Beef eye round in dutch oven

[chrissimalta]

Hi, I would like some advice on improving my beef eye round pot roast. The result was good but I still think it could have been more tender and I am not sure whether I should have cooked it longer or whether it was overcooked.
The meat (USDA eye round beef) weighed 2.25kg (5lb). I cooked it in a 9l (9 quarts) dutch oven for 3h 45 minutes at 160 C (320 F) opening the pot once after 2 hours to add the potatoes. I seared the meat on all sides for around 6 minutes in total after patting it dry, drizzling olive oil and seasoning, and then rolling in plain flour. I added 3 cups (750ml) of beef stock and 1 cup (250ml) of red wine.
After 3h 45 minutes, the internal temperature was 90 C (195 F).
The million dollar question, would it have been overcooked or under-cooked despite it tasting delicious?
Thank you all in advance for your help!

 

[chrissimalta]

Quality is not so good but this is what it looked like inside, if it helps

 

[dr morbius]

I personally wouldn't have gone anywhere near 195F, because I prefer it more rare. But the two most important things, whatever you're cooking, are these: if you liked it, and no one got sick, that's a win.

 

[msmofet]

Welcome to DC.

I love eye round as a medium, rare roast. I would never make pot roast with it. I use chuck, bottom, or rump roast for tender, fall apart pot roast. (Just my opinion)

 

[jennyema]

Use chuck roast for pot roast.

Your technique and final temperature are perfect. The problem is the cut of meat.

Chuck is a bit fattier and holds up very well to a long braise in a Dutch oven. Plus it’s delicious.

 

[dragnlaw]

I think it would have been more tender had there been more marbling of fats in the meat.
So ditto - As msmofet has said "chuck, bottom, or rump" would have been more appropriate for a pot roast. They all have the fatty marbling to turn it into a tender pot roast.

This eye of round is more suited for a medium, rare roast. Well done as your picture seems to show (and for the length of time cooked) would create a less tender roast.

Edit:
Your taste has already told you - you did nothing wrong for a pot roast! Looks and sounds delicious, just change your cut of beef next time.

A pot roast will not slice like your eye of round. They are fall apart, suited for shredding and serving in chunks.

 

[chrissimalta]

Thank you all for your advice. I have tried chuck roll before, and I agree that it cooks and tastes better due to its marbling. The only thing is that I was told that in Germany they make this roast beef with a cut that is round and very lean, and when slow cooked it comes very tender, juicy and tasty.
I am now suspecting that it could actually be rump they use and not eye round.
But I still keep wondering whether it would have tenderized more if I cooked the eye round longer since it is a muscle (so a tough cut), or whether it would have gotten tougher.

 

[Andy M.]

Eye round and rump are too lean and tend to be tougher. You need a cut of beef with fat in it for a really good pot roast. I use chuck roast for all my slow cooking needs.

 

[dragnlaw]

The most you can do with it now is try to slice as absolutely thin a possible - almost shave it - Hot Roast Beef Sandwiches. Or thru a meat grinder and make amazing Hash!

 

[taxlady]

If you are happy with the flavour, then I would just cook it to a much lower temperature. At past ~70°C I think it just gets drier and tougher.

I'm not sure if I would call that pot roast. How far up the meat did the liquid go when you put it in the Dutch oven?

 

[dragnlaw]

taxy, best reread her post, she says how much she added.
Cooking in a Dutch Oven, which to me is generally pretty heavy and retains heat, but it also drips evaporated moisture back down into the pot. A good Dutch Oven will barely lose any moisture during cooking.
IMHO

 

[taxlady]

taxy, best reread her post, she says how much she added.
Cooking in a Dutch Oven, which to me is generally pretty heavy and retains heat, but it also drips evaporated moisture back down into the pot. A good Dutch Oven will barely lose any moisture during cooking.
IMHO

I just don't know how big my Dutch ovens are. I don't know how big a 9L Dutch oven looks. I am having hard time imagining how far up the liquid would go. So, yeah, I did read the post more than once. And yes, I agree that a Dutch oven with the lid on and only opened once during cooking, won't lose much liquid.

 

[dragnlaw]

Yeah, I understand. 9 litres, well I always do a very rough conversion to 9 quarts to approx 2.5 gal and her roast was pretty big - 5 lbs. Bags of milk are 4 litres.... visualize 2 of them in one of your Dutch Ovens... lol! Does that help? But I guess you don't buy milk in the bags, so next time you go to the grocers (do you ever anymore?) Check them out!
How big a piece of meat do you put in your Dutch Ovens. If you think of it that way - does it help to visualize?

So I think that 4 cups of liquid would do a good job of keeping the roast moist. Although hard to tell, from her picture, the roast didn't seem dried out, just not the right cut for braising.
As we've said, a good Dutch Oven will retain the moisture. So even should the liquid not come past the half-way mark on the meat, by the end of cooking I'm pretty sure it would.
Of course, the correct cut of meat would also have added to the moisture due to the fat rendering.

 

[taxlady]

Yeah, I understand. 9 litres, well I always do a very rough conversion to 9 quarts to approx 2.5 gal and her roast was pretty big - 5 lbs. Bags of milk are 4 litres.... visualize 2 of them in one of your Dutch Ovens... lol! Does that help? But I guess you don't buy milk in the bags, so next time you go to the grocers (do you ever anymore?) Check them out!
How big a piece of meat do you put in your Dutch Ovens. If you think of it that way - does it help to visualize?

So I think that 4 cups of liquid would do a good job of keeping the roast moist. Although hard to tell, from her picture, the roast didn't seem dried out, just not the right cut for braising.
As we've said, a good Dutch Oven will retain the moisture. So even should the liquid not come past the half-way mark on the meat, by the end of cooking I'm pretty sure it would.
Of course, the correct cut of meat would also have added to the moisture due to the fat rendering.

Converting from metric to US customary doesn't help. I understand metric better. I just have a hard time of visualizing more than about 2 litres. I don't really know how many litres of space that roast would occupy, but a rough guess for 2.25 kg roast would be around 2.25 litres. I don't think that 1 litre of combined beef stock and red wine would go very far up that roast in a 9 litre pot. It will partially depend on the shape of the pot. I don't know how tall it is relative to how wide. I don't even know if the base is a circle or an oval. I guess I will measure my largest Dutch oven to see how much it holds.

 

[dragnlaw]

LOL - thought of that after I posted - LOL
Well, milk is still comes in 4 litres - can you put 2 of them in one of your ovens?
Also look at the size of her roast - at 2 k - it is pretty long compared to tall, no? Can't really see anyone trying to stand that on end! Well, I might actually, if that's how it fit. But no, just kidding.

Besides which taxy, doesn't matter the size o meat to pot. It is still the wrong cut. Dry or wet, it would still come out looking like that and being relatively tough.

 

[taxlady]

I think it would be a lot simpler to just let @chrissimalta answer my question than all of this silly guessing and imagining.

 

[dragnlaw]

Yeah, you're right, I was just trying to help you visualize.
I'm sure she'll be along shortly.

 

[chrissimalta]

Aplogies for taking so long to reply. So... the dutch oven is oval and the dimensions in cm are 36cm wide by 29cm wide x 15cm high (14inx 11in x 6in) . In this photo you can see where the liquid reached after 2 hours of cooking (when I added the potatoes).
I decided to take all your advice and we will be hosting this weekend so I will be making a roast for 8 persons so I bought a 3.6kg (8lb) angus chuck.
I was thinking of cooking it for 5 hours at 150C (300F). Do you think that sounds about right?

 

[jennyema]

I think 5 hours is too long. I’d aim for 3. at 300-325. Make sure you brown it first.

Cooking a pot roast longer than it needs does not make it better. It dries it out, even though you are cooking in liquid. Heat forces internal liquids in protein into the cooking liquid (think about how you make stock) so you want to stop cooking when it’s done.

Also, cooking longer doesn’t make it more tender, it makes the meat begin to disintegrat.

Cook it to 200-203 using a meat thermometer. A thermometer is absolutely needed to cook meat and poultry.

Take the meat out and take a fork to it. It should be pretty soft and shredable. If it‘s not, cook it for a bit longer.

 

[msmofet]

Aplogies for taking so long to reply. So... the dutch oven is oval and the dimensions in cm are 36cm wide by 29cm wide x 15cm high (14inx 11in x 6in) . In this photo you can see where the liquid reached after 2 hours of cooking (when I added the potatoes).
I decided to take all your advice and we will be hosting this weekend so I will be making a roast for 8 persons so I bought a 3.6kg (8lb) angus chuck.
I was thinking of cooking it for 5 hours at 150C (300F). Do you think that sounds about right?

When I cooked a pot roast in a Dutch oven, I turned the roast over every 1/2 hour and cooked till I could take a fork and easily pull a strip of meat off. Start testing for tenderness after 2 1/2-3 hours.
(I now use my Instant Pot to make pot roast.)