Last night I made beef stock. Tasted very watery.
Today I spent several hours reducing same.
Tastes better but still very weak.
Reading about, I see that this stock is intended to be the foundation
for other things; serving as a 'base' with which to build i.e. use it
to deglaze a pan, then (thus fortified, or with additional flavoring)
reduce further and thicken.
Is there a standard taste or feel that cooks use to determine how much
reduction of the stock is enough or is that something that is a
variable, corrected during a final reduction?
Certainly the stronger the stock, the more flavorful the final sauce.
- Mike

Michael Horowitz wrote:
> Last night I made beef stock. Tasted very watery.
> Today I spent several hours reducing same.
> Tastes better but still very weak.
> Reading about, I see that this stock is intended to be the foundation
> for other things; serving as a 'base' with which to build i.e. use it
> to deglaze a pan, then (thus fortified, or with additional flavoring)
> reduce further and thicken.
> Is there a standard taste or feel that cooks use to determine how much
> reduction of the stock is enough or is that something that is a
> variable, corrected during a final reduction?
> Certainly the stronger the stock, the more flavorful the final sauce.
> - Mike
>
Did you roast your beef bones?

TammyM

Michael Horowitz > wrote:

> Is there a standard taste or feel that cooks use to determine how much
> reduction of the stock is enough or is that something that is a
> variable, corrected during a final reduction?
> Certainly the stronger the stock, the more flavorful the final sauce.

I am afraid that any such standard taste or feel would be quite
impossible to describe, unless you reduce the stock further to the
demi-glace consistency. However, you should not be discouraged, as it
appears that you have done everything basically correctly. It is just
as you say - a stock is a base, a foundation, a stepping stone - and has
in its basic state very little flavour of its own. Jacques Pépin will
(actually does, in his _Complete Techniques_) tell you that such a stock
is supposed to be practically tasteless.

Victor

"Michael Horowitz" > wrote in message
...
> Last night I made beef stock. Tasted very watery.
> Today I spent several hours reducing same.
> Tastes better but still very weak.
> Reading about, I see that this stock is intended to be the foundation
> for other things; serving as a 'base' with which to build i.e. use it
> to deglaze a pan, then (thus fortified, or with additional flavoring)
> reduce further and thicken.
> Is there a standard taste or feel that cooks use to determine how much
> reduction of the stock is enough or is that something that is a
> variable, corrected during a final reduction?
> Certainly the stronger the stock, the more flavorful the final sauce.
> - Mike
>

I have a myriad of questions

How did you make the stock? How much water did you use? Did you use bare
(rendering) bones or bones that had some meat on them? (I tend to save
bones left over from t-bone or porterhouse steaks or standing rib roasts, so
they still have a bit of meat on them*; store the bones in the freezer for
when you're ready to make stock.) If you used rendering bones from the
butcher you should roast them in the oven first for a couple of hours.

Did you add any beef stock base (I hesitate to call it boullion since that
conjurs up images of salty cube things) to enhance it? Did you cook it with
root vegetables? Did you make a bouquet garni of herbs and spices to season
the stock?

Stock needs to simmer on *very* low heat for a very long time... we're
talking 8-10 hours. You cannot rush it.

You mentioned in another post you wound up with lots of beef fat. I'm
assuming (probably a bad idea) you refrigerated it and the fat congealed on
the top? (Yes, this is a question.) From that I surmise you used bones
with meat and some fat still on them. There's nothing wrong with that. But
once you spoon off the congealed fat a good homemade stock should be fairly
gelatinous in its chilled state. If it's liquidyand watery, you made broth
with fat on top, not stock.

*You should always strain stock of added vegetables and any bits of meat and
remove the bouquet garni prior to chilling it.

Jill

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
> I generally simmer a stock for about 8 hours, remove all solids, then
> continue to simmer until what remains will coat the back of a spoon.

I've seen two cooking shows which independently
demonstrated a technique for determining thickness
by coating a back of a spoon, then running a finger
to wipe off a stripe through the coating. It was
judged thick enough when the material did not flow
into the stripe. This simplifies the problem of
interpreting what "coat the back of a spoon" means.

In article 0>,
Wayne Boatwright > wrote:

> I generally simmer a stock for about 8 hours, remove all solids, then
> continue to simmer until what remains will coat the back of a spoon.

Which, I think, is one of the keys. Boil hell out of the bones. When you
get bored, boil them some more. When you get sleepy, boil them some
more. I've noticed this with pigs feet for posole. I only assume it
works for beef bones, although apparently, it does.

leo

In article >,
"jmcquown" > wrote:

> "Michael Horowitz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Last night I made beef stock. Tasted very watery.
> > Today I spent several hours reducing same.
> > Tastes better but still very weak.
> > Reading about, I see that this stock is intended to be the foundation
> > for other things; serving as a 'base' with which to build i.e. use it
> > to deglaze a pan, then (thus fortified, or with additional flavoring)
> > reduce further and thicken.
> > Is there a standard taste or feel that cooks use to determine how much
> > reduction of the stock is enough or is that something that is a
> > variable, corrected during a final reduction?
> > Certainly the stronger the stock, the more flavorful the final sauce.
> > - Mike
> >
>
> I have a myriad of questions
>
> How did you make the stock? How much water did you use? Did you use bare
> (rendering) bones or bones that had some meat on them? (I tend to save
> bones left over from t-bone or porterhouse steaks or standing rib roasts, so
> they still have a bit of meat on them*; store the bones in the freezer for
> when you're ready to make stock.) If you used rendering bones from the
> butcher you should roast them in the oven first for a couple of hours.
>
> Did you add any beef stock base (I hesitate to call it boullion since that
> conjurs up images of salty cube things) to enhance it? Did you cook it with
> root vegetables? Did you make a bouquet garni of herbs and spices to season
> the stock?
>
> Stock needs to simmer on *very* low heat for a very long time... we're
> talking 8-10 hours. You cannot rush it.

I think it was Escoffier who said something like: "The first 24 hours
for the flavor; the second 24 hours for the texture." It takes a long
time to dissolve all that lovely gelatin.

Isaac

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:29:34 -0800, TammyM > wrote:

>Michael Horowitz wrote:
>> Last night I made beef stock. Tasted very watery.
>> Today I spent several hours reducing same.
>> Tastes better but still very weak.
>> Reading about, I see that this stock is intended to be the foundation
>> for other things; serving as a 'base' with which to build i.e. use it
>> to deglaze a pan, then (thus fortified, or with additional flavoring)
>> reduce further and thicken.
>> Is there a standard taste or feel that cooks use to determine how much
>> reduction of the stock is enough or is that something that is a
>> variable, corrected during a final reduction?
>> Certainly the stronger the stock, the more flavorful the final sauce.
>> - Mike
>>
>Did you roast your beef bones?
>
>TammyM
Yes I did - Mike

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:41:37 -0500, "jmcquown" >
wrote:

>"Michael Horowitz" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Last night I made beef stock. Tasted very watery.
>> Today I spent several hours reducing same.
>> Tastes better but still very weak.
>> Reading about, I see that this stock is intended to be the foundation
>> for other things; serving as a 'base' with which to build i.e. use it
>> to deglaze a pan, then (thus fortified, or with additional flavoring)
>> reduce further and thicken.
>> Is there a standard taste or feel that cooks use to determine how much
>> reduction of the stock is enough or is that something that is a
>> variable, corrected during a final reduction?
>> Certainly the stronger the stock, the more flavorful the final sauce.
>> - Mike
>>
>
>I have a myriad of questions
That's fine, we're going out for brunch and I'm practicing with my
MokaPot.

>How did you make the stock? How much water did you use? Did you use bare
>(rendering) bones or bones that had some meat on them? (I tend to save
>bones left over from t-bone or porterhouse steaks or standing rib roasts, so
>they still have a bit of meat on them*; store the bones in the freezer for
>when you're ready to make stock.) If you used rendering bones from the
>butcher you should roast them in the oven first for a couple of hours.
I followed the directions in the CIA Textbook:
Six pounds of beef bones (coat with oil and roasted), cold water to
cover, quickly up to a simmer, then down to between 180-200^F for 5
hours. At the beginning of hours six, throw in sweated mirpoix with
two Tablespoons of tomato paste. Simmer for another hour. Strain and
chill. Next day I removed the fat and simmered for about four more
hours, thus reducing to about 25%.

>
>Did you add any beef stock base (I hesitate to call it boullion since that
>conjurs up images of salty cube things) to enhance it? Did you cook it with
>root vegetables? Did you make a bouquet garni of herbs and spices to season
>the stock?

No stock; although I've used base before, I'm trying to see what the
big deal is with sauces and would like to follow the pros and see if
their results are superior to opening up a can of low sodium Swanson's
(my favorite, but salty). As this is a foundation, I figured I'd keep
my flexibility by leaving any additional flavoring until I was
deglazing something.
>
>Stock needs to simmer on *very* low heat for a very long time... we're
>talking 8-10 hours. You cannot rush it.
True; make bread in the interval.
>
>You mentioned in another post you wound up with lots of beef fat. I'm
>assuming (probably a bad idea) you refrigerated it and the fat congealed on
>the top? (Yes, this is a question.) From that I surmise you used bones
>with meat and some fat still on them. There's nothing wrong with that. But
>once you spoon off the congealed fat a good homemade stock should be fairly
>gelatinous in its chilled state. If it's liquidyand watery, you made broth
>with fat on top, not stock.
You are correct. I'll go look....it looks like light coffee jello
>
>*You should always strain stock of added vegetables and any bits of meat and
>remove the bouquet garni prior to chilling it.
Did that.
>
>Jill
- Mike

In article >,
Michael Horowitz > wrote:

> Last night I made beef stock. Tasted very watery.
> Today I spent several hours reducing same.
> Tastes better but still very weak.
> Reading about, I see that this stock is intended to be the foundation
> for other things; serving as a 'base' with which to build i.e. use it
> to deglaze a pan, then (thus fortified, or with additional flavoring)
> reduce further and thicken.
> Is there a standard taste or feel that cooks use to determine how much
> reduction of the stock is enough or is that something that is a
> variable, corrected during a final reduction?
> Certainly the stronger the stock, the more flavorful the final sauce.
> - Mike

The bubbles during simmering go "ploop ploop" instead of "Pop Pop".
I stop when it starts to become a bit syrupy.
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

In article 0>,
Wayne Boatwright > wrote:

> Almost any good stock, skimmed of fat, will be fairly gelatinous when
> chilled.

Much of the stock I make is suitable for making superballs when it
chills. ;-) At least beef, pork or chicken stock does.

Fish head stock will jell slightly, but shrimp stock stays pure liquid.

Iirc, has to do with the collagen content.

I have pics...
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 07:34:25 -0500, Michael Horowitz
> wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:29:34 -0800, TammyM > wrote:
>
>>Michael Horowitz wrote:
>>> Last night I made beef stock. Tasted very watery.
>>> Today I spent several hours reducing same.
>>> Tastes better but still very weak.
>>> Reading about, I see that this stock is intended to be the foundation
>>> for other things; serving as a 'base' with which to build i.e. use it
>>> to deglaze a pan, then (thus fortified, or with additional flavoring)
>>> reduce further and thicken.
>>> Is there a standard taste or feel that cooks use to determine how much
>>> reduction of the stock is enough or is that something that is a
>>> variable, corrected during a final reduction?
>>> Certainly the stronger the stock, the more flavorful the final sauce.
>>> - Mike
>>>
>>Did you roast your beef bones?
>>
>>TammyM
>Yes I did - Mike

Really not necessary to roast the bones unless you want the dark
color, but roasting bones also alters the flavor of the resultant
stock, and not in a beefy way. It's difficult to find good beef bones
for making stock these days, most have practically no meat remaining,
and if marrow bones they're wasted used for stock... best sawn into
sections, properly roasted, and the marrow eaten. I find it's much
easier and a richer flavorful beef stock is produced from inexpensive
cuts of chuck, can either be browned or brought just to the boil in
cold water... and the meat is not wasted, very good in sandwiches with
creamy horseradish sauce, well seasoned force meat is a delicious pate
or filling for pasta, or baked wrapped in dough with potato/kasha as a
knish.

Next one needs a proper stock pot, an ordinary large sauce pot (what's
called dutch ovens these days) just doesn't cut it. A proper stock
pot is nearly twice as tall as it's wide, so that liquid circulates
through all the ingredients at low temperatures and the smaller
surface area slows evaporation... stock should never be boiled. Also
a good stock can't be made with just bones/meat, a rich flavorful
stock requires generous quantities of herbs, spices, and veggies. I
don't use anything for stock that's not fit to eat, no saved up
compost. I use fresh veggies, all removed, eaten, and replaced with
new while cooking... that's how a rich stock with depth of flavor is
produced... garbage in, garbage out, just that simple.

brooklyn1 > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 07:34:25 -0500, Michael Horowitz
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:29:34 -0800, TammyM > wrote:
>>
>>>Michael Horowitz wrote:
>>>> Last night I made beef stock. Tasted very watery.
>>>> Today I spent several hours reducing same.
>>>> Tastes better but still very weak.
>>>> Reading about, I see that this stock is intended to be the
foundation
>>>> for other things; serving as a 'base' with which to build i.e. use
it
>>>> to deglaze a pan, then (thus fortified, or with additional
flavoring)
>>>> reduce further and thicken.
>>>> Is there a standard taste or feel that cooks use to determine how
much
>>>> reduction of the stock is enough or is that something that is a
>>>> variable, corrected during a final reduction?
>>>> Certainly the stronger the stock, the more flavorful the final
sauce.
>>>> - Mike
>>>>
>>>Did you roast your beef bones?
>>>
>>>TammyM
>>Yes I did - Mike
>
> Really not necessary to roast the bones unless you want the dark
> color, but roasting bones also alters the flavor of the resultant
> stock, and not in a beefy way. It's difficult to find good beef bones
> for making stock these days, most have practically no meat remaining,
> and if marrow bones they're wasted used for stock... best sawn into
> sections, properly roasted, and the marrow eaten. I find it's much
> easier and a richer flavorful beef stock is produced from inexpensive
> cuts of chuck, can either be browned or brought just to the boil in
> cold water... and the meat is not wasted, very good in sandwiches with
> creamy horseradish sauce, well seasoned force meat is a delicious pate
> or filling for pasta, or baked wrapped in dough with potato/kasha as a
> knish.
>
> Next one needs a proper stock pot, an ordinary large sauce pot (what's
> called dutch ovens these days) just doesn't cut it. A proper stock
> pot is nearly twice as tall as it's wide, so that liquid circulates
> through all the ingredients at low temperatures and the smaller
> surface area slows evaporation... stock should never be boiled. Also
> a good stock can't be made with just bones/meat, a rich flavorful
> stock requires generous quantities of herbs, spices, and veggies. I
> don't use anything for stock that's not fit to eat, no saved up
> compost. I use fresh veggies, all removed, eaten, and replaced with
> new while cooking... that's how a rich stock with depth of flavor is
> produced... garbage in, garbage out, just that simple.


HA!!!

I was thinking, don't sell short! And don't sell odd lots.

Andy

"Michael Horowitz" > wrote in message
...
> Last night I made beef stock. Tasted very watery.
> Today I spent several hours reducing same.
> Tastes better but still very weak.
> Reading about, I see that this stock is intended to be the foundation
> for other things; serving as a 'base' with which to build i.e. use it
> to deglaze a pan, then (thus fortified, or with additional flavoring)
> reduce further and thicken.
> Is there a standard taste or feel that cooks use to determine how much
> reduction of the stock is enough or is that something that is a
> variable, corrected during a final reduction?
> Certainly the stronger the stock, the more flavorful the final sauce.
> - Mike
>
I reduce it to taste. I defat it first. Also if it's gelatinous in the frig
is tend to stop more quickly.

Kent

"brooklyn1" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 07:34:25 -0500, Michael Horowitz
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:29:34 -0800, TammyM > wrote:
>>
>>>Michael Horowitz wrote:
>>>> Last night I made beef stock. Tasted very watery.
>>>> Today I spent several hours reducing same.
>>>> Tastes better but still very weak.
>>>> Reading about, I see that this stock is intended to be the foundation
>>>> for other things; serving as a 'base' with which to build i.e. use it
>>>> to deglaze a pan, then (thus fortified, or with additional flavoring)
>>>> reduce further and thicken.
>>>> Is there a standard taste or feel that cooks use to determine how much
>>>> reduction of the stock is enough or is that something that is a
>>>> variable, corrected during a final reduction?
>>>> Certainly the stronger the stock, the more flavorful the final sauce.
>>>> - Mike
>>>>
>>>Did you roast your beef bones?
>>>
>>>TammyM
>>Yes I did - Mike
>
> Really not necessary to roast the bones unless you want the dark
> color, but roasting bones also alters the flavor of the resultant
> stock, and not in a beefy way. It's difficult to find good beef bones
> for making stock these days, most have practically no meat remaining,
> and if marrow bones they're wasted used for stock... best sawn into
> sections, properly roasted, and the marrow eaten. I find it's much
> easier and a richer flavorful beef stock is produced from inexpensive
> cuts of chuck, can either be browned or brought just to the boil in
> cold water... and the meat is not wasted, very good in sandwiches with
> creamy horseradish sauce, well seasoned force meat is a delicious pate
> or filling for pasta, or baked wrapped in dough with potato/kasha as a
> knish.
>
> Next one needs a proper stock pot, an ordinary large sauce pot (what's
> called dutch ovens these days) just doesn't cut it. A proper stock
> pot is nearly twice as tall as it's wide, so that liquid circulates
> through all the ingredients at low temperatures and the smaller
> surface area slows evaporation... stock should never be boiled. Also
> a good stock can't be made with just bones/meat, a rich flavorful
> stock requires generous quantities of herbs, spices, and veggies. I
> don't use anything for stock that's not fit to eat, no saved up
> compost. I use fresh veggies, all removed, eaten, and replaced with
> new while cooking... that's how a rich stock with depth of flavor is
> produced... garbage in, garbage out, just that simple.
>
>
I agree with all, Sheldon. However. I routinely roast the bones, along with
an onion. Beef remains are hard to find these days. However veal remains are
generally available free. This, added to the stock adds to its richness.
Also for 2 quarts of stock I add about 1 TB of tomato paste. Sounds strange,
but it adds to the richness as well. You don't taste this when you're
finished. Just don't add too much.

Kent

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:39:08 -0800, "Kent" > wrote:

>However veal remains are generally available free.

What part of the country are you in?

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Kent wrote:

> I agree with all, Sheldon. However. I routinely roast the bones, along with
> an onion. Beef remains are hard to find these days. However veal remains are
> generally available free. This, added to the stock adds to its richness.
> Also for 2 quarts of stock I add about 1 TB of tomato paste. Sounds strange,
> but it adds to the richness as well. You don't taste this when you're
> finished. Just don't add too much.

Instead of adding the tomato paste to the stock, I coat the
bones with it before roasting them. I prefer it with some
caramelization.

--
Reg

"brooklyn1" wrote
> Michael Horowitz

>>>> Last night I made beef stock. Tasted very watery.
>>>> Today I spent several hours reducing same.
>>>> Tastes better but still very weak.

> Really not necessary to roast the bones unless you want the dark
> color, but roasting bones also alters the flavor of the resultant
> stock, and not in a beefy way. It's difficult to find good beef bones

It's better to use onion skins.

> for making stock these days, most have practically no meat remaining,
> and if marrow bones they're wasted used for stock... best sawn into
> sections, properly roasted, and the marrow eaten. I find it's much

I reuse those bones as part of a stock.

> Next one needs a proper stock pot, an ordinary large sauce pot (what's
> called dutch ovens these days) just doesn't cut it. A proper stock
> pot is nearly twice as tall as it's wide, so that liquid circulates
> through all the ingredients at low temperatures and the smaller
> surface area slows evaporation... stock should never be boiled. Also

*sigh* no, you can make it in a crockpot or several other shaped pans. Just
the proper heat and attention to detail is needed.

> a good stock can't be made with just bones/meat, a rich flavorful
> stock requires generous quantities of herbs, spices, and veggies. I
> don't use anything for stock that's not fit to eat, no saved up
> compost. I use fresh veggies, all removed, eaten, and replaced with
> new while cooking... that's how a rich stock with depth of flavor is
> produced... garbage in, garbage out, just that simple.

There you go, again. There's nothing wrong with saving fresh peelings and
carrots ends in the freezer for stock making. Thats how real reastraunts
make use of things, often going in the stock pot same day but sometimes
saved in the freezer for a day or so.

In article >,
RegForte > wrote:

> Kent wrote:
>
> > I agree with all, Sheldon. However. I routinely roast the bones, along with
> > an onion. Beef remains are hard to find these days. However veal remains
> > are
> > generally available free. This, added to the stock adds to its richness.
> > Also for 2 quarts of stock I add about 1 TB of tomato paste. Sounds
> > strange,
> > but it adds to the richness as well. You don't taste this when you're
> > finished. Just don't add too much.
>
> Instead of adding the tomato paste to the stock, I coat the
> bones with it before roasting them. I prefer it with some
> caramelization.

That's a cool idea!
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

On Nov 15, 2:39*pm, "Kent" > wrote:
> "brooklyn1" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 07:34:25 -0500, Michael Horowitz
> > > wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:29:34 -0800, TammyM > wrote:
>
> >>>Michael Horowitz wrote:
> >>>> Last night I made beef stock. Tasted very watery.
> >>>> Today I spent several hours reducing same.
> >>>> Tastes better but still very weak.
> >>>> Reading about, I see that this stock is intended to be the foundation
> >>>> for other things; serving as a 'base' with which to build i.e. use it
> >>>> to deglaze a pan, then (thus fortified, or with additional flavoring)
> >>>> reduce further and thicken.
> >>>> Is there a standard taste or feel that cooks use to determine how much
> >>>> reduction of the stock is enough or is that something that is a
> >>>> variable, corrected during a final reduction?
> >>>> Certainly the stronger the stock, the more flavorful the final sauce..
> >>>> - Mike
>
> >>>Did you roast your beef bones?
>
> >>>TammyM
> >>Yes I did - Mike
>
> > Really not necessary to roast the bones unless you want the dark
> > color, but roasting bones also alters the flavor of the resultant
> > stock, and not in a beefy way. *It's difficult to find good beef bones
> > for making stock these days, most have practically no meat remaining,
> > and if marrow bones they're wasted used for stock... best sawn into
> > sections, properly roasted, and the marrow eaten. *I find it's much
> > easier and a richer flavorful beef stock is produced from inexpensive
> > cuts of chuck, can either be browned or brought just to the boil in
> > cold water... and the meat is not wasted, very good in sandwiches with
> > creamy horseradish sauce, well seasoned force meat is a delicious pate
> > or filling for pasta, or baked wrapped in dough with potato/kasha as a
> > knish.
>
> > Next one needs a proper stock pot, an ordinary large sauce pot (what's
> > called dutch ovens these days) just doesn't cut it. *A proper stock
> > pot is nearly twice as tall as it's wide, so that liquid circulates
> > through all the ingredients at low temperatures and the smaller
> > surface area slows evaporation... stock should never be boiled. *Also
> > a good stock can't be made with just bones/meat, a rich flavorful
> > stock requires generous quantities of herbs, spices, and veggies. *I
> > don't use anything for stock that's not fit to eat, no saved up
> > compost. *I use fresh veggies, all removed, eaten, and replaced with
> > new while cooking... that's how a rich stock with depth of flavor is
> > produced... garbage in, garbage out, just that simple.
>
> I agree with all, Sheldon. However. I routinely roast the bones, along with
> an onion. Beef remains are hard to find these days. However veal remains are
> generally available free. This, added to the stock adds to its richness.
> Also for 2 quarts of stock I add about 1 TB of tomato paste. Sounds strange,
> but it adds to the richness as well. You don't taste this when you're
> finished. Just don't add too much.

You like eating marrow?
>
> Kent

--Bryan

--Bryan wrote:

>
> You like eating marrow?

> --Bryan

I do, although I haven't had any for years. When I was a kid, my folks
would get cut bones from the butcher, roast them, scoop out the marrow
and make a kind of dumpling that they put in soup. Google "marrow ball
soup" and you'll find lots of recipes.

Roasted marrow was quite the rage a few years ago
http://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/4LV-7...r8Eu1iGekEvDSQ


http://images.teamsugar.com/files/up...82.preview.JPG

but you don't hear much about it these days.

George L

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:39:08 -0800, "Kent" > wrote:

>
>"brooklyn1" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 07:34:25 -0500, Michael Horowitz
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:29:34 -0800, TammyM > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Michael Horowitz wrote:
>>>>> Last night I made beef stock. Tasted very watery.
>>>>> Today I spent several hours reducing same.
>>>>> Tastes better but still very weak.
>>>>> Reading about, I see that this stock is intended to be the foundation
>>>>> for other things; serving as a 'base' with which to build i.e. use it
>>>>> to deglaze a pan, then (thus fortified, or with additional flavoring)
>>>>> reduce further and thicken.
>>>>> Is there a standard taste or feel that cooks use to determine how much
>>>>> reduction of the stock is enough or is that something that is a
>>>>> variable, corrected during a final reduction?
>>>>> Certainly the stronger the stock, the more flavorful the final sauce.
>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>
>>>>Did you roast your beef bones?
>>>>
>>>>TammyM
>>>Yes I did - Mike
>>
>> Really not necessary to roast the bones unless you want the dark
>> color, but roasting bones also alters the flavor of the resultant
>> stock, and not in a beefy way. It's difficult to find good beef bones
>> for making stock these days, most have practically no meat remaining,
>> and if marrow bones they're wasted used for stock... best sawn into
>> sections, properly roasted, and the marrow eaten. I find it's much
>> easier and a richer flavorful beef stock is produced from inexpensive
>> cuts of chuck, can either be browned or brought just to the boil in
>> cold water... and the meat is not wasted, very good in sandwiches with
>> creamy horseradish sauce, well seasoned force meat is a delicious pate
>> or filling for pasta, or baked wrapped in dough with potato/kasha as a
>> knish.
>>
>> Next one needs a proper stock pot, an ordinary large sauce pot (what's
>> called dutch ovens these days) just doesn't cut it. A proper stock
>> pot is nearly twice as tall as it's wide, so that liquid circulates
>> through all the ingredients at low temperatures and the smaller
>> surface area slows evaporation... stock should never be boiled. Also
>> a good stock can't be made with just bones/meat, a rich flavorful
>> stock requires generous quantities of herbs, spices, and veggies. I
>> don't use anything for stock that's not fit to eat, no saved up
>> compost. I use fresh veggies, all removed, eaten, and replaced with
>> new while cooking... that's how a rich stock with depth of flavor is
>> produced... garbage in, garbage out, just that simple.
>>
>>
>I agree with all, Sheldon. However. I routinely roast the bones, along with
>an onion. Beef remains are hard to find these days. However veal remains are
>generally available free. This, added to the stock adds to its richness.
>Also for 2 quarts of stock I add about 1 TB of tomato paste. Sounds strange,
>but it adds to the richness as well. You don't taste this when you're
>finished. Just don't add too much.
>
>Kent
>
I'll sometimes add a couple three fresh very ripe tomatoes from my
garden, quartered... that's how my mom made stock. I never open a tin
of tomato paste unless I'm going to use it all. I'll also add a
scrubbed potato... my mom would add a few potatos.. I've no idea why
except that while we were cooking she'd pull the potatoes from the pot
and we'd each eat one mashed with butter... we shared the celery,
carrots and onions too... probably a religious experience and an
excuse to add more fresh veggies. Making stock was never an excuse to
use up garbage.

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:25:03 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:

>"brooklyn1" wrote
>> Michael Horowitz
>
>>>>> Last night I made beef stock. Tasted very watery.
>>>>> Today I spent several hours reducing same.
>>>>> Tastes better but still very weak.
>
>> Really not necessary to roast the bones unless you want the dark
>> color, but roasting bones also alters the flavor of the resultant
>> stock, and not in a beefy way. It's difficult to find good beef bones
>
>It's better to use onion skins.
>
>> for making stock these days, most have practically no meat remaining,
>> and if marrow bones they're wasted used for stock... best sawn into
>> sections, properly roasted, and the marrow eaten. I find it's much
>
>I reuse those bones as part of a stock.
>
>> Next one needs a proper stock pot, an ordinary large sauce pot (what's
>> called dutch ovens these days) just doesn't cut it. A proper stock
>> pot is nearly twice as tall as it's wide, so that liquid circulates
>> through all the ingredients at low temperatures and the smaller
>> surface area slows evaporation... stock should never be boiled. Also
>
>*sigh* no, you can make it in a crockpot or several other shaped pans. Just
>the proper heat and attention to detail is needed.
>
>> a good stock can't be made with just bones/meat, a rich flavorful
>> stock requires generous quantities of herbs, spices, and veggies. I
>> don't use anything for stock that's not fit to eat, no saved up
>> compost. I use fresh veggies, all removed, eaten, and replaced with
>> new while cooking... that's how a rich stock with depth of flavor is
>> produced... garbage in, garbage out, just that simple.
>
>There you go, again. There's nothing wrong with saving fresh peelings and
>carrots ends in the freezer for stock making. Thats how real reastraunts
>make use of things, often going in the stock pot same day but sometimes
>saved in the freezer for a day or so.

Are you for real... there's not a restaurant in the US that saves up
scraps for making food to serve customers, besides a waste of time and
refrigeration space, it's against the health codes, inspector catches
them brewing up garbage or just saving it they'll shut them down... in
fact no restaurants make stock from fresh ingredients anymore, haven't
for some 50 years, they buy it already made in #10 cans, in large
plastic tubs as concentrate, and as bouillion powder... you are one
sicko know nothing... the harder you try to appear intelligent the
dumber you prove yourself to be... you are one of the rfc'ers with a
negative value cooking IQ.

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:44:33 -0600, George Leppla
> wrote:

>--Bryan wrote:
>
>>
>> You like eating marrow?
>
>> --Bryan
>
>I do, although I haven't had any for years. When I was a kid, my folks
>would get cut bones from the butcher, roast them, scoop out the marrow
>and make a kind of dumpling that they put in soup. Google "marrow ball
>soup" and you'll find lots of recipes.
>
>Roasted marrow was quite the rage a few years ago
>http://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/4LV-7...r8Eu1iGekEvDSQ
>
>
>http://images.teamsugar.com/files/up...82.preview.JPG
>
>but you don't hear much about it these days.
>
>George L

I haven't indulged in years, not the healthiest of viands, but growing
up marrow was considered a supreme delicacy... we didn't do anything
fancy, typically slathered on slabs of real Russian black bread sliced
from six pound round loaves, bottom crust thicker n' tougher than the
neoprene soles on work boots... typically accompanying a dinner of
boiled beef with potatoes and lots of freshly prepared horseradish,
washed down with slivovitz... kids got seltza with a glug of concord
grape wine for color... dessert was usually honey cake, sponge cake,
or bobka. After dinner the cribbage board came out and we shared a
big hunk of Joyva halvah. Naturally this was the good old days, pre
PC... actually pre TV... only times I remember a supper meal without
all five of us at table was when someone was sick... times were tough,
we were poor, never to bed hungry, no one on drugs, welfare, or in
prison. Nowadays folks eat separately and apart... fast food...
drugs, welfare, and prison are normal. It's been like twenty years
since I encountered a kid who knows their mother and father better
than their day care matron, or has heard of marrow.

"brooklyn1" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>--Bryan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You like eating marrow?
snip>
> I haven't indulged in years, not the healthiest of viands, but growing
> up marrow was considered a supreme delicacy... we didn't do anything
> fancy, typically slathered on slabs of real Russian black bread sliced
> from six pound round loaves, bottom crust thicker n' tougher than the
> neoprene soles on work boots... typically accompanying a dinner of
> boiled beef with potatoes and lots of freshly prepared horseradish,
> washed down with slivovitz... kids got seltza with a glug of concord
> grape wine for color... dessert was usually honey cake, sponge cake,
> or bobka. After dinner the cribbage board came out and we shared a
> big hunk of Joyva halvah. Naturally this was the good old days, pre
> PC... actually pre TV... only times I remember a supper meal without
> all five of us at table was when someone was sick... times were tough,
> we were poor, never to bed hungry, no one on drugs, welfare, or in
> prison.
That was a nice story, I can picture it. Thanks
Janet

Michael Horowitz wrote:
> Last night I made beef stock. Tasted very watery.
> Today I spent several hours reducing same.
> Tastes better but still very weak.
> Reading about, I see that this stock is intended to be the foundation
> for other things; serving as a 'base' with which to build i.e. use it
> to deglaze a pan, then (thus fortified, or with additional flavoring)
> reduce further and thicken.
> Is there a standard taste or feel that cooks use to determine how much
> reduction of the stock is enough or is that something that is a
> variable, corrected during a final reduction?
> Certainly the stronger the stock, the more flavorful the final sauce.
> - Mike
>


Once the stock is finished extracting, you've strained it, and now it
just needs to be concentrated because it tastes thin: use a wok to
boil it down. The shape is just right for rapidly boiling stuff down
over high heat without burning.

If it tastes good and strong but doesn't have the right mouth-feel,
add a packet of unflavored gelatin.

Bob

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:32:00 -0800 (PST), --Bryan >
wrote:

>On Nov 15, 2:39*pm, "Kent" > wrote:
>You like eating marrow?

Marrow is wonderful, hot, slathered on good grilled bread, slightly
salted... There is a restaurant near my house where you can order that
for starters - yum!

Nathalie in Switzerland

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:31:21 +0100, Nathalie Chiva
<Nathaliedotchivaatgmail.remove.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:32:00 -0800 (PST), --Bryan >
>wrote:
>
>>On Nov 15, 2:39*pm, "Kent" > wrote:
>>You like eating marrow?
>
>Marrow is wonderful, hot, slathered on good grilled bread, slightly
>salted... There is a restaurant near my house where you can order that
>for starters - yum!
>
>Nathalie in Switzerland


I like it on toasted brioche.

Boron