Stock Question

[Shalmanese]

Hi,

I'm an amatuer stock-maker. I've made stock about 4 or 5 times now and I've read the eGullet stock course which has helped me a lot.

One thing I couldn't help wondering about is would it be possible to make the vegtable and meat parts of the stock seperately and combine later on to get the same results as a normal stock. I mean, unless there is some chemical interplay going on in the pot that I'm not aware of, I don't see why this would be a big deal.

So, instead of:

1. Chuck Mirepoix, herbs and bones in a pot

2. Boil for 12 hours

3. Strain and reduce to demi-glace

It would be:

1. Chuck finely diced Mirepoix and herbs in a pot

2. Boil for about an hour or when the vegtables have lost their flavour

3. Strain and reduce to a vegtable demi-glace

4. Chuck bones in a seperate pot with a bit of salt to aid the leeching of gelatin

5. Boil for 12 hours

6. Strain and reduce to a meat demi-glace

This would seem to have many advantages to me over the traditional stock making method.

1. You can cook up bigger batches at once

2. You can have beef, chicken, vegtable, beef & chicken etc. stocks just by combining different glaces together

3. You can adjust the level of "meatiness" in your stock

4. You can make a variaty of vegtable stocks to give different base charecteristics to your meal, eg: a white mirepoix for earthier stocks, more carrots for a sweeter stock.

5. You don't lose some of those delicate flavours in the vegtables that get broken down by prolonged heat.

6. You have a greater water/bone ratio so you don't need to reduce as much to reach demi-glace as you would a normal stock.

7. You can puree the vegtables for a tasteless but fibrous filler which can provide body to some dishes

It seems to me that this would be an awesome way to make stock so I'm a bit puzzled as to why it's not standard practise.

[aidensnd2]

For one thing you would never get a vegetable demi-glace. As their is no gelatin in veggies the stock would never thicken regardless of how long you cooked it or how much you reduced it. I suppose you could freeze it into ice cubes to make it convenient though.

Not all stocks are reduced to a glaze. Primarily demi-glace is used to make/finish sauces but if you need stock for a soup or something where a decent amount of stock is needed you would use unreduced stock. While you could add demi-glace to a pot of water to "make" stock it wouldn't taste the same as stock would.

Chuck bones in a seperate pot with a bit of salt to aid the leeching of gelatin

I wouldn't add salt to any stock, seasoning should be done when making the final product. What might seem like a little bit of salt in that big pot of water could very well turn out to be one hell of a lot in the finished reduced glaze. As for it aiding in the leeching of gelatin, that's partly what the long cooking process is for.

1. You can cook up bigger batches at once

Not sure why you could cook bigger batches if they are seperate. It seems like it would be more convenient to only have to make 1 stock than 2 assuming you want some combo of meat and veg.

2. You can have beef, chicken, vegtable, beef & chicken etc. stocks just by combining different glaces together

You could do this with traditional stocks.

3. You can adjust the level of "meatiness" in your stock

I think you lost me on this one.

4. You can make a variaty of vegtable stocks to give different base charecteristics to your meal, eg: a white mirepoix for earthier stocks, more carrots for a sweeter stock.

I don't think this would be that practical or really make that much difference. It's much easier to have 1 type of stock to make/store and then just adjust the flavor when it's used if necessary. Stock is just a flavor base, not the final flavor.

6. You have a greater water/bone ratio so you don't need to reduce as much to reach demi-glace as you would a normal stock.

Wouldn't that be the same as just starting off with less water? Not sure what you mean by this.

I think overall it's not a bad idea it's just more an issue of what's practical. For me a meat stock without mirepoix would just be bland. If I were to use your method I would always be combining veg and meat stock in the end so why not just start out that way and cut my work in half.

Hope this helps

Dan

[aidensnd2]

Forgot to add that IMHO there is no need to boil the stock for 12 hours. After about 4 hours with chicken stock and about 6 or so with beef/veal I don't notice much of a difference.

[Shalmanese]

I wouldn't add salt to any stock, seasoning should be done when making the final product. What might seem like a little bit of salt in that big pot of water could very well turn out to be one hell of a lot in the finished reduced glaze. As for it aiding in the leeching of gelatin, that's partly what the long cooking process is for.

I'm going primarily by the eGullet Culinary Institute lesson on stockmaking here for background info, I usually just boil my chicken for 3 - 4 hours but the bones are still firm which indicates they still have gelatin. My next goal is to either try letting it sit overnight or letting it sit in the oven. To know when a stock is finished, all the bones should crumble easily between your fingers. in one of the Q&A's someone mentioned that a stock with a tiny bit of salt tasted markedly different that a stock with salt added later in a blind taste test. I've never added it to mine but something like 2tbsp in a pot of stock is enough to draw out the flavour.

Not sure why you could cook bigger batches if they are seperate. It seems like it would be more convenient to only have to make 1 stock than 2 assuming you want some combo of meat and veg.

Assuming you don't have an absurdly large stockpot, I always find that the amount of stock I make is limited by the pot. Instead of making two batches of chicken+veggie, why not make 1 batch of all chicken and 1 batch of all veggie. This way, I can use just vegtable stock if I only want vegtable or I can use it with beef if I want beef. Also, I would only use 4hrs + 1hrs worth of cooking time instead of 4hrs + 4hrs worth of cooking time.

3. You can adjust the level of "meatiness" in your stock

I think you lost me on this one.

To adjust the level of meatiness, simply change the ratio of vegtable stock to meat gelatin thing so you could get a stock that is predominantly meat or just has a hint of meat in it. Eg: I would imagine a big roast would benifit from a stronger pan juice gravy while a delicate chicken soup would work better with more vegtables.

I don't think this would be that practical or really make that much difference. It's much easier to have 1 type of stock to make/store and then just adjust the flavor when it's used if necessary. Stock is just a flavor base, not the final flavor.

I often find that my stocks are either too sweet and light for some dishes and too heavy for others. Since stocks last practically forever, you might as well go on a big stockmaking binge when a certain vegtable is in season or especially cheap. Thats another thing, I generally only make stock when I've accumulated enough bones to fill a pot or when meat happens to be especially cheap. This often does not correspond to when good vegtables are in season so it gives me a lot more flexibility to make them at seperate times.

Wouldn't that be the same as just starting off with less water? Not sure what you mean by this.

Well, no. You need at least enough water to completely cover all the solids. If you halve the solids by removing all the veggies, you halve the liquid while still having the same amount of gelatin extracted. This means that you get twice the amount of gelatin so it's already twice as reduced as a normal stock.

Anyway, I'm going to give this a go. It's verging on winter here in Aus so some nice root vegtables should be in season. I'll go the farmers market on Wednesday and pick up some fresh veggies and give you an update on how it goes.

Edited May 30, 2004 by Shalmanese (log)

[aidensnd2]

Where in Aus are you? I'm in Sydney.

[Shalmanese]

Sydney, Eastern Suburbs

[culinary bear]

aidensnd - I agree with you there re: timings ot stocks

I did a stage in a starred kitchen where the head chef insisted his chicken stocks were made with white bones, no roasting, and simmered for one hour only after the stock came to the boil.

After reduction the resulting jus was fresh tsting but so concentrated; really astonishing flavour.

[Steve Martin]

I did a stage in a starred kitchen where the head chef insisted his chicken stocks were made with white bones, no roasting, and simmered for one hour only after the stock came to the boil.

After reduction the resulting jus was fresh tsting but so concentrated; really astonishing flavour.

Any tomatoes in that?

[culinary bear]

Not in the initial simmering, just a mirepoix of carrots, leek white, celery and onion.

The stock was reduced to half volume, and a second mirepix made, with well-caramelised tomato paste, red wine, port, madeira and brandy and the same vegetables as above, plus a bouquet garni. Simmered for another hour, then passed and burnt down to jus consistency.

[slkinsey]

I also have an interesting stock-making hypothesis I am going to test the next time I make stock (soon, because I am running out).

I am going to run all the meat, bones and vegetables through my industrial-strength meat grinder. My thought is that it will lead to faster and more complete extraction of both flavors and gelatin. My general stock-making process, FWIW, is to leave it on the stove overnight substantially below the simmer (~180F/82C).

[Rachel Perlow]

I was thinking that would be a good idea when I first read about your grinder, Sam. Let us know how it turns out.

[Steve Martin]

I also have an interesting stock-making hypothesis I am going to test the next time I make stock (soon, because I am running out).

I am going to run all the meat, bones and vegetables through my industrial-strength meat grinder. My thought is that it will lead to faster and more complete extraction of both flavors and gelatin. My general stock-making process, FWIW, is to leave it on the stove overnight substantially below the simmer (~180F/82C).

You could also try just grinding the meat and bones, not the veg.

The other extreme is that some chefs leave the veg whole in a bunch and remove as soon as they are cooked through. This ensures a clearer stock.

I have heard that simmering the bones for too long can lead to bitter flavours as the bones break down.

Also, maximum gelatin extraction is obtained at a higher temperature, hence Heston's pressure cooker stock idea.

By the way, I'm a great fan of a bit of trotter in the stock.

[KarenS]

You don't "boil stock". You bring it to a boil, and then turn it down to a simmer. Boiling will make it cloudy and bitter; the fat and impurities will circulate throug the stock. If you simmer - you can skim the scum off, and the excess fat will rise to the surface when cool.

You cook mirepoix with the bones/ meat so that the fat holds on to the flavor of the vegetables and aromatics. Fat holds and carries flavors.

[culinary bear]

Fat holds and carries fat-soluble flavours.

Water holds and carries water-soluble flavours.

Technically, simmerig is boiling, as the part of the stock nearest the heat source is at 100C. Presumably what you're referrring to as 'boiling' is a rolling boil, with maximum heat applied; I think most of us know that this is not the right action to take with stock, as can be found in the stocks section of eGCI.

[KarenS]

Fat holds flavor better then water. You will be wasting vegetables as you will be needing much more. It is much more economical (and not as wasteful) to combine your vegetables with your bones.

[culinary bear]

if you'll read my post you'll realise I wasn't recommending that you don't.

I wa pointing out that not all flavouring compounds are fat soluble, some are water soluble.

Some, not all, are soluble in both, and are carried better by one over the other.

Your blanket assertion that 'fat holds flavours better than water' is a scientific (and culinary) falsehood and is worthy of correction, in the interests of clarity and understanding.

[KarenS]

Boiling and simmering are two different things. I think that it is important to use the correct terminology- there is a difference of about 70 degrees, if you are learning to make stock that would make a huge difference.

[culinary bear]

At 70 degress below boiling point (142F, 61C) you're not going to be doing much extraction of flavours.

At a rough approximation of the speed of a chemical reaction ocuring twice as rapidly with every 10C increase in temperature, a temperature of 142F will give an extraction rate eight times slower than a temperture of 193F, which is the typical temperature at the surface of a simmering liquid. The temperature at the bottom will be at or just below boiling point (the height of liquid above the heat source acting as a buffer to full boiling, which is why stocks tend to be made in tall stockpots).

At 70 degrees below boiling point you'd be running a serious risk of bacterial contamination and souring of your stock. Current European guidelines recommend a temperature no lower than 83C for the holding of a nutrient-rich liquid (83C is approximately 30F lower than boiling point).

[Shalmanese]

Ah, I never considered that fat might act as a flavour enhancer for vegtables. Does this mean that when I make vegtable stock, it would be a good idea to throw in some chicken skins?

[ExtraMSG]

Sam, I'd be worried that you'll get a lot of muck through that method, but I'll be interested to hear the results. I usually do the same as you. I generally start my bones, usually carcasses from the freezer, in a pot of cold water with primarily just onions, but whatever else I feel at the time (never herbs), bring it up to a light boil and then turn it down so that it stays somewhere between about 160 and 180 overnight. I think keeping the temperature down greatly improves the gelatin and flavor extraction without getting as much muck. I don't know when the marginal returns begin to diminish, but I don't think it hurts the stock to be left on low overnight. A crockpot works quite well, too. I should admit that clarity is very unimportant to me. I primarily make stocks for sauces and pureed soups.

[Katherine]

Ah, I never considered that fat might act as a flavour enhancer for vegtables. Does this mean that when I make vegtable stock, it would be a good idea to throw in some chicken skins?

Yes, use the chicken skins, they do add flavor, and it's a convenient way of rendering chicken fat.

[slkinsey]

Sam, I'd be worried that you'll get a lot of muck through that method, but I'll be interested to hear the results.

I always clarify my stocks, so I am not particularly concerned about muck. That said, my experience has been that a cloudy stock is usually the result of too much heat (i.e., too much agitation of the water) rather than having the ingredients in small pieces.

[aidensnd2]

Does this mean that when I make vegtable stock, it would be a good idea to throw in some chicken skins?

If you want a true vegetable stock I wouldn't. It seems more like you would be making an incredibly weak chicken stock, you would mainly have the taste of veg with a hint of chicken in the background which might be nice but might also just seem like a really underflavored stock. I think if you want some chicken flavor just mix chicken and veg stock together.

You cook mirepoix with the bones/ meat so that the fat holds on to the flavor of the vegetables and aromatics.

But if the fat holds onto the flavor of the veg then when you skim the fat off you would in theory be removing much of the flavor, no? I think you cook the veg to release their flavor and to start converting some of their starch into sugar.

I am going to run all the meat, bones and vegetables through my industrial-strength meat grinder.

Personally I think that doing this might backfire. I think it will cause too many impurities to be released and you'll have to skim it nonstop. Even if you don't mind about the clarity of the stock all that scum will negatively affect the flavor.

I have heard that simmering the bones for too long can lead to bitter flavours as the bones break down.

I think it's like with fish stock, you only cook it for 20 minutes, after that the bones start to break down and release calcium which turns the stock cloudy and bitter. This would also play into grinding the bones. You would have so much surface area that they would break down incredibly quick.

By the way, I'm a great fan of a bit of trotter in the stock.

Ditto on that one. Great flavor and a great way to get tons of gelatin.

The other extreme is that some chefs leave the veg whole in a bunch and remove as soon as they are cooked through. This ensures a clearer stock

In my experience leaving the vegetables in bunches is due more to convenience. If you are making a large batch of stock (commercial size) then it's easier and faster not to chop the veg and with a long cooking time you are going to get all the flavor out of them anyway. I've never tried removing the veg part way through, I'll give it a shot next time I make stock at home and see if it helps the clarity.

[slkinsey]

I am going to run all the meat, bones and vegetables through my industrial-strength meat grinder.

Personally I think that doing this might backfire. I think it will cause too many impurities to be released and you'll have to skim it nonstop. Even if you don't mind about the clarity of the stock all that scum will negatively affect the flavor.

I don't know about this "impurities" thing. The scum that rises to the top of the stock is largely composed of proteins, etc. that coagulate in the early stages. Personally, I find that I rarely if ever have issues with the formation of excessive scum -- perhaps because I use very gentle temperatures.

I would also suggest that the very same mechanisms by which you think excess "scum forming agents" might be released would also release more flavor and more gelatin. The entire idea behind grinding the ingredients is that the surface area of the "dry" ingredients is significantly increased when they are ground up. Since the surface is where reactions happen and where flavors, gelatin and, yes, scum-forming agents are released into the liquid, increasing the surface area should have the effect of increasing the rapidity and thoroughness of such effects.

Most "impurities" are released right at the beginning of the stock making process when the liquid comes up to temperature and a scum forms. This is when most of the skimming is done, with only very occasional skimming required thereafter. Grinding the dry ingredients might very well have the effect of releasing all the scum-forming agents more or less all at the same time as a result of the increased surface area. This would tend to suggest that less scum would be formed in the later stages, rather than more.

It is, of course, possible that certain undesirable chemicals might be liberated into the liquid as a result of the grinding which would not be present if the ingredients were kept whole. For example, maybe there is something inside chicken bones that we don't really want in our stock. I doubt this will turn out to be the case, but you never know. Only one way to find out. There are a lot of things people say about making stocks (e.g., if you cook your chicken stock for 12 hours it will be bitter and cloudy) that turns out to be entirely untrue. So who knows? It'll be an experiment.

[phaelon56]

I've been saving bones and freezing them in anticipation of stockmaking. I rarely see people discussing pork bones - is there a reason why or are they good to use, perhaps mixed in with a larger quantity of beef bones? Also.... I just smoked some spare ribs over the weekend (having been convinced by eGulleteers that if properly prepared, they can be superior to baby back ribs). The results were spectacular but should I keep the leftover bones after the ribs have been consumed and freeze those for stock use as well? I'm not worried about cooties as the handful of guests are all close friends. I know it would be unwise to bring home leftover bones from a restaurant but am curious to know if it would be okay at home.