Dec 10, 2010 04:29 PM

              Lately I've been doing my pot roasts long and low - 275 for 5 hours or so. Did a small chuck roast that way the other day that turned out wonderful.

              1. LatinLovinEG RE: McKinney777 Dec 10, 2010 05:04 PM

                I'm glad you may have figured it out. Just for future reference, check on the cut of meat that you choose - beef chuck is the cheapest but not the most flavorful and juicyest. I would spend the extra $1.50-2 for rump roast or something with a little bit more fat. It'll make your roasts better. Ask you butcher for better alternative to chuck.
                Also for cooking I go LOW and SLOW - low temp and longer time. But keep in mind internal temp. I have go over 160F. It will dry out after that. Let me know if this helps.

                -LLEG
                http://latinlovineatingrubbin.com

                1. bbqboy RE: McKinney777 Dec 10, 2010 08:52 PM

                  I still say a 7 bone roast is the best for, and what we always called Pot Roast.
                  The bone makes the difference.
                  My mother's standard pan for pot roast was using her Presto pressure cooker pan, minus the gauge,
                  right on the stove top for hours and hours. Worked wonderfully.
                  http://www.txbeef.org/cooking_school/...
                  Use a bomber of Porter, not IPA, and see if you like the results.

                  1. paulj RE: McKinney777 Dec 10, 2010 10:51 PM

                    For bbq, (slow roast) the meat temperature target is something like 180 or 190 for half a hour, the needed to break down the collagen. I don't normally go by temperature when braising - I just keep in moist, and cook till tender. So I think time is the issue here.

                    1 Reply
                    1. re: paulj
                      m
                      McKinney777 RE: paulj Dec 11, 2010 05:23 AM

                      That's true, why rush it? I'll refrain from cutting it in half.
                      Long and slow is the way to go. Got it.
                      I'll look in to the rump roast versus the chuck roast. Although after cooking this one right the second time, I thought it had great flavor and texture.
                      I didn't understand your statement, "I have go over 160F"
                      It seems not many are interested in taking temps, but going by time. Is there a specific temp everyone is looking for?
                      I'm also going to look into the 7 bone, because I remember mom's pot roast and that round bone.
                      What has your experience been using a porter?
                      I only used the roasting pan because it was large, but I'll see if it will all fit in my Le Creuset.
                      What about some thoughts on switching out the celery for brussel sprouts?

                    Show Hidden Posts