Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Skimming Fond


scott123

Recommended Posts

I'm been pondering scum as of late. Specifically stock scum. Everybody and their brother skims the scum off of stock. Well, anyone respectable, at least. Not skimming appears to be stockmaking sacrilege. Don't defile your stock with impurities they all cry.

How impure/impalatable is scum? Sure, it looks nasty as heck, but does it really taste bad?

If scum really does ruin the taste of stock, shouldn't it ruin anything else it's in? Case in point, fond.

The exact same scum that is released from a chicken during boiling oozes out during roasting. Fond contains scum. Although roasting does involve dry heat, inside of the bird you have water. When the water is released, it carries the impurities with it. In fact, if you add fond to boiling water, you'll see the scum rise to the surface.

The question I pose to you is this. Is fond impaired by these 'impurities?' Would fond somehow be improved if you skimmed the scum, reduced it and then made your sauce/gravy? Of course not. The thought is ludicrous. Fond is one of the best tasting foods on this planet. As is. 'Impurities' and all.

Why is unskimmed fond revered and unskimmed stock despised?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott123:

I have had the same thoughts over the years. If you are not looking for absolute clarity leave it alone. When I make vegetable soup I leave it alone. After a while the dreaded "scum" disappears. Nobody dies.

The Philip Mahl Community teaching kitchen is now open. Check it out. "Philip Mahl Memorial Kitchen" on Facebook. Website coming soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm been pondering scum as of late.  Specifically stock scum. Everybody and their brother skims the scum off of stock. Well, anyone respectable, at least. Not skimming appears to be stockmaking sacrilege.  Don't defile your stock with impurities they all cry.

How impure/impalatable is scum? Sure, it looks nasty as heck, but does it really taste bad?

If scum really does ruin the taste of stock, shouldn't it ruin anything else it's in? Case in point, fond.

The exact same scum that is released from a chicken during boiling oozes out during roasting.  Fond contains scum. Although roasting does involve dry heat, inside of the bird you have water.  When the water is released, it carries the impurities with it. In fact, if you add fond to boiling water, you'll see the scum rise to the surface.

The question I pose to you is this. Is fond impaired by these 'impurities?' Would fond somehow be improved if you skimmed the scum, reduced it and then made your sauce/gravy? Of course not.  The thought is ludicrous.  Fond is one of the best tasting foods on this planet. As is.  'Impurities' and all.

Why is unskimmed fond revered and unskimmed stock despised?

It goes back, of course, to the most clear stock you can make, to create a perfect consomme. But, I think is there is a huge difference between fond and scum. Scum includes impurities, Fond, unless you are braising short ribs or making shanks, or roasting typically only includes the meat protein. The fond is a combination of the remains of malliard reaction coupled with blood. Both delightfully tasty. That's my two cents. I'll skim away... As to the roasting chicken, my guess is most of the scum dissapates when the water hits the hot roasting pan, leaving fond, the good stuff.

Edited by PicnicChef (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scum can certainly cloud a stock or soup. I use to keep salt water fish tanks and part of the water maintenance was a protein skimmer. Small air bubbles up through a column of water and removes organic protein waste products which collects as a foam scum. Same thing you see at the oceans edge. I think scum from cooking meats is basically the same kind of thing. Fond is a different animal as has been mentioned. The Malliard reaction caramelizing those bits really create a flavorful by product. Scum adds nothing good so I remove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is unskimmed fond revered and unskimmed stock despised?

I think this is a great question and a smart thing to think about. I have never tasted the greyish scum that comes up while cooking stock. Sure you're right that it's the same product that is fond in a roasting pan. I've had a special pho that is the regular pho broth with blood dropped back in it. It was delicious. I'd be curious to do what shalmanese suggested. Save the foam, add to some stock and then emulsify.

I think Thomas Keller has something to do with it. He seems to be the nation's technique super ego at the moment and he is all about skimming at all times-- clarity, defatting etc. I had the opportunity to watch Christian Delouvrier poach a chicken (stuffed with truffles) in a triple stock. It was fascinating. Part of the bird--maybe all, can't remember--went out to the table in a tureen in the broth. He didn't defat it completely nor did he run it through a fine sieve. At first I was mortified and then slowly came to realize how narrow my view had been. Fat it good, flavorful and unctuous. Delouvrier didn't want a perfectly clear broth. He wanted a rich hearty one.

You shouldn't eat grouse and woodcock, venison, a quail and dove pate, abalone and oysters, caviar, calf sweetbreads, kidneys, liver, and ducks all during the same week with several cases of wine. That's a health tip.

Jim Harrison from "Off to the Side"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heres a rather obvious thing to do: skim the scum off the top of stock, deposit it into a bowl. Add 1/2 cup of stock to it and swirl it around a bit. Guess what? It tastes like stock! Then add the scum back in guilt free.

I recently made tortilla soup and put cut up pieces of chicken breast to put in it. The scum came up and was hard to remove with the other ingredients that were already in the soup. The scum resembled egg that is drizzled into hot liquid. I was able to pick out some of it and for the record even tasted it to see if it had any off taste because I knew I was not going to be able to skim it off well. It really had no taste so I agree if you remove it and add stock to it, it would taste like stock. It is not bringing anything to the table to speak and not enhancing the stock. My tortilla soup came out great and with the addition of corn tortillas the little bits of scum were indistinguishable from the tortillas bits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question I pose to you is this. Is fond impaired by these 'impurities?' Would fond somehow be improved if you skimmed the scum, reduced it and then made your sauce/gravy? Of course not. The thought is ludicrous. Fond is one of the best tasting foods on this planet. As is. 'Impurities' and all.

Why is unskimmed fond revered and unskimmed stock despised?

"He could blanch anything in the fryolator and finish it in the microwave or under the salamander. Talented guy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More gelatin, that's interesting, I wonder what is behind that? I like the way the Chinese do it, well for chicken anyway. They blanch the bones in water for a minute before adding to the master stock. The scum gets washed away. They have no reverence for this new scum stock and discard it. Now if the Chinese don't care for scum, I guess I don't either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a general rule - whenever somebody talks about "impurities" or "toxins", I am highly skeptical. Both terms are used as a catch all for unknown things presumed to be bad, often without any evidence.

Just what is is "impure" about stock scum? It comes from the chicken or other meat, just the same as the other components do. It is mostly various coagulated proteins, along with some fats. It is no different in principle from other proteins and fits in the meat.

Skimming scum is purely aesthetic as far as I can see - there is no flavor problem.

Scum can be removed later by filtering the stock through a coffee filter, or even a very fine tamis.

Nathan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking it to it's logical conclusion, if the scum (including the copious amounts produced upon the first blanch) is indeed the same as the fond from a roast, then collecting the scum and then roasting it in a roasting pan and then deglazing should produce a very quick but very flavourful brown stock.

PS: I am a guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had an interesting "experiment" last fall. We were without power for 5 days, and as stuff in the upstairs freezer started to thaw, I pulled out a huge bag of chicken bones, but them in the stock pot with water (I never put veg in when I make stock), set it to simmer, and promptly fell asleep. I didn't skim. The next morning, all of that junk that you would skim had come together and congealed. I ended up with a very clear stock.

Susan Fahning aka "snowangel"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had an interesting "experiment" last fall.  We were without power for 5 days, and as stuff in the upstairs freezer started to thaw, I pulled out a huge bag of chicken bones, but them in the stock pot with water (I never put veg in when I make stock), set it to simmer, and promptly fell asleep.  I didn't skim.  The next morning, all of that junk that you would skim had come together and congealed.  I ended up with a very clear stock.

Hrmm... I'll have to try that next time. How did it taste?

PS: I am a guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do the non-scumm-scimmers not skim at all?  Even the fat?

I remove the fat. I don't skim it though. I chill it and take the fat off the top.

As far as fat emulsifying as you simmer stock... that I have yet to see proof of either.

Edited by scott123 (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Fond" and "Stock" is the same thing, at least it is supposed to be, according to "The Escoffier Cook Book".  Skimming gives the finished sauce a much more clean flavor, and allows the bouquet of any aromatics added to the stock to be pronounced (sp).  It also helps to clarify the finished sauce (assuming that your sauce is made from reducing and not rouxing or slurrying).  I know from personal experience that a obsessively scimmed stock will have more geletin, and therefore require less reducing than a non-skimmed stock/fond.

I've always considered fond to be the dried on bits in the roasting pan which are then used for sauce making. Stock is the liquid left over from simmering meat/poultry. In essence they are the same- the same sauces one can make with fond can be made with stock. Stock, reduced enough, will crisp up and stick to the pan, just like fond will. But I wouldn't classify stock and fond as the same thing.

You exclude roux based sauces. Are you saying that roux/slurry based sauces, because they are unskimmed, are dirtier tasting than flourless sauces?

As far as the increase in gelatin is concerned... I can't see the science behind that. Skimming doesn't add collagen to stock. If anything you might be taking collagen away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just what is is "impure" about stock scum?  It comes from the chicken or other meat, just the same as the other components do.

The French chefs of history are reknowned for using every part of the animal. For creating masterpieces of everything. Nothing wasted. The innovation and creativity has been astounding. And yet... this part of the animal, this tasteless yet nutritious component, they stick up their noses at. Pourquoi?

Sure, for clear stocks, skimming is critical. I'm not questioning that. If a stockmaking manual recommends something to the effect of skimming for clarity, I'd have no problem with that. But skimming for clarity AND palatability? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remove the fat. I don't skim it though. I chill it and take the fat off the top.

As far as fat emulsifying as you simmer stock... that I have yet to see proof of either.

"He could blanch anything in the fryolator and finish it in the microwave or under the salamander. Talented guy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had an interesting "experiment" last fall.  We were without power for 5 days, and as stuff in the upstairs freezer started to thaw, I pulled out a huge bag of chicken bones, but them in the stock pot with water (I never put veg in when I make stock), set it to simmer, and promptly fell asleep.  I didn't skim.  The next morning, all of that junk that you would skim had come together and congealed.  I ended up with a very clear stock.

Hrmm... I'll have to try that next time. How did it taste?

Wonderful.

Susan Fahning aka "snowangel"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chicken soup is popular on one side of my family (Hungarian) and I was always told that scum is just cooked chicken blood rising to the surface. There's nothing wrong with it, and you eat the same stuff when you eat chicken prepared any other way. It just happens to float to the surface in boiling water is all, where you can see it. But we always skimmed because, as I was told, it makes for a clearer soup in the end, which is what Hungarian soup is supposed to be.

And no, it doesn't taste like anything. Fond on the other hand, which is the same cooked blood dripping out, is mixed with fat drippings and is therefore more flavourful.

Can anybody back up the fond/scum = blood thing I was told, or is my family just nuts? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

yeah, and no, sugarella, the scum is supposed to be surface proteins in chicken broth, does fat play a role in clarity, yes as well, probably, seeing as the proteins and the fat both rise to the top, and emulsify together during boiling. i don't really know whether or not this is right, please correct me if i'm wrong. it seems like the case. however, this leaves me with the following dilemma: when making glace i also skim taking all of the remaining fat off as well as more protein, and can attest to the off flavors of that skimmed protein material. i think it doesn't really hurt the final product the less you take off (protein material, not fat), but the protein material definately doesn't do it for me. and gelatin is what if not protein? i suppose that all protein is not created equal, therefore the gelatin which tastes good is different form scum which tastes bad, and the magical application of heat causes the scum to rise forth. cryptic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...