A rich, dark chicken stock with loads of flavor. It's a practical and delicious alternative to veal stock.
|Comments: 111||Views: 34590||Success: 100%|
Our finest instructional step-by-step video recipes. See what people are talking about.
Hi second attempt here almost finished. Again it is a orange/dark rust type color rather than that beautiful brown color shown on the video. Any ideas what I'm not doing right? why it isn't darker? see above questions as well please. Thanks Rouxbe.
As described in the fundamentals lesson, necks, backs or other bones can be used, so whatever combination you have will work. The point is that the bones will give the water flavor and gelatin.
Again, if the bones and mirepoix aren't covered by the water, their flavors cannot be extracted. It is just to cover, so if you simmer for long periods of time, the water will obviously evaporate, so you will need to replenish it with just a tiny bit to keep things covered. The orange color could be due to the tomato paste and mirepoix. You can concentrate the flavors and deepen the color further, if need be, by simmering and reducing the stock once you have defatted it.
The more important thing here is that you are actually making stock. You are flavoring water to enhance other dishes that you cook. Cheers!
So reducing it is the only way to get it to that dark, dark brown/black color? this morning I checked after refrigerating all night and it is very thick and solid "wobbly" gelatin like and not at all liquid with a small fat cap. Is that normal?
Yes, to deepen the color and flavor, you need to simmer and reduce the stock.
Regarding your other questions, I am going to assign you to a bit more homework :-) Please read through the comments on the related stock lesson forums. Other students have asked the very same questions and have had the very same concerns that you have. We have tried to answer these questions extensively. If a particular question has not already been asked, you are more than welcome to fire away; but, by reviewing the forum threads and using the search function on the site to help you find your answer, this will help to keep the forums concise so that the same questions and answers aren't repeated over and over again. Make sense?
You are leaps and bounds ahead of most people by getting in the kitchen and following through on making stock. Be proud of yourself, keep on cooking, work through the practice exercises and make sure to search out and review all of the content on the site. Cheers!
Hi Kim I understand what you are saying. I have looked but not always finding answers relating exactly to what I need to know, or I found answers but still didn't understand, It isn't easy being a complete beginner. In regards to my question, now hear me out please, the first time I made dark chicken stock it was too runny and thin after refrigerating, now this batch after refrigerating is pure gelatin. So the question I have that I don't see above is: how gelatinous is average? so I know I'm doing it right? I hear your site has a comprehensive faq in the works too that should be helpful.
Yes, I totally understand that you are a beginner cook and you are doing a great job. The forums are a lot to go through (and will be enhanced in the near future), but reading about other people's experiences is part of your learning process. If you type in "gelatin" in the search bar, you will automatically find several discussions on this subject. As you will read, a very gelatinous stock is a good thing! Also, keep in mind where you look for posted questions. The question and answer may not be attached to the practice recipe, but rather to the actual lessons on how to make various stocks. Hope this helps! Cheers!
Yesterday, I thought I would save some time by caramelizing some chicken backs and necks in a large fry pan. (I’m not so sure it actually saved any time!) Then removed bones to smaller stock pot then my usual one, and tossed mirepoix into fry pan. (It’s a really big fry pan.) I got a little worried my sucs would spoil before the veggies caramelized any more, so added tomato paste, deglazed, and did the rest of the stock process. The stock turned out well (gelatinous, clear, pretty colour, and tasty), but seems less intense than other times I’ve made it using the oven for caramelizing. I’m not sure why. I think I used more mirepoix compared to the amount of bones than I usually use, and that would make a difference. Mirepoix was not particularly caramelized, and that would make a difference. My question is, do you think doing the bones in the fry pan vrs in the oven makes a difference in the flavour? I think it did because the process created quite a lot of fat in the pan so that I needed to pour it off before veggies, and no way I could put it into the stock pot. I'm thinking in the oven, the fat drips away and that way isn't washing flavourful stuff off the chicken before it gets into the stock pot.
I think you answered your own question :-) When you think about it, the oven offers more surround heat and can caramelize all of the nooks and crannies within the bones where a fry pan can't reach... so, yes, the oven can roast the bones and veggies more evenly which will help to produce a more intense flavor. While you can brown the bones in a pan, it is better to reserve this method when browning small bones (i.e. when making short stock). It will be easier to evenly brown the surface area of small bones, rather than large ones. And yes, it is harder to control the heat in the pan and bits can become overly caramelized... but, you can do the browning in batches to make sure nothing gets burnt.
Btw, even though we drain the fat off of the pan prior to deglazing, any fat that winds up in the stock will float to the surface and can be skimmed off as it cooks. So you can pour all of that fat from the roasting pan right into the stock pot. You don't need to be afraid of it. Just make sure the stock doesn't boil and it'll all be good. Cheers!
Hi, I didn't see it mentioned above or in the recipe itself, but were we supposed to keep refilling the water level? My chicken bones sort of disintegrated while they were submerged so initially I didn't notice the lowering level....then by the end...I had about half of the amount of stock I was expecting. (It looks and smells delicious but there is so little of it!).
I only made half the recipe to start with. Should I have kept re-topping it up? Now I am worried I won't have enough to make french onion soup!
It's possible I had the temperature up too high causing too much evaporation. I did it for the full six hours and was making something else (Rouxbe ravioli!) towards the end....so possible major oversight on my part.
I guess next time with lower temperature much less should go missing?!
Yes, if the water goes below the bones then it should be topped up with a bit more water. It sounds like it could have been a case of needing to adding more water and maybe also turning down the heat a bit.
I encourage you to watch the cooking school lessons on stock making. In particular, the lesson called "Stock Making Fundamentals" as we go into quite a bit of detail regarding this.
By the way, if you need more stock for your French onion soup, as long as the stock tastes delicious and it has a nice strong flavor, you could add a bit more water to expand it a bit. Hope this helps. Cheers!
I've often struggled a bit with the same question, and while the video lesson is very comprehensive, maybe you could provide a general rule of thumb for the amount of reduction to expect for an ideal stock. I know that the answer will be "it depends" but if there is a range to shoot for, that would be helpful (ie. expect the water to reduce by 1/4 to 1/3 or whatever). The last time I made chicken stock, I started with 10 quarts of water which yielded a little over 5 quarts of stock. The stock was rich and dark and gelatinous, but I wondered if I could have had maybe a total of 7 quarts without sacrificing the flavor or quality of the stock. I know there's no hard and fast rule here, but a rough guideline would be helpful.
Okay. I can't resist jumping in. I don't think there's missing stock or a way to predict how much it would reduce. For example, I have two pots I use for stock, and one seems to evaporate more liquid than the other. I think the trick is to just keep the bones barely covered with water, keep it at a slow simmer, and avoid the dreaded boil. After whatever amount of time, straining and getting rid of any fat, I sometimes reduce the stock before freezing for space and convenience; but if I do that, I strain it through cheesecloth first to make sure I don't emulsify fat into the stock. I can add back liquids later depending on what I want to do with the stock. I find I add water to the stock as I'm making the stock to control the temperature (getting too close to boiling), and that bit is usually all I end up adding to keep the bones covered. I think I end up with about 1/2 or a little more stock than the original amount of water I started with. If I make French Onion soup, I add back some water to stretch the stock - maybe about 1/3 by volume, depending on how rich the stock is.
Thanks for jumping in Janice and good answer btw. Indeed, It is hard to predict how much a stock will reduce. How much a stock will reduce, depends on the pots, the amounts of ingredients, their size, the heat etc.
Franklin, I also wanted to mention that you are really just making flavored water. The more water, the less concentrated the water. The more water, the less concentrated the flavor. Again, as Janice mentioned, it's just important to keep the bones barely covered during the slow simmer. If they are not covered, then there is no way to extract their flavor.
In the end, if the final stock is rich and gelatinous and the flavor is there, then mission accomplished. And as Janice pointed out, you can simply expand the stock later if you like. The flavor will not be as concentrated but it would give you more volume. Besides, not every dish/recipe requires a super rich stock. Hope this helps. Cheers!
I am wondering if you can tell me the correct French for ‘stock’ and for the necks and backs of chickens required to make it.
I am a new member of Rouxbe but I also monitor and use a number of French sites for information and cooking tips.
I am much enjoying the Rouxbe lessons, but would simply like to also look at how the French deal with stock and the ‘necks and backs’ of chickens to make it. I just find it quite interesting and since I speak French, it increases my useful vocab in cooking.
Merci , Jeanette Marie Pontacq
The French word for stock is FOND (short for foundation) I always mention that when I teach stock to English speaking classes, so they hopefully connect with the importance, and to pay attention in making a good FONDation for soups, stews, sauces....
As for Neck and back, we would simply say "cou" for neck and "dos" for backs, I can't recall any special term associated to the poultry anatomy, I think cou and dos is what we use.
B H: where I live, Parsley is mostly sold in bunches. It is exactly what it sounds like: a bunch of Parsley stalks bound in string. The size will vary, I'd guess something like 20-40 stalks with lots of leaves.
Some stores in my area also sell Parsley in pots. These are usually a little smaller, but if it's the only thing I can get, I typically treat one plant as "one bunch".
I've made beef and chicken stock before, but this is my first dark chicken stock. I didn't get anything to skim off the top, but it could be because I trimmed almost all the fat off the bones before using them. When I finally took it out of the fridge, I noticed no fat on top, but a thin layer of a creamy orange substance. I didn't care for the tomato smell, but after skimming it off, the tomato smell subsided to an acceptable level.
I noticed the stock was opaque and had tiny suspended bits, but this looked the same as the video. I tried to further strain it with my coffee press, but the mesh strainer in the press was just too small and the stock didn't pass through very well. I noticed transparent gelatin like substance plugging the mesh strainer. This brings up a an interesting concept of flavor to gelatin ratio: If I reduce it to increase the gelatin, I get more concentrated flavor, but if I already have enough gelatin, I wouldn't really be reducing it that much and my flavor wouldn't be as strong. Maybe I'm just trying to make myself feel better that my stock isn't coming out as gelatinous as others. This stock had 3 chicken carcasses in it and yielded about 4 liters. I always use young chickens for my stocks. Would I see a difference using older chickens? Or, do I just need to increase my chicken bones? I have to admit, I have yet to see any advantage of having a real gelatinous stock.
I reduced some of it as part of the lesson practice. It seems to taste fine, pretty much like au jus, but with a chicken flavor. It meets my expectations as far as appearance, taste, and texture. So if I use this reduced stock in my sauces, do i no longer need to reduce my sauce? I made it verbatim using the recipe except that I used a countertop roasting oven. The only difference I saw was the roaster seemed to keep my bones wetter during the roasting; I feared that I did more steaming than roasting.
My next batch, I will eliminate the tomato paste to see what it does for the flavor. I plan to ditch the roaster and just use the oven. I'm also going to increase my bones for more gelatin and find out if there really is a reason to desire this. I think I'll experiment with different chickens too.
Haven't experienced Rouxbe yet, why not take a free trial to see what the world is talking about.