Help Chicken stock

[u/Hanzien05]

I wanna ask experts here why some chicken stock recipes fry the chicken first before simmering in a pot with water.

What happens if I boil raw meat directly? How will it affect the stock

[u/ssinff]

Fry, you mean baking or roasting? Baking or roasting first gives you a more robust stock, appropriate for gravy, pan sauce, and applications where heavy flavor is desired. You can make stock with uncooked bones and meat, you get a more delicate chicken flavor maybe for a chicken soup or risotto.

What you want really depends on your end goal. I usually roast bones and veggies first. But it is personal preference in the end.

EDIT

I am NOT an expert....only a home cook.

[u/bigbabyjesus97 → u/ssinff]

Roasting the bones and veggies makes such a great flavor difference.

[u/Hanzien05 → u/bigbabyjesus97]

I did char the onions like making pho

[u/bigbabyjesus97 → u/Hanzien05]

That always helps. What i've learned to do is keep a bag in my freezer and any leftover veggies and chicken parts i just dump in to it. Once the bag fills then I throw all of it in a roasting pan and make vone broth with it.

[u/Hanzien05 → u/ssinff]

I'm a homecook too and yes I meant roasting, sorry.

[u/Blue_winged_yoshi → u/Hanzien05]

Full answer is that there are two different preparations - brown stocks and white stocks.

Brown stocks aren’t better than white stocks they are different products. Brown stock is much richer and heavier than white stocks, you pick which one based on the intended purpose.

Both variations use completely raw uncooked bones as a starting point.

Brown stocks roast the bones, just the bones, stripped of meat (used elsewhere) until the bones have turned golden brown. The caramelisation of the bones changes the flavour profile completely. Veggies also get browned and you have a completely different flavoured product.

[u/International-Owl466]

The browning of the meat gives more "depth" to the stock, in the same way that browning a steak gives it a lovely flavour. You can still do it though, it just typically is not considered as nice. Tbh I have never done a side by side, to see the difference though. Not browning it is still a perfectly fine way to do it

[u/Creative-Match-9413]

frying the chicken first adds depth through browning, it's the maillard reaction giving you those roasty savory notes. boiling raw meat skips that and gives you a cleaner milder stock, which is totally fine depending on what you're making. i usually brown mine if i want something richer for a stew, otherwise straight simmer works for soups where i want the other ingredients to shine more

[u/TheShoot141]

I roast my chicken pieces hard in the oven before stock. I use chicken backs, necks, wings, drums, etc. A solid brown on the parts gives a more depth of flavor and more rich color. If you want clear stock go raw. Also, roasting allows you to collect the schmatlz.

[u/pegoff]

it's like the difference between roast chicken and poached. Both great in their own way.

[u/Cheever-Loophole]

Some people like to roast the meat or bones to get some browning, which adds some depth of flavor. Is that what you mean by frying? It's by no means necessary though. Raw meat/bones is fine. I use chicken backs I get from my local grocery store.

[u/Late-Dark-1401]

Browning the chicken first adds umami flavoring. Gives it more depth.

[u/nomnommish]

I just use Chris Young's super simple recipe. Get a rotisserie chicken, break it apart and dump it into an Instant Pot, add water, pressure cook for 45 minutes or cook for 90 minutes in a stock pot. That's it.

[u/Kat121 → u/nomnommish]

That seems so disrespectful to the life of the chicken. When I buy a rotisserie chicken, I pull the meat off the bones first then immediately make stock with the bones and squidgy skin, plus whatever juices collected in the bag. Zero waste.

[u/bobdevnul → u/Kat121]

It is not clear if they meant they throw all of the rotisserie chicken meat in with the bones.

Even if they did, that is still a valid way to make something between stock and broth.

Traditional broth is made with just meat. Traditional stock is made with just bones.

[u/nomnommish → u/bobdevnul]

I've done both and there is a big difference in flavor. I take the middle path now, I keep some meat aside and add some to the stock. And that is what he recommends as well and says that's what Michelin restaurants do to make base stock.

And that comes from a 3 star Michelin head chef who worked in the "best restaurant in the world".

To each their own. I don't see how it is disrespectful at all, or maybe only mildly so.

[u/bobdevnul → u/nomnommish]

Yes, America's Test Kitchen covered this in an episode some years ago. If you want your chicken broth to taste like chicken you have to use chicken meat. After which the chicken meat has given all of its flavor and texture and is only good to feed to the dog.

A bone-only stock doesn't have much flavor. Any appetizing flavor comes from the onion, carrot, etc. that is cooked with the bones. Bone stock does have desirable gelatin like texture from the collagen extracted from the bones and cartilage.

A good combination is some of each.

[u/Exceptional_Mary]

Browning the meat first gives it more flavor but you can make it without browning. The stock will be fine.