I am cooking up 8 chicken legs tonight. Do I save the bones? Can I make stock with them?

[mmdad]

I will have eight chicken legs tonight for dinner with my family.

The left over bones, and skin are they useful?

Should I try making a stock out of them?

Thinking slow cooker?

Thanks

[fourunder]

Generally, after cooking legs and thighs, I would remove the meat and reserve the bones. You have enough to make a small amount of stock after concentrating....but it will be what I consider a light stock in flavor. You may want to roast the bones.....or save the bones until you have some more to add and make a richer stock.

[greygarious]

Even if the bones were raw, they're not enough to make more than a very small amount of stock. Cooked bones contribute far less flavor than uncooked ones, and result in a grayish-colored stock with less gelatin . You would be best served by freezing the bones and skin and adding them to the pot when you are making stock with raw parts.

[LindaWhit]

Exactly what I do - if I cook up a couple of bone-in chicken breasts or legs, the meat is stripped and the bones are tucked into a freezer bag - my collection of bones - and put into the deep freeze downstairs until I have enough to fill my crockpot.

[MMRuth]

I do something similar - I keep adding chicken bones (and sometimes do combine w/ other poultry bones) to a ziplock bag, shoving, rather than "tucking", each time using more effort, it back into the freezer above the fridge, so that the door doesn't keep popping open. While I didn't used to, I now usually roast the bones at 350 or so, straight out of the freezer, and then proceed to make stock on the stove top.

[fourunder]

Cooked bones contribute far less flavor than uncooked ones
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
g,

I'm on the fence with this thought. .....leaning towards disagreeing. Is this for chicken bones, or the same for pork bones as well?

[Sam Fujisaka]

Save the bones, toss the skins. make stock when you have a few more bones. Try to add some feet.

[MMRuth]

Yes, I do also try to add feet when I can. Though, I recently had to behead and befoot a partridge, and I just wasn't up to keeping those feet and that neck. Next time.

Why do you toss the skins? I seem to remember there is a good reason for doing so, but not what that reason is. Thanks.

[Bada Bing]

I'd respond to two parts of your query here. First, it's fine to make a broth, though not always possible to make a gelatinous stock, from cooked thighs, depending on the proportion of water to bones (more bones is better odds). About skins, I often leave them in, but that leaves you with a bit more work later defatting the stock/broth. Second, the problem is that unless your bird is cooked originally in a fairly neutral flavor profile, like onions and some poultry herbs, the resulting stock can be rather mismatched to foods (doesn't work with barbecue chicken, for example, or heavily smoked chicken,, IMO). Good luck!

[MMRuth]

Good point about the flavour profile - I pretty much only roast chickens in a pretty "flavour neutral" way, as you say, so I'd not even thought of that issue.

[Sam Fujisaka]

I work to get my stock fat free and find that the fatty skin doesn't lend enough flavor to be worth the extra trouble.

[alanbarnes]

Ah, but it adds gelatin! Mouthfeel! Unctuousness!

And fat. Oh, yeah, fat. I defat the stock completely (a pitcher with a spout that comes out of the bottom works beautifully), then put what's left in a pan and cook it slowly until all the moisture's gone and the temperature spikes. It's just the thing for frying up potatoes.

[Sam Fujisaka]

I was not aware that skin lent any significant amount of collagen. Especially relative to the feet.

[ipsedixit]

Skin does not add gelatin. Fat, yes. Gelatin, no.

[alanbarnes]

According to Wikipedia, "Gelatin (from French gélatine) is a translucent, colorless, odorless, brittle, nearly tasteless solid substance, derived from the collagen inside animals' skin and bones." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelatin

Don't like the wiki? How 'bout some peer-reviewed stuff...

Bonifer, et al., ("Chicken Skin Composition As Affected By Aqueous Washing" (1996) 61 Journal of Food Science 895) noted that chicken skin contains an average of over 3% collagen. And Cliche, et al., ("Extraction and Characterization of Collagen with or Without Telopeptides from Chicken Skin" (2003) 82 Poultry Science 503) found that "chicken skin [is] a good alternative source of high-quality collagen."

I don't know how much gelatin you can get from skin as compared to bones or connective tissue. But to say that skin does not add gelatin is simply incorrect.

[bushwickgirl]

While chicken skin does contain "an average of over 3%" collagen, it also "contains close to 50% fat," which is why I remove it when making stock.

[ipsedixit]

Apologies alan, I stand corrected.

But still, I would avoid adding skin to stock because (at least for me) it gives the stock an oily mouthfeel which I tried to avoid. That oily-ness stays even after skimming off the chicken fat after it cools in the fride.

[alanbarnes]

A pure, true stock (as opposed to a broth) will have very little flavor, but plenty of mouthfeel from the gelatin, which has always struck me as being very similar to that of fat.

[Sam Fujisaka]

I disagree. A good stock has a clean deep flavor & mouthfeel from the gelatin that is not fatty, but is full bodied.

[alanbarnes]

I think our disagreement probably relates more to words than food. A good stock has no fat, so I'm at a loss to understand how it can have a "fatty" or "oily" mouthfeel. The mouthfeel comes from gelatin, which does coat the tongue in a manner similar to the way fat does, so I'm assuming that's what ipsedixit is talking about. But I may be totally wrong.

As far as flavor goes, maybe I'm wrong again, but isn't the classic French definition of stock just water in which bones have been simmered? If so, it isn't going to have much flavor. My understanding is that if you put meat and vegetables in there with the bones you've got broth - which should indeed have a clean deep flavor.

[ipsedixit]

Alan,

I think I agree with Sam on this one. A good stock will have a deep savory flavor to it, but not oily, which is what I get when I add skin to my stock. Perhaps the skin thing is imaginary and part of my inborn prejudice against boiled chicken skin of any kind.

And to follow up on your question, if stock is not supposed to have much flavor, then what's the point? I'm not saying that stock should be overpowering in its flavor components, but it *should* definitely have a distinctive flavor undertone above and beyond the trinity of ingredients most people add to make stock -- i.e., carrots, onions, and celery.

[alanbarnes]

>>"if stock is not supposed to have much flavor, then what's the point"<<

I think the real crux of the matter is the distinction between stock and broth. Nobody really distinguishes between the two any more. But my understanding is that traditionally, stock was for body while broth was for flavor.

Back in the days when you couldn't just pick up a packet of gelatin leaves at the supermarket (let alone a packet of Jell-O), it was a real test of a cook's skill to make a colorless, flavorless, gelatinous liquid that could be the base of all kinds of interesting, exotic dishes. Seriously, fruit aspics were once a big deal.

The basis for these dishes was a clear stock. If you could simmer veal bones gently enough that they would produce a crystal-clear liquid that gelled at room temp, you could add whatever flavors you wanted. I'm pretty sure cottage cheese and fruit cocktail didn't enter into the picture at that point in time, but you still didn't want a savory end product.

So that gets back to my comment regarding a "pure, true stock." It was most likely a poor choice of words. But my understanding of culinary history is that once upon a time, mirepoix, chicken meat, and anything else that would have added flavor would not have been welcome in a traditional stock. Because you wouldn't want those flavors in your strawberry Jell-O.

[ipsedixit]

Alan,

I'm not sure this will settle anything, and in fact may only muddy the picture more, but here's a nice roundup of the history of stock and broth.

http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodsoups...

To summarize (roughly), stock is a liquid made by slowly simmering meat and meat bones in unseasoned water for the purpose of extracting nutrients and flavor. It is cooked for several hours, with careful skimming. Broth comes from the same Germanic root as brew. It means to boil something. Typically, a broth is made by simmering, or boiling other ingredients in a stock. These ingredients can be meat, grain, vegetable, or a combination of these, along with seasonings, and salt.

Notably, each of the definitions of stock include both meat and bones.

Happy reading.

[alanbarnes]

Oh, great. So the confusion I assumed was a modern phenomenon actually goes back at least a century or two. Or maybe the clarity I was convinced existed never really did.

Now the question is whether I got my firmly-fixed idea of what "stock" is from a reputable source or whether it's just something spouted by some food media drone I uncritically assumed was correct.

It's supposed to rain all day tomorrow anyway. There are lots of old books in the cupboard (Larousse? Escoffier?). I can't seem to buy a clue, but maybe I can stumble across one.

[ipsedixit]

Honestly, who cares.

If it's raining all day, just fire up your stove, throw in some bones, meat if you want, the trinity of stock veggies and go at it. As long as it tastes good, who cares if you call it stock, broth, or even dirty dishwater!

[alanbarnes]

Call me what you want, just don't call me late for dinner!

[cinnamon girl]

Years ago I learned that stock was made from bones and broth was made from meat. So the juice from, say, boiled dinner would be beef broth or from chicken soup - chicken broth. I think it was an old Larousse. Doesn't jive with Ipsidixit's more plausible explanation complete with etymology though.

I save some of the skin that has nice sized gobs of fat on it to brown the bones in (too lazy to dig out the roasting pan to do in the oven, MMRuth), and when I add the water I jettison the skin. I'm going to degrease anyway so figure I might as well get extra chickeny goodness when browning the bones. If you're getting chicken feet to add to it don't forget to grab any backs you find on sale.

Eight cooked thigh bones aren't going to give you much stock. I'd save them in a freezer bag and add future bones to the mix. Better yet, can you de-bone before cooking? Uncooked bones pack punch and any bits of meat that cling to the bone only improve the stock, redeeming any imperfect knife skills.

[alanbarnes]

No apology necessary. Let him who is without sin, etc., etc.

My personal motto: often wrong, but never in doubt.

[Bada Bing]

I never worry how much fat is in the stock preparation, because my method is to cool the stock two days in the fridge and then to skim off whatever fat has risen to the top. What remains is plenty lean, and if it seems unctuous, that's really gelatin/collagen.

[dmd_kc]

I try to get rid of the skin because I've never been successful at creating a clear stock that started out with much fat, regardless of whether I defatted fully or not. In my experience, skin = cloudy stock, no matter what.

[bushwickgirl]

I never use skin in my stock. The amount of collagen gained from using skin is negligible but the amount of fat is significant . Other ways to prevent cloudiness: let the stock simmer VERY gently, a shimmer really: I find that boiling or a "hard" simmer will create a cloudy stock. Skimming the stock will also prevent cloudiness.
Straining through cheesecloth set in a fine seive will remove impurities and further prevent cloudiness. The egg white raft technique will give you crystal-clear stock and is not that difficult to do. You can boil your stock to reduce it, after it's been strained.
Here's a link with egg white raft info:

http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/489022

[greygarious]

As I never intend to make aspic, a clear stock is of zero importance to me. I want to maximize the flavor and the usefulness of the components, so the skin goes in. Afterwards, the dogs get the spent skin and the fat cap, removed after the stock chills, goes into the schmaltz container and is used for future sauteed dishes. Matter of fact, I perceive soups made with a cloudy stock to be more hearty and filling than those with a consomme-like stock. This is probably factually untrue, but the mind is easily tricked, which in turn fools the appetite.

[bushwickgirl]

Well, stock is different from broth; stock is made from a low flesh to bone ratio, etc. and broth is made from a high flesh to bone ratio, etc. and broth is really used for soup, although the line between whether to use stock or broth for what is pretty thin these days. That said, I never use stock for soup, just sauces, and haven't made aspic from stock for years, but a clear stock is the thing to have for a beautifully finished pan sauce. You don't get that pan deglazing ability from chicken broth, cloudy or not.
Now, I would add the skin of a chicken, the whole chicken actually, to a broth preparation and removed the chilled fat later. I like the "finished" quality of broth for soup, it tastes good. Broth is something you can eat on it's own, whereas stock needs to be finished in the pan.
As with a stock, you can clarify broth or not, it's up to you.

[Chadsharply]

A note on the amount of collagen/gelatin you get from chicken skin. I just boiled up the skin of four thighs to render the fat for another recipe, and when the fat had been skimmed off, the remaining liquid had set up as thick as any stock I have ever made if not more so.

[bushwickgirl]

Well, we were disputing the collegen content of skin and it does contain collegen, but significantly more fat, (which is why I said I don't use it in stock) which is what you wanted to get to. I think your success would depend on water to skin ratio, and I'm not clear on what you mean, degree-wise, by "had set up as thick as any stock..."

Oh, welcome to Chow, BTW.

[scrumptiouschef]

Just finished smoking 15 chicken legs out back for posole. I'll remove the skins and fry them in bacon fat for a fried chicken skin po boy.The skin wouldn't be any good in the soup but once fried crisp and tossed with a little Archibald's[Northport Alabama]barbecue sauce they will make a great sandwich.
Sam,eaten any unusual beans lately?

[alanbarnes]

Are you from Tuscaloosa? My mom lives in Northport. No doubt Archibald's makes some mean BBQ. And the sauce is definitely something to write home about.

[miss louella]

OK, so here's my question to you very experienced aim-for-the-top hounds.... would these eight bones with some aromatics make better stock than stock-in-a-box? Thanks!

[ipsedixit]

It's not really about "better" stock, it's about how much stock you can make with only 8 legs.

With 8 legs you'd probably end up with a cup of stock. And would you really want to nurture it for 5 hours or more just to get a single cup of stock? Best to make stock in quantity b/c the amount of effort is largely the same.

But to answer your question, yes the stock you make with 8 legs will be better than canned or boxed stock.

[The Dairy Queen]

But, what if you made your stock in a crock pot? The amount of nurturing is minimal and, hey, now you have a cup of stock!

~TDQ

[alanbarnes]

Or use a pressure cooker. Earlier this week I made a couple of cups of beef stock from leftover bones. Minimal time, no hand wringing. The results would have been totally unacceptable for making an aspic. But they did improve a pot roast.

[The Dairy Queen]

Curious. How long does it take to make stock in a pressure cooker?

And, it's not a problem to make such a small amount in the PC?

I bought a PC about 2 years ago, thinking I would find it a giant time-saver, but I really didn't. We seldom use it. :(. Maybe I can revive my interest making small amounts of stock.

~TDQ

[alanbarnes]

For chicken stock, 45 minutes at 15psi will do the trick. I left the beef bones going for a little over an hour. You extract more gelatin the longer you go, but the stock becomes cloudier.

[givemecarbs]

I think it's worth it to make the stock. I just cooked up the bones from a Costco rotisserie chicken and it made a nice bit of stock. Normally I would freeze the stock and add more stock to the container in the freezer, the different tones of the stock eventually looking kind of like a chicken stock parfait, but I keep using even a cup of stock these days. I like to use it when I make a rice dish instead of some of the water, and chicken stock is secret tech for split pea soup. Tonight i used the stock and some leftover white meat from the chicken to make a lovely chicken pot pie. I cheated and used frozen pie crust and it turned out very tasty and satisfying.

[Kajikit]

Eight leg bones won't be enough to make a pot of stock by themselves, but they're a great start. Put them in the freezer in a ziplock bag and when you've got enough bones to fill a pot (either a crockpot or a regular pot) you're good to go. You can use ANY chicken parts to make stock. I made crockpot chicken broth last night for the first time and it was a great success. The broth came out a bit watery but I transferred it to the stove this morning and boiled it for 15 minutes and it's magnificent now!

[paulmcevoy75]

I've only made stock once, but when I did I went to Whole Foods and asked them if they had chicken carcasses for stock. They did. I think they were $1 a pound and I got 4 pounds.

I have an awesome 30 qt (I think) stock pot with a double bottom I got from Target. It was perfect for this.

So making stock was maybe one of the most disgusting things I've ever done (well, you start with chicken carcasses...). So I think starting with a small amount of bones is kind of a bad idea. I had about 7 ziplock bags full when I was done and I've used about 3 of them in the last 1.5 months. So when you want to make stock, go buy some bones and make a ton because it takes a lot of work and it freezes well.

[Sam Fujisaka]

When I think of the disgusting things I've done, making stock would rank about 7,965,071,523th in the lineup. Actually I don't see how making stock is in any way disgusting.

[bushwickgirl]

It's a labor of love...you will love the results.

[paulmcevoy75]

I dunno, I found 4 pounds of random chicken carcass pieces pretty disgusting. Then I smashed them up a bit with a knife because I forgot to ask the butcher to chop them up. Also, straining the 4 or so gallons of broth mixed with little bits of chicken meat was pretty gross.

However the broth was pretty amazing. I'll do it again as soon as I am through with this batch. But it was a lot of work and it was pretty nast.

[Sam Fujisaka]

You don't really need that much water. As for the carcasses, just cut (rather than smash) them up into manageable pieces. Make stock a couple more times and you'll wonder what you ever found to be disgusting.

[LindaWhit]

Get a good pair of sturdy kitchen shears to cut up the carcasses. Much quicker and better than ruining your knives.

[Bada Bing]

Agreed. I think of making stock and broth as one of life's simple pleasures. But I know my wife is squeamish about bones--and the "foam" stage. Everyone's different.

[BernalKC]

So I tentatively open this thread thinking, how can there be 46 posts when the asnwer is "no"? I'm still puzzled.

Has no one mentioned that you should leave the bones in the legs? That it contributes to the flavor? Plenty of folks mention the futility of making stock from cooked bones, but really, you want the dark meat to cook on the bone in most recipes. Skin or or off is another question -- which I always answer "on" -- but the bones stay in for anything except my chicken chili verde.

Besides, you can pick up stock bones from any butcher cheap. Get a reasonable quantity and make a really good stock if you're so inclined.

[joonjoon]

I always save chicken bones in the freezer, cooked or not. Last month I made stock using about 20 leg and thigh bones I had saved up and it was fantastic. About half of them were leftovers from fried chicken!

For me the answer is obviously YES.

[alanbarnes]

Um, because the answer is "yes"? You're not going to make gallons of stock with 8 leg bones, but you can certainly make a few cups.

I make good stock from cooked bones all the time. It's a very different product than what you get when you start with whole raw legs, which I refer to as broth (see discussion above regarding confusion between the terms).

[BernalKC]

Harrumph. In my experience, cooked fowl bones yield murky, tepid stock. I would advise against it, especially for a small quantity of chicken leg bones.

We make soup from our turkey carcasses, but that's a lot more bones and we usually make a point of not scavenging the carcass too aggressively to make sure there is something to make soup from. Even so, the stock that comes out is cloudy and mostly flavored by the herbs from the roasting rub.

[alanbarnes]

As discussed above, stock / broth can bring either or both of two things to the party. The first is flavor, which comes mostly from meat. The second is mouthfeel, which comes mostly from bones, skin, and connective tissue.

I can make a crystal-clear stock from well-cleaned bones, cooked or raw. It won't have much flavor, but it will lend unctuousness to any dish in which it is incorporated. On the other hand, I can make a very flavorful broth from meat scraps, but it will contain almost no gelatin.

Most of the time we want a utility player - something that has both flavor and mouthfeel. For that you need meat and bones. But "pure" stocks and broths have their place, too.

[Kajikit]

My burning question is, why does the clarity (or otherwise) of the finished product matter? Surely the taste is paramount! I make stock/broth all the time and it's never crystal clear... but the darker the colour, the better the flavour.

[BernalKC]

But those flavors come in a pure, clear, or at least opalescent liquid that concentrates toward some amber like intensity. The cloudiness is just indicative of extranious ..bleh.. stuff that needn't be there to get the right flavor.

If the final dish is cloudy from other ingredients like potatoes or purees or sautes, then the clarity of the broth matters less or not at all. But for some soups or sauces you really want that translucence.