Re: skimming the fat in chicken stock - why?

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.

-

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 " >

> IMPORTANT ADDRESSES

> <UL>

> <LI><A

> HREF= " / " >NATIVE

> NUTRITION</A> online</LI>

> <LI><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A> the entire

> message archive with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL>

> <PRE><A

> HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST

> OWNER:</A> Idol

> MODERATORS: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

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.

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?

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. " -

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.

-

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.

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.

-

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 " >

> IMPORTANT ADDRESSES

> <UL>

> <LI><A

> HREF= " / " >NATIVE

> NUTRITION</A> online</LI>

> <LI><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A> the entire

> message archive with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL>

> <PRE><A

> HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST

> OWNER:</A> Idol

> MODERATORS: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

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

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.

>

> -

>

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.

-

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

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

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

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.

-

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

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.

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

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

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@...

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.

-

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.

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 " >

> IMPORTANT ADDRESSES

> <UL>

> <LI><A

> HREF= " / " >NATIVE

> NUTRITION</A> online</LI>

> <LI><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A> the entire

> message archive with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL>

> <PRE><A

> HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST

> OWNER:</A> Idol

> MODERATORS: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

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

Sign In

Re: skimming the fat in chicken stock - why?

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest