Re: Spontaneous Chicken Stock?

[Guest guest]

I got jelled stock from cooking a bird in a crock pot.

> I baked a chicken on Saturday in a covered casserole pan. I was in

a

> hurry so it was quick and dirty. No seasonings, no water, no

> oil...just a pastured chicken in a covered pyrex casserole pan at

> about 300 degrees for a couple hours.

>

> It turned out surprisingly well, considering I didn't bother to do

> anything whatsoever to it... It was moist, tender, and just about

as

> flavorful as a chicken can be without any significant browning or

> seasoning (not even salt).

>

> Here's the weird part though. I got 2-3 cups of stock out of the

> deal. It was there as soon as I took it out of the oven...before

> piercing it with a thermometer or anything.

>

> At first I didn't think it was stock, I thought it was just fat and

> some water from some ice that might have been left inside the

carcass.

>

> Nope, I stuck the whole thing in the refrigerator as soon as it had

> cooled somewhat. When I next checked on it. The bird was sitting

in

> about 1.5 inches of quite well-gelled stock.

>

> Does anybody else get spontaneous stock when they cook a bird like

> this?

>

> Thanks,

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 03:14 PM 8/27/2002 +0000, you wrote:

>Nope, I stuck the whole thing in the refrigerator as soon as it had

>cooled somewhat. When I next checked on it. The bird was sitting in

>about 1.5 inches of quite well-gelled stock.

>

>Does anybody else get spontaneous stock when they cook a bird like

>this?

>

>Thanks,

>

>

My baked chicken usually comes out like that. Very gelled. Not quite

as much " stuff " in it as long-stewed bones, I think, but it tastes great.

Baked chicken is one of those little-known " easy cheaty recipes " , IMO.

Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi & ,

Thanks. I was really surprised. I don't think I've ever done it

covered before so I don't think the juices ever really collected

without evaporating. I generally like a crisper skin so I usually do

fairly high temp roasting, but there's definitely alot to be said for

the slow roast. Next time I think I might even lower the temp

further and let it go longer.

The pan was easier to clean too; nothing was baked on!

I'd like to see an analysis on which causes more significant nutrient

losses and oxidation: long lower-temp cooking or short higher temp

cooking. I suppose it wouldn't necessarily be a uniform answer; it

probably depends on which nutritional component and/or food you're

looking at.

[Guest guest]

That's typical of low heat cooking when you don't brown it first - the

juices tend to come out, and if the heat is gentle enough you have liquid in

the pan instead of dried and browned juices. If you use higher heat and open

pan you still get juices out of the meat, but the water evaporates and the

remaining goo browns and makes good gravy if you don't let it get too dark.

Peace,

Kris , gardening in harmony with nature in northwest Ohio

If you want to hear the good news about butter check out this website:

http://www.westonaprice.org/know_your_fats/know_your_fats.html

----- Original Message -----

From: " skroyer " <scott@...>

< >

Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 11:14 AM

Subject: Spontaneous Chicken Stock?

> I baked a chicken on Saturday in a covered casserole pan. I was in a

> hurry so it was quick and dirty. No seasonings, no water, no

> oil...just a pastured chicken in a covered pyrex casserole pan at

> about 300 degrees for a couple hours.

>

> It turned out surprisingly well, considering I didn't bother to do

> anything whatsoever to it... It was moist, tender, and just about as

> flavorful as a chicken can be without any significant browning or

> seasoning (not even salt).

>

> Here's the weird part though. I got 2-3 cups of stock out of the

> deal. It was there as soon as I took it out of the oven...before

> piercing it with a thermometer or anything.

>

> At first I didn't think it was stock, I thought it was just fat and

> some water from some ice that might have been left inside the carcass.

>

> Nope, I stuck the whole thing in the refrigerator as soon as it had

> cooled somewhat. When I next checked on it. The bird was sitting in

> about 1.5 inches of quite well-gelled stock.

>

> Does anybody else get spontaneous stock when they cook a bird like

> this?

>

> Thanks,

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 05:33 PM 8/27/2002 +0000, you wrote:

>Thanks. I was really surprised. I don't think I've ever done it

>covered before so I don't think the juices ever really collected

>without evaporating. I generally like a crisper skin so I usually do

>fairly high temp roasting, but there's definitely alot to be said for

>the slow roast. Next time I think I might even lower the temp

>further and let it go longer.

>

>The pan was easier to clean too; nothing was baked on!

Now if you want something for the cold days:

Do the same thing, but on top of the stove, with a bit of celery,

an onion or two, and some parsely and salt, and a little more

water. Chill overnight. Then debone the chicken -- leave the skin.

Reheat with quartered onions, granulated garlic or real garlic,

celery, carrots, and after it gets hot if you feel motivated,

dumplings (butter dumplings ... ummmmm). And thyme or

poultry seasoning.

It's called " chicken soup " but it bears no resemblance to the

's knock-off!

Heidi

[Guest guest]

We love roast chicken. We add lots of onions to the pan when we do a roast

and the juices from the chicken turn the onions black and caramelized. They

are soooo tasty! After the meat has been eaten we turn the carcas into

stock and make soup.

Den

> Thanks. I was really surprised. I don't think I've ever done it

> covered before so I don't think the juices ever really collected

> without evaporating. I generally like a crisper skin so I usually do

> fairly high temp roasting, but there's definitely alot to be said for

> the slow roast. Next time I think I might even lower the temp

> further and let it go longer.

>

> The pan was easier to clean too; nothing was baked on!

>

> I'd like to see an analysis on which causes more significant nutrient

> losses and oxidation: long lower-temp cooking or short higher temp

> cooking. I suppose it wouldn't necessarily be a uniform answer; it

> probably depends on which nutritional component and/or food you're

> looking at.

>

>