Hi - I'd like to try out making chicken stock sometime for some
homemade soups but wasn't sure what kind of chicken parts work best in
the stock. As my household is only 2 people, we never have occasion to
buy and roast a large whole chicken. Recently we used a small whole
chicken to cut up for breasts for a dish that night and froze the
legs, thighs and wings for later. Questions (lots!)

1. The rest of the chicken that's left, can I just throw that into the
stockpot whole - raw? Or do I need to freeze the carcasses until I
have more of them since they are small?
2. The stuff that comes in the plastic bag stuffed inside of the
chicken (do they all come like that?) - in or out of the stock?
3. Or is better to use a carcass after I've roasted the chicken whole?
4. Can I mix carcasses that are raw and ones that are cooked?
5. Dethaw or throw in frozen?
6. Is the stock better using legs, thighs etc in it instead of just
the carcass? For these do you use cooked leftovers or just raw parts?

Now for the after part of making the stock, I guess it would be ideal
to make the soup the same day, but since I'll probably have more stock
and since making the stock is fairly time consuming I'll freeze
batches of the stock.

7. Just leave the container on the counter to dethaw, then make the
soup?

Any other tips on making stock would be great!

Thanks
Tanya

Tanya Quinn wrote:

> Hi - I'd like to try out making chicken stock sometime for some
> homemade soups but wasn't sure what kind of chicken parts work best in
> the stock. As my household is only 2 people, we never have occasion to
> buy and roast a large whole chicken. Recently we used a small whole
> chicken to cut up for breasts for a dish that night and froze the
> legs, thighs and wings for later. Questions (lots!)
>
> 1. The rest of the chicken that's left, can I just throw that into the
> stockpot whole - raw? Or do I need to freeze the carcasses until I
> have more of them since they are small?

Why not freeze them, and as you use the breast, leg, etc, save the bones
and gristle and put them in the bag in the freezer. Whenever you think you
have enough chicken scraps, simmer them for hours to make the stock. It's
not all that critical.

> 2. The stuff that comes in the plastic bag stuffed inside of the
> chicken (do they all come like that?) - in or out of the stock?

Use everything except the liver. The liver tastes too strong.

> 3. Or is better to use a carcass after I've roasted the chicken whole?
> 4. Can I mix carcasses that are raw and ones that are cooked?
> 5. Dethaw or throw in frozen?

The roasted carcass will probably taste a little different. It will be
good either way. Yes, you can mix them. Thawed or frozen doesn't matter.

> 6. Is the stock better using legs, thighs etc in it instead of just
> the carcass? For these do you use cooked leftovers or just raw parts?
>
> Now for the after part of making the stock, I guess it would be ideal
> to make the soup the same day, but since I'll probably have more stock
> and since making the stock is fairly time consuming I'll freeze
> batches of the stock.
>
> 7. Just leave the container on the counter to dethaw, then make the
> soup?

It doesn't matter. Just don't leave it out to thaw and then forget about it.

> Any other tips on making stock would be great!

Bay leaf and whole peppercorns. And if you have some fresh parsley, saute
it in a little chicken fat in the stockpot before you add the chicken
scraps and the water.

Best regards,
Bob

On 19 Feb 2004 15:34:50 -0800, (Tanya Quinn) wrote:

>Hi - I'd like to try out making chicken stock sometime for some
>homemade soups but wasn't sure what kind of chicken parts work best in
>the stock. As my household is only 2 people, we never have occasion to
>buy and roast a large whole chicken. Recently we used a small whole
>chicken to cut up for breasts for a dish that night and froze the
>legs, thighs and wings for later. Questions (lots!)

Answers -- lots -- in rfc archives. Google groups and use the
'advanced search' option to specify "chicken stock" in the thread
title. It is discussed endlessly.
>

>I'll freeze
>batches of the stock.
>
>7. Just leave the container on the counter to dethaw, then make the
>soup?

Do NOT leave any meat thing or meat-containing thing at room
temperature to defrost. No real need to 'defrost' anyhow -- just heave
(the contents) into a pan and turn on the heat.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 12:45:50 -0600, zxcvbob >
wrote:

>Frogleg wrote:

>> On 19 Feb 2004 15:34:50 -0800, (Tanya Quinn) wrote:

>>>I'll freeze
>>>batches of the stock.
>>>
>>>7. Just leave the container on the counter to dethaw, then make the
>>>soup?
>>
>>
>> Do NOT leave any meat thing or meat-containing thing at room
>> temperature to defrost. No real need to 'defrost' anyhow -- just heave
>> (the contents) into a pan and turn on the heat.
>
>You might leave them out for an hour or two to start thawing (so you can
>dump it out of the container.) As long as there's a bunch of ice in the
>middle, it will be fine. The whole container of partially frozen stock
>will remain at about 32 degrees until all the ice is melted.

No, it won't. But you won't die from frozen stock left unrefrigerated
for a while. I'm thinking a straight-sided hard plastic container of
some sort. That would take about 10 minutes at 'room temperature' to
thaw enough to ease the stock out of the container into a pot where it
could be heated up.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:57:51 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> wrote:

>"Frogleg" > wrote

>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 12:45:50 -0600, zxcvbob >
>> wrote:

>> >The whole container of partially frozen stock
>> >will remain at about 32 degrees until all the ice is melted.
>>
>> No, it won't.
>
>Yep, it will. It's well established that a water/ice mix will stabilize at
>or near the freezing point.

Only if insulated. True as a lab experiment. The entire process of
'thawing' implies a constant heat exchange, with the liquid absorbing
ambient heat and the ice melting. Damn, I need a digital,
instant-read thermometer! I know that this is one of those
counter-intuitive things, but I'm *sure* the completely liquified
portions of a container of chicken stock wouldn't be near freezing for
long. Cold, yes. Not up to ambient temperature, yes. But still
continuously providing a conduit from ambient surroundings to interior
ice. The edges have *got* to be warmer than freezing, else the ice
would never melt. You and Bob may be right about the physics; I'm
right about not leaving things out to thaw. :-)

"Frogleg" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:57:51 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Frogleg" > wrote
>
> >> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 12:45:50 -0600, zxcvbob >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >The whole container of partially frozen stock
> >> >will remain at about 32 degrees until all the ice is melted.
> >>
> >> No, it won't.
> >
> >Yep, it will. It's well established that a water/ice mix will stabilize
at
> >or near the freezing point.
>
> Only if insulated. True as a lab experiment. The entire process of
> 'thawing' implies a constant heat exchange, with the liquid absorbing
> ambient heat and the ice melting. Damn, I need a digital,
> instant-read thermometer! I know that this is one of those
> counter-intuitive things, but I'm *sure* the completely liquified
> portions of a container of chicken stock wouldn't be near freezing for
> long. Cold, yes. Not up to ambient temperature, yes. But still
> continuously providing a conduit from ambient surroundings to interior
> ice. The edges have *got* to be warmer than freezing, else the ice
> would never melt. You and Bob may be right about the physics; I'm
> right about not leaving things out to thaw. :-)

How typical of the newsgroup - you are "sure" without theory or data to back
you up. Think of a similar situation - a glass to iced tea, a gin and tonic,
any drink with ice cubes in it. Does the liquid get warm or does it even
warm up to just "cool?" No. At the edges it may be a few degrees warmer than
freezing, but that is still plenty cold to inhibit bacterial growth.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

Frogleg wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:57:51 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Frogleg" > wrote
>
>>>On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 12:45:50 -0600, zxcvbob >
>>>wrote:
>
>>>>The whole container of partially frozen stock
>>>>will remain at about 32 degrees until all the ice is melted.
>>>
>>>No, it won't.
>>
>>Yep, it will. It's well established that a water/ice mix will stabilize at
>>or near the freezing point.
>
> Only if insulated. True as a lab experiment. The entire process of
> 'thawing' implies a constant heat exchange, with the liquid absorbing
> ambient heat and the ice melting. Damn, I need a digital,
> instant-read thermometer! I know that this is one of those
> counter-intuitive things, but I'm *sure* the completely liquified
> portions of a container of chicken stock wouldn't be near freezing for
> long. Cold, yes. Not up to ambient temperature, yes. But still
> continuously providing a conduit from ambient surroundings to interior
> ice. The edges have *got* to be warmer than freezing, else the ice
> would never melt. You and Bob may be right about the physics; I'm
> right about not leaving things out to thaw. :-)

Well, not exactly. Here's a surprising bit of science that disagrees.
http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Thaw-counter.html

Pastorio

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 13:41:54 -0500, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote:

>Frogleg wrote:
>> I'm *sure* the completely liquified
>> portions of a container of chicken stock wouldn't be near freezing for
>> long. Cold, yes. Not up to ambient temperature, yes. But still
>> continuously providing a conduit from ambient surroundings to interior
>> ice. The edges have *got* to be warmer than freezing, else the ice
>> would never melt. You and Bob may be right about the physics; I'm
>> right about not leaving things out to thaw. :-)
>
>Well, not exactly. Here's a surprising bit of science that disagrees.
>http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Thaw-counter.html

The above concludes: "There is no risk in thawing these products
[incl. poultry] at room temperature." But the body of the article
mentions measuring bacterial growth after thawing "to an internal
temperature of 40F within the breast." How many home cooks set a
turkey out to thaw and insert a temperature probe to alarm when it
reaches 40F? I still can't help thinking that a certain amount of sly
reproduction is going on in the outer portions when "room temperature"
is 85F and the cook is prevented for an hour or 2 from preparing the
fowl.

Frogleg wrote:

> How many home cooks set a
> turkey out to thaw and insert a temperature probe to alarm when it
> reaches 40F?

I measure the temp as you suggest sometimes, depending on the stuff
in question. You don't necessarily need an alarm though

> I still can't help thinking that a certain amount of sly
> reproduction is going on in the outer portions when "room temperature"
> is 85F and the cook is prevented for an hour or 2 from preparing the
> fowl.

Why guess about it? Measure and find out.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

Reg wrote:

> Frogleg wrote:
>
>> How many home cooks set a
>> turkey out to thaw and insert a temperature probe to alarm when it
>> reaches 40F?
>
> I measure the temp as you suggest sometimes, depending on the stuff
> in question. You don't necessarily need an alarm though
>
>> I still can't help thinking that a certain amount of sly
>> reproduction is going on in the outer portions when "room temperature"
>> is 85F and the cook is prevented for an hour or 2 from preparing the
>> fowl.

Setting up an extreme situation doesn't negate the more reasonable
application. If it's 85F, throw a couple tea towels over it and it's
ok. And don't forget... it's about to be cooked.

> Why guess about it? Measure and find out.

Why worry about it at all? Cook the bird to 160F and be done with it.
Everything of consequence is dead at that temp; has been since 140F.

Pastorio

Bob (this one) wrote:

> Reg wrote:
>> Why guess about it? Measure and find out.
>
>
> Why worry about it at all? Cook the bird to 160F and be done with it.
> Everything of consequence is dead at that temp; has been since 140F.

If you're saying that product won't spoil while thawing at room temperature
I disagree, because I've seen it happen. It's a question of how long it sits
and at what temperature.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

Reg wrote:

> Bob (this one) wrote:
>
>> Reg wrote:
>>
>>> Why guess about it? Measure and find out.
>>
>> Why worry about it at all? Cook the bird to 160F and be done with it.
>> Everything of consequence is dead at that temp; has been since 140F.
>
> If you're saying that product won't spoil while thawing at room temperature
> I disagree, because I've seen it happen. It's a question of how long it
> sits and at what temperature.

I'm saying read the paper cited a few posts back so you understand the
setting. Then read the post to which I replied above. Then perhaps see
if you can restrain yourself from stating the obvious.

Of course food will spoil sitting out unrefrigerated long enough. And
of course spoilage isn't like clicking a light switch. Foods spoil
gradually. Cooking foods can eliminate any effects of spoilage under
certain circumstances. In others, the cooked food will be wholesome,
but flavor and texture will be off.

It's not a black/white situation.

Pastorio

Bob (this one) wrote:

> I'm saying read the paper cited a few posts back so you understand the
> setting. Then read the post to which I replied above. Then perhaps see
> if you can restrain yourself from stating the obvious.

"The setting" in this case is your previous post questioning why I
sometimes monitor product temperature while thawing it, which then
more or less required me to state the obvious, as you put it.

> Of course food will spoil sitting out unrefrigerated long enough. And of
> course spoilage isn't like clicking a light switch. Foods spoil
> gradually. Cooking foods can eliminate any effects of spoilage under
> certain circumstances. In others, the cooked food will be wholesome, but
> flavor and texture will be off.

I'm not big on the idea of cooking something that has acquired off
flavors or odors as a result of temperature abuse, even if safety
isn't an issue, and even if cooking may (or may not) fix it. Hence
the value of monitoring the temperature.

> It's not a black/white situation.

No, it certainly is not.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:31:02 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> wrote:

>"Frogleg" > wrote

>> Only if insulated. True as a lab experiment. The entire process of
>> 'thawing' implies a constant heat exchange, with the liquid absorbing
>> ambient heat and the ice melting. Damn, I need a digital,
>> instant-read thermometer! I know that this is one of those
>> counter-intuitive things, but I'm *sure* the completely liquified
>> portions of a container of chicken stock wouldn't be near freezing for
>> long.
>
>How typical of the newsgroup - you are "sure" without theory or data to back
>you up. Think of a similar situation - a glass to iced tea, a gin and tonic,
>any drink with ice cubes in it. Does the liquid get warm or does it even
>warm up to just "cool?" No. At the edges it may be a few degrees warmer than
>freezing, but that is still plenty cold to inhibit bacterial growth.

My birthday is next month. I'd *love* to have a nice digital
thermometer. :-) And promise to do experiments and report back. I'm
just trying to steer my way between gov't food agency advisories and
"my mother always left the turkey with dressing out for a week after
Thanksgiving, and none of *us* died." As I said, the water/ice
question is true in the lab, 'though rather counter-intuitive.