The natural thickening in stock-made sauces.

[Karldub]

What is it that naturally thickens a stock-made sauce?

I've made a lot of classical stock-made sauces and they always thicken well when cooked down.

Though, the other day i made a boef bouerguignonne, but without the flour. Instead, I wanted to remove the meat once cooked, sieve the sauce, and then reduce it down to thick consistency. The thing is, not matter how much I reduced it down, it never got thick. Just more and more muddy from the small particles that had fallen of the meat (chuck).

How does a Boef Bourguignoone without flower, differ from a stock? Well, it is made with wine and so on, but the key difference is it's made with meat, not bones.

So what is the reason a stock has natural thickening in it? These are the arguments I've heard.

1. Some people say the gelatin from the collagen in the meat. But gelatin is not active in temperatures of say, 70-80 degrees celcius, is it? Also, there is some connective tissue in chuck, and that didn't thicken it while hot.

2. Some people say the sugars and starch in the vegetables the stock is cooked with thickens the sauce when concentrated.

That would also have thickened my sauce since i had a lot of carrot's and onions to cook it with.

3. The concentration of all the ingredients will thicken the sauce.

This didn't apply to my boef bourguignonne either. All i got was something with the viscosity of water, but with small beef particles creating a non-pleasent muddy look.

4. There is meat/fish - glue present in the bones/carcasses of your selected stock. This stickens the stock. I don't know. Might this be true? Wouldn't transglutaminase then be used to thicken sauces without changing flavour?

Lastly, can anybody comment on how these "new" hydrocolloids, e.g. xanthan gum etc. do the trick at thickening sauces?

Edited February 28, 2010 by Karldub (log)

[Shel_B]

Supposedly the gelatin extracted from the bones thickens the stock (and gives it a nice mouth feel). I've read in a few places that adding gelatin to stocks will do pretty much the same thing as long simmering of bones. You might want to try adding some gelatin sheets and see how that works.

[egale]

When I have this problem I use tapioca starch. It has a good flavor and thickens nicely. Just take a tablespoon or two of tapioca starch and mix with some water (or liquid from the pot), stir it in, and wait a few minutes. Problem solved. You can buy tapioca starch really cheap at Asian markets.

[egale]

I wanted to add that I've had exactly the same experience you have: when I make home-made stock with bones it always thickens nicely, and almost to jelly when cooled. But when making a meat-based sauce without flour it doesn't thicken. I think that's why recipes say to use flour. Personally I don't like the flavor flour adds. The tapioca starch is a far better, tastier solution, at least to me.

[xxchef]

You've hit upon one of the important basic differences between "stocks" and "broths". Without the additional components left by the cooked-down bones you don't have the backbone or structure necessary to get the thickening you're looking for.

One possible solution might be to add a few pieces of a good glace de viande. The glace will bring with it a lot of gelatin for thickening and your boef will additionally benefit from a rich flavor boost. I'm guessing that since you were looking for more of a jus lie-type thickness it shouldn't take too much glace ratio to achieve it.

Alternatively, I like arrowroot for a light-touch thickener, if you decide to use one. (never have used xantham gum etc.for thickening sauces)

Edited March 1, 2010 by xxchef (log)

[Rico]

This hits on something I've been wondering with collagen (and stocks in general):

When I'm making a - let's say chicken - stock, I (and I assume lots of people) use a carcass and discarded bones. I operate on the assumption that all the gelatin comes from the connective tissue on these bones. Now, I've got a couple questions about how this process works, especially with my particular eating habits.

I was reared to bite the top off and subsequently eat the marrow out of my chicken bones. I attempt it with all bones, really. Don't flinch, it's good; even great (yeah, I'm Slovak). But in the process, I fear whatever gelatinous properties those ends contain end up getting lost for the stock process. So, first question: Is that correct? I've not noticed a real problem, but I'm the only person I know who makes his own stock, so I've got no real comparison.

Second, the marrow: Does a cracked bone - with the marrow exposed - help the stock? Would it help to break all the bones in half to increase the flavor? When all my friends look at me in a shocked manner as I eat the marrow, I merely say it tastes likes 'chicken concentrate'. I've no doubt this is addressed somewhere in the egullet archives, but the search doesn't seem to find the specific answers ...

[egale]

I always chop chicken bones up before I use them to make stock. And I've found it does make a definite difference in the flavor. I learned to do this from Andrea Nguyen's Into the Vietnamese Kitchen.

When making beef stock I always include some marrow bones and half of a calf's foot (which is pure collagen). I learned to do that from Jennifer McLagan's Bones. Come to think of it, she says to chop the chicken bones up too.

Isn't arrowroot another name for tapioca?

[paulraphael]

Isn't arrowroot another name for tapioca?

They're similar but different. Sometimes tapioca starch gets sold as arrowroot, but tapioca is cheaper and easier to manufacture.