Here's a recipe I found for chicken stock.

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/i...ipe/index.html

It calls for 3 5-pound chickens to be simmered several hours
afterwhich the solid parts are strained off and discarded. Does that
mean throwing away the meat from 3 chickens? Or will all of the meat
have been reduced to liquid?

Can I stop the simmering after an hour or so and cut of the meat to
save for the soup or stew? Or, if I am going to do that, should I
roast them instead?

Same questions regarding the chicken backs I got from the butcher to
make stock. They have quite a bit of meat on them.

In article >,
Prof Wonmug > wrote:

> Here's a recipe I found for chicken stock.

We use a lot of chicken, mostly breasts. I always buy them with skin and
bones; they're a lot cheaper that way. I bag all the trimmings and
freeze the bags. When I get enough to fill the slow cooker, in they go
-- after I cut the bags off 8^} -- with however much water it takes to
fill the crock (be careful not to overfill; a boilover makes a mess).

Start the cooker after dinner, and crock all night at a high but *not
boiling* temperature (about 170-180 F, if you measure it). DO NOT BOIL.

By noon next day, all the cartilage will have dissolved and the bones
will have fallen apart (if that hasn't happened, go for another few
hours until it has).

Defat, strain, reduce to the strength you want, and there you are.

I reduce to half or less of the original liquid volume, and pour the
resulting concentrate into large ice-cube trays. Then into the freezer,
to come out for all sorts of delicious uses.

I toss a couple or three into any pot of soup (even chicken); I toss one
or two into the skillet whenever I make a pan sauce for any meat; I use
them most places where something needs a bit of "thinning down".

By not seasoning the stock, the flavor remains neutral, so it can be
used with beef, pork, chicken, veggies, or nearly anything except
chocolate cake.

Isaac

"Prof Wonmug" > wrote in message
...
> Here's a recipe I found for chicken stock.
>
> http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/i...ipe/index.html
>
> It calls for 3 5-pound chickens to be simmered several hours
> afterwhich the solid parts are strained off and discarded. Does that
> mean throwing away the meat from 3 chickens? Or will all of the meat
> have been reduced to liquid?
>
> Can I stop the simmering after an hour or so and cut of the meat to
> save for the soup or stew? Or, if I am going to do that, should I
> roast them instead?
>
> Same questions regarding the chicken backs I got from the butcher to
> make stock. They have quite a bit of meat on them.

After simmering for several hours, the meat has given up most of its flavor
to the water, thus making stock. I'd use the meat for pet food rather than
just toss it.

IMO, the most economical way is to roast the chicken, eat what you want and
put the rest into stock At least cut off some of the breast meat and make
something out of it. .

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:06:14 -0700, Prof Wonmug > wrote:

>Here's a recipe I found for chicken stock.
>
>http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/i...ipe/index.html
>
>It calls for 3 5-pound chickens to be simmered several hours
>afterwhich the solid parts are strained off and discarded. Does that
>mean throwing away the meat from 3 chickens?
Yes.

>Or will all of the meat have been reduced to liquid?
They would have given up all their flavor and goodness to the stock.
The chicken will be flavorless and mushy.
>
>Can I stop the simmering after an hour or so and cut of the meat to
>save for the soup or stew? Or, if I am going to do that, should I
>roast them instead?
I've done that before when I've wanted some cooked chicken for another
recipe. Just take the meat you'll need and put the rest back into the
pot.
>
>Same questions regarding the chicken backs I got from the butcher to
>make stock. They have quite a bit of meat on them.
Same answers :-)

koko

--

There is no love more sincere than the love of food
George Bernard Shaw

www.kokoscornerblog.com
updated 08/13/10
Watkins natural spices
www.apinchofspices.com

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:45:30 -0700, isw > wrote:

>In article >,
> Prof Wonmug > wrote:
>
>> Here's a recipe I found for chicken stock.
>
>We use a lot of chicken, mostly breasts. I always buy them with skin and
>bones; they're a lot cheaper that way. I bag all the trimmings and
>freeze the bags. When I get enough to fill the slow cooker, in they go
>-- after I cut the bags off 8^} -- with however much water it takes to
>fill the crock (be careful not to overfill; a boilover makes a mess).

What are the tradeoffs to a crock pot vs a pot on the stove?

>Start the cooker after dinner, and crock all night at a high but *not
>boiling* temperature (about 170-180 F, if you measure it). DO NOT BOIL.

This must be slightly cooler than "simmer" on the stove. I say that
because the recipes that use the stove top call for 2-4 hours vs the
16+ you are describing.

>By noon next day, all the cartilage will have dissolved and the bones
>will have fallen apart (if that hasn't happened, go for another few
>hours until it has).
>
>Defat, strain, reduce to the strength you want, and there you are.

Most of the recipes I read say to cool and then remove the fat from
the top where it will have collected and solidified.

>I reduce to half or less of the original liquid volume,

By continuing to cook it? Boiling? How long does that take?

>and pour the
>resulting concentrate into large ice-cube trays.

Like these?

http://www.amazon.com/Tovolo-Extra-L...ref=pd_sim_k_4

>Then into the freezer,
>to come out for all sorts of delicious uses.
>
>I toss a couple or three into any pot of soup (even chicken); I toss one
>or two into the skillet whenever I make a pan sauce for any meat; I use
>them most places where something needs a bit of "thinning down".
>
>By not seasoning the stock, the flavor remains neutral, so it can be
>used with beef, pork, chicken, veggies, or nearly anything except
>chocolate cake.

And by "not seasoning" you also mean not using onions, celery,
peppercorns etc., right?

Would you do it differently if you were going to use most of it for
chicken soup or stew?

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 00:18:46 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
> wrote:

>
>"Prof Wonmug" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Here's a recipe I found for chicken stock.
>>
>> http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/i...ipe/index.html
>>
>> It calls for 3 5-pound chickens to be simmered several hours
>> afterwhich the solid parts are strained off and discarded. Does that
>> mean throwing away the meat from 3 chickens? Or will all of the meat
>> have been reduced to liquid?
>>
>> Can I stop the simmering after an hour or so and cut of the meat to
>> save for the soup or stew? Or, if I am going to do that, should I
>> roast them instead?
>>
>> Same questions regarding the chicken backs I got from the butcher to
>> make stock. They have quite a bit of meat on them.
>
>After simmering for several hours, the meat has given up most of its flavor
>to the water, thus making stock. I'd use the meat for pet food rather than
>just toss it.

No pets.

>IMO, the most economical way is to roast the chicken, eat what you want and
>put the rest into stock

This makes more sense to me.

>At least cut off some of the breast meat and make
>something out of it. .

Like cutting it up into chunks for chicken soup from the same stock?

A couple other questions:

If I have some cooked carcasses (left from roast chicken) and some raw
parts (like necks, backs, & feet), can I put them all together in the
stock pot? Or do I need to first cook the raw parts to bring them to
the same state as the cooked remains?

Can I use the giblets?

What about the leftover stuffing from the roast chicken? Can that go
into the stock pot?

In article >,
Prof Wonmug > wrote:

> If I have some cooked carcasses (left from roast chicken) and some raw
> parts (like necks, backs, & feet), can I put them all together in the
> stock pot? Or do I need to first cook the raw parts to bring them to
> the same state as the cooked remains?

Cook them altogether. I wouldn't eat any of them after the simmering.

> Can I use the giblets?

Sure.
>
> What about the leftover stuffing from the roast chicken? Can that go
> into the stock pot?

Sure. It'll cloud the broth but so what.
I'm assuming you're simmering or lightly boiling the pot for three hours.
I'm not sure what it'll taste like since I don't like roast chicken or
turkey as a stock base. At the start, I'd add onion and celery for fun.

leo

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 22:45:27 -0700, Prof Wonmug > wrote:

> If I have some cooked carcasses (left from roast chicken) and some raw
> parts (like necks, backs, & feet), can I put them all together in the
> stock pot?

You can put them all together

>Or do I need to first cook the raw parts to bring them to
> the same state as the cooked remains?

Depends on what you want to do. If I wanted to make chicken soup with
chicken meat, I'd wait until I was making soup, not broth, to add the
meat.
>
> Can I use the giblets?

Of course. You decide if you want to add the liver or not, because it
can be bitter. Personally, it's my "treat"... I saute it in butter,
add a splash of Worcestershire at the end and eat it on a saltine
cracker with a little mustard (+ S&P). Yummy!


--

Carrot cake counts as a serving of vegetables.

> On Aug 15, 2:15*am, sf > wrote:?
>
> You decide if you want to add the liver or not, because it
> can be bitter. *Personally, it's my "treat"... I saute it in butter,
> add a splash of Worcestershire at the end and eat it on a saltine
> cracker with a little mustard (+ S&P). *Yummy!
>
> Carrot cake counts as a serving of vegetables.

That's what I do - minus the mustard. Sometimes I saute a little
onion with the liver(s) and smash the whole thing together to make a
tiny tiny dish of "chopped liver".

I'm almost always making chicken soup with matzah balls which doesn't
usually have chicken meat in it - just a rich broth with a little
carrot and celery. I use the trimmings I freeze from other chickens
plus backs and wings. If I'm feeling ambitious, I might fish the
backs out when the meat is cooked and take out the "oysters" for a
little chicken salad.

Lynn in Fargo

Though I would do as suggested with roasting, then brothing the carcass. If you do slow simmer and have all the meat left over. You can make a decent taco fillig by shredding the chicken and simmering it in the stock with some pressed garlic, a tiny bit of cumin(I hate it when people overdo cumin, think it makes it more Mexican) some chopped cilantro (I like the stems for this) and a few anchos(first, soaked, then chopped) and a little turmeric for color. Let is simmer until it is pretty well dried up (reduced). I know, you're cooking the pss ouut of that meat. But, by using the stock you made the chicken with, you add some flavor back to it while adding the flavor of the other goodies.

I love it when that nasty Barefoot Contessa says to toss the meat. You can use it on sandwhiches and the like. Or, as suggested, pet food. I always save some for the pooch.

Gizzards, necks and hearts should go in there. I love the hearts. Livers, as was said, make a fine treat. Gets me mad when I buy a chicken at the store and those treats aren't included. My Amish friends never neglect to throw those in.

"Prof Wonmug" > wrote in message
...
> Here's a recipe I found for chicken stock.
>
> http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/i...ipe/index.html
>
> It calls for 3 5-pound chickens to be simmered several hours
> afterwhich the solid parts are strained off and discarded. Does that
> mean throwing away the meat from 3 chickens? Or will all of the meat
> have been reduced to liquid?
>
> Can I stop the simmering after an hour or so and cut of the meat to
> save for the soup or stew? Or, if I am going to do that, should I
> roast them instead?
>
> Same questions regarding the chicken backs I got from the butcher to
> make stock. They have quite a bit of meat on them.
>
>
As I said in my post below I make quite a lot of stock. You always make
chicken stock with the leftover part of the chicken that you didn't eat
today. That's primarily the skeleton, but it includes some meat as well. You
then usually freeze the stock and use it for the next dish that requires
chicken stock. I wouldn't ever wipe out a whole chicken just for the stock.
Whoever wrote the above doesn't cook very much.

Break the leftover[s] chicken into pieces and put into a pot. Add a portion
of onion and optional celery. Add optional bay leaf. Add water to barely
cover the chicken. Bring to a very low simmer and hold at a low simmer for 1
1/2 hours. With chicken don't go over two hours. Then strain into the "fat
separator". Let that cool for a bit. Separate aqueous fraction using
separator. Then taste your stock. If it's too weak, at this point you can
put it back on the stove and slowly, slowly reduce the stock to the point
where it tastes like you think it should. Chicken stock in my hands almost
always needs some reduction after the stock is made. Turkey and ham stock
don't usually need reduction. There are lots of recipes on the internet the
approximate what I'm describing above.

Don't ever, however, waste a chicken, turkey, or ham making a stock.
Sometimes, with turkey and with veal or beef, I'll brown the carcasses in
the oven for awhile. That's a matter of taste. I think most people prefer a
stock from meat that's previously been baked a bit.

I still can't believe somethe numbskull that wrote the above. When I
searched the internet just now, however, there are those that do waste whole
chickens. There isn't any stock contributing taste in a chicken breast.

There are a lot of cookbook authors who primarily write and don't cook.

The Best, and Good Luck,

Kent

In article >,
Prof Wonmug > wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:45:30 -0700, isw > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Prof Wonmug > wrote:
> >
> >> Here's a recipe I found for chicken stock.
> >
> >We use a lot of chicken, mostly breasts. I always buy them with skin and
> >bones; they're a lot cheaper that way. I bag all the trimmings and
> >freeze the bags. When I get enough to fill the slow cooker, in they go
> >-- after I cut the bags off 8^} -- with however much water it takes to
> >fill the crock (be careful not to overfill; a boilover makes a mess).
>
> What are the tradeoffs to a crock pot vs a pot on the stove?

Less work; less chance of a boil-over; essentially no chance of boiling
the stock; nothing can go wrong if you forget about it for anything less
than a week.

> >Start the cooker after dinner, and crock all night at a high but *not
> >boiling* temperature (about 170-180 F, if you measure it). DO NOT BOIL.
>
> This must be slightly cooler than "simmer" on the stove. I say that
> because the recipes that use the stove top call for 2-4 hours vs the
> 16+ you are describing.
>
> >By noon next day, all the cartilage will have dissolved and the bones
> >will have fallen apart (if that hasn't happened, go for another few
> >hours until it has).
> >
> >Defat, strain, reduce to the strength you want, and there you are.
>
> Most of the recipes I read say to cool and then remove the fat from
> the top where it will have collected and solidified.
>
> >I reduce to half or less of the original liquid volume,
>
> By continuing to cook it? Boiling? How long does that take?

Yup. Full boil (which is OK, now that all the skin-'n'-bones have been
removed). Maybe half an hour, on the biggest burner.

> >and pour the
> >resulting concentrate into large ice-cube trays.
>
> Like these?
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Tovolo-Extra-L...ref=pd_sim_k_4


Looks like they'd work, but I can't tell how big the "cubes" would be.
Mine are maybe twice "normal" size.

When the stock is reduced, it doesn't freeze rock-hard; you can freeze
it in one piece, pop it out of the pan, and cut it into pieces with a
big knife.

> >Then into the freezer,
> >to come out for all sorts of delicious uses.
> >
> >I toss a couple or three into any pot of soup (even chicken); I toss one
> >or two into the skillet whenever I make a pan sauce for any meat; I use
> >them most places where something needs a bit of "thinning down".
> >
> >By not seasoning the stock, the flavor remains neutral, so it can be
> >used with beef, pork, chicken, veggies, or nearly anything except
> >chocolate cake.
>
> And by "not seasoning" you also mean not using onions, celery,
> peppercorns etc., right?

Right; nothing. Those can always be added to whatever the final product
is, and the flavors will be fresher.

> Would you do it differently if you were going to use most of it for
> chicken soup or stew?

Maybe. But mostly I use it a cube or two at the time to improve the
texture of pan sauces and such; what I'm really interested in is the
"mouth feel", not the flavor. When you reduce a pan sauce to a glaze,
the gelatin from a couple of these cubes makes a big difference.

Isaac

In article >,
Leonard Blaisdell > wrote:

> In article >,
> Prof Wonmug > wrote:
>
> > If I have some cooked carcasses (left from roast chicken) and some raw
> > parts (like necks, backs, & feet), can I put them all together in the
> > stock pot? Or do I need to first cook the raw parts to bring them to
> > the same state as the cooked remains?
>
> Cook them altogether. I wouldn't eat any of them after the simmering.
>
> > Can I use the giblets?
>
> Sure.
> >
> > What about the leftover stuffing from the roast chicken? Can that go
> > into the stock pot?
>
> Sure. It'll cloud the broth but so what.
> I'm assuming you're simmering or lightly boiling the pot for three hours.

Three hours might get most of the taste, but it takes several times that
at least, to dissolve all the cartilage to gelatin.

Isaac

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:14:06 -0700, isw > wrote:

>In article >,
> Prof Wonmug > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:45:30 -0700, isw > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > Prof Wonmug > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Here's a recipe I found for chicken stock.
>> >
>> >We use a lot of chicken, mostly breasts. I always buy them with skin and
>> >bones; they're a lot cheaper that way. I bag all the trimmings and
>> >freeze the bags. When I get enough to fill the slow cooker, in they go
>> >-- after I cut the bags off 8^} -- with however much water it takes to
>> >fill the crock (be careful not to overfill; a boilover makes a mess).
>>
>> What are the tradeoffs to a crock pot vs a pot on the stove?
>
>Less work; less chance of a boil-over; essentially no chance of boiling
>the stock; nothing can go wrong if you forget about it for anything less
>than a week.

I've been reading a lot about the need to skim the scum in the earlyt
stages of the simmering. Wold that be harder in a crock pot?

>> >Start the cooker after dinner, and crock all night at a high but *not
>> >boiling* temperature (about 170-180 F, if you measure it). DO NOT BOIL.
>>
>> This must be slightly cooler than "simmer" on the stove. I say that
>> because the recipes that use the stove top call for 2-4 hours vs the
>> 16+ you are describing.
>>
>> >By noon next day, all the cartilage will have dissolved and the bones
>> >will have fallen apart (if that hasn't happened, go for another few
>> >hours until it has).
>> >
>> >Defat, strain, reduce to the strength you want, and there you are.
>>
>> Most of the recipes I read say to cool and then remove the fat from
>> the top where it will have collected and solidified.
>>
>> >I reduce to half or less of the original liquid volume,
>>
>> By continuing to cook it? Boiling? How long does that take?
>
>Yup. Full boil (which is OK, now that all the skin-'n'-bones have been
>removed). Maybe half an hour, on the biggest burner.

I found a Youtube video that showed doing just that.

>> >and pour the
>> >resulting concentrate into large ice-cube trays.
>>
>> Like these?
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Tovolo-Extra-L...ref=pd_sim_k_4
>
>Looks like they'd work, but I can't tell how big the "cubes" would be.
>Mine are maybe twice "normal" size.

It says thay are 2" cubes. Regular ice cube trays make 1" cubes, so
these would be 8x the volume.

This one looks like an even better choice:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...A1FFW6CJ14WSRU

>When the stock is reduced, it doesn't freeze rock-hard; you can freeze
>it in one piece, pop it out of the pan, and cut it into pieces with a
>big knife.
>
>> >Then into the freezer,
>> >to come out for all sorts of delicious uses.
>> >
>> >I toss a couple or three into any pot of soup (even chicken); I toss one
>> >or two into the skillet whenever I make a pan sauce for any meat; I use
>> >them most places where something needs a bit of "thinning down".
>> >
>> >By not seasoning the stock, the flavor remains neutral, so it can be
>> >used with beef, pork, chicken, veggies, or nearly anything except
>> >chocolate cake.
>>
>> And by "not seasoning" you also mean not using onions, celery,
>> peppercorns etc., right?
>
>Right; nothing. Those can always be added to whatever the final product
>is, and the flavors will be fresher.

I checked 10-12 stock recipes. Every one calls for chicken + veggies +
herbs. The most common veggies are the mire poix (carrots, celery,
onion). The most common herbs are thyme, bay, parsley, peppercorns,
and garlic. I didn't find a single one that recommended just the
chicken.

>> Would you do it differently if you were going to use most of it for
>> chicken soup or stew?
>
>Maybe. But mostly I use it a cube or two at the time to improve the
>texture of pan sauces and such; what I'm really interested in is the
>"mouth feel", not the flavor. When you reduce a pan sauce to a glaze,

Is that glace?

>the gelatin from a couple of these cubes makes a big difference.

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:18:02 -0700, isw > wrote:

>In article >,
> Leonard Blaisdell > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Prof Wonmug > wrote:
>>
>> > If I have some cooked carcasses (left from roast chicken) and some raw
>> > parts (like necks, backs, & feet), can I put them all together in the
>> > stock pot? Or do I need to first cook the raw parts to bring them to
>> > the same state as the cooked remains?
>>
>> Cook them altogether. I wouldn't eat any of them after the simmering.
>>
>> > Can I use the giblets?
>>
>> Sure.
>> >
>> > What about the leftover stuffing from the roast chicken? Can that go
>> > into the stock pot?
>>
>> Sure. It'll cloud the broth but so what.
>> I'm assuming you're simmering or lightly boiling the pot for three hours.
>
>Three hours might get most of the taste, but it takes several times that
>at least, to dissolve all the cartilage to gelatin.

That seems to be the concensus. At least 6 hours at a low simmer.

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:18:38 -0700, "Kent" > wrote:

>
>"Prof Wonmug" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Here's a recipe I found for chicken stock.
>>
>> http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/i...ipe/index.html
>>
>> It calls for 3 5-pound chickens to be simmered several hours
>> afterwhich the solid parts are strained off and discarded. Does that
>> mean throwing away the meat from 3 chickens? Or will all of the meat
>> have been reduced to liquid?
>>
>> Can I stop the simmering after an hour or so and cut of the meat to
>> save for the soup or stew? Or, if I am going to do that, should I
>> roast them instead?
>>
>> Same questions regarding the chicken backs I got from the butcher to
>> make stock. They have quite a bit of meat on them.
>>
>>
>As I said in my post below I make quite a lot of stock. You always make
>chicken stock with the leftover part of the chicken that you didn't eat
>today. That's primarily the skeleton, but it includes some meat as well. You
>then usually freeze the stock and use it for the next dish that requires
>chicken stock. I wouldn't ever wipe out a whole chicken just for the stock.
>Whoever wrote the above doesn't cook very much.
>
>Break the leftover[s] chicken into pieces and put into a pot. Add a portion
>of onion and optional celery. Add optional bay leaf. Add water to barely
>cover the chicken. Bring to a very low simmer and hold at a low simmer for 1
>1/2 hours. With chicken don't go over two hours. Then strain into the "fat
>separator". Let that cool for a bit. Separate aqueous fraction using
>separator. Then taste your stock. If it's too weak, at this point you can
>put it back on the stove and slowly, slowly reduce the stock to the point
>where it tastes like you think it should. Chicken stock in my hands almost
>always needs some reduction after the stock is made. Turkey and ham stock
>don't usually need reduction. There are lots of recipes on the internet the
>approximate what I'm describing above.
>
>Don't ever, however, waste a chicken, turkey, or ham making a stock.
>Sometimes, with turkey and with veal or beef, I'll brown the carcasses in
>the oven for awhile. That's a matter of taste. I think most people prefer a
>stock from meat that's previously been baked a bit.
>
>I still can't believe somethe numbskull that wrote the above. When I
>searched the internet just now, however, there are those that do waste whole
>chickens. There isn't any stock contributing taste in a chicken breast.
>
>There are a lot of cookbook authors who primarily write and don't cook.
>
>The Best, and Good Luck,

I, too, was shocked when I watched several "cooks" throw away most of
a whole chicken to make the stock. Not only wasteful, but totally
unnecessary. If you don't have enough left over carcasses, backs and
wings are available for very cheap and they make better stock.

Wonmug wrote:

> I, too, was shocked when I watched several "cooks" throw away most of
> a whole chicken to make the stock. Not only wasteful, but totally
> unnecessary. If you don't have enough left over carcasses, backs and
> wings are available for very cheap and they make better stock.

Wings are *not* cheap. Far from it.

Bob

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:47:06 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> Wonmug wrote:
>
>> I, too, was shocked when I watched several "cooks" throw away most of
>> a whole chicken to make the stock. Not only wasteful, but totally
>> unnecessary. If you don't have enough left over carcasses, backs and
>> wings are available for very cheap and they make better stock.
>
> Wings are *not* cheap. Far from it.
>
> Bob

more's the pity.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:12:23 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:47:06 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
> > Wonmug wrote:
> >
> >> I, too, was shocked when I watched several "cooks" throw away most of
> >> a whole chicken to make the stock. Not only wasteful, but totally
> >> unnecessary. If you don't have enough left over carcasses, backs and
> >> wings are available for very cheap and they make better stock.
> >
> > Wings are *not* cheap. Far from it.
> >
> > Bob
>
> more's the pity.
>
Blame Buffalo, but I didn't like wings before hot sauce either... so
I'm part of the problem

--

Carrot cake counts as a serving of vegetables.

"Prof Wonmug" wrote
> isw wrote:

>>> What are the tradeoffs to a crock pot vs a pot on the stove?

>>Less work; less chance of a boil-over; essentially no chance of boiling
>>the stock; nothing can go wrong if you forget about it for anything less
>>than a week.

Not quite but close. Use low and no chance of boil over and better bone
broth.

> I've been reading a lot about the need to skim the scum in the earlyt
> stages of the simmering. Wold that be harder in a crock pot?

You dont need to at all normally.

>>> >Defat, strain, reduce to the strength you want, and there you are.
>>> >I reduce to half or less of the original liquid volume,

>>> By continuing to cook it? Boiling? How long does that take?

>>Yup. Full boil (which is OK, now that all the skin-'n'-bones have been
>>removed). Maybe half an hour, on the biggest burner.

Depends. I use less water and more bone. Chill and it gels and you can
lift off the top fat layer.

> It says thay are 2" cubes. Regular ice cube trays make 1" cubes, so
> these would be 8x the volume.

Plastic ziplock baggies of chilled broth freeze well too.

> I checked 10-12 stock recipes. Every one calls for chicken + veggies +
> herbs. The most common veggies are the mire poix (carrots, celery,
> onion). The most common herbs are thyme, bay, parsley, peppercorns,
> and garlic. I didn't find a single one that recommended just the
> chicken.

Thats because they were trying to be 'fancy' for some book. Regular stock
is fine. I just add the other stuff to the other dish.

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:00:13 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:12:23 -0400, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:47:06 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>>
>>> Wonmug wrote:
>>>
>>>> I, too, was shocked when I watched several "cooks" throw away most of
>>>> a whole chicken to make the stock. Not only wasteful, but totally
>>>> unnecessary. If you don't have enough left over carcasses, backs and
>>>> wings are available for very cheap and they make better stock.
>>>
>>> Wings are *not* cheap. Far from it.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>> more's the pity.
>>
> Blame Buffalo, but I didn't like wings before hot sauce either... so
> I'm part of the problem

i like to use various marinades and then broil the wings, so the
skin-to-meat ratio is important to me. but they're too expensive to mess
with anymore.

your parsimonious pal,
blake

Yeah, ribs sure died out. NOT! Once these things hit the papers, it's (sadly) over, Om.