Thread: Stock Making Question

Ranée at Arabian Knits wrote:
> I usually make stock with roasted bones leftover from dinner, a
> little meat on them, but not a whole hunk of meat. However, I am trying
> to make some stock from lamb shanks and I would like to save at least a
> little bit of the meat to eat. Should I just remove the meat from the
> bone once it is soft and return the bones and scraps to the pot? Or am
> I stuck getting another package of meat out and feeding these scraps to
> the chickens and turkeys?


My mother always made beef soup by starting with a meaty bone. The small
meat bits were then removed and shredded after it cooked and returned to
the pot.
I've never had such good soup as hers was.

On Jan 10, 10:10*am, Ranée at Arabian Knits <arabiankn...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> * *I usually make stock with roasted bones leftover from dinner, a
> little meat on them, but not a whole hunk of meat. *However, I am trying
> to make some stock from lamb shanks and I would like to save at least a
> little bit of the meat to eat. *Should I just remove the meat from the
> bone once it is soft and return the bones and scraps to the pot? *Or am
> I stuck getting another package of meat out and feeding these scraps to
> the chickens and turkeys?
>
> Regards,
> Ranee @ Arabian Knits
>
> "She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13
>
> http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/

Once the meat is fall off the bone tender, take it out if you plan on
eating it. If you leave it in till the very end of the stock making
process it will be completely devoid of everything except the dry
strings. Then it's chicken feed.

By all means remove it if you want to eat it. The bones will finish
rendering out all their goodie for your stock.

Ranée at Arabian Knits wrote:
> I usually make stock with roasted bones leftover from dinner, a
> little meat on them, but not a whole hunk of meat. However, I am
> trying to make some stock from lamb shanks and I would like to save
> at least a little bit of the meat to eat. Should I just remove the
> meat from the bone once it is soft and return the bones and scraps
> to
> the pot? Or am I stuck getting another package of meat out and
> feeding these scraps to the chickens and turkeys?
>
> Regards,
> Ranee @ Arabian Knits

Ranee, my own preference is to remove the majority of the meat first,
before simmering the bones. The bones are what flavor the stock -
simmering the meat just makes the meat tasteless.

Ranée at Arabian Knits wrote:
> I usually make stock with roasted bones leftover from dinner, a
> little meat on them, but not a whole hunk of meat. However, I am trying
> to make some stock from lamb shanks and I would like to save at least a
> little bit of the meat to eat. Should I just remove the meat from the
> bone once it is soft and return the bones and scraps to the pot? Or am
> I stuck getting another package of meat out and feeding these scraps to
> the chickens and turkeys?
>
> Regards,

Sure, when the flesh is just cooked remove the meat you wish to eat from
the shanks. Then return the remaining bones to & meat scraps the stock.

When you do this again, remove the meat from the bones first, brown the
meat in hot oil and then add to the stock.

Some cooks will make a stock from bones which are gently simmered for 12
- 15 hours, this is then used to simmer the raw or browned meats in for
another 12 hours or so.

In my experience a good meat/bone stock can be had from as little as 3 -
6 hours of cooking.

Classic French cooking bones out the shanks first, breaks up and then
browns the bones before adding them to the stock pot. Same with the
meat, brown first, some going so far as to cut the meat into a mall dice
and fry brown in hot fat and then cover with some prepared stock and
boil until it is reduce to a glaze, repeating this process 3 - 4 times
and then adding it to the stock being prepared. All the while skimming,
skimming, skimming, when done, strain, and defat.
--
Mr. Joseph Paul Littleshoes Esq.

Domine, dirige nos.

Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky.../sf_anthem.mp3

In article
<[email protected]>,
ImStillMags <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jan 10, 10:10*am, Ranée at Arabian Knits <arabiankn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > * *I usually make stock with roasted bones leftover from dinner, a
> > little meat on them, but not a whole hunk of meat. *However, I am trying
> > to make some stock from lamb shanks and I would like to save at least a
> > little bit of the meat to eat. *Should I just remove the meat from the
> > bone once it is soft and return the bones and scraps to the pot? *Or am
> > I stuck getting another package of meat out and feeding these scraps to
> > the chickens and turkeys?
> >
> Once the meat is fall off the bone tender, take it out if you plan on
> eating it. If you leave it in till the very end of the stock making
> process it will be completely devoid of everything except the dry
> strings. Then it's chicken feed.

I knew I couldn't leave them to the end, but I wasn't sure if I'd
wreck the stock by removing the meat early. Thank you.

> By all means remove it if you want to eat it. The bones will finish
> rendering out all their goodie for your stock.

That is exactly what I needed to know.

Regards,
Ranee @ Arabian Knits

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/

In article <[email protected]>,
Goomba <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ranée at Arabian Knits wrote:
> > I usually make stock with roasted bones leftover from dinner, a
> > little meat on them, but not a whole hunk of meat. However, I am trying
> > to make some stock from lamb shanks and I would like to save at least a
> > little bit of the meat to eat. Should I just remove the meat from the
> > bone once it is soft and return the bones and scraps to the pot? Or am
> > I stuck getting another package of meat out and feeding these scraps to
> > the chickens and turkeys?
>
>
> My mother always made beef soup by starting with a meaty bone. The small
> meat bits were then removed and shredded after it cooked and returned to
> the pot.
> I've never had such good soup as hers was.

That was my plan, not soup, but to include the meat in the dish with
the stock. I'm glad I can do it.

Regards,
Ranee @ Arabian Knits

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/

In article <[email protected]>,
"Dora" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ranée at Arabian Knits wrote:
> > I usually make stock with roasted bones leftover from dinner, a
> > little meat on them, but not a whole hunk of meat. However, I am
> > trying to make some stock from lamb shanks and I would like to save
> > at least a little bit of the meat to eat. Should I just remove the
> > meat from the bone once it is soft and return the bones and scraps
> > to
> > the pot? Or am I stuck getting another package of meat out and
> > feeding these scraps to the chickens and turkeys?
>
> Ranee, my own preference is to remove the majority of the meat first,
> before simmering the bones. The bones are what flavor the stock -
> simmering the meat just makes the meat tasteless.

Really? I was thinking of removing it when it was cooked the way
meat in a stew/braise is cooked.

Regards,
Ranee @ Arabian Knits

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/

On 10/01/2011 3:16 PM, Ranée at Arabian Knits wrote:
>
>> Ranee, my own preference is to remove the majority of the meat first,
>> before simmering the bones. The bones are what flavor the stock -
>> simmering the meat just makes the meat tasteless.
>
> Really? I was thinking of removing it when it was cooked the way
> meat in a stew/braise is cooked.

I always remove the meat when I have to thicken the sauce in a braised
dish and it has to be boiled. Boiling toughens the meat and robs it of
its flavour.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:41:06 -0500, Goomba <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Ranée at Arabian Knits wrote:
>> I usually make stock with roasted bones leftover from dinner, a
>> little meat on them, but not a whole hunk of meat. However, I am trying
>> to make some stock from lamb shanks and I would like to save at least a
>> little bit of the meat to eat. Should I just remove the meat from the
>> bone once it is soft and return the bones and scraps to the pot? Or am
>> I stuck getting another package of meat out and feeding these scraps to
>> the chickens and turkeys?
>
>
>My mother always made beef soup by starting with a meaty bone. The small
>meat bits were then removed and shredded after it cooked and returned to
>the pot.
>I've never had such good soup as hers was.

That's because in your mom's time butchers offered meaty soup bones.

The more meat the better the stock. You can't make decent stock with
heavily trimmed bones... bones per se contribute no flavor
whatsoever... the connective tissue (the sheath covering and the
sinew/tendons at the ends adds gelatine but adds zero flavor (plain
gelatine is totally flavorless). People began using bones to make
stock because not all that long ago soup bones were still free, and
they did contain quite a bit of meat. Nowadays it's best to buy an
inexpensive tough cut of beef to make beef stock. The boiled meat can
be added back to the stock, eaten heavily seasoned on bread, or used
for force meat (a delicacy). Poultry bones should never be broken for
stock, fowl bones are hollow but contain some very foul/bitter debris
(birds are not mammals, they have a very different anatomy). From
what I've read how most folks here make stock they would be far better
off using bouillion cubes... very simple rule of cooking; garbage in,
garbage out.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:10:36 -0800, Ranée at Arabian Knits
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I usually make stock with roasted bones leftover from dinner, a
> little meat on them, but not a whole hunk of meat. However, I am trying
> to make some stock from lamb shanks and I would like to save at least a
> little bit of the meat to eat. Should I just remove the meat from the
> bone once it is soft and return the bones and scraps to the pot? Or am
> I stuck getting another package of meat out and feeding these scraps to
> the chickens and turkeys?
>
I'd take if off the bones when it's ready to eat and keep on cooking.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

In article <N0KWo.42743$[email protected] >,
Dave Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 10/01/2011 3:16 PM, Ranée at Arabian Knits wrote:
> >
> >> Ranee, my own preference is to remove the majority of the meat first,
> >> before simmering the bones. The bones are what flavor the stock -
> >> simmering the meat just makes the meat tasteless.
> >
> > Really? I was thinking of removing it when it was cooked the way
> > meat in a stew/braise is cooked.
>
> I always remove the meat when I have to thicken the sauce in a braised
> dish and it has to be boiled. Boiling toughens the meat and robs it of
> its flavour.

Who boils stock?

Regards,
Ranee @ Arabian Knits

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/

On Jan 11, 12:20*am, Ranée at Arabian Knits <arabiankn...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> In article <N0KWo.42743$522.10...@unlimited.newshosting.com >,
> *Dave Smith <adavid.sm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On 10/01/2011 3:16 PM, Ranée at Arabian Knits wrote:
>
> > >> Ranee, my own preference is to remove the majority of the meat first,
> > >> before simmering the bones. *The bones are what flavor the stock -
> > >> simmering the meat just makes the meat tasteless.
>
> > > * * Really? *I was thinking of removing it when it was cooked the way
> > > meat in a stew/braise is cooked.
>
> > I always remove the meat when I have to thicken the sauce in a braised
> > dish and it has to be boiled. Boiling toughens the meat and robs it of
> > its flavour.
>
> * *Who boils stock?
>

I boil stock for about 5 minutes and skim, skim and skim. Then I turn
it down for a real slow simmer and add the vegetables: Onions,
Celery, Carrot and herbs in a cheese cloth.

> Regards,
> Ranee @ Arabian Knits
>
> "She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13
>
> http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/

Ranée wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>> Ranée wrote:
>>
>>>>Ranee, my own preference is to remove the majority of the meat first,
>>>>before simmering the bones. The bones are what flavor the stock -
>>>>simmering the meat just makes the meat tasteless.
>>>
>>> Really? I was thinking of removing it when it was cooked the way
>>>meat in a stew/braise is cooked.
>>
>>I always remove the meat when I have to thicken the sauce in a braised
>>dish and it has to be boiled. Boiling toughens the meat and robs it of
>>its flavour.
>
>
> Who boils stock?
>
> Regards,
> Ranee

Its like broth and bouillon and soup, the are interchangeable terms in
American vernacular usage.

Boil, simmer, stew, braise, poach, even pole when it is considered a
type of steaming of meat.

And all that, from mere "kissing" of the liquid, a "shimmer" or other
slight vibration of the cooking liquids surface area to a full blow
"roiling boil" i prefer something above a mere simmer on the liquids
surface as it simmers, even if that's a low boil i have turned the stock
down too after getting it going to a roiling boil in the beginning,
which i do because i start the meat stock in cold water and skim
assiduously as it comes to a BOIL and remains then at a BOIL for 10 - 20
minutes while i assiduously skim.

After which the stock is turned down to a low boil or simmer and left to
cook on its own for however many hours with only the occasionally skimming.

I prefer the boiling to soften & tenderize the large cuts of meats,
joints, steaks & etc., especially beef. I like the very tender beef
that such long slow and generally low cooking in liquid produces with
the beef. "Boiled Beef" ala Anglaise with carrots

Chicken (fowl), pork, lamb, mutton, veal, fish (im not big on game
furred or feathered) are all more tender than the beef to begin with so
don't need to cook as long to achieve the tenderness i prefer.

And if i want to cook beef quickly, and not for hours and hours to make
it fork tender, i slice it thin or cut it small, fry or *ahem* "saute"
in hot oil to either fully cook (and the resultant meats are fork tender
because of the cut & size more than the cooking of) or i sometimes only
lightly brown these thin or small pieces of meats and then set to
braise, stew or simmer in a cooking liquid for 15 minutes to an hour
depending on what im making.

Of course there are cuts of steak that are almost tender enough for me
but even the best of rib eyes, and filet mignons are not as tender as i
would like them to be with the traditional quick cooking of them.

I am always amused by the warnings about boiling a chicken too long and
making it "tough" i LOL when i hear the same warning about boiled eggs,
how "tough" can any chicken or egg be? even if it is over cooked?

A favored dish of beef, onions and beer has the strips of beef steak
simmered in beer after browning in butter with thin sliced onions and
garlic for 1/2 - 1 hour which not only makes the meat even more tender
but the longer the meat simmers the more flavorful the resulting beer
sauce is.
--

Mr. Joseph Paul Littleshoes Esq.

Domine, dirige nos.

Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky.../sf_anthem.mp3

In article
<[email protected]>,
Portland <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jan 11, 12:20*am, Ranée at Arabian Knits <arabiankn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > In article <N0KWo.42743$522.10...@unlimited.newshosting.com >,
> > *Dave Smith <adavid.sm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > On 10/01/2011 3:16 PM, Ranée at Arabian Knits wrote:
> >
> > > >> Ranee, my own preference is to remove the majority of the meat first,
> > > >> before simmering the bones. *The bones are what flavor the stock -
> > > >> simmering the meat just makes the meat tasteless.
> >
> > > > * * Really? *I was thinking of removing it when it was cooked the way
> > > > meat in a stew/braise is cooked.
> >
> > > I always remove the meat when I have to thicken the sauce in a braised
> > > dish and it has to be boiled. Boiling toughens the meat and robs it of
> > > its flavour.
> >
> > * *Who boils stock?
> >
>
> I boil stock for about 5 minutes and skim, skim and skim. Then I turn
> it down for a real slow simmer and add the vegetables: Onions,
> Celery, Carrot and herbs in a cheese cloth.

I simmer it the whole time.

Regards,
Ranee @ Arabian Knits

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/

In article <[email protected]>,
Joseph Littleshoes <[email protected]> wrote:

> And all that, from mere "kissing" of the liquid, a "shimmer" or other
> slight vibration of the cooking liquids surface area to a full blow
> "roiling boil" i prefer something above a mere simmer on the liquids
> surface as it simmers, even if that's a low boil i have turned the stock
> down too after getting it going to a roiling boil in the beginning,
> which i do because i start the meat stock in cold water and skim
> assiduously as it comes to a BOIL and remains then at a BOIL for 10 - 20
> minutes while i assiduously skim.

The scum comes up even if you don't bring it to a boil, IME. You can
skim all you want and end up with a clearer stock, because it didn't
boil.

Regards,
Ranee @ Arabian Knits

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/

Ranée at Arabian Knits <[email protected]> wrote:

> Who boils stock?

I do, but it's vegetable stock.


S.

Joseph Littleshoes wrote:

> Its like broth and bouillon and soup, the are interchangeable terms in
> American vernacular usage.

I'm American and none of those terms are interchangeable to me <shrug>
You left stock off the list too.

Ranée at Arabian Knits wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Joseph Littleshoes <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>And all that, from mere "kissing" of the liquid, a "shimmer" or other
>>slight vibration of the cooking liquids surface area to a full blow
>>"roiling boil" i prefer something above a mere simmer on the liquids
>>surface as it simmers, even if that's a low boil i have turned the stock
>>down too after getting it going to a roiling boil in the beginning,
>>which i do because i start the meat stock in cold water and skim
>>assiduously as it comes to a BOIL and remains then at a BOIL for 10 - 20
>>minutes while i assiduously skim.
>
>
> The scum comes up even if you don't bring it to a boil, IME. You can
> skim all you want and end up with a clearer stock, because it didn't
> boil.
>
> Regards,
> Ranee

There are various substances that get thrown off the meat and bones at
various temps. and some of which are water soluble and needs to be
removed as soon as it rises to the surface, otherwise it gets reabsorbed
back into the stock and is a contributing factor to a cloudy stock.
--

Mr. Joseph Paul Littleshoes Esq.

Domine, dirige nos.

Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky.../sf_anthem.mp3

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:23:21 -0500, Goomba <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
>> Its like broth and bouillon and soup, the are interchangeable terms in
>> American vernacular usage.
>
>I'm American and none of those terms are interchangeable to me <shrug>
>You left stock off the list too.


I was going to say that-- but most of us on r.f.c do not speak food
'vernacular'. The masses rarely distinguish. [in my experience,
anyway]

And if soup belongs- I'd toss in stew.<g>

Jim
[and then there's the whole-- I don't care what you call it-- Does it
taste good?]