# Making chicken stock twice from the same bones



## seans_potato_business (Jun 24, 2011)

I've been making chicken stock from all the parts of the chicken that I didn't put in my stew. I was wondering whether it's possible to get more than one lot of stock out of the same [bones, ligaments, skin etc]? Anyone tried? Is most of the goodness to be had in the first batch?


----------



## purple.alien.giraffe (Jun 24, 2011)

I've never tried it but I know when I've made stock I've looked at the bones afterward and they were hollow, no more marrow. So I would guess probably not, but I'm not sure.


----------



## Zhizara (Jun 24, 2011)

Make your stock as strong as possible the first time.  You can thin it as you use it.  Remember,  you have to store it, 

You may also want to thin it with milk, or cream, so this method gives you more options to use it up.


----------



## LPBeier (Jun 24, 2011)

I agree with Zhizara.  My rule of thumb is to slow simmer my stalk until the bones are bare, dark and hollow.  What should come out is a very strong rich stock that you can even thin out on use if needed.

I just did a large batch with two stewing hens.  I buy them whenever offered at our butcher and usually get two for about 4 dollars.  I don't even cut them up, just make slits at the joints and stab the skin all over.  I slow simmer for hours.  I take out any good pieces of meat to use in stews and pot pies before they dry out too much and let the rest cook (with a mire poix of carrots, celery and onion and some bay leaves and peppercorns) until it is literally mush.  I strain it off and have excellent stock for all my needs.


----------



## Andy M. (Jun 24, 2011)

If you make a stock properly, there shouldn't be much left in the bones for another batch.


----------



## seans_potato_business (Jun 25, 2011)

Andy M. said:


> If you make a stock properly, there shouldn't be much left in the bones for another batch.



Well I boiled it for about for hours. Is that wrong?


----------



## joesfolk (Jun 25, 2011)

Stock should really be simmered slowly for long periods.  But perhaps that is what you meant when you said that you boiled it.


----------



## Claire (Jun 25, 2011)

There are ways of looking at this.  I have, definitely, made a stewed chicken with parts or a whole bird, then made _more_ stock from the bones leftover.  Or made stock with bones, then broken them, and put them back and cooked some more.  The more bone and cartilage exposed to the water, the better.


----------



## Andy M. (Jun 25, 2011)

seans_potato_business said:


> Well I boiled it for about for hours. Is that wrong?




It takes 4+ hours of simmering (not boiling) chicken parts including bones to make a good stock.  When you do that, there's nothing left in the parts and bones worth having.  

If you cook it for less time so you make two batches, you'll end up with two inferior batches of stock.


----------



## Dawgluver (Jun 25, 2011)

I used to boil the heck out the carcass. I agree with Andy and others here, the secret is simmering, not boiling.  Love the stock from a rotisserie chicken carcass, but wouldn't try to get double duty.


----------



## Zhizara (Jun 25, 2011)

What Andy said!


----------



## seans_potato_business (Jul 10, 2011)

Well the pan is on the lowest heat of the smallest ring and it boils with the lid on. I can take the lid off but then it turns into a humidifier and the stock evaporates away.

You might say that boiling twice gives two batches of inferior stock but if all that is going into one soup which would otherwise be thinned by having to add more water anyway, nothing is lost.


----------

