Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Brown chicken stock: Yes or no?


phan1

Recommended Posts

OK, I've been reading Madeleine Kamman's "The New Making of a Cook". One of the things that she doesn't believe in is brown chicken stock. She says that unlike browning beef, browning chicken before making it into a stock just makes the stock worse (forgot why). But there are other reputable people who do use brown chicken stock as seen in their recipe books. So does anyone here have an opinion on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm..

I had a quick look at Kamman and the only reference I can find to not browning chicken prior to making stock is if you are making a secondary stock from just the carcasses. She feels that the tiny bones in the carcass don't benefit from the browning step. Otherwise she offers both methods as acceptable - browning the chicken to make a golden stock or not browning it for a light stock.

Ultimately I think it depends on the what you plan on doing with the stock as Kamman says. Risotto, she suggests, requires a light stock.

Anna Nielsen aka "Anna N"

...I just let people know about something I made for supper that they might enjoy, too. That's all it is. (Nigel Slater)

"Cooking is about doing the best with what you have . . . and succeeding." John Thorne

Our 2012 (Kerry Beal and me) Blog

My 2004 eG Blog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm..

I had a quick look at Kamman and the only reference I can find to not browning chicken prior to making stock is if you are making a secondary stock from just the carcasses.  She feels that the tiny bones in the carcass don't benefit from the browning step.  Otherwise she offers both methods as acceptable - browning the chicken to make a golden stock or not browning it for a light stock.

Ultimately I think it depends on the what you plan on doing with the stock as Kamman says.  Risotto, she suggests, requires a light stock.

Oh OK, thanks for clearing that up for me. I went back and re-read that part and that's what she was referring too. It's hard getting your messages across without many pictures. :raz:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a fan of brown chicken stock; I use it more than any other. For everyday cooking I use it more often than demiglace or veal stock or its equivalents, because it's cheap and easy to make. Anything with beef or veal bones requires major life sacrifices to make, so I use it more selectively.

It's possible that white chicken stock is more versatile than brown (I wouldn't use the brown chicken stock with most fish, for example, but in some cases white might work). But I like the roasted flavors and the color.

It's simple and cheap to make if you roast a lot of chickens and keep the carcasses. I leave the back meat on, so there's little extra meat I have to buy to make the stock. In the future I may start adding feet, in order to get some more gelatin.

If anyone thinks I'd be better served by white chicken stock, now's your chance to convert me. I need to make a batch in the next week or so.

Edited by paulraphael (log)

Notes from the underbelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Break the carcass into breast bone and back bone, then split each one in half. For a small amount of bones (2-4 birds) you can saute the bones, or for more (10 pounds of carcasses) you can roast them in the oven. To make a thick reduced jus you need quite a bit of bones, they offer little gelatin. But it is worth it for flavor; mushrooms, mire poix, fresh tomato, aromatic herbs, deglaze with maderia...mmm

She is probably referring to the oft seen practice of over-roasting whole carcasses in the oven until they smell of roasted bone. Your stock will then be bitter, and quite disappointing. If you don't break the carcass down into pieces, it will also require more liquid to cover than it can flavor (called flooding your stock).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if your goal is to have a generally useful ingredient you should simply make as rich a stock as possible. That means either roasting the bones or simmering the stock for a really long time. So it's going to be a brown stock (or in the case of chicken more of a golden stock). White stock of any kind is a pretty rarefied ingredient that's only useful in very limited contexts. I don't think it's a particularly important ingredient to have around. And if you need a weak stock for something like risotto you can just cut your rich stock with water.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

paulraphael- I wouldn't stop what you started. Brown chicken stock done well is really good. (like the feet idea, BTW) I have used a much reduced version with fresh thyme and oven dried tomato (whole petal, no seeds) with roasted Halibut to much success. If you are not using the liver, make a liver butter and add to the sauce after it is off the heat and slightly cooled. Good with fresh splash of oloroso sherry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love brown chicken stock - I agree, it's more golden than brown, and it's really the basic stock I make and keep on hand in my home freezer and use all the time.

I just don't find white chicken stock to be as flavorful, and can't really think of any use for it where I wouldn't rather use either brown chicken stock or some different and otherwise flavorful stock instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...