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.

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

On Aug 5, 4:39 pm, "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.

At some point the law of diminishing returns has to set in, I
suppose. My experience and vaguely remembered reading seems to tell
me that I don't get much out of chicken stock beyond about two hours.
Then again, I never roast it first so I don't know if that means there
might be more to get out of it. I doubt it. I do chicken stock for
about two hours, usually a little bit more, fish or shrimp stock for
half an hour or so. Beef/veal stock is a whole 'nother deal that can
go for many hours.

Incidentally, even when I'm making a "pure" stock without any veggies
I still add a bit of salt and a splash of dry vermouth, as both those
assist in drawing everything out into the stock. Then I throw the
dead, tasteless meat and bones away because all the flavor and
goodness have gone into the liquid. -aem

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

On Aug 5, 6:39 pm, "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 simmer it for an hour or so, pour off the broth into another pot to
reduce, then cover with water again and repeat. Twice should do it,
though I've repeated a second time when making beef broth from round
steaks.

--Bryan

On Aug 5, 7:39 pm, "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.

It's called a "reduction".

If you simmer it long enough, it becomes a glace' , a highly
concentrated gelatin.

You should try it.

In article . com>,
says...
> On Aug 5, 7:39 pm, "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.
>
> It's called a "reduction".
>
> If you simmer it long enough, it becomes a glace' , a highly
> concentrated gelatin.
>
> You should try it.
>
>

To make a proper reduction or glace you must first make the stock then
carefully filter it before simmering it down. I find that with chicken
you have gotten all the flavor our of the solids after 2-3 hours and
cooking much longer can lead to off-flavors and cloudy stock.


--
Peter Aitken

"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

The French never stop cooking it, basically. In restaurants they will keep
large pots going all they time. They'll toss in bones, vegetable waste,
what have you and when it gets too low they'll add more water and keep it
going. Where you can go wrong is getting the stock too hot. You will cause
a lot of bitter and off flavors by "burning" the stock. A stock that has
been reduced to the consistency of jelly is called a base, or a glace in the
language of Escoffier.

Paul

"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.

Paul

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote
>
> The French never stop cooking it, basically. In restaurants they will
> keep
> large pots going all they time. They'll toss in bones, vegetable waste,
> what have you and when it gets too low they'll add more water and keep it
> going. Where you can go wrong is getting the stock too hot. You will
> cause
> a lot of bitter and off flavors by "burning" the stock. A stock that has
> been reduced to the consistency of jelly is called a base, or a glace in
> the
> language of Escoffier.
>

Thank you.

"aem" > wrote
> Incidentally, even when I'm making a "pure" stock without any veggies
> I still add a bit of salt and a splash of dry vermouth, as both those
> assist in drawing everything out into the stock.

I don't keep vermouth. I don't like it, and I cannot imagine liking it
in chicken stock.

Then I throw the
> dead, tasteless meat and bones away because all the flavor and
> goodness have gone into the liquid. -aem
>
Me too.

"Christine Dabney" > wrote


>
> 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.
>

I have, but not with this much meat in it. I was thinking that maybe the
meat will make it really flavorful over time, rather than the way bones
and skin just liquify and get gross when cold. (I'm the one who is not
wild about jellied stock.)

"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Christine Dabney" > wrote
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I have, but not with this much meat in it. I was thinking that maybe the
> meat will make it really flavorful over time, rather than the way bones
> and skin just liquify and get gross when cold. (I'm the one who is not
> wild about jellied stock.)

But jellied stock becoms liquid stock when it is heated. There are some
dishes where the meat is coated in the gelatinous stock but they are served
cold. And the bones add the most flavor. For beef stock I will roast them
in the oven thn add them to the stock. It really gives a much deeper color
and flavor.

Paul

Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "cybercat" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Christine Dabney" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> I have, but not with this much meat in it. I was thinking that maybe
>> the meat will make it really flavorful over time, rather than the
>> way bones and skin just liquify and get gross when cold. (I'm the
>> one who is not wild about jellied stock.)
>
> But jellied stock becoms liquid stock when it is heated. There are
> some dishes where the meat is coated in the gelatinous stock but they
> are served cold. And the bones add the most flavor. For beef stock
> I will roast them in the oven thn add them to the stock. It really
> gives a much deeper color and flavor.
>
> Paul

Yes, Paul. In fact, a good stock when chilled should turn jelly-like. It
liquifies when you reheat it. I remember kili asking me when she made some
stock and it jelled when chilled. Relax, it's supposed to do that <G>

Jill

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote
>
> But jellied stock becoms liquid stock when it is heated.

That doesn't keep it from grossing me out at times.

There are some
> dishes where the meat is coated in the gelatinous stock but they are
> served cold. And the bones add the most flavor.

I think I will pass on them at the moment.

For beef stock I will roast them
> in the oven thn add them to the stock. It really gives a much deeper
> color and flavor.

I'm with you here. That is why I roast my chicken parts to a golden brown
before making stock, and scrape all the roasted bits into the pot.

"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.

"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote
>>
>> But jellied stock becoms liquid stock when it is heated.
>
> That doesn't keep it from grossing me out at times.
>
> There are some
>> dishes where the meat is coated in the gelatinous stock but they are
>> served cold. And the bones add the most flavor.
>
> I think I will pass on them at the moment.

Well admittedly it isn't my cup of tea either. I remember an episode of
Iron Chef. The Japanese love that kind of slimy texture. One of the chefs
made a jello from fish stock and served it with caviar and raw scrambled
egg. The judges slurped it off spoons with gusto. I changed the channel.

Paul

On Aug 5, 7:27 pm, "cybercat" > wrote:
> "aem" > wrote
>
> > Incidentally, even when I'm making a "pure" stock without any veggies
> > I still add a bit of salt and a splash of dry vermouth, as both those
> > assist in drawing everything out into the stock.
>
> I don't keep vermouth. I don't like it, and I cannot imagine liking it
> in chicken stock.

It doesn't have to be vermouth. Dry sherry or rice wine or a bland
white wine will serve the same purpose of extracting more gelatin into
the stock. Doesn't have to be much either -- I use just a few
tablespoons for, say, 2 quarts of stock. -aem

"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
>
>
Fish stock should only be cooked about 30 minutes. After
that it turns sour.
Chicken stock gives all from the meat and bones after about
2 hours. If you're going
to reduce it further you're better off straining and
reducing afterwards. Turkey improves by simmering a longer
time.
Veal stock and beef stock are another matter. They can be
slowly simmered with the slightest bubble for as long as 12
hours, which would include reducing strained stock to an
espagnole or even further to a demiglace. Veal and beef
bones and meat, along with an onion should be browned in the
oven at 400F for about 30 min. before you start. Check the
Laurousse Gastronomique about this if you're going to go to
the effort to make brown stock.

Kent

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> Paul M. Cook wrote:
> > "cybercat" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Christine Dabney" > wrote
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I have, but not with this much meat in it. I was thinking that maybe
> >> the meat will make it really flavorful over time, rather than the
> >> way bones and skin just liquify and get gross when cold. (I'm the
> >> one who is not wild about jellied stock.)
> >
> > But jellied stock becoms liquid stock when it is heated. There are
> > some dishes where the meat is coated in the gelatinous stock but they
> > are served cold. And the bones add the most flavor. For beef stock
> > I will roast them in the oven thn add them to the stock. It really
> > gives a much deeper color and flavor.
> >
> > Paul
>
> Yes, Paul. In fact, a good stock when chilled should turn jelly-like. It
> liquifies when you reheat it. I remember kili asking me when she made
some
> stock and it jelled when chilled. Relax, it's supposed to do that <G>

Yep, makes for ease of use too, just slice off a chunk of stock and drop it
in whatever you're making. OK, as long as we're talking stocks here, who
has he best technique for clarifying a stock? I've tried filters,
cheesecloth, even the supposedly foolproof eggshell trick. I still can't
get that really clear stock that I see all the time in restaurants.

Paul

Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>> "cybercat" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Christine Dabney" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have, but not with this much meat in it. I was thinking that
>>>> maybe the meat will make it really flavorful over time, rather
>>>> than the way bones and skin just liquify and get gross when cold.
>>>> (I'm the one who is not wild about jellied stock.)
>>>
>>> But jellied stock becoms liquid stock when it is heated. There are
>>> some dishes where the meat is coated in the gelatinous stock but
>>> they are served cold. And the bones add the most flavor. For beef
>>> stock I will roast them in the oven thn add them to the stock. It
>>> really gives a much deeper color and flavor.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>> Yes, Paul. In fact, a good stock when chilled should turn
>> jelly-like. It liquifies when you reheat it. I remember kili
>> asking me when she made some stock and it jelled when chilled.
>> Relax, it's supposed to do that <G>
>
> Yep, makes for ease of use too, just slice off a chunk of stock and
> drop it in whatever you're making. OK, as long as we're talking
> stocks here, who has he best technique for clarifying a stock? I've
> tried filters, cheesecloth, even the supposedly foolproof eggshell
> trick. I still can't get that really clear stock that I see all the
> time in restaurants.
>
> Paul

I'm afraid I can't help with that one. I generally place the vegetables I
add to stock in a length of doubled cheesecloth, sort of like a bouquet
garni. But I don't try to get stock to be completely clear so other than
straining it through a coffee filter, I've no good ideas.

Jill

Paul M. Cook wrote:

> Yep, makes for ease of use too, just slice off a chunk of stock and drop it
> in whatever you're making. OK, as long as we're talking stocks here, who
> has he best technique for clarifying a stock? I've tried filters,
> cheesecloth, even the supposedly foolproof eggshell trick. I still can't
> get that really clear stock that I see all the time in restaurants.


A pretty foolproof method I've come to use I got from this fine work:

Jacques Pepin's Complete Techniques
<http://www.amazon.com/Jacques-Pepins-Complete-Techniques-P%C3%A9pin/dp/1579121659>

If you don't happen to have a way to get your hands on the book, I'll followup
with a description later when I have a little more time.

There's nothing like a cold consomme on a warm summer evening.

--
Reg

In article >, "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.

To me, cooking stock too long would involve boiling all the water off.
;-)

I pressure cook stock. It's more effiecient.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

"aem" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Aug 5, 7:27 pm, "cybercat" > wrote:
>> "aem" > wrote
>>
>> > Incidentally, even when I'm making a "pure" stock without any veggies
>> > I still add a bit of salt and a splash of dry vermouth, as both those
>> > assist in drawing everything out into the stock.
>>
>> I don't keep vermouth. I don't like it, and I cannot imagine liking it
>> in chicken stock.
>
> It doesn't have to be vermouth. Dry sherry or rice wine or a bland
> white wine will serve the same purpose of extracting more gelatin into
> the stock. Doesn't have to be much either -- I use just a few
> tablespoons for, say, 2 quarts of stock. -aem

I make a lot of stock but have never done that. I will try it next time

Thanks
>

In article <3Jxti.4153$J13.2306@trnddc02>,
"Paul M. Cook" > wrote:

> "cybercat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Paul M. Cook" > wrote
> >>
> >> But jellied stock becoms liquid stock when it is heated.
> >
> > That doesn't keep it from grossing me out at times.
> >
> > There are some
> >> dishes where the meat is coated in the gelatinous stock but they are
> >> served cold. And the bones add the most flavor.
> >
> > I think I will pass on them at the moment.
>
> Well admittedly it isn't my cup of tea either. I remember an episode of
> Iron Chef. The Japanese love that kind of slimy texture. One of the chefs
> made a jello from fish stock and served it with caviar and raw scrambled
> egg. The judges slurped it off spoons with gusto. I changed the channel.
>
> Paul

Calves feet make a seriously good stock and while I prefer it hot, it's
traditionally served cold:

CalfsFootJelly18Slice2.jpg
http://i15.tinypic.com/2n86m39.jpg

CalfsFootJelly19PlatedFinale.jpg
http://i18.tinypic.com/2cmnjpe.jpg

I am considering roasting them next time just to see what happens.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

You also need to skim off the crap that floats to the top on a regular
basis, that helps reduce the bitterness and the greasyness

Steve

Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "cybercat" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.
>
> The French never stop cooking it, basically. In restaurants they will keep
> large pots going all they time. They'll toss in bones, vegetable waste,
> what have you and when it gets too low they'll add more water and keep it
> going. Where you can go wrong is getting the stock too hot. You will cause
> a lot of bitter and off flavors by "burning" the stock. A stock that has
> been reduced to the consistency of jelly is called a base, or a glace in the
> language of Escoffier.
>
> Paul
>
>

Steve Y said...

> You also need to skim off the crap that floats to the top on a regular
> basis, that helps reduce the bitterness and the greasyness
>
> Steve


That's how I got down to the schmaltz after roasting two chickens. Strain,
chill and scrape off the surface scum.

As far as overcooking stock is concerned... I can overcook ANYTHING!

Andy

"Omelet" > wrote
>
> To me, cooking stock too long would involve boiling all the water off.
> ;-)

I've read that as long as you aren't using vegetables, which can become
bitter, you can pretty much leave it on as long as you want--on very low
heat, of course, what I call the "two-bubble simmer."

>
> I pressure cook stock. It's more effiecient.

I am not attracted to pressure cookers.

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote
>> Yes, Paul. In fact, a good stock when chilled should turn jelly-like.
>> It
>> liquifies when you reheat it. I remember kili asking me when she made
> some
>> stock and it jelled when chilled. Relax, it's supposed to do that <G>
>
> Yep, makes for ease of use too, just slice off a chunk of stock and drop
> it
> in whatever you're making. OK, as long as we're talking stocks here, who
> has he best technique for clarifying a stock? I've tried filters,
> cheesecloth, even the supposedly foolproof eggshell trick. I still can't
> get that really clear stock that I see all the time in restaurants.
>

It is a matter of taste. Perfectly good stock can be made from meat sans
bones, and will not jell. It is admittedly more expensive than just tossing
the carcass in water and simmering, but for those of us who do not like
the jellied mess, it is worth it. There are times I am fine with the jelled
stuff, but many more when I want a liquid, golden stock that stays liquid.
There is no "should or shouldn't" about it. It's just bones or no bones.

"Kent" > wrote in message
news
"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
>
>

Chicken stock gives all from the meat and bones after about 2 hours.

In my experience, this is not true.

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
news:3Jxti.4153$J13.2306@trnddc02...
>
> "cybercat" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote
>>>
>>> But jellied stock becoms liquid stock when it is heated.
>>
>> That doesn't keep it from grossing me out at times.
>>
>> There are some
>>> dishes where the meat is coated in the gelatinous stock but they are
>>> served cold. And the bones add the most flavor.
>>
>> I think I will pass on them at the moment.
>
> Well admittedly it isn't my cup of tea either. I remember an episode of
> Iron Chef. The Japanese love that kind of slimy texture. One of the
> chefs made a jello from fish stock and served it with caviar and raw
> scrambled egg. The judges slurped it off spoons with gusto. I changed
> the channel.
>
lol

In article >, "cybercat" >
wrote:

> "Omelet" > wrote
> >
> > To me, cooking stock too long would involve boiling all the water off.
> > ;-)
>
> I've read that as long as you aren't using vegetables, which can become
> bitter, you can pretty much leave it on as long as you want--on very low
> heat, of course, what I call the "two-bubble simmer."
>
> >
> > I pressure cook stock. It's more effiecient.
>
> I am not attracted to pressure cookers.

It's faster. MUCH faster.
Saves me money on electric bills.

And it works.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 07:20:12 GMT, "Paul M. Cook"
> wrote:


>Yep, makes for ease of use too, just slice off a chunk of stock and drop it
>in whatever you're making. OK, as long as we're talking stocks here, who
>has he best technique for clarifying a stock? I've tried filters,
>cheesecloth, even the supposedly foolproof eggshell trick. I still can't
>get that really clear stock that I see all the time in restaurants.
>
>Paul
>

For that you need to do what is needed to make consomme. You create a
"raft" of various ingredients, and the proteins coagulate around it,
thus clearing the stock.

Jacques Pepin has the method in his book Complete Techniques.

Christine

>>> I pressure cook stock. It's more effiecient.
>> I am not attracted to pressure cookers.
>
> It's faster. MUCH faster.
> Saves me money on electric bills.
>
> And it works.

I used to use my crock pot and stockpot for soups and stocks. Switched
to a pressure cooker a few years back and love it. So much easier and
quicker I have found. But everyone has their preferred methods.

It's all good!

--
Queenie

*** Be the change you wish to see in the world ***

"cybercat" wrote:
> Perfectly good stock can be made from meat sans
> bones, and will not jell.

Baloney!

Gelatin is formed from the breaking down of collogen (connective
tissue) and there is plenty of collogen contained in animal flesh.
Bones are used in stock making merely as a way to extract the last wee
bits from a trimmed carcass but well trimmed bones per se add very
little flavor. A well made rich stock is not possible from just bones
with little or no meat on them... the more flesh the richer flavored
the stock. It's a big waste of time, effort, and seasonings to attemp
stock from saved up scraps... if you'd not eat it otherwise then toss
it in the trash, you cannot make stock from garbage. Extract of
garbage is extract of garbage no matter what you call it.

In article >,
MayQueen > wrote:

> >>> I pressure cook stock. It's more effiecient.
> >> I am not attracted to pressure cookers.
> >
> > It's faster. MUCH faster.
> > Saves me money on electric bills.
> >
> > And it works.
>
> I used to use my crock pot and stockpot for soups and stocks. Switched
> to a pressure cooker a few years back and love it. So much easier and
> quicker I have found. But everyone has their preferred methods.
>
> It's all good!
>
> --
> Queenie

Indeed... :-)

But I like to save money on my power bills!
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

triggered by the stock thread

My postive memory of "pressure cooked" food was beef brisket that my
sister used to make when I lived with her. The beef was first cooked in
the pressure cooker and then finished in the oven. I remember that being
very tasty

My worst memory was a neighbour here in France, who made what she called
Ratatouille in a Pressure Cooker. It removed all trace of colour and
all sense of texture and was 'orrible !

In article >,
Steve Y > wrote:

> My worst memory was a neighbour here in France, who made what she called
> Ratatouille in a Pressure Cooker. It removed all trace of colour and
> all sense of texture and was 'orrible !

Oy.

Ratatouille is supposed to be served minimally cooked, with yogurt!
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Paul M. Cook wrote:

> OK, as long as we're talking stocks here, who has he best technique
> for clarifying a stock? I've tried filters, cheesecloth, even the
> supposedly foolproof eggshell trick. I still can't get that really
> clear stock that I see all the time in restaurants.
>
> Paul

AFAIK, there are two methods. Bring your chicken to a boil, then
immediately lower the heat to a simmer, or just below a simmer. If you
boil the chicken, your broth will be cloudy. The second method, is to
boil the chicken for about 10 minutes, dump all the liquid down the
drain, rinse the chicken and the inside of the pot. Add more water (and
the chicken) to the pot and continue with your recipe.

Becca

"aem" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Aug 5, 4:39 pm, "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.
>
> At some point the law of diminishing returns has to set in, I
> suppose. My experience and vaguely remembered reading seems to tell
> me that I don't get much out of chicken stock beyond about two hours.
> Then again, I never roast it first so I don't know if that means there
> might be more to get out of it. I doubt it. I do chicken stock for
> about two hours, usually a little bit more, fish or shrimp stock for
> half an hour or so. Beef/veal stock is a whole 'nother deal that can
> go for many hours.
>
> Incidentally, even when I'm making a "pure" stock without any veggies
> I still add a bit of salt and a splash of dry vermouth, as both those
> assist in drawing everything out into the stock. Then I throw the
> dead, tasteless meat and bones away because all the flavor and
> goodness have gone into the liquid. -aem
>