[cape chef]

So it is obvious to me that chefs will develop our own interpretation, only after we have mastered the "Fond" of it.

Originally Posted by Greg

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.

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.