On Aug 5, 7:54?pm, Christine Dabney > wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 19:39:59 -0400, "cybercat" >
> wrote:
>
> >Took five pounds of roasted leg quarters and divided them between two pots,
> >filled with water, brought to a boil and then down to a two-bubble simmer.
>
> >I could take them off after five hours, or leave them on.
>
> >There is nothing else in there, I just wanted pure, concentrated chicken
> >stock to freeze for soups and such.
>
> >Thanks for any advice.
>
> I have heard all sorts of things. Some folks think you get all the
> flavor out of bones, meat after just a few hours...and that cooking it
> longer will just make it taste tired.
>
> Others think the longer the better, that it will be more robust after
> say 12 hours.
>
> Me, I vary. Sometimes I cook stock for a long time like overnight.
> Other times, I take it off the heat after just a few hours.
>
> I will be making veal stock tomorrow night, and I plan to let it
> simmer all night long. I use a recipe by Madeline Kamman, and she
> suggests that it is good to cook it longer.
>
> Have you tried cooking it longer before? Might be worth it to see how
> it turns out, just in comparison to what you have done previously.
>
> Christine

At some point the stock is made... about three hours tops... and it's
time to strain off all the debris. THEN one may continue to cook to
*reduce* and thereby intensify the flavor, not improve the flavor,
only intensify it... if it tastes like **** reducing will only make it
taste like potent fermented ****... like how some old folks on lasix
don't flush the terlit all night to save their septic system, by
morning they've ****ed half a dozen times and a whiff is ripe! hehe

Sheldon Airwick