wff_ng_7 wrote:

"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? ;-)


I store my most frequently used pots in the oven...... G

I do think that the gelatinous quality of stock indicates the level of
richness, and that relates to flavor.

But, that's a personal opionion. G I used that stock to make a pot of
wild rice and just added onions, garlic, ginger and a little soy sauce.

Sheldon wrote:

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


shrugs

Works for me........

OmManiPadmiOmelet wrote:

I store my most frequently used pots in the oven...... G

So you don'r bake. G

I do think that the gelatinous quality of stock indicates the level of
richness, and that relates to flavor.

Richness in gelatin (mouth feel), not flavor... gelatin in of itself
has no flavor whatsoever... yes I can appreciate how you'd derive great
pleasure from a rich gelatinous texture in your mouth. Yup, when you
can't get the real thing you make do with pig's trotters and duck's
feet.hehe

Sheldon Knox

Sheldon wrote:

OmManiPadmiOmelet wrote:

I store my most frequently used pots in the oven...... G


So you don'r bake. G

That's accurate. ;-)
Baking is rare for me and when I do, the oven empties out onto the
kitchen floor...


I do think that the gelatinous quality of stock indicates the level of
richness, and that relates to flavor.


Richness in gelatin (mouth feel), not flavor... gelatin in of itself
has no flavor whatsoever... yes I can appreciate how you'd derive great
pleasure from a rich gelatinous texture in your mouth. Yup, when you
can't get the real thing you make do with pig's trotters and duck's
feet.hehe

Sheldon Knox

snork
You been hiding out in my oven???????

Sheldon wrote:
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

dogturd's got it all wrong again. "pressure pots *process* food,
they don't cook. "Pressure Cooker" is definitely a misnomer,
manufacturer's hyperbole."

Absolutely untrue, as anyone who knows anything about heat and pressure
could tell him, if he were capable of listening. Most liquids,
including water, boil at higher temperatures at higher pressure (just
like water boils at a lower temperature here in Denver, about 202
degrees instead of 212, because the normal atmospheric pressure is
lower at a mile of altitude). If you pressurize a pot when you cook,
you simply increase the temperature of the liquid inside by increasing
it's boiling point so that you can be cooking your stock at say, 230 or
240 degrees instead of 212. The little weight on top of the pressure
cooker merely increases the pressure inside by not allowing the steam
out until it has reached the desired pressure.

This can accelerate cooking considerably, just like cooking in a 400
degree oven will cook faster than a 300 degree oven. Of course, just
like cooking in a hotter oven can burn things or dry them out, cooking
at higher temperature in a pressure cooker may not give as good results
as cooking longer at a lower pressure and temperature. If you're happy
with the results, my guess is that in the case of stock, it's not a
problem.

There are also side effects to cooking under pressure which in some
cases, enhance the process, and in others, detract from the desired
result. The only way you could predict this would be to experiment and
see how it went.

Again, dogturd gives an opinion on something he obviously knows nothing
about. And he makes his pork chops with Shake-n-Bake!! LOL!

OmManiPadmiOmelet wrote:
Sheldon wrote:

OmManiPadmiOmelet wrote:

I store my most frequently used pots in the oven...... G


So you don'r bake. G

That's accurate. ;-)
Baking is rare for me and when I do, the oven empties out onto the
kitchen floor...


I do think that the gelatinous quality of stock indicates the level of
richness, and that relates to flavor.


Richness in gelatin (mouth feel), not flavor... gelatin in of itself
has no flavor whatsoever... yes I can appreciate how you'd derive great
pleasure from a rich gelatinous texture in your mouth. Yup, when you
can't get the real thing you make do with pig's trotters and duck's
feet.hehe

Sheldon Knox

snork
You been hiding out in my oven???????

I guess occasionally you bake a salami! hehe

Sheldon

Sheldon wrote:

OmManiPadmiOmelet wrote:

Sheldon wrote:


OmManiPadmiOmelet wrote:


I store my most frequently used pots in the oven...... G


So you don'r bake. G

That's accurate. ;-)
Baking is rare for me and when I do, the oven empties out onto the
kitchen floor...


I do think that the gelatinous quality of stock indicates the level of
richness, and that relates to flavor.


Richness in gelatin (mouth feel), not flavor... gelatin in of itself
has no flavor whatsoever... yes I can appreciate how you'd derive great
pleasure from a rich gelatinous texture in your mouth. Yup, when you
can't get the real thing you make do with pig's trotters and duck's
feet.hehe

Sheldon Knox

snork
You been hiding out in my oven???????


I guess occasionally you bake a salami! hehe

Sheldon


When I get the chance..... g

wff_ng_7 wrote:

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

From the article...
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.

I agree that there's probably something being lost into the air, but the
final result doesn't seem to be missing anything.

How do you know if you haven't tried the alternative?

A similar argument is made
against percolated coffee, which can produce great aromas while brewing but
loses a lot in the cup. But I still do perked coffee... and expresso, and
turkish, and each produces a unique experience that I enjoy.

The argument is not all that similar. Coffee is prepared in a few
minutes; traditionally made stock takes up to 12 hours. Much more is
inevitably lost in such a long time.

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).

This I find a bit strange. The water in a pressure cooker must be boiling to
generate steam and activate the pressure control system (weight or spring).
I've never seen the inside of a pressure cooker while it was working; there
are not glass topped ones as far as I know. How active is the boiling? I
know in the long simmers I do, which are considerably below the boiling
point, there is practically no visible motion of the liquid... you really
have to stare at it to see anything.

Regarding supposed less turbulence in the pressure cooker, I would be
inclined to defer to Heston Blumenthal who is famous for not taking
anything for granted and for doubting every accepted wisdom. He is
constantly experimenting to find the best way of doing something. He is
not the only one with the opinion about less turbulence in the pressure
cooker - see, for example,
http://forums.egullet.com/index.php?showtopic=40548.

Victor

"Victor Sack" wrote:
How do you know if you haven't tried the alternative?

I would try it, except I'd have to get a pressure cooker. As I mentioned in
another posting, I'm not ready to get one, mostly for the shortage of room
to store things. Not just for stock making. I know they can be used for a
lot of other things, but I'm in no rush to try those out either at the
moment.

I guess in cooking, as in a lot of things, it's the overall experience that
gives satisfaction, not just the final result (the journey is more important
than the destination?). So perhaps I could get a better stock using a
pressure cooker, but then I'd miss the aspects of making stock that I
cherish, such as the aroma drifting through the house.

This I find a bit strange. The water in a pressure cooker must be boiling
to
generate steam and activate the pressure control system (weight or
spring).
I've never seen the inside of a pressure cooker while it was working;
there
are not glass topped ones as far as I know. How active is the boiling? I
know in the long simmers I do, which are considerably below the boiling
point, there is practically no visible motion of the liquid... you really
have to stare at it to see anything.

Regarding supposed less turbulence in the pressure cooker, I would be
inclined to defer to Heston Blumenthal who is famous for not taking
anything for granted and for doubting every accepted wisdom. He is
constantly experimenting to find the best way of doing something. He is
not the only one with the opinion about less turbulence in the pressure
cooker - see, for example,
http://forums.egullet.com/index.php?showtopic=40548.

That article is very interesting, though I haven't read the whole thing yet,
mostly just the stock part. I can believe a pressure cooker would have less
turbulence than open boiling, but I'm having problems believing it has less
than the slow simmer. Maybe there is something here though that I am just
not getting. Personally I haven't been real concerned about the clarity of
the stock I'm making for the uses I have. My stock has been fairly clean in
any case. I can see there are uses where clarity would be extremely
important, but I'm not doing those yet.

Thanks for the pointer; there is a lot of good info there.

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

On 2006-04-20, Victor Sack wrote:
... and which actually is an argument against that copper pot and for a
pressure cooker, at least according to Heston Blumenthal (see below).

He's not alone, Victor. A very respected chef, Gary Danko:

http://www.garydanko.com/site/bio.html

.....is also pro-pressure cooker. Here is a recipe for pressure cooker
veal stock I picked up while attending one of his cooking classes at
Draeger's in Palo Alto, CA.

----------

TIME SAVING VEAL STOCK PREPARED IN A PRESSURE COOKER

Ingredients:
1 lb veal breast or veal shank, shoulder or nec, cut into 4-inch
chunks
1 lb veal shank bones, cut into 3-inch pieces
1 3oz carrot, peeled, cut into 3-inch lengths
8 ozs onions, peeled, cut in half
1/2 bay leaf
1 sprig thyme
1/4 C dry white wine
parsely stems
1 whole leek, split down center, washed well

Method:
Place breast and bones evenly spread on a roasting pan or heavy
sheet pan with sides. Roast in 350 deg F oven until golden brown,
about 1 hour, or so. Place breast, bones and vegetables in pressure
cooker making sure that pot is no more than 2/3 full. Deglaze roasting
pan with white wine and add to pressure cooker. Cover with water
1-inch above the bones, meat and aromatics. Secure lid to pressure
cooker, place over medium high heat and bring to a full boil or steam,
reduce to a simmer keeping the pressure on medium steam. Simmer
gently and consistently for 45-60 mins. Remove from heat and cool
down naturally or use the rapid cooldown method. Strain through
colander reserving the bones and meat. To make a secondary stock cover
bones with water and bring to a boil simmering and additional hour.
The resulting stock will be gelatinous and may be used as a neutral
stock or poured over fresh roasted bones, meat, and aromatics to make a
new veal stock richer in gelatin.

Strain the stock through chinois or cheesecloth. If you plan to store
the stock for a few days leave the fat on the top. To make a glaze,
make sure there is no fat present. If storing in the refrigerator
for a week or longer, the stock must be boiled every 3-4 days. This
to keep from spoiling.

-----------

He didn't do this one in the cooking class, but included it in the
recipe handouts. For my previous post on Gary's complete Ritz-Carlton
veal stock recipe:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?V6C821FFC

enjoy =D
nb











He didn't use it in the class, instead
focusing on the classic method of preparation of veal stocks for use
in fine cuisine.