Sheldon wrote:
Janet Bostwick wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote:

Sheldon is correct about repeatedly mixing the fat back into the broth. If
you don't mind finding globs of fat on the surface of everything you make
later with the broth, then stir away. As far as "sterile", why would you
be concerned about that? Nothing else in your world is sterile, except
bandages, until you open them.

I was only thinking of the most efficient way to cool a body of liquid by
the method described. I recently heard of someone pouring hot concentrated
stock over ice in a strainer as a way of capturing the fat.

The hot stock would simply melt the ice, there'd be no ice for the fat
to cling to, not that it would cling anyway, it won't... by the time
the stock cooled it would have melted so much ice you'd have stock tea
(weak stock tea). Then you'd need to reduce the stock, you'd have
created a viscious cycle of cooling, heating, and reducing, removing no
fat at all, none. And why would you want to remove the fat prior to
the stock cooling, the fat layer more than anything else is what
prevents contamination.

Again, there is no reason whatsoever to cool stock quickly (stock is
not like custard). Freshly made stock is virtually sterile, certainly
as sterile as bottled water. Actually with foods there is no such
thing is absolute sterile (even hermatically sealed medically sterile
saline solution has a shelf life)... but for all practical purposes all
freshly boiled liquids are plenty sterile enough to safely remain at
room temperature, *undisturbed*, for many, many hours... the fat layer
maintains the stock sterilility/integrity for a long time.... one of
the oldest food preservation methods... sealing foods in their own fat
is not much different from sealing foods with wax. Wax coated cheeses
can stay at room temperature for a long time too.

Anyone whose chicken stock tastes sour it's not from cooling slowly at
room temperature, it's from using poultry backs and other garbage to
make stock, spinal cord creates sour tasting stock, fact. Anyone who
saves poultry trimmings for stock is making swill, not stock. Next
time yoose plan on making stock ask yourselves whether yoose live in a
third world country, that to survive you need to salvage garbage... the
bums who dumpster dive US restaurants for half eaten food are dining
better than yoose.

I only buy whole chickens (cut-up parts is salvage from cancerous
birds), the very first thing I do is cut out the back and toss it where
it belongs, in the trash. I never roast a whole chicken without first
cutting out the back. I save no trimmings, I make stock from whole
birds that have been well cleaned including cutting out the backs,
chicken is cheap... I can afford $5 worth of chicken to make two
gallons of stock. And I'm not about to invest all the time and effort
to make swill... I don't use rotting tomatoes in my sauce either, those
go in my composter, not my sauce pot. Yoose scraps savers can't tell
me you don't eat shit.

Sheldon

Notice how dogturd has changed from "sterile" to "virtually sterile"
since his previous post. Keep backpedaling, dogturd!

pssst! don't anyone tell him there's a cliff behind him...

salgud wrote:

Sheldon wrote:

Janet Bostwick wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote:

Sheldon is correct about repeatedly mixing the fat back into the broth. If
you don't mind finding globs of fat on the surface of everything you make
later with the broth, then stir away. As far as "sterile", why would you
be concerned about that? Nothing else in your world is sterile, except
bandages, until you open them.

I was only thinking of the most efficient way to cool a body of liquid by
the method described. I recently heard of someone pouring hot concentrated
stock over ice in a strainer as a way of capturing the fat.

The hot stock would simply melt the ice, there'd be no ice for the fat
to cling to, not that it would cling anyway, it won't... by the time
the stock cooled it would have melted so much ice you'd have stock tea
(weak stock tea). Then you'd need to reduce the stock, you'd have
created a viscious cycle of cooling, heating, and reducing, removing no
fat at all, none. And why would you want to remove the fat prior to
the stock cooling, the fat layer more than anything else is what
prevents contamination.

Again, there is no reason whatsoever to cool stock quickly (stock is
not like custard). Freshly made stock is virtually sterile, certainly
as sterile as bottled water. Actually with foods there is no such
thing is absolute sterile (even hermatically sealed medically sterile
saline solution has a shelf life)... but for all practical purposes all
freshly boiled liquids are plenty sterile enough to safely remain at
room temperature, *undisturbed*, for many, many hours... the fat layer
maintains the stock sterilility/integrity for a long time.... one of
the oldest food preservation methods... sealing foods in their own fat
is not much different from sealing foods with wax. Wax coated cheeses
can stay at room temperature for a long time too.

Anyone whose chicken stock tastes sour it's not from cooling slowly at
room temperature, it's from using poultry backs and other garbage to
make stock, spinal cord creates sour tasting stock, fact. Anyone who
saves poultry trimmings for stock is making swill, not stock. Next
time yoose plan on making stock ask yourselves whether yoose live in a
third world country, that to survive you need to salvage garbage... the
bums who dumpster dive US restaurants for half eaten food are dining
better than yoose.

I only buy whole chickens (cut-up parts is salvage from cancerous
birds), the very first thing I do is cut out the back and toss it where
it belongs, in the trash. I never roast a whole chicken without first
cutting out the back. I save no trimmings, I make stock from whole
birds that have been well cleaned including cutting out the backs,
chicken is cheap... I can afford $5 worth of chicken to make two
gallons of stock. And I'm not about to invest all the time and effort
to make swill... I don't use rotting tomatoes in my sauce either, those
go in my composter, not my sauce pot. Yoose scraps savers can't tell
me you don't eat shit.

Sheldon


Notice how dogturd has changed from "sterile" to "virtually sterile"
since his previous post. Keep backpedaling, dogturd!

pssst! don't anyone tell him there's a cliff behind him...


I use a pressure cooker to make stock and leave the lid and rocker on
while it cools in the 'frige.

I can Guaran-damn-tee you my stock is sterile since I pressure cook it
for 45 to 60 minutes. ;-) Pressure cooking for 20 minutes minumum is the
next best thing to an autoclave......

I've posted pics of my stock. I'm sure you'll agree it's the real thing.

aem wrote:

wff_ng_7 wrote:

"Food Snob" wrote:

I agree, but you do have to admit that his statement "VERY, VERY FEW
here can actually cook" has a grain of truth.

I don't know about that. Maybe just a grain. Off the top of my head, I can
think of probably two dozen that would seem to have a pretty good handle on
it, based on their descriptions of or questions about what they are doing. [snip]


Yes, and many legitimate questions are still answered here. But, if
you looked back at rfc archives to, say, five or eight years ago you
would find a much higher proportion of knowledgeable, even expert,
posts about cooking. Not just recipes randomly scavenged from other
websites, but explications of technique and discussions of variations.
Standards and ambitions were noticeably higher than they are now.
Newsgroup participation seems to have a sort of long wave cycle. I
think we're currently swinging up from a trough.... -aem


Rather than criticizing, you could try _doing_ what you just mentioned
above?

It's always easier to whine than to do something constructive!

Reminds me of the damned day shifters at work. :-P
Gods I'm glad I work nights now! We actually work!

OmManiPadmiOmelet wrote:
aem wrote:
Yes, and many legitimate questions are still answered here. But, if
you looked back at rfc archives to, say, five or eight years ago you
would find a much higher proportion of knowledgeable, even expert,
posts about cooking. Not just recipes randomly scavenged from other
websites, but explications of technique and discussions of variations.
Standards and ambitions were noticeably higher than they are now.
Newsgroup participation seems to have a sort of long wave cycle. I
think we're currently swinging up from a trough.... -aem


Rather than criticizing, you could try _doing_ what you just mentioned
above?

It's always easier to whine than to do something constructive!

And you could try reading with your brain in gear. It's a simple
statement of my opinion about the history and current status of the
group, in response to opinions of others. Not a criticism, not a
whine, as anyone less defensive could easily see. -aem

salgud wrote:

Notice how dogturd has changed from "sterile" to "virtually sterile"
since his previous post. Keep backpedaling, dogturd!

pssst! don't anyone tell him there's a cliff behind him...

How does "sterile" and "virtually sterile" differ in the kitchen?
Have you considered that every time you inject your own uglines and name
calling into a post, that you're no better than who you complain about?

aem wrote:

OmManiPadmiOmelet wrote:

aem wrote:

Yes, and many legitimate questions are still answered here. But, if
you looked back at rfc archives to, say, five or eight years ago you
would find a much higher proportion of knowledgeable, even expert,
posts about cooking. Not just recipes randomly scavenged from other
websites, but explications of technique and discussions of variations.
Standards and ambitions were noticeably higher than they are now.
Newsgroup participation seems to have a sort of long wave cycle. I
think we're currently swinging up from a trough.... -aem


Rather than criticizing, you could try _doing_ what you just mentioned
above?

It's always easier to whine than to do something constructive!


And you could try reading with your brain in gear. It's a simple
statement of my opinion about the history and current status of the
group, in response to opinions of others. Not a criticism, not a
whine, as anyone less defensive could easily see. -aem


You might not be enjoying the group right now, but I am.
If you don't like it, you can always leave.

Frankly, I've not seen you contribute much other than whining lately...
so you have no grounds to complain.

If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.

Posts like that one contribute nothing.

"OmManiPadmiOmelet" wrote:
I use a pressure cooker to make stock and leave the lid and rocker on
while it cools in the 'frige.

I can Guaran-damn-tee you my stock is sterile since I pressure cook it
for 45 to 60 minutes. ;-) Pressure cooking for 20 minutes minumum is the
next best thing to an autoclave......

I've posted pics of my stock. I'm sure you'll agree it's the real thing.

So how does it compare to stock done at a slow simmer? I don't have a
pressure cooker*, so I have never tried it that way. There's an interesting
note in Julia Child's "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" on using
pressure cookers for stock. She says the time should be limited to about 20
minutes for poultry stock, as it acquires an unpleasant taste with longer
times. Most stock recipes also say don't boil, but obviously things are
boiling in a pressure cooker. I'm willing to believe you're getting decent
results if you're satisfied with the end product.

I do the slow simmer thing, and do it for hours. There's something about
seeing that big copper pot sitting on the stove top, with great aromas
drifting through the house that is very comforting. Not something I
necessarily want to do in warm weather (the hours long part), but Tuesday
was relatively cool here.

*I do actually have a pressure cooker, but it's more one of those "display
only" kitchen items that never gets used. Not quite an antique, but pretty
old. I believe it dates to the 1930s, but perhaps it's older than that. It
has a patent date of 1832 on it (and that's legitimate, I looked it up on
the Patent Office web site). It was made in Germany. A nice historical
relic.

--
( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )

wff_ng_7 wrote:

So how does it compare to stock done at a slow simmer? I don't have a
pressure cooker*, so I have never tried it that way.
[snip]

I do the slow simmer thing, and do it for hours. There's something about
seeing that big copper pot sitting on the stove top, with great aromas
drifting through the house that is very comforting.

.... and which actually is an argument against that copper pot and for a
pressure cooker, at least according to Heston Blumenthal (see below).

Victor


Relieve the pressure

Heston Blumenthal
Saturday February 7, 2004

Guardian

OK, being awarded three Michelin stars at the Fat Duck is fantastic - a
dream, really - but it's terrifying at the same time. So it's a relief
to get back to the business of cooking. I'm a sucker for hi-tech kitchen
tools (though readers of my recent recipe column may have guessed that
already). Anyway, at the Fat Duck we've just started using a brilliant
gadget to make stocks. It's not exactly cutting-edge - it's the humble
pressure cooker - but it makes stock better and quicker than any other
method I know of.

Now, this may seem obvious, but when you smell those wonderful odours
while you're cooking, it's a sign that you're losing flavours through
those volatile elements that disappear in the air. A pressure cooker,
however, keeps the aromas and flavour molecules sealed in the pot. Also,
it cooks at a higher temperature than conventional methods - as high as
140°C, which is round about the point when those lovely meaty flavours
in the stock really begin to develop. In a normal stockpot, by contrast,
water evaporates at boiling point, taking flavour with it. A final
advantage is that the pressure keeps the liquid inside the cooker much
less turbulent, which helps to keep the stock that much clearer even
before you clarify it (unlike the traditional method, which renders all
sorts of impurities).

So, sweat some chopped onion and star anise (this really brings out the
meaty flavours) in a little oil, add the stock bones or meat, along with
water (or stock), clamp on the lid of your pressure cooker, and set over
the heat. And, after 30 minutes' cooking and 10 minutes' cooling down
time, you will have the best, truest tasting stock you've ever made.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

"OmManiPadmiOmelet" wrote in message
...
I use a pressure cooker to make stock and leave the lid and rocker on
while it cools in the 'frige.

I can Guaran-damn-tee you my stock is sterile since I pressure cook it
for 45 to 60 minutes. ;-) Pressure cooking for 20 minutes minumum is the
next best thing to an autoclave......

I've posted pics of my stock. I'm sure you'll agree it's the real thing.

I always use my pressure cooker for stock. It always comes out good.

Om please will you mail me, I lost yours in a recent crash

O

Bacteria multiplies quickly in lukewarm liquid. Chill the stock as
quickly as possible. Either make it concentrated and then dump in some
iceblocks to speed chilling, or refrigerate asap. Most food poisoning
happens in the home through dodgy practices. Read more he
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/educator/educator6-2a.htm. This is one area
where bravado isn't a great idea.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Bacteria multiplies quickly in lukewarm liquid. Chill the stock as
quickly as possible. Either make it concentrated and then dump in some
iceblocks to speed chilling, or refrigerate asap. Most food poisoning
happens in the home through dodgy practices. Read more he
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/educator/educator6-2a.htm. This is one area
where bravado isn't a great idea.


Ice blocks? Now you're diluting it as the ice melts.

wff_ng_7 wrote:

"OmManiPadmiOmelet" wrote:

I use a pressure cooker to make stock and leave the lid and rocker on
while it cools in the 'frige.

I can Guaran-damn-tee you my stock is sterile since I pressure cook it
for 45 to 60 minutes. ;-) Pressure cooking for 20 minutes minumum is the
next best thing to an autoclave......

I've posted pics of my stock. I'm sure you'll agree it's the real thing.


So how does it compare to stock done at a slow simmer? I don't have a
pressure cooker*, so I have never tried it that way. There's an interesting
note in Julia Child's "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" on using
pressure cookers for stock. She says the time should be limited to about 20
minutes for poultry stock, as it acquires an unpleasant taste with longer
times. Most stock recipes also say don't boil, but obviously things are
boiling in a pressure cooker. I'm willing to believe you're getting decent
results if you're satisfied with the end product.

I do the slow simmer thing, and do it for hours. There's something about
seeing that big copper pot sitting on the stove top, with great aromas
drifting through the house that is very comforting. Not something I
necessarily want to do in warm weather (the hours long part), but Tuesday
was relatively cool here.

*I do actually have a pressure cooker, but it's more one of those "display
only" kitchen items that never gets used. Not quite an antique, but pretty
old. I believe it dates to the 1930s, but perhaps it's older than that. It
has a patent date of 1832 on it (and that's legitimate, I looked it up on
the Patent Office web site). It was made in Germany. A nice historical
relic.


I prefer to save electricity.
I can't afford to run the stove for hours when I make stock. ;-) I use
stock too frequently.

Here is a picture of Trotter (pig foot) stock that was pressure cooked
for 1 hour:
http://tinypic.com/w1d0na.jpg
That's after defatting and refrigeration.

I really do think it's every bit as rich in flavor.

You'd have to compare it yourself to see.
As for timing, pressure cooking for stock is going to depend on what you
are cooking. 1 hour is about the max and that's for really tough meats
like pigs feet or chicken feet. I use 45 minutes for chicken feet.

For using whole chicken, or regular pork or beef meat, I agree with
Julia for 20 to 30 minutes max.

If I use the pressure cooker JUST for cooking stew or soup, 15 to 20
minutes is the max time.

Om

"OmManiPadmiOmelet" wrote:
I prefer to save electricity.
I can't afford to run the stove for hours when I make stock. ;-) I use
stock too frequently.

I guess a lot depends on climate and time of year. Here in cool weather I
don't consider it to even be a cost. With the stove on, the furnace just
runs less. So it's essentially free in winter. In summer, it's a different
story, as the heat would have to be removed by the A/C system if it is
running.

I've got a gas stove and a gas furnace. A rough calculation indicates 5
hours of simmer time on the stove uses comparable gas to 1 or 2 minutes of
furnace run time. So it's not very significant to my gas bill in any case.

Here is a picture of Trotter (pig foot) stock that was pressure cooked for
1 hour:
http://tinypic.com/w1d0na.jpg
That's after defatting and refrigeration.

I really do think it's every bit as rich in flavor.

You'd have to compare it yourself to see.

Looks very good, though I've heard the gelatinous quality is not necessarily
indicative of flavor... the reference being to using chicken feet. What goes
in certainly makes a difference. This week's poultry stock was only
moderately gelatinous, still pourable. The last batch I made was definitely
not pourable, probably very similar to the one in your picture. This lastest
one was all chicken, while the last one had duck and goose in it too.

Maybe some day I'll try the pressure cooker thing, but it might be a while.
Not that they cost much, I saw a cheapie this morning in a store add for
around $18 (too small, I'm sure). I could have had my grandmother's for
free... the issue is room not cost... where do I put all this stuff? ;-)

--
( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )

"Sheldon" wrote in message
oups.com...

Doug Kanter wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Bacteria multiplies quickly in lukewarm liquid. Chill the stock as
quickly as possible. Either make it concentrated and then dump in some
iceblocks to speed chilling, or refrigerate asap. Most food poisoning
happens in the home through dodgy practices. Read more he
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/educator/educator6-2a.htm. This is one area
where bravado isn't a great idea.


Ice blocks? Now you're diluting it as the ice melts.

More importantly there are virtually no bacteria to multiply in freshly
made uncontaminated/undisturbed stock. There is no more reason
(actually there's less reason) to cool freshly made stock quickly than
to cool freshly baked bread quickly.

It's far safer to let stock cool slowly undisturbed than to go sticking
unsterile utensiles in to stir, and pour into unsterile containers
thereby contaminating with unsterile air... kitchenware from your
cupboard is far from sterile so why pour sterile stock from a just
boiled in sterile pot into contaminated kitchenware containers. Duh

I'm now positive that very few of you GED drop outs (and like 98% of
you are) ever passed sixth grade general science... your widdle pea
brains are what's sterile!

Sheldon


Sheldon, I doubt anyone in this discussion has bothered to consider the
definition of "sterile". Dictionary? Isn't that like....a book? Something
you open using a long stick, in case it tries to bite your hand off?

OmManiPadmiOmelet wrote:

I prefer to save electricity.
I can't afford to run the stove for hours when I make stock. ;-) I use
stock too frequently.

Pressure processed stock saves some time (maybe) but doesn't really
save much energy.... most of the energy is used to initially bring the
the liquid up to temperature... gotta do that regardless which kinda
pot) and then pressure pots typically require higher enrgy output
during use. And with your puny pot, that you can't fill more than 2/3,
you'd need to make three batches to my one. And no pressure processed
stock will taste as good as conventially cooked (you can't taste and
correct seasoning while processing). All in all conventially cooked
stock costs about the same in fuel used, tastes much better, and isn't
really slower... because one can do other things while the pot is
simmering... do you just sit there and watch your pressure pot do it's
thing. You're making fast food stock... pressure pots *process* food,
they don't cook. "Pressure Cooker" is definitely a misnomer,
manufacturer's hyperbole.

Sheldon