/ck/ - Food & Cooking

slowcooker is good for turkey & chicken to break down bones to get the marrow. you won't find that in an exoskeleton. just boil it.

>>4101074
Riiiiight. Well, that's kind of what I thought. But then, the thought also occured to me that the low heat setting on the slow cooker might be good for not "clouding" or over heating the stock, too. I'm torn between trying it or not. A google search yielded mixed results, some people use the slow cooker method, some use the traditional stock pot method. But one thing I did find out, which I'm glad I did, is that you shouldn't use the innards because the sand sacs will render your stock cloudy and foul tasting. So, at least I know to stick with just the exoskeleton bits.

>>4101095
Okay, so I decided to make it in the slow cooker, because after weighing my opitons, I decided 1. I needed the room on the stove top more, and 2. I'm willing to experiment to see if my theory of low and slow will yield better results. (i.e. a chance to really suck all the flavor out of the shells without "overcooking" them.)
I'll post the results. Instead of setting the slow cooker at low for 12 hours (max time setting) like I do for chicken or turkey stock and then re-setting it again for another 8 hours, I set the lobster stock for 8 hours on low, and then I'll check it and see if it needs more time, or not.
Let's hope it turns out, because I'm looking forward to making a lobster and crab bisque for New Year's!

>>4101293
Fish bones have so little natural gelatin, and fish shells even less, that more often fish "stock" is really more or less fish "broth", which is to say you're making thin fish-flavored water. Where chicken bones would benefit from a low simmer for a length of 6-8 hours or so (honestly, any more than that and you're just going to make it all sour and nasty), and beef and veal might benefit from 12 hours or longer, a fish "stock" should simmer for maybe 30-45 minutes to extract the flavor from the shells, and any longer than that will turn it into a bitter, nasty-tasting (and smelling) mess.

>clouding

isn't that something an egg white raft will solve?

>>4101721
Well, while I agree with you in theory, so far the "stock" or "broth" is looking beautiful. I've had it in the slow cooker on low for 6 hours now, and it's clear, sweet and smells great. I'm going to let it finish the full 8 on low, and see what it's like then, and then I may take it out.
See, that's why I do stocks in the slow cooker, because there's little to no chance of overcooking it and ruining it, as long as it's set to low, not high. At any rate, this is turning out well.

>>4101739
the clouding is because of the sand sacs, and no amount of clarification can fix that.

>>4101808
It will make no difference if you are running it at a bare simmer in a crock pot or a stock pot or a dutch oven or a tea kettle or a Johnny Appleseed's hat, the results will be exactly the same. If you keep any fish stock at a bare simmer for more than an hour, you will have an overly-fishy bitter taste and aroma which is undesired of any stock. The fact that you would refer to any fish stock as "sweet" suggests you have little understanding of what a fish stock is supposed to taste and smell like. I would strongly advise you to take this off the heat about 5 hours ago, or turn the heat up to bring it to a bare simmer so that you can actually start the cooking process (if it's not been a bare simmer the whole time, you've been steeping not cooking), and take it off heat about 45 minutes later.

>>4101902
Oh fuck off. I'm not some noob cook who's never made stock before. I used to be a professional, and am a master baker, so cooking is far from new to me.
That said, here is a pic (although it's not a great pic, since I was using my phone) of my finished stock, MADE IN THE CROCKPOT, after the first straining through a mesh sieve to get the bulk out. It turned out gorgeous. Golden, clear, and neither fishy NOR bitter. Sorry you can't think outside the box, dude. It's too bad you spent so much money getting ripped off by your culinary school, because you didn't learn shit.
Anyway, I can't wait to use it. There's plenty there for at least a bisque and another dish. I love it when a plan works out.

>>4102333
your "plan" isn't really an objective comparison unless you try it the other way and compare the two. oh well, enjoy your broth.

>>4102333
Daaaaang OP I don't know if it's the bud talking with munchies or if I like the look of stock, but that shit looks bomb. Great job with the innovative idea, glad it turned out! Did you add any sort of spices or anything to it?

Also, cut the other guy some slack, he clearly seems to know what he's talking about, that cooking school taught facts, not innovation. Plus, he's just trying to help. :)

>>4102333
Sorry if my post came off as combative, but I'm kind of a prick. I actually changed the sentence that referenced your "little understanding" from a much more direct statement in an attempt to defang myself, so that is the nicest way I can say that. Yes, I went to culinary school, and yes I have have spent years in the industry, and yes I was often responsible for making all kinds of stock, I find it strange that I would have to apologize for that experience in this conversation, but hey it's the internet. Your "professional" experience and your position as a "master baker" seems to have little to do with the conversation at hand. You have asked very basic questions about making fish stock and made grossly incorrect choices that suggest you have little understanding of the process, so I figured I'd jump in and answer the questions (that you fucking asked) and try to set you on the correct path. You seem to think that using a crock pot to make stock is some ingenious new advance that you've pioneered. It's not. Using an electric slow cooker (correctly) for the long hours typically demanded of stocks like chicken, beef and veal allows for the home cook to not have his oven on all day and night and not wake up to a gas fire that spread in the middle of the night. But again, the procedure and the results would be the same: bring to a bare simmer and keep it there until all the collagen has been sucked from the bones to maximize the gelatinous nature of the stock. The longer you cook it, the more sour it will be, so you get all the gelatin you can, then you stop. The relative lack of gelatin in fish bones & shells means, you're not going for gelatin, you're going for flavor, most of which will be extracted during a bare simmer before the first hour. (wall of text to be continued...)

>>4102712 (samefag contining)
Cloudiness in a stock comes from the particulate and filth from inside the bones (and less so the vegetation) being leached during the simmer, usually from an overly-aggressive boil. the reason why your "stock" isn't cloudy is because there's no bones or vegetation to cause it. For that reason, most people take an even bigger shortcut with fish and just straight up full boil the bones, shells, heads, etc for an even shorter amount of time and end up with the same fish "stock" they would have if they kept it on a bare simmer for an hour.
The possible reasons why it doesn't taste overly fishy or bitter to you are (1) you didn't bring it up to a bare simmer so it's not cooked enough (2) you used way too much water or (3) you are lying to yourself. From all the data, including the pic, I suspect some combination of the 3.

>>4102717
Hey just came in this thread, not OP but, does grilling the shells before boiling them do anything? For lobster/shrimp/crab...
I remember seeing someone do that on TV. They burned/grilled the shell for a brief time for some reason. It was a long time ago so I don't remember the details but they were making some stock.

>>4101062
Is pic related? I would chop it up smaller than that with some scissors. Obviously whack some more fish in there - it needs help.

>>4102732
As you might expect, grilling (though I'm not sure I'd encourage "burning" them, unless you like the taste of soot) the shells, bones, etc (most would oven-roast them) will add to the flavor of the "stock", and arguably more critically result in a much darker colored stock Again, since fish "stock" is less about texture and more about flavor, it's probably going to "always" be a good idea, but there are cases when one would want a very light colored and flavored fish stock, and thus would not want to roast/grill them.

>>4102739
That makes a lot of sense. Thank you very much!

>>4102712
>>4102717
You stupid little dick faced bitch.
You spouting your memorized first semester culinary text is worthless.
First off, how the FUCK do you know whether my stock had any vegetation or not in it, since I never posted the ingredients.
Secondly, I never ASKED YOU ANY QUESTIONS, dickface. I asked for an opinion on crockpot vs. stockpot for shellfish broth. WHICH, by the way, cockgobbler, isn't fish. Fish don't have exoskeletons.
You haven't spent "years in the industry". Anyone who has any sort of experience knows that THAT turn of phrase in particular means you learned your culinary skills from some backwater "culinary school" and Food Network.
You little piece of shit, I could out cook you any day of the week. You'd be crying tears made of asspain and humiliation by the time I was done with you. You really don't know what the FUCK you're talking about. Go back to your little galley kitchen and fuck off. Your stupid opinions and memorized text are about as helpful and/or informational as the piece of shit stuck to the bottom of my running shoes. Grow the fuck up, learn to really COOK, and then we'll talk. You are no better than the stagnant, old fart fuckers who couldn't have their own kitchens, whom you learn your shit ass skills from.

>>4104257
is this copypasta? please tell me it isn't

>>4104299

if it isn't it is now

>>4104299
Nope, that's me.

>>4101721
Stock is made from bones, broth is made from the meat.

>>4102717

I've heard some people add their vegetables close to the end because it gives the stock more of a fresh flavor, they say starting them at the beginning makes them muddled or something. Is this true?

>>4104257
It's worse for college students who take a psychology class and think they're the best psychologist in the world.

>>4104257
oh wow, someones mad. what's wrong you drank too much of that sour fish broth? haha

>>4104257

Saved

>>4104314

No, stock is concentrated broth (minus salt, ideally.)

>>4104304

lol... if you dont have the heads you should have just made bisque

And, if you did have the heads, you would go at it like fish stock, cold water brought up to a slow simmer for about 30 min, then let it cool with all the good parts in there.

And since you are such total pro, you know already how to clarify any stock.

Stock - Bones
Broth - Bones and meat or just meat
Consomme - Simmered meatloaf water
Now you know nigga..

>>4104593
DO YOU EVEN READ?

Fucking stupid fucks can't comprehend what's even happening around here......

>>4104604
Yeah, i called you a dumbass

should have made bisque

never cook anything from the sea too long

you retarded from starts

>>4104609
You're a fucking moron.
Who not only doesn't know how to read, but doesn't understand cooking temps and times or using ingredient byproducts. Just fuck off, child.

mfw OP asks for help then attacks everyone

>>4104257
>mfw reading this epic burn

>>4104614
Never asked for help, just an opinion. Instead I get some fucking culinary school dropout armchair food network star trying to "school" me on making stocks, which besides being completely besides the point, is also a fucking dumbass. IDGAF if you dickfaces want to whinge and moan about the difference between stock and broth, I asked for a single opinion. That's it. And then, when I posted my glorious outcome, the fucktard wannabe came back and tried to tell me I was in denial about how shitty it was, which, besides being presumptuous as SHIT, since they can't even taste it or smell, or really see it clearly, was just an completely FEEBLE attempt to troll me into feeling bad about myself. Which I don't. And I won't. Bitches don't even know. So,
tl;dr GTFO.

>>4104614
He's the hero /ck/ deserves

>>4104611
Cold water, raise to 190 degrees F MAX , just under a boil, for 20 - 30 minutes, allow to cool with ingredients still in it. When its cool, remove garbage and strain through china cap/cheese cloth, reheat to 95 degrees, while its cooling, sprinkle gelatin over the top of it, when the gelatin settles at the bottom, retrieve glorious stock from the top....

Like I said, you are total pro top chef, and knew this is how you handle things from the sea. Not to unintelligibly go at lobster stock like veal stock.

Go back to school faggot...

>>4104643
Sure, you can do that, if you want to be a shit-eating pain in the ass about it. Fuck off. Eric Ripert would bitch slap the shit out of you.

>>4104633
But not the one /ck/ needs right now

>>4104632
>feeble attempt to troll
>is buttmad

>>4104655
Dawwww, you're just sad you're not the one getting the attention, tripfag attention whore.

>>4104633
The an hero /ck/ never wanted

>>4104632
go back to /b/

>>4104663

Tom Colicchio on lobster stock:

1. Remove the head sack, tomalley, and roe from the lobster bodies (discard the head sack but freeze the tomalley and roe for another use). Break or cut the bodies into 4 to 6 pieces each.
2. Heat the oil in a large pot over medium-low heat until it spreads over the bottom of the pan. Add the onion, leek, carrot, and celery and cook, stirring occasionally, until the vegetables are tender, about 20 minutes. Add the lobster bodies and thyme and cook, stirring frequently, until the lobster shells begin to turn red, about 5 minutes. Add water to cover, about 6 cups, and gently simmer, skimming as needed, until the stock is flavorful, about 1 hour. Ladle the stock through a fine sieve and set aside to cool. Store the stock in the refrigerator for up to 1 week or in the freezer for up to 6 months.


Expert chef recommends one hour, you do six. Looks like you fucked up.

>>4104657

>>4104666
Oh looky, someone who thinks there's only one way to ever do anything. Isn't that cute?

>>4104669

Huge difference between 1 hour and 6. Do you think there's some secret 6 hour slow cooker conspiracy top chefs keep hidden from the rest of us?

You worthless, bitchface piece of useless shit. You should slow cook your shriveled peanut dick, and see what happens. What type of absolute, worthless loser gets excited over a slow cooker lobster shell stock, probably the same type of person who gets excited by fucking a pillow with a hole inside of it.

>>4104679
>What type of absolute, worthless loser gets excited over a slow cooker lobster shell stock

I lold.

>>4104679
The same person who would cook your dick and make you eat your own shriveled foreskin, you fat fuck of a useless whore.
If you don't get excited by food, period, whether it simple ingrdients or complex dishes, you are unworthy of being a chef, you turd of a human being. Go back to the monkey shithole you call your kitchen and weep for everything you'll never have, you simian shitflinger. I pity you and those who have to eat your terrible, uninspired food.

Hey guys, what's going on in here?

Oh wow.

>>4104257
I can't possible argue with such thoughtful logic, so I'm forced to concede on all points. Good luck in your future endeavors.

>OP just wants everyone to tell him how great he is for his innovative idea
>throws insults around when people try to give advice

>>4104257
Fucking kill yourself.

>>4104257

I love how you're talking about your awesome culinary skills yet you have to ask such as basic question as whether or not you should use a crock pot to make stock. Didn't you learn stock making during your impressive culinary career?

>>4104257
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

>>4105217
>not realizing he was asking for an opinion

>>4105328
and his immediate response to the first opinion given was:

>Riiiiight.

mfw you don't realize OP is a troll or a shit eating faggot or both

>>4105778
You do realize "Riiiight" can be an expression of thoughtfulness or sarcasm. You're just reading into it what you want so you can shitpost.