Chicken stock rolling boil - for clarity?

[paul o' vendange]

Hello everyone -

 

Hope you're looking forward to spring as much as I am.  Let's just say this winter, in particular, ready to say goodbye.

 

Odd question, but it's bugged me for as long as I've had their book.  If anyone has it or has seen it, in the Troisgros Bros' book, they call for doing a chicken stock "making certain to keep it at a full rolling boil for 45 minutes" and "skimming the fat off the top."  "These two things are important if you want to ensure a crystal-clear stock."

 

I've never tried it, though I should.  As it stands, I do keep stocks at a brisker simmer than some, probably, as I find I get better clarity with enough simmering agitation to better dislodge impurities from the meat and bones, not anywhere near a boil and emulsifying.  But rolling boil?  Trip.

 

Anyone?

[scubadoo97]

I would think a rolling boil would result in emulsification of the fats 

[paul o' vendange]

So would I, which is why I've always been so puzzled.  Goes against everything one is taught, etc.  But these are the Troisgros's, and I don't know if this is a mistranslation or not (I only have the English version, would be nice to see the original).

[Martin Fisher]

Please try it and report back! 

Seems in recent years we hear it's wrong to boil stock for any length of time but some of the 'greats' did, Beard for 15 minutes, etc., IIRC.

[paulraphael]

Yeah, sounds fishy. Of course I haven't done an a/b test and so am guilty of trusting the conventional wisdom. FWIW, the clearest stocks I've made have been in a pressure cooker, kept below a boil, with a bit of raw (unbrowned) ground meat in the pot to clarify the proteins (a Modernist Cuisine technique). These stocks also taste and smell better than the others I've done, so I'm not really jumping at the chance to experiment.

[mm84321]

I wouldn't keep my stock at a rolling boil. Just a brisk simmer, as you mention. Then let it rest for a good half hour off the burner to allow whatever particles/impurities which remain to settle at the bottom of the pot, and strain through cheesecloth, or even paper towels. Always comes out clear for me this way.

[liuzhou]

10 hours ago, paulraphael said:

a bit of raw (unbrowned) ground meat in the pot to clarify the proteins (a Modernist Cuisine technique).

 

In that case, my mother invented Modernist Cuisine around 1939. Probably what started WW2. It's an ancient technique. The Romans used it.

Edited February 17, 2017 by liuzhou (log)

[paulraphael]

22 hours ago, liuzhou said:

 

In that case, my mother invented Modernist Cuisine around 1939. Probably what started WW2. It's an ancient technique. The Romans used it.

 

 

Interesting. I've seen all kinds of protein rafts used in classical cooking, but hadn't seen ground meet suggested before the MC books. I don't recall them specifically claiming it's a new technique. That was just my assumption.

 

I haven't seen it mentioned in traditional texts (with the exception of ground meat combined with egg white when making consommé from an existing stock). It works beautifully.

[Baron d'Apcher]

It is possible that the translation from French to English is erroneous or that some subtleties of culinary terms have been overlooked.

 

Boiling bones (blanching) that have been soaked in ice water overnight (to draw out any blood) will extract many of the impurities and fat.  Rinse them well and simmer at 170F and the stock will be very clear.

[paul o' vendange]

Thanks, Baron.  Believe it or not that method is one I used, but it's easily been 25 years or better and with my memory issue being what it is, it literally dropped off my map.  Not even sure where I picked it up, but it was definitely a French chef or other French source.  Sincerely grateful to you for mentioning it as it does work fantastically well.   

 

Wish I had the "Recettes Originales" in the original, to see what they write there.  Just seems crazy, so agree all, it's likely a typo or mistranslation.