"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


Roasting really helps to draw off bad flavors. If you use backs for example
and they aren't absolutely clean, especially of liver bits and lymph glands,
the stock will inherit those flavors. Roasting helps to cook off those
flavors before being added to the stock.

I have never made stock with premium cuts of meat. It's not what stock is
about. Stock, chicken for example, for me is necks, backs, wing tips etc.
I also can tell when the blood is not cooked off. It makes for a metallic
taste in the stock. Roasting helps eliminate this.

Paul

Paul M. Cook wrote:

> Roasting really helps to draw off bad flavors. If you use backs for example
> and they aren't absolutely clean, especially of liver bits and lymph glands,
> the stock will inherit those flavors. Roasting helps to cook off those
> flavors before being added to the stock.

Hey, save those lymph glands for the next time you make chorizo.


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups.
Except in Thunderbird, which can't filter that well.
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:41:13 +0200, Steve Y >
wrote:

>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 !

Pressure cookers have their uses. Ratatouille is not among them.

TammyM, PC afficionada

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 08:11:33 -0600, Christine Dabney
> wrote:

>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

One of my weirdest cookbooks is: : "Bones: Recipes, History, & Lore"
by Jennifer McLagan. The first link is a review of the book and
second is a scanned page of her consomme recipe. The eggs whites are
the key. Not sure where Paul got the eggSHELL thing.

http://dovercanyon.typepad.com/dover...recipes_h.html


http://i10.tinypic.com/4yyzc3l.jpg

Lou

"Lou Decruss" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 08:11:33 -0600, Christine Dabney
> > wrote:
>
> >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
>
> One of my weirdest cookbooks is: : "Bones: Recipes, History, & Lore"
> by Jennifer McLagan. The first link is a review of the book and
> second is a scanned page of her consomme recipe. The eggs whites are
> the key. Not sure where Paul got the eggSHELL thing.


The "eggshell thing" has always involved eggwhites. It's been a clarifying
technique for a couple of centuries. They even use it to clarify wine. You
take a couple of egg whites and the shells and you crush the shells into
small pieces and whip into the whites them you dump the mixture into the
stock, stir gently till coagulated and then scoop the whole mess out in one
piece.

It just never really works for me. I get cloudy stock with many little bits
that just never gets clear.

Paul

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:54:26 GMT, "Paul M. Cook"
> wrote:

>> One of my weirdest cookbooks is: : "Bones: Recipes, History, & Lore"
>> by Jennifer McLagan. The first link is a review of the book and
>> second is a scanned page of her consomme recipe. The eggs whites are
>> the key. Not sure where Paul got the eggSHELL thing.
>
>
>The "eggshell thing" has always involved eggwhites.

You just said shells so I guess I was confused.

>It's been a clarifying
>technique for a couple of centuries. They even use it to clarify wine. You
>take a couple of egg whites and the shells and you crush the shells into
>small pieces and whip into the whites them you dump the mixture into the
>stock, stir gently till coagulated and then scoop the whole mess out in one
>piece.

That's a bit different than the method in the recipe I posted. Maybe
you're trying to rush it too much?
>
>It just never really works for me. I get cloudy stock with many little bits
>that just never gets clear.

I've done it but it didn't seem worth the effort. Most of the stock I
make is chicken. I pass the stock through a fine sieve, rinse the
sieve and line it with 4 layers of cheese cloth and pass the stock
through again. For me it's clear enough at that point. But I wonder
if after the cheese cloth thing maybe the egg thing would be more
effective? I dunno. I'll have to try it next time I make stock.

Lou

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.

Sorry to be so late to the party.

Escoffier said about making stock: "the first twelve hours for the
flavor; the second twelve hours for the body".

What happens in that second interval is that the cartilage dissolves and
turns to gelatin; an entirely Good Thing.

When I make chicken stock (from leftover raw skin and bones), I *never*
allow the liquid to come to the boil -- not even at the beginning; I
adjust the heat so the liquid just moves a bit (not even bubbles), and
then leave it alone (except for an occasional stir), until most of the
cartilage has dissolved off the ends of the bones.

One advantage of that method is that there is never any protein floating
in there asking to be skimmed. I think that happens when you heat the
solids too fast, and the protein is pushed out of the contracting
(because of the heat) meat, while with very slow heating, the protein
congeals in place.

Overnight, I just turn the heat off and go to bed; next morning, fire it
up again.

When you think it's done (most of the bone ends are free of cartilage),
dig out the solid pieces (and if you did it right, there'll be *a LOT*
more pieces than when you started, because everything will have fallen
apart) and pour it (while hot) through a tea towel in a strainer.
Refrigerate over night and (again, if you did it right), the liquid will
have gelled. Use a pancake turner to cut the fat off the top and then
reheat and reduce to the strength desired.

Frozen (consider ice cube trays), it keeps forever.

If you do not flavor it with anything (like onion or celery or ginger),
you can use it for everything -- even beef or veal dishes. A chunk added
to a pan reduction turns the residue from pan-seared steaks into
something really nice, for example -- it's the mouth feel
(unctiousness?), not the flavor.

Whenever I use chicken, I pull off the skin, bone the pieces, and drop
those parts in the freezer in a plastic bag. When I have about three or
four quarts of frozen stuff, I drop it in my big stock pot, cover with
water, and let 'er rip.

Isaac

In article >,
isw > wrote:

> Escoffier said about making stock: "the first twelve hours for the
> flavor; the second twelve hours for the body".
>
> What happens in that second interval is that the cartilage dissolves and
> turns to gelatin; an entirely Good Thing.

45 minutes to one hour in the pressure cooker.
Saves time, hassle and utility bills. My utility bills are high enough
without running the stove for 24 hours. ;-P I use stock too often to do
that.

1 hour will melt any cartilage on the face of the planet, including pigs
and calves feet.

And the stock is thick, rich and delectable.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

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