Nice video. I note that your outcome is different to classical Chinese cooking which results in a clear stock. The traditional method: slow start to a rolling boil, then discard the stock and rinse the chicken. Return the chicken to the pot for another slow start boil, then simmer for 2 hours whilst skimming the broth. Result: clear broth. If you need a flavour boost, reduce the broth after the chicken is removed. One thing you haven't commented on is the texture of the broth. It's not all about flavour, what is also important is how clean it tastes. This is crucial if you are serving a soup where you want clarity of flavour. Less important if you are putting chicken stock into your chicken rice. My method: start off with the traditional method and preboil the bones. Then everything goes into a stovetop pressure cooker. When it reaches a boil, I remove all the scum. Then I fit the lid and bring it up to pressure. Let it cook for one hour then turn off the heat and let the pressure drop. DO NOT vent the cooker because it will create bubbles and make the stock cloudy. When it is cooled, ladle out the stock. Once you can't ladle any more, the remainder that you strain out is not suitable for soup and only for adding to vegetables or rice. It is beautifully clear and clean tasting. If I want it even clearer, I use the French consomme method or the freeze-defrost method. The problem with freeze-defrost is that it leaves all the gelatin behind which affects the texture. The result is "chicken flavoured water" and not a true consomme.
Texture wise, the broth is a little thick, but still flows like liquid after straining with a fine mesh. It has a smooth mouthfeel from the chicken oils. I didn't consider the traditional method of boiling and rinsing as I want to keep all the flavours and nutrients in there, also makes it easier 😅
Incredible Video! Thank you so much for making these experiments and i really love your calm voice and editing style! I did a similar thing with beef once and i discovered that heavily roasting the beef meat in the oven (i chose different cuts, some with a lot of connective tissue, some lean parts, leg meat with marrow bones attached) and then double cooking the liquid with another batch of fresh bones and meat for 24 hours yielded the tastiest result. It was almost overwhelmingly beefy but everything that i cooked with it turned out godlike. Could you try to pre-roast the chicken bones and the chicken meat as well before boiling to see if/what difference it makes? PS: see you when you have 1M follower ;). You sure have all the right ingredients for it! Keep up the amazing work!
thank you sir, I understand most chefs recommend roasting the parts in the oven to brown them for that extra toasty flavours and give a browner look to the stock and sauces. Great for french cooking, but in Asia I think most kitchens don't do that and just boil the bones straight to give that cleaner and lighter flavour which I went for to make the rice of chicken rice. Thank you very much for your kind comment and support. Double cooking a liquid stock is way to go, but 1 thing I haven't tested yet is if it yields the same taste and quality as reducing a double volume of liquid stock by half.
I have had simnilar thoughts on what happens if stock keeps cooking, or the bones get so soft they crumble. Thanks for making this video, so I don't have to boil chicken for 2 days to find out. Love your content!
So here's a question: Have you tried making stock in an electric pressure cooker? My standard timing uses necks or frames, 90 minutes on high pressure in an "instant pot". The broth remains clear, as it doesn't "boil" (meaning, the temperature is maybe 120 degrees C, but there's no "bubbling", hence no agitation of the stock). I consistently get a flavourful, clear stock from this method. I've tried 120 minutes as well, but at that point, the bones start breaking down, and the stock becomes a little cloudy. Other advantage of this is that I can make stock on a Sunday afternoon, every week if I want, and frames and necks are cheap (or free if you know your butcher). I've also done the "double-stock" method, especially with beef stock, as a way to progress towards demi-glace. Thoughts?
@@zalibecquerel3463 how does the 120 mins compare with 90 mins in flavour? I wonder what’s the maximum time it takes before any longer wouldn’t make any difference in flavour. I haven’t felt any pressure yet to buy a pressure pot as I usually just let the stove simmer overnight (maybe could save some utilities dollars with a pressure pot). One day I’m interested to try how it compares in flavour with a normal pot. My view is that as the ingredients break down, the stock gets more flavourful as it gets more cloudy. I’m not bothered by the appearance of the stock as flavour is more important. I just strain off the bits of bones and I’m happy with the final result. I understand the French clarify the stock with egg whites to make consommé for a nicer presentation and cleaner flavour. I do double stock too when I get too many bones and indeed I observe the stock gets darker and thicker in flavour. In theory I think if we keep repeating the stock with new bones, the liquid eventually progresses to Demi glacé.
@@theanalyticalcook I didn't notice a notable difference between 90 and 120 minutes (but I didn't do a direct side-by-side A-B test) but through your own findings, my next batches will try a longer boil. That said, with beef stock, I'd definitely go at least 3 hours. Cloudiness can be overcome by a five-minute "preboil", which I do for beef and pork, but not usually for chicken. Double-stock and triple-stock are a great idea. I think I'll try a batch soon, as chicken bones are cheap to buy, and with an Instant Pot, the whole process can be completed in under 4 hours. Keep up the great work! I'm really enjoying your videos.
Hey, nice video! Have you thought about using a pressure cooker to reduce the amount of time it takes to get to the level 3 "blendable" stock? I've always used an instant pot to make my stock, so I wonder if there's any benefit of using a low simmer and 32 hours VS. a pressure cooker (other than maybe improved visual clarity of the stock - but I guess that wouldn't really matter if it's going to be blended anyways).
hi thank you, I haven't bought a pressure cooker yet and don't feel the pressure to do so as I often leave the stock simmer overnight and let time do the work. But your test case sounds interesting (low simmer vs pressure cooked stock) and would try once I get a good pressure cooker if there's any taste and appearance difference and at which point do these 2 methods produce the same quality.
Dude I love your approach. Malaysian food is so good too, I can’t wait to capitalize off of all your research😂
Nice video. I note that your outcome is different to classical Chinese cooking which results in a clear stock. The traditional method: slow start to a rolling boil, then discard the stock and rinse the chicken. Return the chicken to the pot for another slow start boil, then simmer for 2 hours whilst skimming the broth. Result: clear broth. If you need a flavour boost, reduce the broth after the chicken is removed.
One thing you haven't commented on is the texture of the broth. It's not all about flavour, what is also important is how clean it tastes. This is crucial if you are serving a soup where you want clarity of flavour. Less important if you are putting chicken stock into your chicken rice.
My method: start off with the traditional method and preboil the bones. Then everything goes into a stovetop pressure cooker. When it reaches a boil, I remove all the scum. Then I fit the lid and bring it up to pressure. Let it cook for one hour then turn off the heat and let the pressure drop. DO NOT vent the cooker because it will create bubbles and make the stock cloudy. When it is cooled, ladle out the stock. Once you can't ladle any more, the remainder that you strain out is not suitable for soup and only for adding to vegetables or rice. It is beautifully clear and clean tasting.
If I want it even clearer, I use the French consomme method or the freeze-defrost method. The problem with freeze-defrost is that it leaves all the gelatin behind which affects the texture. The result is "chicken flavoured water" and not a true consomme.
Texture wise, the broth is a little thick, but still flows like liquid after straining with a fine mesh. It has a smooth mouthfeel from the chicken oils. I didn't consider the traditional method of boiling and rinsing as I want to keep all the flavours and nutrients in there, also makes it easier 😅
Incredible Video! Thank you so much for making these experiments and i really love your calm voice and editing style! I did a similar thing with beef once and i discovered that heavily roasting the beef meat in the oven (i chose different cuts, some with a lot of connective tissue, some lean parts, leg meat with marrow bones attached) and then double cooking the liquid with another batch of fresh bones and meat for 24 hours yielded the tastiest result. It was almost overwhelmingly beefy but everything that i cooked with it turned out godlike. Could you try to pre-roast the chicken bones and the chicken meat as well before boiling to see if/what difference it makes? PS: see you when you have 1M follower ;). You sure have all the right ingredients for it! Keep up the amazing work!
thank you sir, I understand most chefs recommend roasting the parts in the oven to brown them for that extra toasty flavours and give a browner look to the stock and sauces. Great for french cooking, but in Asia I think most kitchens don't do that and just boil the bones straight to give that cleaner and lighter flavour which I went for to make the rice of chicken rice. Thank you very much for your kind comment and support. Double cooking a liquid stock is way to go, but 1 thing I haven't tested yet is if it yields the same taste and quality as reducing a double volume of liquid stock by half.
I have had simnilar thoughts on what happens if stock keeps cooking, or the bones get so soft they crumble. Thanks for making this video, so I don't have to boil chicken for 2 days to find out. Love your content!
hello thank you for your comment, indeed theres much potential bones have from a clear stock all the way to milky bone stock for a richer flavour
So here's a question: Have you tried making stock in an electric pressure cooker? My standard timing uses necks or frames, 90 minutes on high pressure in an "instant pot". The broth remains clear, as it doesn't "boil" (meaning, the temperature is maybe 120 degrees C, but there's no "bubbling", hence no agitation of the stock). I consistently get a flavourful, clear stock from this method. I've tried 120 minutes as well, but at that point, the bones start breaking down, and the stock becomes a little cloudy. Other advantage of this is that I can make stock on a Sunday afternoon, every week if I want, and frames and necks are cheap (or free if you know your butcher). I've also done the "double-stock" method, especially with beef stock, as a way to progress towards demi-glace. Thoughts?
@@zalibecquerel3463 how does the 120 mins compare with 90 mins in flavour? I wonder what’s the maximum time it takes before any longer wouldn’t make any difference in flavour. I haven’t felt any pressure yet to buy a pressure pot as I usually just let the stove simmer overnight (maybe could save some utilities dollars with a pressure pot). One day I’m interested to try how it compares in flavour with a normal pot. My view is that as the ingredients break down, the stock gets more flavourful as it gets more cloudy. I’m not bothered by the appearance of the stock as flavour is more important. I just strain off the bits of bones and I’m happy with the final result. I understand the French clarify the stock with egg whites to make consommé for a nicer presentation and cleaner flavour. I do double stock too when I get too many bones and indeed I observe the stock gets darker and thicker in flavour. In theory I think if we keep repeating the stock with new bones, the liquid eventually progresses to Demi glacé.
@@theanalyticalcook I didn't notice a notable difference between 90 and 120 minutes (but I didn't do a direct side-by-side A-B test) but through your own findings, my next batches will try a longer boil. That said, with beef stock, I'd definitely go at least 3 hours. Cloudiness can be overcome by a five-minute "preboil", which I do for beef and pork, but not usually for chicken. Double-stock and triple-stock are a great idea. I think I'll try a batch soon, as chicken bones are cheap to buy, and with an Instant Pot, the whole process can be completed in under 4 hours. Keep up the great work! I'm really enjoying your videos.
Amazing stuff bro
Thank you 👍
Hey, nice video! Have you thought about using a pressure cooker to reduce the amount of time it takes to get to the level 3 "blendable" stock? I've always used an instant pot to make my stock, so I wonder if there's any benefit of using a low simmer and 32 hours VS. a pressure cooker (other than maybe improved visual clarity of the stock - but I guess that wouldn't really matter if it's going to be blended anyways).
hi thank you, I haven't bought a pressure cooker yet and don't feel the pressure to do so as I often leave the stock simmer overnight and let time do the work. But your test case sounds interesting (low simmer vs pressure cooked stock) and would try once I get a good pressure cooker if there's any taste and appearance difference and at which point do these 2 methods produce the same quality.
extracted the soul of the chicken ☠☠☠