Re: Does boiling stock diminish its healthy properties?

[Guest guest]

I can't answer your questions but have had the same habit. Now i

automatically put half my stock in the freezer and give my refrigerated

stock two days in the fridge before it goes in the freezer too. It's easy to

melt in the pan so i figure it's worth not losing it.

elaine

[Guest guest]

>Does boiling stock diminish its good properties at all? Does is denature the

proteins

>that form gelatin/collagen? (Side note, are gelatin and collagen the same

thing?) Or is

>biling not an issue because it's the amino acids that matter and they're not

affected by

>heat?

>

>Anyone?

Considering how long you cook stock to make it, I can't see how boiling

it more would hurt it. I use stock typically to make soup, and it gets

cooked a lot in the process.

If it sits TOO long in the fridge though, you can

get undesireable bacterial byproducts that don't go away through

boiling, and mold toxins. And you can get off-flavors. But cooking kills

any live bacteria and any botulism toxin, which are the main baddies

in food poisoning -- it doesn't have to be a " rolling boil " just get

up to boiling temp (it doesn't get any hotter when it's boiling: the

max temp for water is 220 degrees or somewhere around there).

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Daphne-

>Does boiling stock diminish its good properties at all? Does is denature

>the proteins

>that form gelatin/collagen?

It definitely can denature the gelatin, because if you boil it too much, it

won't gel anymore. To whatever degree the benefits of stock come from the

unique properties of gelatin, that presumably means that boiling does

decrease the benefits.

If you have enough freezer space, try pouring your freshly-made stock into

small ball jars and then freezing it. I use the wide-mouth pint size,

which lets me defrost a small amount whenever I need it.

-

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>Considering how long you cook stock to make it, I can't see how boiling

>it more would hurt it.

You're not considering the potential temperature difference. I don't know

about you, but I find that for my stock to gel properly and well, I have to

make sure to keep its simmer to an absolute utter minimum. That chicken

stock article someone (you?) posted recently suggested a simmer so slow

that only the occasional bubble breaks the surface! Boiling is a whole

other ballgame. I'm making some rogan josh as we speak, and I'm making

sure to keep the simmer as low as reasonably possible so that the beef

stock I used won't get denatured.

-

[Guest guest]

Another way to achieve this is to do it in the oven; I've gotten great

gelatinous stocks that way, probably because you can more easily cook it at

a low simmer.

~ Fern

From: " Idol " <Idol@...>

> You're not considering the potential temperature difference. I don't

know

> about you, but I find that for my stock to gel properly and well, I have

to

> make sure to keep its simmer to an absolute utter minimum. That chicken

> stock article someone (you?) posted recently suggested a simmer so slow

> that only the occasional bubble breaks the surface! Boiling is a whole

> other ballgame. I'm making some rogan josh as we speak, and I'm making

> sure to keep the simmer as low as reasonably possible so that the beef

> stock I used won't get denatured.

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@ Heidi/:

> >Considering how long you cook stock to make it, I can't see how

boiling

> >it more would hurt it.

>

> You're not considering the potential temperature difference. I

don't know

> about you, but I find that for my stock to gel properly and well, I

have to

> make sure to keep its simmer to an absolute utter minimum. That

chicken

> stock article someone (you?) posted recently suggested a simmer so

slow

> that only the occasional bubble breaks the surface! Boiling is a

whole

> other ballgame. I'm making some rogan josh as we speak, and I'm

making

> sure to keep the simmer as low as reasonably possible so that the

beef

> stock I used won't get denatured.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

,

I think you're right. A few degrees can make a big difference;

heating is a continuum. In my recent post about folate it mentions

how a difference of just a few degrees can make a difference in how

much of certain proteins are denatured. This same principle applies

to the fact that more nutrients are often lost in pan-fried food

compared to boiled food--greater temperatures make a difference. I

never heat foods with methods other than simmering/boiling. The

temperatures in stock-making probably hover right around some

critical denaturing thresholds.

If you're making rogan josh, I'd worry more about curdling the yogurt

than denaturing the stock Back in my pre-purist days when I

would make yogurt curries and things I learned that a double-boiler

is definitely the way to go for that... [serious flood of gustatory

memories]

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

Mike-

>If you're making rogan josh, I'd worry more about curdling the yogurt

>than denaturing the stock Back in my pre-purist days when I

>would make yogurt curries and things I learned that a double-boiler

>is definitely the way to go for that... [serious flood of gustatory

>memories]

Actually, I'm trying an experiment that will, I hope, circumvent all

cooking of the yoghurt: last night I put some yoghurt in the Donvier

strainer I mentioned earlier, and I'm going to try mixing some strained

(which is to say significantly thickened) yoghurt into each bowl of rogan

josh as I serve it instead of trying to cook the stew down with the yoghurt

in it. I'm not positive how this will come out, but I'm optimistic -- and

I'll find out pretty soon.

-

[Guest guest]

>You're not considering the potential temperature difference. I don't know

>about you, but I find that for my stock to gel properly and well, I have to

>make sure to keep its simmer to an absolute utter minimum. That chicken

>stock article someone (you?) posted recently suggested a simmer so slow

>that only the occasional bubble breaks the surface! Boiling is a whole

>other ballgame. I'm making some rogan josh as we speak, and I'm making

>sure to keep the simmer as low as reasonably possible so that the beef

>stock I used won't get denatured.

>

>-

Theoretically, I agree with this. In practice, the amount of " gel " i get has

little to do with the temperature. I get the best gel from baked chicken (at 400

or so).

I don't pretend to know all the variables.

My stove has lousy temp control and I don't often " boil " in any sense (the

bubbling

bothers me). In theory, when ANY bubbles form it is at 220 or so, which is

plenty hot

enough. More bubbles just wastes energy, and an electric stove wastes lots. When

I was

learning about " state changes " , the theory was that once a solution started

boiling, it

didn't really change temperature, but I haven't tested this per stock.The

easiest way

to make slow cooked stock, I think, is the crock pot.

Maybe boiling on the stove makes a " hot spot " at the bottom of the pan

(depending

on the pan, maybe).

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>In practice, the amount of " gel " i get has

>little to do with the temperature. I get the best gel from baked chicken

>(at 400 or so).

>I don't pretend to know all the variables.

I'm not sure what baked chicken has to do with it, though if you mean

you're making stock from the remnants of a baked chicken, the chicken

itself won't have ever come near 400 degrees (except, I suppose, for the skin).

>In theory, when ANY bubbles form it is at 220 or so, which is plenty hot

>enough. More bubbles just wastes energy, and an electric stove wastes

>lots. When I was

>learning about " state changes " , the theory was that once a solution

>started boiling, it

>didn't really change temperature, but I haven't tested this per stock.

The theory as it's usually stated doesn't account for a number of things,

such as temperature variations in space and time. The hotter the burner

the hotter the bottom of the pot, the more hot spots which lead to bubbles,

but that bottom layer isn't uniform, and the temperature of the stock isn't

uniform vertically either.

>The easiest way

>to make slow cooked stock, I think, is the crock pot.

I would've thought so until I tried it and found that even on the lowest

setting, my crockpots got way too hot.

>Maybe boiling on the stove makes a " hot spot " at the bottom of the pan

>(depending

>on the pan, maybe).

Well, not even depending on the pan, though different kinds of pans will

have different kinds of hot spots and different gradients.

-

[Guest guest]

From: " Heidi Schuppenhauer " <heidis@...>

> Theoretically, I agree with this. In practice, the amount of " gel " i get

has

> little to do with the temperature. I get the best gel from baked chicken

(at 400 or so).

> I don't pretend to know all the variables.

<snip>

> Maybe boiling on the stove makes a " hot spot " at the bottom of the pan

(depending

> on the pan, maybe).

That's what I've concluded, Heidi. In the oven the heat surrounds it and

creates an even heat.

I do wonder if a cast iron pot or an enamel-covered cast iron pot wouldn't

do the same thing on the stove top, as cast iron conveys the heat so much

more evenly than stainless steel.

~ Fern

[Guest guest]

:

>I'm not sure what baked chicken has to do with it, though if you mean

>you're making stock from the remnants of a baked chicken, the chicken

>itself won't have ever come near 400 degrees (except, I suppose, for the skin).

The juice that comes off a baked chicken is wonderful for soup, esp. if the

chicken is baked on a bed of vegies. I'm sure it doesn't go up to 400 ....

nothing with water goes over 220 or so, but " baked chicken juice " gels

better than anything else I've made.

>

>The theory as it's usually stated doesn't account for a number of things,

>such as temperature variations in space and time. The hotter the burner

>the hotter the bottom of the pot, the more hot spots which lead to bubbles,

>but that bottom layer isn't uniform, and the temperature of the stock isn't

>uniform vertically either.

I agree, plus there are oils in the mix that get hotter. It still seems like

there wouldn't be THAT much variation between a " boil " and a " simmer " .

>

>Well, not even depending on the pan, though different kinds of pans will

>have different kinds of hot spots and different gradients.

My old cheap pans would ALWAYS burn on the bottom. My new ones

don't. That thick aluminum stuff sandwiching stuff really works!

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>I do wonder if a cast iron pot or an enamel-covered cast iron pot wouldn't

>do the same thing on the stove top, as cast iron conveys the heat so much

>more evenly than stainless steel.

>

>~ Fern

Probably. As long as it was really well seasoned, if NOT enamel. Or one of

those clay pots maybe.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/04 9:03:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,

michaelantonparker@... writes:

> If you're making rogan josh, I'd worry more about curdling the yogurt

> than denaturing the stock

Gelatin is by definition denatured.

Chris