Can You Cook Stock TOO long?

On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 19:39:59 -0400, "cybercat" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

cybercat said:

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

Christine Dabney said:

On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 19:39:59 -0400, "cybercat" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

I could take them off after five hours, or leave them on.

Quoted message said:

There is nothing else in there, I just wanted pure, concentrated chicken
stock to freeze for soups and such.

Quoted message said:

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 [censored] reducing will only make it
taste like potent fermented [censored]... like how some old folks on lasix
don't flush the terlit all night to save their septic system, by
morning they've [censored] half a dozen times and a whiff is ripe! hehe

Sheldon Airwick

cybercat said:

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

cybercat said:

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.

Sheldon said:

taste like potent fermented [censored]... like how some old folks on lasix
don't flush the terlit all night to save their septic system, by
morning they've [censored] half a dozen times and a whiff is ripe! hehe

Sound like you have first-hand experience with Lasix. And lemme
guess - you have a septic system, too.

-sw

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

cybercat said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Took five pounds of roasted leg quarters and divided them between two

pots,

Quoted message said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Christine Dabney said:

On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 19:39:59 -0400, "cybercat" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Took five pounds of roasted leg quarters and divided them between two

pots,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

filled with water, brought to a boil and then down to a two-bubble

simmer.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I could take them off after five hours, or leave them on.

Quoted message said:

There is nothing else in there, I just wanted pure, concentrated

chicken

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

stock to freeze for soups and such.

Quoted message said:

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 [censored] reducing will only make it
taste like potent fermented [censored]... like how some old folks on lasix
don't flush the terlit all night to save their septic system, by
morning they've [censored] half a dozen times and a whiff is ripe! hehe

Sheldon Airwick

My, but you are one seriously charming person.

Paul

"Paul M. Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

dead, tasteless meat and bones away because all the flavor and
goodness have gone into the liquid. -aem

Me too.

"Christine Dabney" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Christine Dabney" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

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 said:

"cybercat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Christine Dabney" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

But jellied stock becoms liquid stock when it is heated.

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

There are some

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Nsuti.3065$dD3.1749@trnddc07...

Quoted message said:

"Sheldon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Christine Dabney said:

On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 19:39:59 -0400, "cybercat" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>Took five pounds of roasted leg quarters and divided them between two

pots,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>filled with water, brought to a boil and then down to a two-bubble

simmer.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I could take them off after five hours, or leave them on.

>There is nothing else in there, I just wanted pure, concentrated

chicken

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>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 [censored] reducing will only make it
taste like potent fermented [censored]... like how some old folks on lasix
don't flush the terlit all night to save their septic system, by
morning they've [censored] 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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Paul M. Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

But jellied stock becoms liquid stock when it is heated.

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

There are some

Quoted message said:

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

cybercat said:

"aem" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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