Cooling Stock Revisited
wff_ng_7
described in a prior thread. I place the stock pot on a 1 inch tall wire
grid trivet in the laundry tub, then fill the tub up with cold water to
about the level of liquid inside the stock pot. This time I got out my
digital thermometer and measured the temperatures a few times. I was
surprised at how fast the stock cooled... even faster than I had thought.
Here are the temperatures (in degrees F) of the stock and the cooling water
initially, after 15 minutes, and after 45 minutes:
Initial 15
Minutes 45 Minutes
Stock 160 85
75
Cooling Water 64 71
72
So most of the cooling took place within the first 15 minutes. At 45
minutes, it was essentially as cool as it was going to get (without changing
the cooling water). 75 degrees is pretty much room temperature. The rate of
cooling is going to change depending on the time of year and the temperature
of the incoming tap water. The greater the initial temperature difference
between the stock and the cooling water, the faster it will go. In mid
winter, my tap water was at 43 degrees, but I didn't measure stock cooling
at that time. In summer, my tap water will be even higher than it is now.
Some other parameters... the stock pot is a tall copper one, 8 inches in
diameter and 10 inches tall. There was between 3-1/2 and 4 quarts of stock
in the pot.
I suspect the results wouldn't have been quite so good with a low wide stock
pot, or one made of another material. With a low wide pot, I think there is
less surface area exposed to the cooling water, and there will be less total
cooling water in the tub. You can only fill the tub up to about the same
level as in the pot, or the pot will "float away". Using a trivet under the
pot is even more important on a low wide pot, as a greater percentage of the
available cooling surface area is on the bottom compared to a tall narrow
one.
I always strain the stock, then cool it. That is the method recommended in
all the cook books I have, and they also say not to cool totally covered or
the stock can turn sour. Regarding the initial stock temperature of 160
above, that is after straining, which cooled it off a bit. The temperature
coming off the stove was more like 170 (or even up to 180... I don't
remember what I saw).
--
( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )
salgud
The formula for heat transfer is:
Q/t = kA (Th-Tc)/d
Q/t is the rate of heat transfer, like Btu's per hour, k is the thermal
conductivity of the conducting material (like your copper pot), A is
the area the heat is being transferred across (square inches or square
feet usually), Th (the h should really be a subscript) is the
temperature on the hot side (inside your pot of broth), Tc (the c
should really be a subscript) is the temp on the cold side (in your
tub), and d is the thickness of the pot wall (probably in inches).
Basically, all the formula says is that the rate of heat transfer is
increased if the pot wall is a good conductor, like copper, by
increasing the temperature differential between the contents of the pot
and the contents of the tub, by increasing the area over with the
transfer is taking place or by decreasing the thickness of the wall in
between.
So all of the factors you mentioned come into play here.
For you scientific/mathematical types, since the temp of the broth is
constantly falling, this formula becomes a differential equation to
account for the fact that as the broth temp falls (and, if you want to
get really detailed, the temp of the water in the tub rising, maybe),
Th keeps changing. Fun stuff, for us nerds!
Janet Bostwick
"wff_ng_7" <nosuc...@invalid.gov> wrote in message
news:G2r1g.2526$_s5.1079@trnddc04...
>I made a batch of chicken stock yesterday and cooled it by the method I
>described in a prior thread. I place the stock pot on a 1 inch tall wire
>grid trivet in the laundry tub, then fill the tub up with cold water to
>about the level of liquid inside the stock pot. This time I got out my
>digital thermometer and measured the temperatures a few times. I was
>surprised at how fast the stock cooled... even faster than I had thought.
> ( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )
minutes either by swirling the entire pot or stirring with a spoon in order
to expose the hotter core of liquid to the cooler outer portion of the pot.
Janet
salgud
With an 8" dia. stockpot, I doubt this would make much difference. It
might in a wider pot, but if you got much of a temperature differential
within the pot, it would create a small current between hot and cold
and do the stirring for you. Might make you feel better though!
Janet Bostwick
"salgud" <dav...@safebrowse.com> wrote in message
news:1145458749.1...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
be interesting to know whether the naturally forming currents would surpass
the artificially induced ones in efficiency.
Janet
LT
> The formula for heat transfer is:
>
> Q/t = kA (Th-Tc)/d
>
> Q/t is the rate of heat transfer, like Btu's per hour, k is the thermal
> conductivity of the conducting material (like your copper pot), A is
> the area the heat is being transferred across (square inches or square
> feet usually), Th (the h should really be a subscript) is the
> temperature on the hot side (inside your pot of broth), Tc (the c
> should really be a subscript) is the temp on the cold side (in your
> tub), and d is the thickness of the pot wall (probably in inches).
>
> Basically, all the formula says is that the rate of heat transfer is
> increased if the pot wall is a good conductor, like copper, by
> increasing the temperature differential between the contents of the pot
> and the contents of the tub, by increasing the area over with the
> transfer is taking place or by decreasing the thickness of the wall in
> between.
>
> So all of the factors you mentioned come into play here.
>
> For you scientific/mathematical types, since the temp of the broth is
> constantly falling, this formula becomes a differential equation to
> account for the fact that as the broth temp falls (and, if you want to
> get really detailed, the temp of the water in the tub rising, maybe),
> Th keeps changing. Fun stuff, for us nerds!
>
As I recall, altitude also plays some small part in this, as does static vs
moving liquids.
Larry T
Sheldon
> >described in a prior thread. I place the stock pot on a 1 inch tall wire
> >grid trivet in the laundry tub, then fill the tub up with cold water to
> >about the level of liquid inside the stock pot. This time I got out my
> >digital thermometer and measured the temperatures a few times. I was
> >surprised at how fast the stock cooled... even faster than I had thought.
>
> minutes either by swirling the entire pot or stirring with a spoon in order
> to expose the hotter core of liquid to the cooler outer portion of the pot.
That's just dumb... then most of the fat will remain with the stock
instead of rising to the top to solidify. And 4 quarts is not stock,
that's child's tea set cooking. And all those manual mashinations
contaminated whatever was in that pot... it's ALWAYS best to leave
stock cool undisturbed. There's really no reason to concern oneself in
how rapidly *sterile* stock cools. As far as culinarilly-wise this
was an exercise in lunacy. Don't yoose peeps have a life.
Sheldon
wff_ng_7
> In addition, I would recommend swirling the liquid in the pot every few
> minutes either by swirling the entire pot or stirring with a spoon in
> order to expose the hotter core of liquid to the cooler outer portion of
> the pot.
I usually do that, but not this time... I was busy enjoying music on Foni
tis Helladas... otherwise known in English as the Voice of Greece, over
shortwave. Not a word of English, but great Greek music. Not that I
understand any of it, but that doesn't matter.
I did stir at the 15 minute mark, both in the pot and in the tub, but that's
all. I did also stir at the very beginning and end just to get accurate
temperature readings, but that wouldn't affect the cooling rate.
--
wff_ng_7
> So all of the factors you mentioned come into play here.
>
> For you scientific/mathematical types, since the temp of the broth is
> constantly falling, this formula becomes a differential equation to
> account for the fact that as the broth temp falls (and, if you want to
> get really detailed, the temp of the water in the tub rising, maybe),
> Th keeps changing. Fun stuff, for us nerds!
I actually did consider looking some of this up... my degree in mechanical
engineering covered at lot of this stuff... 30+ years ago. But a seat of the
pants analysis was enough! ;-)
ewdotson
And your stock *stays* sterile as it cools down? What do you add to
it, Clorox?
--
Ernest
wff_ng_7
> That's just dumb... then most of the fat will remain with the stock
> instead of rising to the top to solidify. And 4 quarts is not stock,
> that's child's tea set cooking. And all those manual mashinations
> contaminated whatever was in that pot... it's ALWAYS best to leave
> stock cool undisturbed. There's really no reason to concern oneself in
> how rapidly *sterile* stock cools. As far as culinarilly-wise this
> was an exercise in lunacy. Don't yoose peeps have a life.
I figured rfc's resident twit would eventually check in.
I challenge the twit to produce a well recognized (if not authoritative)
reference condoning his method. Why not start with showing that the stock is
sterile. Most recipes recommend temperatures well below the boiling point,
and even cooking at the boiling point does not guarantee sterility. Most
recipes also recommend cooling NOT covered.
--
maxine in ri
When heating milk for yogurt, I use a pyrex 2-qt "cup", then cool the
yogurt down with a water bath in the kitchen sink. The 2 quart
container is about 8-9" across, and when I stand over it and gently
swirl the milk with the probe, the cooling takes about half the time of
allowing it to stand undisturbed.
Of course, that's only about 4" depth of liquid in there, so maybe that
would make a difference.
maxine in ri
Doug Kanter
Why do you feel it needs to be sterile?
Doug Kanter
news:1145462005....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sheldon is correct about repeatedly mixing the fat back into the broth. If
you don't mind finding globs of fat on the surface of everything you make
later with the broth, then stir away. As far as "sterile", why would you be
concerned about that? Nothing else in your world is sterile, except
bandages, until you open them.
wff_ng_7
>> I challenge the twit to produce a well recognized (if not authoritative)
>> reference condoning his method. Why not start with showing that the stock
>> is sterile. Most recipes recommend temperatures well below the boiling
>> point, and even cooking at the boiling point does not guarantee
>> sterility. Most recipes also recommend cooling NOT covered.
>
> Why do you feel it needs to be sterile?
I don't.
It is Sheldon claiming that because it is sterile, therefore there are no
worries about organisms growing in it during a slow cooling process. I
believe in a prior thread Sheldon even proposed leaving the pot out on the
counter overnight. I don't believe the stock is sterile to begin with, and
any additional pathogens introduced by speeding up the cooling are not as
important as getting the stock out of the dangerous (fast growth)
temperature range as quickly as possible.
I have yet to see a good source condoning Sheldon's method. On the contrary,
I've come across numerous recognized and authoritative references advocating
quick cooling methods.
ewdotson
Doug Kanter wrote:
> "ewdotson" <ewdo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1145462005....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Sheldon wrote:
> >>
> >> That's just dumb... then most of the fat will remain with the stock
> >> instead of rising to the top to solidify. And 4 quarts is not stock,
> >> that's child's tea set cooking. And all those manual mashinations
> >> contaminated whatever was in that pot... it's ALWAYS best to leave
> >> stock cool undisturbed. There's really no reason to concern oneself in
> >> how rapidly *sterile* stock cools. As far as culinarilly-wise this
> >> was an exercise in lunacy. Don't yoose peeps have a life.
> >>
> >
> > And your stock *stays* sterile as it cools down? What do you add to
> > it, Clorox?
>
> Sheldon is correct about repeatedly mixing the fat back into the broth. If
> you don't mind finding globs of fat on the surface of everything you make
> later with the broth, then stir away. As far as "sterile", why would you be
> concerned about that? Nothing else in your world is sterile, except
> bandages, until you open them.
It was Sheldon who brought up the sterility of his stock, not me. It
was that specific claim that I was addressing, as it struck me as
rather ludicrous.
--
Ernest
Doug Kanter
I don't agree with leaving it on the counter for longer than it takes for
the hot pot to be safely placed on the next surface, but the fact is,
Sheldon's still alive, and who knows how long he's been doing this? Not
important, though. You encounter more potential pathogens in other places
each day than you'll EVER find in a pot of broth that's been off the stove
for a few hours.
salgud
Stirring it continually might significantly effect the cooling rate,
since you'd be exposing the hot liquid to the room temp air (increasing
the surface area in contact with the air) while it's also being cooled
by the water bath. But stirring the broth occasionally would not have
nearly as much effect.
Janet Bostwick
"Doug Kanter" <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4tt1g.7569$tT....@news01.roc.ny...
snip
> Sheldon is correct about repeatedly mixing the fat back into the broth. If
> you don't mind finding globs of fat on the surface of everything you make
> later with the broth, then stir away. As far as "sterile", why would you
> be concerned about that? Nothing else in your world is sterile, except
> bandages, until you open them.
the method described. I recently heard of someone pouring hot concentrated
stock over ice in a strainer as a way of capturing the fat. Has anyone
tried that?
Janet
salgud
Doug Kanter wrote:
> "wff_ng_7" <nosuc...@invalid.gov> wrote in message
> news:sCt1g.8555$JY5.243@trnddc01...
> > "Doug Kanter" <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I challenge the twit to produce a well recognized (if not authoritative)
> >>> reference condoning his method. Why not start with showing that the
> >>> stock is sterile. Most recipes recommend temperatures well below the
> >>> boiling point, and even cooking at the boiling point does not guarantee
> >>> sterility. Most recipes also recommend cooling NOT covered.
> >>
> >> Why do you feel it needs to be sterile?
> >
> > I don't.
> >
> > It is Sheldon claiming that because it is sterile, therefore there are no
> > worries about organisms growing in it during a slow cooling process. I
> > believe in a prior thread Sheldon even proposed leaving the pot out on the
> > counter overnight. I don't believe the stock is sterile to begin with, and
> > any additional pathogens introduced by speeding up the cooling are not as
> > important as getting the stock out of the dangerous (fast growth)
> > temperature range as quickly as possible.
> >
> > I have yet to see a good source condoning Sheldon's method. On the
> > contrary, I've come across numerous recognized and authoritative
> > references advocating quick cooling methods.
> >
> > --
> > ( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )
> >
Is it possible this method could cause serious brain damage? Dogturd
may be alive, but his brain obviously is not!
Doug Kanter
news:124cq9q...@corp.supernews.com...
This is all very interesting, but if you're talking about a lot of stock,
like 3 or 4 gallons, you're going to need a lot of ice, and you may as well
just put the pot on a trivet in an ice chest, and bury it in ice.
Doug Kanter
>> the hot pot to be safely placed on the next surface, but the fact is,
>> Sheldon's still alive, and who knows how long he's been doing this? Not
>> important, though. You encounter more potential pathogens in other places
>> each day than you'll EVER find in a pot of broth that's been off the
>> stove
>> for a few hours.
>
>
> Is it possible this method could cause serious brain damage? Dogturd
> may be alive, but his brain obviously is not!
>
I can't vouch for the nature of his life, only that he is still sitting up
and typing. :)
wff_ng_7
There is a flaw in the logic that since Sheldon is still alive, that it must
be okay.
Many things end up being dangerous only part of the time. In those cases,
people tend to get a false sense of security that it then must be safe to
do. Take these two activities. If you take a gun, place it in your mouth,
and fire, there is a virtually 100% chance that you will be killed. On the
other hand, if you go speeding 90 mph through traffic, chances are you are
still going to survive. Because there is no immediate cause and effect
relationship, it may not appear to be risky. But statistically, if one
continues to drive 90 mph, one has a high probability of killing oneself.
I think a lot, if not most people have a hard time understanding statistical
chances of harm. They can't evaluate how risky something is, and whether the
risk is worth taking. Though many things might be a 1 in a 1,000 chance of
doing harm, we do thousands of things in our lives. Even at a 1 in a 1,000
chance of harm in any one activity, if you do enough of them, you are pretty
much guaranteed to get hurt.
I'm more willing to put my faith in someone well versed in the issues of
food safety than to be trusting some random idiot posting on the internet. I
know I am not a food safety expert, but the method I described to cool stock
is in line with what food safety experts advocate. Sheldon's method flies in
the face of such advice.
Doug Kanter
I've had food poisoning - the whole emergency room routine. (Theory: Truck
stop chili). So, I'm obsessive about cleaning up after handling raw meats &
seafood, to the point where certain individuals in this house aren't allowed
to wash the utensils because they don't take it seriously. But, a pot of
broth that's been simmered for a number of hours? Intuitively, I just don't
believe that's a high risk 2-4 hours after the heat's been turned off. I
have no damned links to back that up - it's a hunch.
There are pathogens on your toothbrush, your hands, doorknobs, fruits &
vegetables, and money.
Doug Kanter
news:1145473703.4...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> wff_ng_7 wrote:
>> I made a batch of chicken stock yesterday and cooled it by the method I
>> described in a prior thread. I place the stock pot on a 1 inch tall wire
>> grid trivet in the laundry tub, then fill the tub up with cold water to
>>
> What's missing from this thread and from the prior one on this subject
> is the notion that there is any problem in search of all these
> solutions. Who has ever had a problem? I make stock, I strain it into
> other containers and let them cool on the counter. When they have
> cooled a little a put them in the refrigerator. Big deal. If I'm
> going to have a large volume I turn the fridge's temp control down a
> few degrees to minimize heating up the other stuff in the fridge.
> (Someone suggested that is ineffective. Maybe, depending on how much
> you turn it down, but it certainly can't hurt.)
Actually, the pot *will* heat the fridge up more than you want, and turning
the thing colder probably won't help much.
> This ain't rocket science, nor does it need to
> be. -aem
>
But, I agree with this. Sticking the pot in a sink of cold water isn't such
a bad idea, and analyzing the process is slightly interesting, but enough
already. :)
Peter A
says...
> I've had food poisoning - the whole emergency room routine. (Theory: Truck
> stop chili). So, I'm obsessive about cleaning up after handling raw meats &
> seafood, to the point where certain individuals in this house aren't allowed
> to wash the utensils because they don't take it seriously. But, a pot of
> broth that's been simmered for a number of hours? Intuitively, I just don't
> believe that's a high risk 2-4 hours after the heat's been turned off. I
> have no damned links to back that up - it's a hunch.
>
>
germs and poisoning are the people who are most ignorant of the subject.
Now if you do not know the subject and want to be safe, then it makes
perfect sense to follow the recs of the "food safety experts," but the
fact is that they don't know the science either, and just parrot what
they have been taught. They go way overboard in recommending procedures
that go far beyond what is needed for safety. The idea is that it is
better for someone to boil longer than needed, or cool sooner than
needed, than to risk the chance that someone will not follow
instructions properly and have a problem. This started after WWII when
home canning was encouraged as part of the war effort, and there were
quite a few poisonings. The result was guidelines that went way beyond
what was needed. Sort of like recommending that for safe driving you
have to be in a car with 4 inch armor and 100 airbags.
--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm
Doug Kanter
>
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>> "aem" <aem_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1145473703.4...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > other containers and let them cool on the counter. When they have
>> > cooled a little a put them in the refrigerator. Big deal. If I'm
>> > going to have a large volume I turn the fridge's temp control down a
>> > few degrees to minimize heating up the other stuff in the fridge.
>> > (Someone suggested that is ineffective. Maybe, depending on how much
>> > you turn it down, but it certainly can't hurt.)
>>
>> Actually, the pot *will* heat the fridge up more than you want, and
>> turning
>> the thing colder probably won't help much.
>
> -aem
>
Sort of maybe I read too fast why didn't you say so thanks. :-)
Bob Terwilliger
accept responsibility if someone got food poisoning as a result of following
his advice?
Bob
Doug Kanter
"Bob Terwilliger" <virtualgoth@die_spammer.biz> wrote in message
news:44468e5e$0$26106$bb4e...@newscene.com...
I suppose I might wager a dime on it. But that's it.
salgud
I agree, up to a point. This whole issue of safety, and food safety, is
being overdone these days as far as I'm concerned. Others have pointed
out that there are germs all around us, 24/7. If we think that by
removing them from our food, there won't be any, we're dillusional. If
I went to all the trouble that Alton Brown does to prepare poultry, I'd
just call a Hazmat crew in anytime I spotted the stuff and have it
removed, and the whole kitchen, if not the house, fumigated, sanitized,
then burned to the ground!
I'm told that back in the thirties, there was a sanitization craze
around babies. Babies should never touch anything that hadn't been
soaked in Chlorox then heated in an autoclave. Shouldn't crawl of
floors or rugs. Shouldn't ever be allowed to touch pets, much less go
outdoors except in a baby carriage or a car. Guess what? Those kids
whose mothers overdid the cleanliness thing had all kinds of medical
problems later on, when the started living more normally, because they
had no resistence to normal crud that lives all around us. Like
anything else, cleanliness can be carried to an unhealthy extreme.
I let my stock cool on the stove. When it's cool enough, it goes into
an ice cube tray, gets made into cubes, and goes in a plastic bag in
the freezer. So far, so good. And my brain still works, which is more
than dogturd can say!
Bob Terwilliger
> Your hunch is backed up by science. The people who are most fearful of
> germs and poisoning are the people who are most ignorant of the subject.
> Now if you do not know the subject and want to be safe, then it makes
> perfect sense to follow the recs of the "food safety experts," but the
> fact is that they don't know the science either, and just parrot what
> they have been taught. They go way overboard in recommending procedures
> that go far beyond what is needed for safety. The idea is that it is
> better for someone to boil longer than needed, or cool sooner than
> needed, than to risk the chance that someone will not follow
> instructions properly and have a problem. This started after WWII when
> home canning was encouraged as part of the war effort, and there were
> quite a few poisonings. The result was guidelines that went way beyond
> what was needed. Sort of like recommending that for safe driving you
> have to be in a car with 4 inch armor and 100 airbags.
If you go all the way back to the original post, the OP mentioned that
quickly-cooled stocks TASTED better than slowly-cooked stocks. The
slowly-cooled stocks were called "sour."
The discussion then morphed into what it's become, but it was originally a
discussion about taste, not about health risks.
Bob
Doug Kanter
> I agree, up to a point. This whole issue of safety, and food safety, is
> being overdone these days as far as I'm concerned.
Side trip: In this small town (Rochester NY), the evening news people go
apeshit and send out camera crews when some driver taps a parking meter with
his bumper. But, every now and then, they make a mistake and actually come
up with an interesting story. Last year, they talked to some (actual) smart
person from our county health department. This person did an experiment
which involved cleaning several countertops with various germicidal cleaners
available in supermarkets, and then somehow sampling what bacteria were
left. Interesting result: The cleaners did what they were supposed to:
reduce the concentration of pathogens per square cm, or however they measure
it. But guess what? Even if these products killed a large percentage, the
researcher found bacteria which refused to die, and they multiplied. In one
case, the countertop was as bad as before it was cleaned.
I wipe down the counters with a soapy sponge. If I've been preparing meat,
I use a capful of clorox on the sponge, then rinse down the counter. But,
I'm not gonna go nuts like that if a drop a little cooked oatmeal.
Doug Kanter
news:MPG.1eb0560bf...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
> In article <ZCv1g.7600$tT....@news01.roc.ny>, ancien...@hotmail.com
> says...
>> I've had food poisoning - the whole emergency room routine. (Theory:
>> Truck
>> stop chili). So, I'm obsessive about cleaning up after handling raw meats
>> &
>> seafood, to the point where certain individuals in this house aren't
>> allowed
>> to wash the utensils because they don't take it seriously. But, a pot of
>> broth that's been simmered for a number of hours? Intuitively, I just
>> don't
>> believe that's a high risk 2-4 hours after the heat's been turned off. I
>> have no damned links to back that up - it's a hunch.
>>
>>
> Your hunch is backed up by science.
Not to send this off in yet another direction, but in various news sources
over the past week or two, there's been mention of a theory regarding
allergies, and why they're more prevalent now than 20-30-40 years ago: Some
kids live a life that's TOO clean. The immune system needs training.
In one of his routines, George Carlin comments that he's healthy because he
and his friends used to swim in the East River, with raw sewage floating
around. :)
Doug Kanter
Have you ever noticed a sour taste like that in stock that you've made?
wff_ng_7
> I agree, up to a point. This whole issue of safety, and food safety, is
> being overdone these days as far as I'm concerned. Others have pointed
> out that there are germs all around us, 24/7. If we think that by
> removing them from our food, there won't be any, we're dillusional.
I agree a lot of people go overboard with the food safety thing. But I think
a lot of that is driven by companies trying to sell one product or another.
I'm not convinced the bulk of the going overboard is driven by government
agencies or educational institutions. Do we really all need a color coded
set of cutting boards and knives, for example? Do we really need veggie
washes?
One of the things that tends to get me is the cross contamination issue. The
way it's presented tends to be a worse case scenario for absolute idiots.
Maybe it has to be that way... I've run into a lot of people in my day who
can't comprehend some of the most basic things. Does it matter if you use
the same cutting board and knife (starting clean) to first cut some
vegetables to be eaten raw, followed by some raw meat? Or does it matter if
raw meat is cut first, followed by vegetables that are going to be cooked in
a similar manner to the meat, if not with the meat? But trying to explain
the sequencing rules is just too hard to do, so complete separation becomes
the order of the day.
> I let my stock cool on the stove. When it's cool enough, it goes into
> an ice cube tray, gets made into cubes, and goes in a plastic bag in
> the freezer. So far, so good. And my brain still works, which is more
> than dogturd can say!
I guess it depends on whether you are meeting the "two hour rule", not that
one has to be so exact on this. The other advantage I find with a quick cool
is I can get the whole operation over and done with, and not risk getting
distracted with how long something has been left out. Minutes quickly turn
into hours when you forget about something and move on to other things.
Sheldon
ewdotson wrote:
> Doug Kanter wrote:
> > ewdotson wrote:
> > > Sheldon wrote:
> > >>
> > >> That's just dumb... then most of the fat will remain with the stock
> > >> instead of rising to the top to solidify. And 4 quarts is not stock,
> > >> that's child's tea set cooking. And all those manual mashinations
> > >> contaminated whatever was in that pot... it's ALWAYS best to leave
> > >> stock cool undisturbed. There's really no reason to concern oneself in
> > >> how rapidly *sterile* stock cools. As far as culinarilly-wise this
> > >> was an exercise in lunacy. Don't yoose peeps have a life.
> > >
> > > And your stock *stays* sterile as it cools down? What do you add to
> > > it, Clorox?
> >
> > Sheldon is correct about repeatedly mixing the fat back into the broth. If
> > you don't mind finding globs of fat on the surface of everything you make
> > later with the broth, then stir away. As far as "sterile", why would you be
> > concerned about that? Nothing else in your world is sterile, except
> > bandages, until you open them.
>
> It was Sheldon who brought up the sterility of his stock, not me. It
> was that specific claim that I was addressing, as it struck me as
> rather ludicrous.
>
That's because you're a low IQ pinhead.... of course boiled liquid
remains sterile as it cools down, unless your stick your widdle maggoty
peeppee in the pot. What kind of faggoty name is Errrrrnest... isn't
it Ernesto... you filthy dumb dago douchebag.
Mr. Sheldon to you, putz.
Sheldon
wff_ng_7 wrote:
> "Sheldon" wrote:
> > That's just dumb... then most of the fat will remain with the stock
> > instead of rising to the top to solidify. And 4 quarts is not stock,
> > that's child's tea set cooking. And all those manual mashinations
> > contaminated whatever was in that pot... it's ALWAYS best to leave
> > stock cool undisturbed. There's really no reason to concern oneself in
> > how rapidly *sterile* stock cools. As far as culinarilly-wise this
> > was an exercise in lunacy. Don't yoose peeps have a life.
>
>
> I challenge the twit to produce a well recognized (if not authoritative)
> reference condoning his method. Why not start with showing that the stock is
> sterile. Most recipes recommend temperatures well below the boiling point,
> and even cooking at the boiling point does not guarantee sterility. Most
> recipes also recommend cooling NOT covered.
This stock cooling business is a very old topic, anyone with the grey
matter to seach the archives will find tons of info.... way back from
when rfc'ers could actually cook.
Stock remains sterile for a long time while the fat layer remains
unbroken, IDIOT! Anyone working in my kitchen poked into my stock I'd
whack their hand off with a cleaver... actually I'd fire their dumb ass
on the spot.
But don't feel lonely, you totally useless waste of protoplasm... VERY,
VERY FEW here can actually cook... perhaps fewer than the fingers of
one hand, and that is a fact... proven once again right here in this
thread. Not to worry, wff-JERK, you ain't one of the fingers (LOL),
you ain't even good enough to be dirt under my finger nail... each day
I forget more about cooking than you will ever know in your entire
lifetime, you wff-NEWBIE piece of shit <g>
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .
confit
[kohn-FEE, kon-FEE]
This specialty of Gascony, France, is derived from an ancient method of
preserving meat (usually goose, duck or pork) whereby it is salted and
slowly cooked in its own fat. The cooked meat is then packed into a
crock or pot and covered with its cooking fat, which acts as a seal and
preservative. Confit can be refrigerated up to 6 months. Confit d'oie
and confit de canard are preserved goose and preserved duck,
respectively.
© Copyright Barron's Educational Services, Inc. 1995 based on THE FOOD
LOVER'S COMPANION, 2nd edition, by Sharon Tyler Herbst.
Sheldon
Bob Terwilliger
> Have you ever noticed a sour taste like that in stock that you've made?
Only if it's been in the refrigerator more than a week or in the freezer
longer than several months. When I make stock, I generally refrigerate
about a quart of it and freeze the rest in muffin tins. (When they're
frozen I scrape off the fat and then pop them out into freezer bags.)
I cool stock fairly quickly by pouring it from one pot to another through a
succession of finer and finer strainers.
Bob
wff_ng_7
> This stock cooling business is a very old topic, anyone with the grey
> matter to seach the archives will find tons of info.... way back from
> when rfc'ers could actually cook.
>
> Stock remains sterile for a long time while the fat layer remains
> unbroken, IDIOT! Anyone working in my kitchen poked into my stock I'd
> whack their hand off with a cleaver... actually I'd fire their dumb ass
> on the spot.
> But don't feel lonely, you totally useless waste of protoplasm... VERY,
> VERY FEW here can actually cook... perhaps fewer than the fingers of
> one hand, and that is a fact... proven once again right here in this
> thread. Not to worry, wff-JERK, you ain't one of the fingers (LOL),
> you ain't even good enough to be dirt under my finger nail... each day
> I forget more about cooking than you will ever know in your entire
> lifetime, you wff-NEWBIE piece of shit <g>
>
> Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .
This last paragraph is really what the issue is all about for Sheldon...
it's not about stock, it's not about cooking, and it's not about food. It
about Sheldon's emotional problems where he has to be "king of the hill" to
show his "superior" knowledge and abilities. If anyone dares offer an
alternative viewpoint, he invariably responds with pejoratives to belittle
that person... among them in this thread: pinhead, dago, faggot... in other
threads: WOP, motherfucker, etc.
Classic bullying, in my opinion. He must have some severe insecurity issues
to have to resort to this kind of behavior, week after week, month after
month, year after year.
One might be able to just ignore his behavior if it wasn't so pervasive, and
if he weren't so emphatic in spouting plainly false information, over and
over. Above he again states that stock is sterile. Far from it, but you'll
never convince him, you'll never get him to admit he is wrong.
Last night I went to the library to return some books that were due, and
while browsing came across an interesting book by a person that writes a
column in the Washington Post food section. It's called "What Einstein Told
His Cook 2" by Professor Robert L. Wolke of the University of Pittsburgh.
Though he is not a "food safety expert", he is very knowledgeable on
scientific issues, and is very good at explaning them in terms a layman
(excluding Sheldon) should be able to understand. He puts quite a bit of
humor into his explanations.
When I got home, it occurred to me to look and see if there was anything
about stock in this book. Sure enough, there's several pages on the topic
(p. 303-312). The book is largely in a question and answer format, and one
of the questions is explicitly about the sterility of stock. He discusses
why stock is definitely not sterile, and the science behind it. I'd suggest
that Sheldon read that section (or another source), but of course, as I said
above, that is really not the issue here.
ewdotson
Sheldon wrote:
> ewdotson wrote:
> > > > Sheldon wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> That's just dumb... then most of the fat will remain with the stock
> > > >> instead of rising to the top to solidify. And 4 quarts is not stock,
> > > >> that's child's tea set cooking. And all those manual mashinations
> > > >> contaminated whatever was in that pot... it's ALWAYS best to leave
> > > >> stock cool undisturbed. There's really no reason to concern oneself in
> > > >> how rapidly *sterile* stock cools. As far as culinarilly-wise this
> > > >> was an exercise in lunacy. Don't yoose peeps have a life.
> > > >
> > > > And your stock *stays* sterile as it cools down? What do you add to
> > > > it, Clorox?
[snip]
> That's because you're a low IQ pinhead.... of course boiled liquid
> remains sterile as it cools down, unless your stick your widdle maggoty
> peeppee in the pot. What kind of faggoty name is Errrrrnest... isn't
> it Ernesto... you filthy dumb dago douchebag.
>
> Mr. Sheldon to you, putz.
You know, it's really quite remarkable how well matched your knowledge
of science and your smack-talking skills are.
--
Ernest
Sheldon
Janet Bostwick wrote:
> "Doug Kanter" wrote:
> >
> > Sheldon is correct about repeatedly mixing the fat back into the broth. If
> > you don't mind finding globs of fat on the surface of everything you make
> > later with the broth, then stir away. As far as "sterile", why would you
> > be concerned about that? Nothing else in your world is sterile, except
> > bandages, until you open them.
>
> I was only thinking of the most efficient way to cool a body of liquid by
> the method described. I recently heard of someone pouring hot concentrated
> stock over ice in a strainer as a way of capturing the fat.
The hot stock would simply melt the ice, there'd be no ice for the fat
to cling to, not that it would cling anyway, it won't... by the time
the stock cooled it would have melted so much ice you'd have stock tea
(weak stock tea). Then you'd need to reduce the stock, you'd have
created a viscious cycle of cooling, heating, and reducing, removing no
fat at all, none. And why would you want to remove the fat prior to
the stock cooling, the fat layer more than anything else is what
prevents contamination.
Again, there is no reason whatsoever to cool stock quickly (stock is
not like custard). Freshly made stock is virtually sterile, certainly
as sterile as bottled water. Actually with foods there is no such
thing is absolute sterile (even hermatically sealed medically sterile
saline solution has a shelf life)... but for all practical purposes all
freshly boiled liquids are plenty sterile enough to safely remain at
room temperature, *undisturbed*, for many, many hours... the fat layer
maintains the stock sterilility/integrity for a long time.... one of
the oldest food preservation methods... sealing foods in their own fat
is not much different from sealing foods with wax. Wax coated cheeses
can stay at room temperature for a long time too.
Anyone whose chicken stock tastes sour it's not from cooling slowly at
room temperature, it's from using poultry backs and other garbage to
make stock, spinal cord creates sour tasting stock, fact. Anyone who
saves poultry trimmings for stock is making swill, not stock. Next
time yoose plan on making stock ask yourselves whether yoose live in a
third world country, that to survive you need to salvage garbage... the
bums who dumpster dive US restaurants for half eaten food are dining
better than yoose.
I only buy whole chickens (cut-up parts is salvage from cancerous
birds), the very first thing I do is cut out the back and toss it where
it belongs, in the trash. I never roast a whole chicken without first
cutting out the back. I save no trimmings, I make stock from whole
birds that have been well cleaned including cutting out the backs,
chicken is cheap... I can afford $5 worth of chicken to make two
gallons of stock. And I'm not about to invest all the time and effort
to make swill... I don't use rotting tomatoes in my sauce either, those
go in my composter, not my sauce pot. Yoose scraps savers can't tell
me you don't eat shit.
Sheldon
Food Snob
wff_ng_7 wrote:
> "Sheldon" <PENM...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > But don't feel lonely, you totally useless waste of protoplasm... VERY,
> > VERY FEW here can actually cook... perhaps fewer than the fingers of
> > one hand, and that is a fact... proven once again right here in this
> > thread. Not to worry, wff-JERK, you ain't one of the fingers (LOL),
> > you ain't even good enough to be dirt under my finger nail... each day
> > I forget more about cooking than you will ever know in your entire
> > lifetime, you wff-NEWBIE piece of shit <g>
> >
> > Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .
>
> This last paragraph is really what the issue is all about for Sheldon...
> it's not about stock, it's not about cooking, and it's not about food. It
> about Sheldon's emotional problems where he has to be "king of the hill" to
> show his "superior" knowledge and abilities.
>
here can actually cook" has a grain of truth.
--Bryan
wff_ng_7
> I agree, but you do have to admit that his statement "VERY, VERY FEW
> here can actually cook" has a grain of truth.
I don't know about that. Maybe just a grain. Off the top of my head, I can
think of probably two dozen that would seem to have a pretty good handle on
it, based on their descriptions of or questions about what they are doing.
Many of the "dumb" postings that do appear are by people that may very well
be quite proficient in one area of cooking but not another. For example, a
person might know a thousand things to do with various cuts of beef, but not
have a clue as to how to get an oyster open. My guess is the majority of the
multiple time posters, if not of all posters, know how to cook, in spite of
how things might look in a single message.
Aside from all of that, I don't like the behavior of cutting down someone
starting out with a new interest in the field, whether it be someone in
their 20s, or someone much older taking cooking seriously for the first
time.
salgud
Notice how dogturd has changed from "sterile" to "virtually sterile"
since his previous post. Keep backpedaling, dogturd!
pssst! don't anyone tell him there's a cliff behind him...
OmManiPadmiOmelet
I use a pressure cooker to make stock and leave the lid and rocker on
while it cools in the 'frige.
I can Guaran-damn-tee you my stock is sterile since I pressure cook it
for 45 to 60 minutes. ;-) Pressure cooking for 20 minutes minumum is the
next best thing to an autoclave......
I've posted pics of my stock. I'm sure you'll agree it's the real thing.
OmManiPadmiOmelet
> wff_ng_7 wrote:
>
>>"Food Snob" <CLAS...@BRICK.NET> wrote:
>>
>>>I agree, but you do have to admit that his statement "VERY, VERY FEW
>>>here can actually cook" has a grain of truth.
>>
>>I don't know about that. Maybe just a grain. Off the top of my head, I can
>>think of probably two dozen that would seem to have a pretty good handle on
>>it, based on their descriptions of or questions about what they are doing. [snip]
>
>
> Yes, and many legitimate questions are still answered here. But, if
> you looked back at rfc archives to, say, five or eight years ago you
> would find a much higher proportion of knowledgeable, even expert,
> posts about cooking. Not just recipes randomly scavenged from other
> websites, but explications of technique and discussions of variations.
> Standards and ambitions were noticeably higher than they are now.
> Newsgroup participation seems to have a sort of long wave cycle. I
> think we're currently swinging up from a trough.... -aem
>
Rather than criticizing, you could try _doing_ what you just mentioned
above?
It's always easier to whine than to do something constructive!
Reminds me of the damned day shifters at work. :-P
Gods I'm glad I work nights now! We actually work!
Goomba38
> Notice how dogturd has changed from "sterile" to "virtually sterile"
> since his previous post. Keep backpedaling, dogturd!
>
> pssst! don't anyone tell him there's a cliff behind him...
How does "sterile" and "virtually sterile" differ in the kitchen?
Have you considered that every time you inject your own uglines and name
calling into a post, that you're no better than who you complain about?
OmManiPadmiOmelet
> OmManiPadmiOmelet wrote:
>
>>aem wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, and many legitimate questions are still answered here. But, if
>>>you looked back at rfc archives to, say, five or eight years ago you
>>>would find a much higher proportion of knowledgeable, even expert,
>>>posts about cooking. Not just recipes randomly scavenged from other
>>>websites, but explications of technique and discussions of variations.
>>>Standards and ambitions were noticeably higher than they are now.
>>>Newsgroup participation seems to have a sort of long wave cycle. I
>>>think we're currently swinging up from a trough.... -aem
>>>
>>
>>Rather than criticizing, you could try _doing_ what you just mentioned
>>above?
>>
>>It's always easier to whine than to do something constructive!
>
>
> And you could try reading with your brain in gear. It's a simple
> statement of my opinion about the history and current status of the
> group, in response to opinions of others. Not a criticism, not a
> whine, as anyone less defensive could easily see. -aem
>
You might not be enjoying the group right now, but I am.
If you don't like it, you can always leave.
Frankly, I've not seen you contribute much other than whining lately...
so you have no grounds to complain.
If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.
Posts like that one contribute nothing.
wff_ng_7
> I use a pressure cooker to make stock and leave the lid and rocker on
> while it cools in the 'frige.
>
> I can Guaran-damn-tee you my stock is sterile since I pressure cook it
> for 45 to 60 minutes. ;-) Pressure cooking for 20 minutes minumum is the
> next best thing to an autoclave......
>
> I've posted pics of my stock. I'm sure you'll agree it's the real thing.
So how does it compare to stock done at a slow simmer? I don't have a
pressure cooker*, so I have never tried it that way. There's an interesting
note in Julia Child's "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" on using
pressure cookers for stock. She says the time should be limited to about 20
minutes for poultry stock, as it acquires an unpleasant taste with longer
times. Most stock recipes also say don't boil, but obviously things are
boiling in a pressure cooker. I'm willing to believe you're getting decent
results if you're satisfied with the end product.
I do the slow simmer thing, and do it for hours. There's something about
seeing that big copper pot sitting on the stove top, with great aromas
drifting through the house that is very comforting. Not something I
necessarily want to do in warm weather (the hours long part), but Tuesday
was relatively cool here.
*I do actually have a pressure cooker, but it's more one of those "display
only" kitchen items that never gets used. Not quite an antique, but pretty
old. I believe it dates to the 1930s, but perhaps it's older than that. It
has a patent date of 1832 on it (and that's legitimate, I looked it up on
the Patent Office web site). It was made in Germany. A nice historical
relic.
Victor Sack
> So how does it compare to stock done at a slow simmer? I don't have a
> pressure cooker*, so I have never tried it that way.
[snip]
>
> I do the slow simmer thing, and do it for hours. There's something about
> seeing that big copper pot sitting on the stove top, with great aromas
> drifting through the house that is very comforting.
... and which actually is an argument against that copper pot and for a
pressure cooker, at least according to Heston Blumenthal (see below).
Victor
Relieve the pressure
Heston Blumenthal
Saturday February 7, 2004
Guardian
OK, being awarded three Michelin stars at the Fat Duck is fantastic - a
dream, really - but it's terrifying at the same time. So it's a relief
to get back to the business of cooking. I'm a sucker for hi-tech kitchen
tools (though readers of my recent recipe column may have guessed that
already). Anyway, at the Fat Duck we've just started using a brilliant
gadget to make stocks. It's not exactly cutting-edge - it's the humble
pressure cooker - but it makes stock better and quicker than any other
method I know of.
Now, this may seem obvious, but when you smell those wonderful odours
while you're cooking, it's a sign that you're losing flavours through
those volatile elements that disappear in the air. A pressure cooker,
however, keeps the aromas and flavour molecules sealed in the pot. Also,
it cooks at a higher temperature than conventional methods - as high as
140°C, which is round about the point when those lovely meaty flavours
in the stock really begin to develop. In a normal stockpot, by contrast,
water evaporates at boiling point, taking flavour with it. A final
advantage is that the pressure keeps the liquid inside the cooker much
less turbulent, which helps to keep the stock that much clearer even
before you clarify it (unlike the traditional method, which renders all
sorts of impurities).
So, sweat some chopped onion and star anise (this really brings out the
meaty flavours) in a little oil, add the stock bones or meat, along with
water (or stock), clamp on the lid of your pressure cooker, and set over
the heat. And, after 30 minutes' cooking and 10 minutes' cooling down
time, you will have the best, truest tasting stock you've ever made.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
wff_ng_7
> ... and which actually is an argument against that copper pot and for a
> pressure cooker, at least according to Heston Blumenthal (see below).
From the article...
> Now, this may seem obvious, but when you smell those wonderful odours
> while you're cooking, it's a sign that you're losing flavours through
> those volatile elements that disappear in the air.
I agree that there's probably something being lost into the air, but the
final result doesn't seem to be missing anything. A similar argument is made
against percolated coffee, which can produce great aromas while brewing but
loses a lot in the cup. But I still do perked coffee... and expresso, and
turkish, and each produces a unique experience that I enjoy.
> A final
> advantage is that the pressure keeps the liquid inside the cooker much
> less turbulent, which helps to keep the stock that much clearer even
> before you clarify it (unlike the traditional method, which renders all
> sorts of impurities).
This I find a bit strange. The water in a pressure cooker must be boiling to
generate steam and activate the pressure control system (weight or spring).
I've never seen the inside of a pressure cooker while it was working; there
are not glass topped ones as far as I know. How active is the boiling? I
know in the long simmers I do, which are considerably below the boiling
point, there is practically no visible motion of the liquid... you really
have to stare at it to see anything.
Thanks for the article, it's another piece of information for me and others
to consider.
Ophelia
"OmManiPadmiOmelet" <Ome...@brokeneggs.com> wrote in message
news:124fjbu...@corp.supernews.com...
> I use a pressure cooker to make stock and leave the lid and rocker on
> while it cools in the 'frige.
>
> I can Guaran-damn-tee you my stock is sterile since I pressure cook it
> for 45 to 60 minutes. ;-) Pressure cooking for 20 minutes minumum is the
> next best thing to an autoclave......
>
> I've posted pics of my stock. I'm sure you'll agree it's the real thing.
I always use my pressure cooker for stock. It always comes out good.
Om please will you mail me, I lost yours in a recent crash
O
ajo...@gmail.com
quickly as possible. Either make it concentrated and then dump in some
iceblocks to speed chilling, or refrigerate asap. Most food poisoning
happens in the home through dodgy practices. Read more here:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/educator/educator6-2a.htm. This is one area
where bravado isn't a great idea.
Doug Kanter
<ajo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145633004.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Ice blocks? Now you're diluting it as the ice melts.
OmManiPadmiOmelet
I prefer to save electricity.
I can't afford to run the stove for hours when I make stock. ;-) I use
stock too frequently.
Here is a picture of Trotter (pig foot) stock that was pressure cooked
for 1 hour:
http://tinypic.com/w1d0na.jpg
That's after defatting and refrigeration.
I really do think it's every bit as rich in flavor.
You'd have to compare it yourself to see.
As for timing, pressure cooking for stock is going to depend on what you
are cooking. 1 hour is about the max and that's for really tough meats
like pigs feet or chicken feet. I use 45 minutes for chicken feet.
For using whole chicken, or regular pork or beef meat, I agree with
Julia for 20 to 30 minutes max.
If I use the pressure cooker JUST for cooking stew or soup, 15 to 20
minutes is the max time.
Om
Sheldon
More importantly there are virtually no bacteria to multiply in freshly
made uncontaminated/undisturbed stock. There is no more reason
(actually there's less reason) to cool freshly made stock quickly than
to cool freshly baked bread quickly.
It's far safer to let stock cool slowly undisturbed than to go sticking
unsterile utensiles in to stir, and pour into unsterile containers
thereby contaminating with unsterile air... kitchenware from your
cupboard is far from sterile so why pour sterile stock from a just
boiled in sterile pot into contaminated kitchenware containers. Duh
I'm now positive that very few of you GED drop outs (and like 98% of
you are) ever passed sixth grade general science... your widdle pea
brains are what's sterile!
Sheldon
wff_ng_7
> I prefer to save electricity.
> I can't afford to run the stove for hours when I make stock. ;-) I use
> stock too frequently.
I guess a lot depends on climate and time of year. Here in cool weather I
don't consider it to even be a cost. With the stove on, the furnace just
runs less. So it's essentially free in winter. In summer, it's a different
story, as the heat would have to be removed by the A/C system if it is
running.
I've got a gas stove and a gas furnace. A rough calculation indicates 5
hours of simmer time on the stove uses comparable gas to 1 or 2 minutes of
furnace run time. So it's not very significant to my gas bill in any case.
> Here is a picture of Trotter (pig foot) stock that was pressure cooked for
> 1 hour:
> http://tinypic.com/w1d0na.jpg
> That's after defatting and refrigeration.
>
> I really do think it's every bit as rich in flavor.
>
> You'd have to compare it yourself to see.
Looks very good, though I've heard the gelatinous quality is not necessarily
indicative of flavor... the reference being to using chicken feet. What goes
in certainly makes a difference. This week's poultry stock was only
moderately gelatinous, still pourable. The last batch I made was definitely
not pourable, probably very similar to the one in your picture. This lastest
one was all chicken, while the last one had duck and goose in it too.
Maybe some day I'll try the pressure cooker thing, but it might be a while.
Not that they cost much, I saw a cheapie this morning in a store add for
around $18 (too small, I'm sure). I could have had my grandmother's for
free... the issue is room not cost... where do I put all this stuff? ;-)
Doug Kanter
"Sheldon" <PENM...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1145636627.7...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sheldon, I doubt anyone in this discussion has bothered to consider the
definition of "sterile". Dictionary? Isn't that like....a book? Something
you open using a long stick, in case it tries to bite your hand off? :)
Sheldon
OmManiPadmiOmelet wrote:
>>
> I prefer to save electricity.
> I can't afford to run the stove for hours when I make stock. ;-) I use
> stock too frequently.
Pressure processed stock saves some time (maybe) but doesn't really
save much energy.... most of the energy is used to initially bring the
the liquid up to temperature... gotta do that regardless which kinda
pot) and then pressure pots typically require higher enrgy output
during use. And with your puny pot, that you can't fill more than 2/3,
you'd need to make three batches to my one. And no pressure processed
stock will taste as good as conventially cooked (you can't taste and
correct seasoning while processing). All in all conventially cooked
stock costs about the same in fuel used, tastes much better, and isn't
really slower... because one can do other things while the pot is
simmering... do you just sit there and watch your pressure pot do it's
thing. You're making fast food stock... pressure pots *process* food,
they don't cook. "Pressure Cooker" is definitely a misnomer,
manufacturer's hyperbole.
Sheldon
OmManiPadmiOmelet
I store my most frequently used pots in the oven...... <G>
I do think that the gelatinous quality of stock indicates the level of
richness, and that relates to flavor.
But, that's a personal opionion. <G> I used that stock to make a pot of
wild rice and just added onions, garlic, ginger and a little soy sauce.
OmManiPadmiOmelet
<shrugs>
Works for me........
Sheldon
OmManiPadmiOmelet wrote:
>
> I store my most frequently used pots in the oven...... <G>
So you don'r bake. <G>
> I do think that the gelatinous quality of stock indicates the level of
> richness, and that relates to flavor.
Richness in gelatin (mouth feel), not flavor... gelatin in of itself
has no flavor whatsoever... yes I can appreciate how you'd derive great
pleasure from a rich gelatinous texture in your mouth. Yup, when you
can't get the real thing you make do with pig's trotters and duck's
feet.hehe
Sheldon Knox
OmManiPadmiOmelet
> OmManiPadmiOmelet wrote:
>
>>I store my most frequently used pots in the oven...... <G>
>
>
> So you don'r bake. <G>
That's accurate. ;-)
Baking is rare for me and when I do, the oven empties out onto the
kitchen floor...
>
>>I do think that the gelatinous quality of stock indicates the level of
>>richness, and that relates to flavor.
>
>
> Richness in gelatin (mouth feel), not flavor... gelatin in of itself
> has no flavor whatsoever... yes I can appreciate how you'd derive great
> pleasure from a rich gelatinous texture in your mouth. Yup, when you
> can't get the real thing you make do with pig's trotters and duck's
> feet.hehe
>
> Sheldon Knox
<snork>
You been hiding out in my oven???????
>
salgud
dogturd's got it all wrong again. "pressure pots *process* food,
they don't cook. "Pressure Cooker" is definitely a misnomer,
manufacturer's hyperbole."
Absolutely untrue, as anyone who knows anything about heat and pressure
could tell him, if he were capable of listening. Most liquids,
including water, boil at higher temperatures at higher pressure (just
like water boils at a lower temperature here in Denver, about 202
degrees instead of 212, because the normal atmospheric pressure is
lower at a mile of altitude). If you pressurize a pot when you cook,
you simply increase the temperature of the liquid inside by increasing
it's boiling point so that you can be cooking your stock at say, 230 or
240 degrees instead of 212. The little weight on top of the pressure
cooker merely increases the pressure inside by not allowing the steam
out until it has reached the desired pressure.
This can accelerate cooking considerably, just like cooking in a 400
degree oven will cook faster than a 300 degree oven. Of course, just
like cooking in a hotter oven can burn things or dry them out, cooking
at higher temperature in a pressure cooker may not give as good results
as cooking longer at a lower pressure and temperature. If you're happy
with the results, my guess is that in the case of stock, it's not a
problem.
There are also side effects to cooking under pressure which in some
cases, enhance the process, and in others, detract from the desired
result. The only way you could predict this would be to experiment and
see how it went.
Again, dogturd gives an opinion on something he obviously knows nothing
about. And he makes his pork chops with Shake-n-Bake!! LOL!
Sheldon
I guess occasionally you bake a salami! hehe
Sheldon
OmManiPadmiOmelet
When I get the chance..... <g>
Victor Sack
> "Victor Sack" <azaz...@koroviev.de> wrote:
> > ... and which actually is an argument against that copper pot and for a
> > pressure cooker, at least according to Heston Blumenthal (see below).
>
> From the article...
> > Now, this may seem obvious, but when you smell those wonderful odours
> > while you're cooking, it's a sign that you're losing flavours through
> > those volatile elements that disappear in the air.
>
> I agree that there's probably something being lost into the air, but the
> final result doesn't seem to be missing anything.
How do you know if you haven't tried the alternative?
> A similar argument is made
> against percolated coffee, which can produce great aromas while brewing but
> loses a lot in the cup. But I still do perked coffee... and expresso, and
> turkish, and each produces a unique experience that I enjoy.
The argument is not all that similar. Coffee is prepared in a few
minutes; traditionally made stock takes up to 12 hours. Much more is
inevitably lost in such a long time.
> > A final
> > advantage is that the pressure keeps the liquid inside the cooker much
> > less turbulent, which helps to keep the stock that much clearer even
> > before you clarify it (unlike the traditional method, which renders all
> > sorts of impurities).
>
> This I find a bit strange. The water in a pressure cooker must be boiling to
> generate steam and activate the pressure control system (weight or spring).
> I've never seen the inside of a pressure cooker while it was working; there
> are not glass topped ones as far as I know. How active is the boiling? I
> know in the long simmers I do, which are considerably below the boiling
> point, there is practically no visible motion of the liquid... you really
> have to stare at it to see anything.
Regarding supposed less turbulence in the pressure cooker, I would be
inclined to defer to Heston Blumenthal who is famous for not taking
anything for granted and for doubting every accepted wisdom. He is
constantly experimenting to find the best way of doing something. He is
not the only one with the opinion about less turbulence in the pressure
cooker - see, for example,
<http://forums.egullet.com/index.php?showtopic=40548>.
Victor
wff_ng_7
> How do you know if you haven't tried the alternative?
I would try it, except I'd have to get a pressure cooker. As I mentioned in
another posting, I'm not ready to get one, mostly for the shortage of room
to store things. Not just for stock making. I know they can be used for a
lot of other things, but I'm in no rush to try those out either at the
moment.
I guess in cooking, as in a lot of things, it's the overall experience that
gives satisfaction, not just the final result (the journey is more important
than the destination?). So perhaps I could get a better stock using a
pressure cooker, but then I'd miss the aspects of making stock that I
cherish, such as the aroma drifting through the house.
>> This I find a bit strange. The water in a pressure cooker must be boiling
>> to
>> generate steam and activate the pressure control system (weight or
>> spring).
>> I've never seen the inside of a pressure cooker while it was working;
>> there
>> are not glass topped ones as far as I know. How active is the boiling? I
>> know in the long simmers I do, which are considerably below the boiling
>> point, there is practically no visible motion of the liquid... you really
>> have to stare at it to see anything.
>
> Regarding supposed less turbulence in the pressure cooker, I would be
> inclined to defer to Heston Blumenthal who is famous for not taking
> anything for granted and for doubting every accepted wisdom. He is
> constantly experimenting to find the best way of doing something. He is
> not the only one with the opinion about less turbulence in the pressure
> cooker - see, for example,
> <http://forums.egullet.com/index.php?showtopic=40548>.
That article is very interesting, though I haven't read the whole thing yet,
mostly just the stock part. I can believe a pressure cooker would have less
turbulence than open boiling, but I'm having problems believing it has less
than the slow simmer. Maybe there is something here though that I am just
not getting. Personally I haven't been real concerned about the clarity of
the stock I'm making for the uses I have. My stock has been fairly clean in
any case. I can see there are uses where clarity would be extremely
important, but I'm not doing those yet.
Thanks for the pointer; there is a lot of good info there.
notbob
> ... and which actually is an argument against that copper pot and for a
> pressure cooker, at least according to Heston Blumenthal (see below).
He's not alone, Victor. A very respected chef, Gary Danko:
http://www.garydanko.com/site/bio.html
....is also pro-pressure cooker. Here is a recipe for pressure cooker
veal stock I picked up while attending one of his cooking classes at
Draeger's in Palo Alto, CA.
----------
TIME SAVING VEAL STOCK PREPARED IN A PRESSURE COOKER
Ingredients:
1 lb veal breast or veal shank, shoulder or nec, cut into 4-inch
chunks
1 lb veal shank bones, cut into 3-inch pieces
1 3oz carrot, peeled, cut into 3-inch lengths
8 ozs onions, peeled, cut in half
1/2 bay leaf
1 sprig thyme
1/4 C dry white wine
parsely stems
1 whole leek, split down center, washed well
Method:
Place breast and bones evenly spread on a roasting pan or heavy
sheet pan with sides. Roast in 350 deg F oven until golden brown,
about 1 hour, or so. Place breast, bones and vegetables in pressure
cooker making sure that pot is no more than 2/3 full. Deglaze roasting
pan with white wine and add to pressure cooker. Cover with water
1-inch above the bones, meat and aromatics. Secure lid to pressure
cooker, place over medium high heat and bring to a full boil or steam,
reduce to a simmer keeping the pressure on medium steam. Simmer
gently and consistently for 45-60 mins. Remove from heat and cool
down naturally or use the rapid cooldown method. Strain through
colander reserving the bones and meat. To make a secondary stock cover
bones with water and bring to a boil simmering and additional hour.
The resulting stock will be gelatinous and may be used as a neutral
stock or poured over fresh roasted bones, meat, and aromatics to make a
new veal stock richer in gelatin.
Strain the stock through chinois or cheesecloth. If you plan to store
the stock for a few days leave the fat on the top. To make a glaze,
make sure there is no fat present. If storing in the refrigerator
for a week or longer, the stock must be boiled every 3-4 days. This
to keep from spoiling.
-----------
He didn't do this one in the cooking class, but included it in the
recipe handouts. For my previous post on Gary's complete Ritz-Carlton
veal stock recipe:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V6C821FFC
enjoy =D
nb
He didn't use it in the class, instead
focusing on the classic method of preparation of veal stocks for use
in fine cuisine.