# Do you blanch your bones prior to making stock?



## riffwraith (Dec 19, 2014)

Until yesterday, I have never heard of blanching the bones as the first step in making beef stock. Roasting, yes. Blanching, no.

How many of you do this, and is it good practice to do prior to roasting? Or is it not necessary?


----------



## phatch (Mar 29, 2002)

It's a very Asian practice imho and appropriate to that cusisine.


----------



## Pat Pat (Sep 26, 2017)

Blanching is done to minimize the cloudiness.

When you make a stock, you have to skim quite a bit of the scum off the top in the beginning.

But with blanching, you just pour everything down the drain and start a new pot using the now scum-free bones.

You don't really need to do this unless you want a crystal clear stock. The difference is minimal though, I find.

I don't see the need for a super clear stock, but some fancy restaurants demand it as a way of showing high standards.

It's a bad practice to do this prior to roasting.

First, the bones will brown a lot slower from the added moisture. Also, the roasting process already coagulates and locks in the stuff that makes your stock cloudy.


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

phatch said:


> It's a very Asian practice imho and appropriate to that cusisine.


??? I don't know if it is Asian or not (but I believe you), but blanching bones for stock is very very French. I usually don't bother but if you have the staff/time it can lead to a cleaner stock.


----------



## phatch (Mar 29, 2002)

I see it a lot in Asian cusisine. I dont look much at french, a blind spot for me


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Yeah, classic European veal stock— not a Demi, but a clear veal stock calls for this. Like Pat Pat says I think this is un necessary provided you skim off any scum during the initial boil.


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

Blanching your bones helps remove impurities, coagulated protein, blood etc... from the bones so that your stock ends up clearer. If your bones are very clean you won't see much difference vs skimming, but if your bones produce a lot of scum then blanching first avoids hours of scumming your stock.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Well yeah, but what is scum? Dead protein. The fresher the bones, the less scum the stock will throw off. The older the bones are, the more scum they will throw off.


----------



## french fries (Sep 5, 2008)

foodpump said:


> Well yeah, but what is scum? Dead protein. The fresher the bones, the less scum the stock will throw off. The older the bones are, the more scum they will throw off.


aHA! I did not know that. Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## pete (Oct 7, 2001)

I only poach if I am not roasting the bones. If roasting, I find poaching a unnecessary step.


----------



## abefroman (Mar 12, 2005)

Seems that would rob a lot of the flavor.


----------



## pete (Oct 7, 2001)

abefroman said:


> Seems that would rob a lot of the flavor.


It really doesn't wash away that much flavor, considering that a good stock will often cook for hours to extract all the good stuff.


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

Stock should be fairly neutral anyways since bones don't have that much flavor. I mean, on it's own, a straight veal stock doesn't really taste that good. 

I'm also not too big on roasted bones for stock. I like a nice clean white stock that I'll add roasted flavors too later if I want. Once in a blue moon I'll make a brown stock but it's rare. 

Blanching is nice to do, honestly, but I've really ever done it at one place I worked where we had a huge steam jacketed kettle that would tilt when we turned a wheel (also had a hose for water next to it) so it was really easy to just tilt, and drain the blanch water into the floor drain and refresh with ice and clean water.


----------



## Pat Pat (Sep 26, 2017)

someday said:


> I like a nice clean white stock that I'll add roasted flavors too later if I want.


How do you add roasted flavour to it afterward?

I'm the opposite. I only make brown stock--for its intense flavour. I only make white stock when I'm too lazy too roast the bones.


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

Pat Pat said:


> How do you add roasted flavour to it afterward?
> 
> I'm the opposite. I only make brown stock--for its intense flavour. I only make white stock when I'm too lazy too roast the bones.


Take bones/meat scraps of whatever animals you are making the small sauce for and roast those. I.e. if I'm making a duck jus I can roast off the duck tenders and scraps and fortify my stock, same thing with beef scraps, etc.

In my experience, roasted veal stocks and chicken stocks tend to get bitter 8/10 times once you reduce to consistency. Usually this is due to over roasting, the tomato pince burning, things like that.

That's just my opinion though. Seems to work pretty well for me.


----------



## pete (Oct 7, 2001)

In many of the places I worked at, chicken stock was never made with roasted bones because we wanted a neutral flavor. If we wanted a stock with roasted flavor we'd use that neutral stock and then add roasted bones to it. On the other hand veal stock was always made with roasted bones.


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

pete said:


> In many of the places I worked at, chicken stock was never made with roasted bones because we wanted a neutral flavor. If we wanted a stock with roasted flavor we'd use that neutral stock and then add roasted bones to it. On the other hand veal stock was always made with roasted bones.


I mean, I just take that logic and extend it to veal stock as well. If I want a roasted flavor I'll add it later. I like a nice, clean, neutral stock that I can flavor how I want.


----------



## indychuck (Jan 3, 2017)

What is your take on this recipe for a roasted beef stock? Mine typically contains mirepoix, but this particular recipe that I saw in a book does not.

I'm curious if nutritional value is diminished or would this beef stock have equal benefits as a proper beef stock with herbs and mirepoix?

_Preheat oven to 425° F

Place the bones in a single layer in a roasting pan in the oven for 45 minutes.

Transfer the bones to a stockpot and pour in 1 cup red wine. Add enough water to cover the bones by 2 inches (4-6qt).

Bring the liquid to a boil over high heat, and then immediately lower the heat to med-low. Cover and simmer for at least 12 and up to 18 hours, adding water as necessary to keep the bones submerged.

Strain the broth through a fine mesh sieve and then use a wide mouth funnel to pour it into 4 1 quart jars, sealing their lids tightly. Cook with the broth right away or place the jars in the refrigerator to allow the fat to harden. Alternatively, you can freeze the broth for up to 6 months. Be sure to spoon off the hard layer of fat before cooking with the broth.

_


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

Well, my take on roasted stock is well documented. I guess it seems OK...I probably wouldn't add the red wine (why? I can add later if I want). I also probably wouldn't cook it for longer than 12 hours...but that is just me. I think you get diminishing returns after a certain point. 

A veal stock you can make a remi out of, but I wouldn't bother with beef. 12 hours seems like enough. 

If I was going to do mirepoix I would add it during the last 1-2 hours of cooking, not in the beginning. What would happen to the vegetables after 12 hours of cooking? What flavor is left in them, or is even left in the stock at that point? When we cook vegetable stock, we cook it for no more than an hour. The reason is because veg stock gets muddy, muddled and frankly kinda gross after too long of cooking. The aromatic compounds have evaporated...taste a veg stock 30 mins in vs. 2 hours in. Difference is night and day. 

If you only cook veg stock for an hour, why would you cook veg in beef stock for 12 hours? Anyways, like I said, all aromats get added last 1-2 hours, this includes vegetables and herbs/spices. 

Many roasted beef/veal stocks have a tomato component as well (usually cooked out tomato paste) and this recipe is missing it. YMMV but just throwing it out there. 

I'm sure this stock would be good for many/most applications...but there is definitely room for improvement (IMO) and this isn't a particularly finessed stock.


----------



## indychuck (Jan 3, 2017)

SOMEDAY, thank you for your reply and your take on the aromats going in later in the process, that's very helpful and is totally logical.

You mentioned that your stock is well documented, do you have a link of that document or thread post?

Thank you


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

indychuck said:


> SOMEDAY, thank you for your reply and your take on the aromats going in later in the process, that's very helpful and is totally logical.
> 
> You mentioned that your stock is well documented, do you have a link of that document or thread post?
> 
> Thank you


I was just referencing up thread how I don't usually like to make roasted stocks because I find too often they come out bitter. I just prefer the clean, neutral style of a white stock and I'll add roasted flavors later (meat scraps, bones, etc) if/when I want.

I've said as much before in other threads as well.

Nowadays, I make much smaller batches of stock (I work in a boutique small hotel with relatively low cover counts) so I do most of it in a pressure cooker. Works wonderfully.


----------

