Add vegetables at the end or beginning of an 8+ hour stock?

[acidfrog]

seems like i cant find much on this as i know apart from in theory i would of thought adding at the end makes more sense

yet so many books and famous recipes a la the veal stock in the french laundry add it at the beginning

[Panosmex]

I would think that if you want the maximum flavor extraction from the ingredients, that it's better to put them in the stock at the beginning. It's not as though you are seeking to preserve the shape and color of the vegetables, is it?

[Mjx]

By 'the end' I'm understanding you to mean when the stock is finished; since that's the point when you remove the solids from the stock, adding something at point would have no effect of the finished product.

For whatever it's worth, I haven't found any advantage to using more than about an hour to make stock: prep/roast/brown the components, then sweating them 20 minutes, and simmering barely covered in water 20 minutes. Any longer doesn't seem to give more flavourful results, things just get more murky and dull (I may use some extra time if I want to reduce the stock, however).

[budrichard]

I think you are confusing vegetables for flavoring the stock with a need to consume the vegetables with the stock?

Typically the vegetables are added at the beginning and disposed of at the end to make the stock.

If you want to make a soup or any other dish with the stock, new vegetables are required cooked briefly as to still retain flovor and crispness.-Dick

[EnriqueB]

For whatever it's worth, I haven't found any advantage to using more than about an hour to make stock: the time needed to prep/roast brown the components, then sweating them 20 minutes, and simmering coered in water 20 minutes. Any longer doesn't seem to give more flavourful results, things just get more murky and dull (I may use some extra time if I want to reduce the stock, however).

That seems contrary to tradition and the experience and recommendation of many chefs... nevertheless it has a point (continue reading).

I think it is not poosible to make a general statement: different components of a stock have different optimal extraction temperature & time profiles. Gelatin from bones needs the longest times, much longer than one hour. For beef meat one hour simmering may be optimal in many cases (actually 60 minutes at 85ºC was found optimal in this study). Vegetables likely have a similar profile (in my experience). Aromatics are often considered to produce highly volatile aromas that do not stand long times, so some suggest to add them at the end of the cooking (either some time before finishing, either when the heat is stopped -infusing while it gets cold-, either putting them when reheating the stock for using it).

Heston Blumenthal stocks seem to acknowledge this and he suggests to add different items and different points in time, even in his pressure-cooked stocks. On the other hand the Modernist Cuisine team, which claim to have tested tons of stock making procedure combinations, prefer to simplify and propose to put all ingredients together at once in the pressure cooker and cook for times ranging between 1.5 and 2.5 hours....

For a good summary and some scientific references on this topic see this post on the excellent blog "La margarita se agita". It is on Spanish, but you can see the articles references at the end or click on the links to see the abstracts.

Edited October 19, 2012 by EnriqueB (log)

[Mjx]

For whatever it's worth, I haven't found any advantage to using more than about an hour to make stock: the time needed to prep/roast brown the components, then sweating them 20 minutes, and simmering coered in water 20 minutes. Any longer doesn't seem to give more flavourful results, things just get more murky and dull (I may use some extra time if I want to reduce the stock, however).

That seems contrary to tradition and the experience and recommendation of many chefs... nevertheless it has a point (continue reading).

I think it is not poosible to make a general statement: different components of a stock have different optimal extraction temperature & time profiles. Gelatin from bones needs the longest times, much longer than one hour. For beef meat one hour simmering may be optimal in many cases (actually 60 minutes at 85ºC was found optimal in this study). Vegetables likely have a similar profile (in my experience). Aromatics are often considered to produce highly volatile aromas that do not stand long times, so some suggest to add them at the end of the cooking (either some time before finishing, either when the heat is stopped -infusing while it gets cold-, either putting them when reheating the stock for using it).

. . . .

I do agree with you regarding the extraction of gelatine from larger bones, but I personally prefer the flavour of more briefly cooked stocks to that of longer-cooked stocks (this is inevitably going to be subjective, and vary considerably from person to person).

Although I often make mixed-source stock (chicken, lamb, various game), I break things down into small/thin pieces, which optimizes extraction, and even with the brief time-frame I described, it gels as firmly as any longer cooked stock I've seen (cleanly spoonable). If I'm boiling up a bunch of more or less intact larger bones, I'll cook them for a quite a while, but I'm not aiming for flavour.

[acidfrog]

wow 1 hour to make a veal stock not even in a pressure cooker

that is pretty crazy are you sure about that

you cook a stock not for flavor ?

yeah sorry for the misunderstanding i mean cook the bones for the 7 hours or whatever then put the vegetables in for the last 1 hour or so as i was under the impression vegetables don't need 8 hours considering a veggie stock needs about 1 hour and would only cloud the stock

that is my thinking and why i asked the question maybe that puts it a bit better

but also i would love to know your thinking behind a 1 hour simmered stock

when tasting my stock at around 1 hour it definatly tastes of water in comparison to my 12 hour (veal bone stock)

Edited October 19, 2012 by acidfrog (log)

[Shel_B]

http://www.sfgate.com/food/article/STOCK-TIPS-3237449.php

An excellent and very interesting article about making stock, including tips and suggestions by several of San Francisco's very highly regarded chefs.

[acidfrog]

yeah read that last night actually

it is a good read but doesn't really answer my question

[Brown Hornet]

My understanding and experience has always been that maximum flavor extraction from vegetables takes about an hour. After that, they're only contributing cloudiness and mush to your stock. My standard stock procedure for years was to add the vegetables the last hour of simmering.

I have now largely moved to pressure cooking stocks per the MC method. Aside from using a pressure cooker, my big takeaway from MC was that the size of the bones and vegetables primarily determines the length of time needed to fully extract flavor and gelatine. I guess this is pretty obvious, but the standard 6-8 hour timeframe for making stock was so engrained in my head that I never really thought of using smaller pieces to shorten the stock cooking time.

[acidfrog]

BANG exactly what i was looking for

i think this is possibly my last batch without using a pressure cooker

and i guess if using the standard method it would be best to add vegetables an hour or so to go the answer to my question

will have to crack open MC and look at that part

[Mjx]

wow 1 hour to make a veal stock not even in a pressure cooker

that is pretty crazy are you sure about that

Yep

you cook a stock not for flavor ?

Nope. My point is that if the stock solids are cut into small pieces, their size is such that any water-soluble flavour molecules are very quickly extracted, and you get something full-flavoured in a short time.

If I'm cooking up a big batch of whole bones, I don't expect much flavour from them; increasing the cooking time won't change that. But you will get a lot of gelatine.

yeah sorry for the misunderstanding i mean cook the bones for the 7 hours or whatever then put the vegetables in for the last 1 hour or so as i was under the impression vegetables don't need 8 hours considering a veggie stock needs about 1 hour and would only cloud the stock

I'd saw up the bones in small slices, and cut the cooking time down to an hour; why run the stove for 8 hours to accomplish what only need take an hour?

that is my thinking and why i asked the question maybe that puts it a bit better

but also i would love to know your thinking behind a 1 hour simmered stock

when tasting my stock at around 1 hour it definatly tastes of water in comparison to my 12 hour (veal bone stock)

If the stock solids don't have much to contribute in terms of flavour (e.g. bones), lengthy cooking can't actually change that. Usually, If I cook something on the bone, I leave a bit of meat on, and I save cuts that don't have much to offer in the way of meat for stock (e.g. bird backs); I just keep chucking all this stuff in a bag I keep in the freezer. Often, I don't even use vegetables, just a bay leaf and little nutmeg and salt. I roast the bones before making stock. If the stock comes out kind of wimpy, I may simply save it to use as the liquid for my next batch of stock, rather than using it as such.

[ChrisTaylor]

Nutmeg? Doesn't that give a ... bias to your stocks?

[EnriqueB]

Nutmeg? Doesn't that give a ... bias to your stocks?

I was equally surprised..

One hour and nutmeg, Mjx you either have a strange taste or are a ground breaker. :-D

[Mjx]

Nutmeg? Doesn't that give a ... bias to your stocks?

I was equally surprised..

One hour and nutmeg, Mjx you either have a strange taste or are a ground breaker. :-D

Maybe i should have made it clear: I'm talking about a pinch of nutmeg. I find that it offsets the 'wet dog hair' smell I sometimes detect in stocks, particularly ones that are bone-heavy, but it draws no attention to itself. Although I will admit that my tastes run a bit medieval, and I really enjoy a faint presence of nutmeg (or cloves) in meat dishes.

[Shel_B]

I've been making stock and broth for years, and, over time, the technique has changed. I used to add the vegetables and chicken to the pot together, simmer, skim, drain, and freeze. Having read numerous articles and made many experiments, I've settled on this routine for my chicken stock.

First, I use only whole chickens or large pieces like breasts and whole legs. I make sure there is no damage to the bones - I do not want blood and other debris to get into the stock. I do not, ever, use broken pieces or just backs or wing tips, or pieces taken from cooked chicken that's been frozen for a while. Just fresh, whole chicken or large prime pieces.

I then blanch the chicken, drain the pot, and rinse the chicken or chicken parts. The chicken goes back into the cleaned pot, and simmers gently for the appropriate time ... not to long, maybe about an hour, or two at the most. I then remove the chicken pieces and, if desired, add the vegetables and whatever herbs I may be using. That's cooked low and slow for about an hour depending on the size of the vegetable pieces.

I may or may not use salt, depending on the plans for the stock. Generally, I add some salt (non-iodized and additive free, usually Diamond Crystal Kosher Salt but sometimes a similar salt) while the chicken is simmering.

The stock always comes out clear and with a nice yellow color, and very chickeny tasting, even when I make it to be mild.

Ever since adding vegetables after the chicken cooks, my chicken stck has been very satisfactory. No muddiness or dull tastes.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Shel_B (log)