# How long do you cook your stock?



## legend_018

I've been making a lot of stocks/broths. I don't always make soup. I use it like someone would have a glass of water during the day. I also use it for soups, stews, and general cooking. Sometimes it's just using cut up chicken parts and other times it the carcass and left over chicken/turkey from roasting.

How long do you guys usually simmer your stock for?  I tend to not have the patients to do it for much longer then 12 hours tops. I have on occasion done 24 hours.  

I have read many references to it being better for you the longer it simmers. Especially when bones are involved. Does anyone else spend a lot of time simmering there stock/broth on the stove?

Just curious to what other people do.


----------



## GotGarlic

I guess it depends on how much I'm making but probably 4-5 hours, tops. Roasting the ingredients first adds a great depth of flavor that, imo, obviates the need to simmer it for so long. Note: I almost always make poultry stock, rather than beef, and it needs less cooking time. Still, I'm not running a restaurant here  This works for me.


----------



## Aunt Bea

Most of the time I cook stock for an hour and a half.  If I make boiled beef or a pot-au-feu I let it cook up to 4 hours.  I always add a glug of vinegar to the pot when I make stock.  I was told the vinegar helps release calcium and collagen.  I also cook my stock on very low heat, you only see a bubble every now and then.

After reading an article about the Great Depression I tried an experiment.  I strained the solids from a batch of stock and recooked them in fresh water.  The second stock did not have any flavor or life to it.  Since then I have not had any qualms about the short cooking time.

I'm probably doing it wrong, but my way works for me!


----------



## legend_018

I heard that the collagen isn't always extracted as much as it could from the bones if not simmered for at least 24 hours.  As I mentioned in my earlier post, there is just something about over 12 hours that make me feel impatient.  which sort of changes it from regular broth to bone broth.


----------



## Katie H

Whether or not I roast the bones for my stock, I still simmer it for several hours.  Once that's done and I've removed all the solids, I let it gently simmer, uncovered, until it's reduced by about 30%.


----------



## GotGarlic

legend_018 said:


> I heard that the collagen isn't always extracted as much as it could from the bones if not simmered for at least 24 hours.



That's not what I heard in culinary school. 

I believe "bone broth" is just another word for stock or broth, depending on the recipe (some include mirepoix and bouquet garni, some don't). It's the newest food fad. If you're simmering your stock for 12 hours, that's way more than enough to get good nutritional value out of it.


----------



## Andy M.

I simmer chicken/turkey bones/parts for 6 hours.  Some of the bones are roasted some are not.  I add mire poix veggies and other seasonings.  With 6 hours of simmering I get a rich stock loaded with collagen.  It has the consistency of Jell-O out of the fridge.  Any longer is a waste of energy in my opinion.

Beef stock is a different story.  Because of the thickness/density of beef bones, they need a lot longer simmering.


----------



## GotGarlic

+1..


----------



## Farmer Jon

Ive only made chicken stock. I dont have a set time. I just cook it until its done. 6 hours I suppose from start to finish. Sometimes 5 sometimes 8. Just when ever I think its done. Then I can it in a pressure canner.


----------



## bakechef

You could probably use a pressure cooker for stock and get 12 hour results in a lot less time.


----------



## Steve Kroll

Andy M. said:


> I simmer chicken/turkey bones/parts for 6 hours.  Some of the bones are roasted some are not.  I add mire poix veggies and other seasonings.  With 6 hours of simmering I get a rich stock loaded with collagen.  It has the consistency of Jell-O out of the fridge.  Any longer is a waste of energy in my opinion.
> 
> Beef stock is a different story.  Because of the thickness/density of beef bones, they need a lot longer simmering.


I do more or less the same. 

One thing to note is that I simmer stock on the lowest setting on the stove. It's barely bubbling at that setting, but I still remember my grandmother telling me (some 40 years ago) that if you simmer it too aggressively, the roiling action will turn it cloudy. Not that there's anything wrong with that, and I'm sure it's simply an aesthetic thing, but it's the way I was taught.


----------



## GotGarlic

Steve Kroll said:


> I do more or less the same.
> 
> One thing to note is that I simmer stock on the lowest setting on the stove. It's barely bubbling at that setting, but I still remember my grandmother telling me (some 40 years ago) that if you simmer it too aggressively, the roiling action will turn it cloudy. Not that there's anything wrong with that, and I'm sure it's simply an aesthetic thing, but it's the way I was taught.



That cloudiness is fat emulsified into the stock by rapid boiling. It can make the stock taste greasy. You can remove it by creating a "raft" with egg whites, but I've never done that.


----------



## Bookbrat

I don't time my stock/broth. It barely simmers on the very back of the wood stove (in the winter...crockpot in the summer) until the meat falls off the bones and has little flavor. Today I did a ham bone and it was about six-seven hours. The strained broth is simmering down to condense now.

We gave the kids an electric pressure cooker for Christmas and DD just sent me a video of her clear, gelatinous jiggly "bone broth". I may have to resurrect my old Mirro 6qt. in the spring. If I can still find gaskets and plugs. 

Not sure what the difference is between her bone broth and the stock-made-from-scraps that I've made forever.


----------



## larry_stewart

What's the opinion on vegetable stock?  I would assume it would require less time than a meat / bone stock.


----------



## Andy M.

larry_stewart said:


> What's the opinion on vegetable stock?  I would assume it would require less time than a meat / bone stock.




I believe you can get a flavorful vegetable broth in about 30 minutes.


----------



## GotGarlic

Bookbrat said:


> Not sure what the difference is between her bone broth and the stock-made-from-scraps that I've made forever.



I believe the only difference is that bone broth doesn't have vegetables, so they can call it paleo


----------



## Mad Cook

legend_018 said:


> I've been making a lot of stocks/broths. I don't always make soup. I use it like someone would have a glass of water during the day. I also use it for soups, stews, and general cooking. Sometimes it's just using cut up chicken parts and other times it the carcass and left over chicken/turkey from roasting.
> 
> How long do you guys usually simmer your stock for? I tend to not have the patients to do it for much longer then 12 hours tops. I have on occasion done 24 hours.
> 
> I have read many references to it being better for you the longer it simmers. Especially when bones are involved. Does anyone else spend a lot of time simmering there stock/broth on the stove?
> 
> Just curious to what other people do.


I've never simmered stock for that long. Mostly an hour or two at the most for meat and a lot less for fish stock. I find that if you cook stock including bones for too long it begins to taste a bit glue-y.


Veg stock doesn't need anywhere near that amount of time.


----------



## shells4

Day and a half to two days in a crock pot on low.  Often I roast the bones first.  Best stock ever!


----------

