Making chicken stock twice from the same bones

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that enjoys cooking.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

seans_potato_business

Senior Cook
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
261
Location
Edinburgh, Scotland
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?
 

Zhizara

Chef Extraordinaire
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
12,433
Location
New Orleans, LA
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

Certified Cake Maniac
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
20,405
Location
The Great "Wet" North
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.

Certified Pretend Chef
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
49,799
Location
Massachusetts
If you make a stock properly, there shouldn't be much left in the bones for another batch.
 

joesfolk

Head Chef
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
1,724
Stock should really be simmered slowly for long periods. But perhaps that is what you meant when you said that you boiled it.
 

Claire

Master Chef
Joined
Sep 4, 2004
Messages
7,967
Location
Galena, IL
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.

Certified Pretend Chef
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
49,799
Location
Massachusetts
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

Chef Extraordinaire
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
25,032
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.
 

seans_potato_business

Senior Cook
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
261
Location
Edinburgh, Scotland
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.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom