Guest guest Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Sharon- >My next question: In NT, Sally says to skim all the fat when making chicken >stock and use it for something else. Is that really necessary? Why not just >leave it with the stock? It's a gourmetish sort of issue. Leaving the fat on is considered unappealing. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 I leave it in the stock when I put it in half gallon mason jars in the fridge. It comes to the top and hardens and preserves the stock till we use it. But when I am going to use the stock I throw out the fat. I really feel that it isn't good to eat because during that long slow cooking the fat has oxidized. If you were desperately poor, that would be the only reason to use it IMO. Believe me I hate to waste good food and I agonized over this for a long time. But it just doesn't make sense to go to such effort and expense to get high quality butter, ghee, VCO etc and then eat this. If you were to render chicken fat it would be a different matter, it is cooked much more quickly. So that would make it more acceptable. BTW Sally throws hers out too. Ellen Sharon Conti wrote: > Hi everyone, thanks for the recent help with my carrot skin and beet > fermenting questions. > > My next question: In NT, Sally says to skim all the fat when making > chicken > stock and use it for something else. Is that really necessary? Why not > just > leave it with the stock? > > Thanks again, > Sharon > > > > <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN " > " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT > FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " > > <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B> > <UL> > <LI><B><A > HREF= " / " >NATIVE > NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI> > <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire > message archive with Onibasu</LI> > </UL></FONT> > <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A > HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST > OWNER:</A></B> Idol > <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer > Wanita Sears > </FONT></PRE> > </BODY> > </HTML> > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 I tried leaving it in and I found it left a very dissagreeable taste and texture. On 1/23/06, Idol <Idol@...> wrote: > > > > It's a gourmetish sort of issue. Leaving the fat on is considered > unappealing. > > -- D. Siemens WAPF Chapter Leader http://www.freewebs.com/wapfontario/index.htm Wife of Tim, Mother of Zack and Lydia, Child of God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 But when I am going to use the stock I throw out the fat. I > really feel that it isn't good to eat because during that long slow > cooking the fat has oxidized. If you were to render chicken fat it would > be a different matter, it is cooked much more quickly. So that would > make it more acceptable. > So cooking something faster makes fat oxidize less? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 Hi, ... Maybe a gourmetish issue...maybe not. I've been trying to understand oxidation in various meats - which ones are faster, the most affected, what conditions (light, steam, heat, re-heat, enzymes, etc.) affect oxidation. I ran across an interesting article at a " food service " site which addresses the issue from a " warmed over flavor " (WOF) perspective - not a health perspective, of course, because that would be far too much to ask of any food producer to consider (bastar...oopsie...jerks!).... http://www.foodproductdesign.com/archive/2000/1100ffocus.html " The primary cause of WOF is believed to be ferrous iron catalyzed lipid oxidation. The ferrous iron dissociates from the heme complex during the initial cook. " The high temperatures cause the proteins in meat to release free iron (normally chemically bound in the blood) and oxygen, and promote free-radical formation. Researchers believe that the iron ions then help catalyze fat oxidation. Heat is not the only culprit. Scientists believe that salt, added for flavor and functionality, promotes iron-catalyzed oxidation and its resulting off-flavor development. In addition to iron, other trace metals promote oxidation, especially copper. These may be introduced into the meat via water, cooking and processing equipment, or with ingredient addition. Light, especially ultraviolet and blue-purple fluorescent, also increases the chances of WOF. Certain compounds, such as chlorophyll and riboflavin, increase a product's sensitivity to light..........researchers at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, have found that certain meat enzymes remain active through cooking and subsequent refrigeration. They analyzed top-round steaks to find the substance these enzymes break down that might be responsible for the lack of fresh-cooked flavor. They identified a peptide that directly stimulates taste receptors to create a umami note, so its disappearance may contribute to the dull flavor impact also associated with WOF..... " You'll notice that ground products tend to have the most problems, " says Bauman. " Products like hamburgers, chicken nuggets and precooked pizza sausage are all good candidates for warmed-over flavor development. Chicken nuggets, in particular, are known for developing off-flavors. You mix in thigh meat and skin that has high levels of fat, maybe even add soy…well let's just say some unusual things happen. " Choice of meat will play a factor in oxidation. Fish and other meats with high levels of PUFAs exhibit more of a propensity toward off-flavor development. Chicken has less tendency to develop oxidized flavors than turkey because the higher level of vitamin E in chicken fat retards oxidation. Bauman points out that the problem will be worse in chicken thigh meat than in chicken white meat because the dark meat contains more fat. Fresh meat will show less of a tendency to develop WOF than older product. This reduces the time the meat is subject to enzymatic oxidation, a process that produces catalysts that promote oxidation even after enzyme inactivation by heat. Because nitrates and nitrites inhibit oxidation, the WOF problem crops up less frequently in cured meats than fresh cooked products. " Nitrite is probably the best in terms of synergy, " says . He points out that if there's a choice between developing a cured vs. fresh precooked product, less problems will occur in the cured meat. Also, even though WOF is most closely associated with meat, other foods may develop similar problems. " Any products containing heme, iron and fat are susceptible to developing WOF, " says . " Meats will suffer the most, but other food products that can develop flavor off-notes are gravies, macaroni and cheese, and heavy cream sauces. " Luckily, this defect normally doesn't arise in vegetable products; Schnepf theorizes that this might be the influence of these foods' naturally occurring antioxidants. " blah blah and lots more blah on this site: http://www.foodproductdesign.com/archive/2000/1100ffocus.html In thinking about all this, I've always had a strong " gut feeling " , so to speak, against the NT idea that what seem to me incredibly long broth cooking times are required for making a good broth. There's much in this article that would deter me away from long broth cook times. Also, I have a tendency to want to cook a Big Batch of Whatever because I love leftovers (cooking from scratch for a family of 4 is tedious at times), but now I'm reconsidering that. Oy vey - after reading this article, we should consider removing the chicken thigh meat along with the chicken fat......*sigh*.... When you have time, could you give your " take " on this? Thanks, . -Sharon, NH Deut 11:14 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will have plenty to eat. " it's a gourmetish sort of issue. Leaving the fat on is considered unappealing. " - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 Sharon- >When you have time, could you give your " take " on this? That all makes sense to me, and frankly I was initially highly skeptical of the idea that the fat skimmed off of stock could be reserved and used for other purposes. I assumed it would be dangerous, but Sally insisted it wasn't and I think someone cited Enig saying it was safe, so I figured, well, OK, I guess... I'm not sure this is any reason not to cook stocks for a long time (at low temperatures) though, if you skim off the fat. Bone takes time to break down and release its nutrients. OTOH, maybe a longer, stronger vinegar presoak and somewhat less cooking time would be advisable. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 > [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Ellen Ussery > > I leave it in the stock when I put it in half gallon mason > jars in the fridge. It comes to the top and hardens and > preserves the stock till we use it. But when I am going to > use the stock I throw out the fat. I really feel that it > isn't good to eat because during that long slow cooking the > fat has oxidized. I may very well be wrong, but, intuitively, I wouldn't expect the fat to oxidize much as a result of being cooked in water. It's really not that hot, and most of it's under water and not exposed to oxygen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 - Except that as the stock cooks, more and more fat rises to the surface and gets agitated by thermal convection and bubbling. >I may very well be wrong, but, intuitively, I wouldn't expect the fat to >oxidize much as a result of being cooked in water. It's really not that hot, >and most of it's under water and not exposed to oxygen. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 > > I may very well be wrong, but, intuitively, I wouldn't expect the fat to > oxidize much as a result of being cooked in water. It's really not > that hot, > and most of it's under water and not exposed to oxygen. > > Well what about all those tiny bubbles that mean it is simmering? Isn't that air coming in contact with the fat and the liquid ? To be honest I just used the word oxidized cause it seemed to make sense to me, but technically I don't really know if that is correct. In any case the fat from long cooked chicken stock smells unappealing as opposed to the rendered fat. Ellen > > > > <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN " > " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT > FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " > > <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B> > <UL> > <LI><B><A > HREF= " / " >NATIVE > NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI> > <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire > message archive with Onibasu</LI> > </UL></FONT> > <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A > HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST > OWNER:</A></B> Idol > <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer > Wanita Sears > </FONT></PRE> > </BODY> > </HTML> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 > I tried leaving it in and I found it left a very dissagreeable taste > and > texture. I skim it off and fry potatoes in it. Left in the soup it's really nauseating. Interestingly, though, I put a pat of butter on my stock and it's great! Lynn S. ------ Mama, homeschooler, writer, web developer, activist, spinner & knitter Main: http://www.thenewhomemaker.com Portfolio: http://www.siprelle.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Hi, One of my biggest grumbles about Fallon is the lack of backing things up. Granted, they do offer a lot of resources in NT and on WAP, but still, (and this is probably just me), it's never enough, especially in the " no no " areas. I've not done a vinegar pre-soak. I suppose an Onibasu search is in order. I'm definitely sticking to bones only, no whole carcass, yes to skimming, discarding, and cookking no longer than 10-12 hours. Thanks for your input. Sharon, NH > I'm not sure this is any reason not to cook stocks for a long time > (at low temperatures) though, if you skim off the fat. Bone takes > time to break down and release its nutrients. OTOH, maybe a longer, > stronger vinegar presoak and somewhat less cooking time would be > advisable. > > - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Sharon- >One of my biggest grumbles about Fallon is the lack of backing things up. >Granted, they do offer a lot of resources in NT and on WAP, but still, (and >this is probably just me), it's never enough, especially in the " no no " >areas. I do agree, because when staking out a position in dramatic opposition to the mainstream view, it's essential to offer impeccable support for every aspect of it, but given the magnitude of the WAPF project and the paucity of their resources, I do think we can probably cut them some slack from time to time. Not on egregious matters like the dying calves, but this doesn't strike me as being of nearly the same magnitude. >I've not done a vinegar pre-soak. I suppose an Onibasu search is in >order. I'm definitely sticking to bones only, no whole carcass, yes to >skimming, discarding, and cookking no longer than 10-12 hours. Thanks for >your input. The vinegar pre-soak is essential. (I don't mean soaking the whole mess in pure vinegar, just to be clear, but in cold water with some vinegar added.) It makes a definite difference in gelling and flavor. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 I strain my stock through coffee filters. It seems to take out the fat as well as any sediment left. The resulting broth gels when refrigerated, but does not develop a layer of fat. Joan Cole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 On 1/24/06, Idol <Idol@...> wrote: > - > > Except that as the stock cooks, more and more fat rises to the > surface and gets agitated by thermal convection and bubbling. > > >I may very well be wrong, but, intuitively, I wouldn't expect the fat to > >oxidize much as a result of being cooked in water. It's really not that hot, > >and most of it's under water and not exposed to oxygen. Is that necessary? You don't even need oxygen to oxidize in the first place, and the oxygen in air isn't, in and of itself, a free radical. I don't know the details of the what chemicals form in the heat, but theres tons of oxygen available in the water anyway. Water is, by weight, mostly oxygen, and by atom, 1/3 oxygen. Chris -- Dioxins in Animal Foods: A Case For Vegetarianism? Find Out the Truth: http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 On 1/25/06, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote: > Is that necessary? You don't even need oxygen to oxidize in the first > place, and the oxygen in air isn't, in and of itself, a free radical. > I don't know the details of the what chemicals form in the heat, but > theres tons of oxygen available in the water anyway. Water is, by > weight, mostly oxygen, and by atom, 1/3 oxygen. I didn't mean to suggest that the oxygen in air can't act as an oxidizing agent. In any case, the reason Sally put that in NT is aesthetic as said, not because of health reasons. She has confirmed that. Chris -- Dioxins in Animal Foods: A Case For Vegetarianism? Find Out the Truth: http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Chris- >Is that necessary? You don't even need oxygen to oxidize in the first >place, and the oxygen in air isn't, in and of itself, a free radical. >I don't know the details of the what chemicals form in the heat, but >theres tons of oxygen available in the water anyway. Water is, by >weight, mostly oxygen, and by atom, 1/3 oxygen. Yeah, true. I don't know for sure what happens to fats when cooked in stock, but I'd be a lot less uncomfortable using fat from beef stock than highly PUFA fats from fowl stocks. I don't know why Sally is apparently sure that the fats are safe. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 > I've not done a vinegar pre-soak. I do it because I like the way it tastes. I've ALWAYS made stock that way. Lynn S. ------ Mama, homeschooler, writer, web developer, activist, spinner & knitter Main: http://www.thenewhomemaker.com Portfolio: http://www.siprelle.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 .. Oy vey - after reading this article, we should consider > removing the chicken thigh meat along with the chicken fat......*sigh*.... > All that information is truly impressive. On another note one of the things that attracted me to WAPF is the fact that the guidelines that the weston price cultures had in common (fermented foods, organ meats, etc) were dietary rules that worked generation after generation to keep these people healthy. I would want to know how the people weston price studied made their chicken broth. Maybe our world is so much more polluted than theirs that we need to use scientific research to improve upon the native diets in ways they hadn't thought of (like removing thigh meat, etc) but it sure does take away from the simplicity of following the wisdom of cultures that knew how to survive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Crayfishfeed, > On another note one of the things that attracted me to WAPF is the > fact that the guidelines that the weston price cultures had in common > (fermented foods, organ meats, etc) were dietary rules that worked > generation after generation to keep these people healthy. I would > want to know how the people weston price studied made their chicken > broth. Maybe our world is so much more polluted than theirs that we > need to use scientific research to improve upon the native diets in > ways they hadn't thought of (like removing thigh meat, etc) but it > sure does take away from the simplicity of following the wisdom of > cultures that knew how to survive. As my US Marine friend likes to say, " Good points all! " I was mulling over very similar thoughts these past few days as I watched the email traffic on broths. One of the very appealing things about WAPF is that insight comes from more than one source. While I may be curious about a result obtained in a lab, I don't personally like to take much action until I consider historically what results were produced for generations of people. Sharon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 , > The vinegar pre-soak is essential. (I don't mean soaking the whole > mess in pure vinegar, just to be clear, but in cold water with some > vinegar added.) It makes a definite difference in gelling and flavor. Can you be more specific on what difference it makes in gelling? As for flavor, I actually don't care for it which makes me want to understand the dynamics better. What happens during the presoak? Is that presoak water essential or can it be tossed before turning on the heat? Thanks, Sharon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 > Chris- > >Is that necessary? You don't even need oxygen to oxidize in the first > >place, and the oxygen in air isn't, in and of itself, a free radical. > >I don't know the details of the what chemicals form in the heat, but > >theres tons of oxygen available in the water anyway. Water is, by > >weight, mostly oxygen, and by atom, 1/3 oxygen. But oxygen in the air is elemental oxygen, which is more reactive than oxygen covalently bound to hydrogen in water. Have you ever tried to start a fire underwater? On the other hand, iron does seem to be perfectly capable of oxidizing underwater. It seems to be generally acknowledged that as far as free radical production is concerned, slow cooking in water is preferable to high-temperature cooking in air. I'm not sure whether this still holds if the slow cooking is extended to a period of dozens of hours, though. -- Berg bberg@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Sharon- >Can you be more specific on what difference it makes in gelling? As for >flavor, I actually don't care for it which makes me want to understand the >dynamics better. What happens during the presoak? Is that presoak water >essential or can it be tossed before turning on the heat? The pre-soak increases the degree of gelling by a good deal. It also makes the flavor of the resulting stock richer and, IMO, better. You can't toss the presoak water, though, because part of the effect is from the vinegar breaking down the bone and beginning to draw out its nutrients. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 The vinegar will pull more minerals out of the bones, if you dump it, you'll be dumping the minerals. I always add vinegar and I've never tasted it in the finished stock. On 1/25/06, Sharon Conti <sharflin@...> wrote: > > > > Can you be more specific on what difference it makes in gelling? As for > flavor, I actually don't care for it which makes me want to understand the > > dynamics better. What happens during the presoak? Is that presoak water > essential or can it be tossed before turning on the heat? > > Thanks, > Sharon -- D. Siemens WAPF Chapter Leader http://www.freewebs.com/wapfontario/index.htm Wife of Tim, Mother of Zack and Lydia, Child of God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 From Chapter Leaders . 6 Jun 2005 [The question arose what to do with the chicken fat from stock that has been simmering for 24 hours.] This is a question that has bothered me. I know that the Jewish people cook in chicken fat, but it seems to me unwise, given the high content of polyunsaturated fatty acids. ( says that duck and goose fat is actually preferred, but they could not always get these more expensive fats.) Yet I love to eat crispy chicken skin. The fat that comes to the top of the stock looks so unappetizing that I just throw it away. Sally 12 Jun 2005 Ellen > > > I don't know for sure what happens to fats when cooked in stock, but > I'd be a lot less uncomfortable using fat from beef stock than highly > PUFA fats from fowl stocks. I don't know why Sally is apparently > sure that the fats are safe. > > > > - > > > > <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN " > " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT > FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " > > <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B> > <UL> > <LI><B><A > HREF= " / " >NATIVE > NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI> > <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire > message archive with Onibasu</LI> > </UL></FONT> > <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A > HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST > OWNER:</A></B> Idol > <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer > Wanita Sears > </FONT></PRE> > </BODY> > </HTML> > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 , > I don't know for sure what happens to fats when cooked in stock, but > I'd be a lot less uncomfortable using fat from beef stock than highly > PUFA fats from fowl stocks. I don't know why Sally is apparently > sure that the fats are safe. I think the WAPF is a little lenient on PUFA. For example, in Enig's reply to Ray Peat, she said that PUFAs don't oxidize in the body except enzymatically. That's demonstrably false. Peat goes way overboard, but the truth about PUFAs is, in my opinion, somewhere in between what Enig says and what Peat says. Chris -- Dioxins in Animal Foods: A Case For Vegetarianism? Find Out the Truth: http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.