"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
news:Nsuti.3065$dD3.1749@trnddc07...
>
> "Sheldon" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> 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
>
> My, but you are one seriously charming person.
>

I've noticed that.