Chicken tasteless after producing the stock

[gwh]

Hi everyone,

Often in chicken soup recipes the chicken (whether it be whole chicken, chicken pieces or otherwise) is used to produce the stock and then the recipe says to remove the chicken at a certain point to take off all the meat and then return it back into the stock with the other veges.

In my experience by the time the stock is ready the chicken has become stringly and tasteless as all the flavour has gone into the stock. So I wondered have I just got a dud recipe or am I doing something wrong?

Anyone got any advice here?

 

[Selkie]

Basically, you're sacrificing whatever it is that you're putting into the pot when making stock with the idea that it's going to be thrown away afterward. That's why people often use the leftover chicken carcass to make stock, and not the entire chicken. In making stock, it's the flavor from the bones that you're trying to extract anyway. And broth is generally strained so that just the liquid remains. Chicken broth flavor comes from the meat and skin of the chicken.
Stock from bones (Chicken, beef or seafood)
Broth from meat and/or skin.

If you want to use "tasteless" chicken meat that has been boiled to death, you need to make a dish that has tons of flavor and/or a sauce. Chicken pot pie, chicken curry, chicken enchaladas are all things that you could make to hide the fact that the chicken has no flavor, because those kinds of things depend upon spices to give them flavor.

Oh, and welcome to DC!

 

[lyndalou]

I think boiling is the problem, or part of it. The stock should be just simmering for about an hour then remove the chicken for use in whatever you wish. I can't just throw it out. I'm assuming that you are putting veggies, a bay leaf or two and some peppercorns ,etc. into the pot with the chicken.

 

[Selkie]

Personally, I don't have any further use for chicken bones or vegetables that have given up their flavor after having been simmered/boiled for an hour or more. I throw mine out.

And simmering is a low boil.

 

[gwh]

Thanks for the replies,

Yeah I thought stock making was one process where you toss everything once it's done and then you use the stock to make the chicken soup with other chicken. That's why I couldn't understand why some recipes do both together. I guess it depends on how long you simmer the stock for. If it's just an hour then ok I could maybe use the chicken but as most people suggest simmering for 4 or so hours, that's when the chicken's had it.

Ok so assuming I do make the stock first and discard the solids, what sort of chicken is best for when making the soup? Is another whole chicken used and if yes, do you simmer this in the stock for say an hour or do you cook it separately? Or are chicken breasts or thighs the way to go?

Appreciate any more tips!

 

[sparrowgrass]

I use meaty pieces of chicken (usually leg quarters). If I am feeling really energetic, I bone out the meat to use in other recipes and use the bones and skin for my stock. The bones still have quite a bit of meat when I cook them.

Sometimes, I cook the pieces of chicken in the water for 20-30 minutes and I pull out the pieces when they are done. I remove the meat, and return the bones/skin to the stock to cook for a while longer.

Seems less wasteful, and my stock is good.

I wouldn't use breasts for stock--they don't have much flavor no matter how you cook them. Use backs and bones and dark meat pieces.

 

[welldonechef]

I agree here with Selkie. When you are making a broth for a soup, the idea is to simmer the meat for a short period of time (like an hour) to gain the flavor for the broth. Then you shred the meat into the broth. At that point, the chicken will still have flavor.

For stock, that is why we use bones/cartilage only. A stock is a base, not a broth. When you are done making your stock (after 3-4 hours) the bones/meat/vegetables will have given up all of their flavor into the stock, and there will be no value left in them.

The goal of a stock is to extract the natural gelatin (body) to add a deminsion to the next step. (I.E. sauce or gravy)

I hope that explanation of the difference helps you out.

 

[gwh]

I kind of always thought stocks were used as the basis for a soup and therefore to get the best flavor you needed to simmer it for hours and hours. A broth to me sounds like a weak stock.

 

[welldonechef]

I kind of always thought stocks were used as the basis for a soup and therefore to get the best flavor you needed to simmer it for hours and hours. A broth to me sounds like a weak stock.

I see where you are going with this. See, I used to think the same thing. Classically, chefs are trained to make a stock, then make a soup. Hidden deep inside that training is the difference, as was alluded to here.

Basically, the way to think on this is:

If you want a chicken flavor, you want broth. That means you will have meat in the pot, and a short cooking time.

If you are looking for body, then you only want bones and cartilage. Then you will have an extended cooking time.

If you want a happy medium, (both body and flavor) the answer is to make your stock, strain it, then simmer it with the meat that you are going to shred. Then it would be called a "double stock" which is all the rage these days.

 

[Selkie]

...If you want a happy medium, (both body and flavor) the answer is to make your stock, strain it, then simmer it with the meat that you are going to shred. Then it would be called a "double stock" which is all the rage these days.

"Double Stock"... See, I learn something new here almost every day!

 

[ella/TO]

I don't know if you can get kosher chicken where you live, but that's what gives my chicken soup a richer taste. Also, at the end of the simmering, throw in some fresh dill.....yum

 

[velochic]

I read through the replies, but I think I'm still of a different mind. I'm no professional chef, but I've been cooking, enthusiastically, for a good 30 years. In my opinion, what produces the most flavorful chicken AND stock is to first roast. So whether it is chicken pieces (bone-in, I'm assuming) or the whole bird, the first step would be to roast it. Then pull most of the meat off of the bones. Return the bones and your vegetables and herbs to water and simmer for several hours to render the flavor from the bones.

Stock is made from simmering the bones. Broth is from the meat. Broth is weaker.

 

[gwh]

I think the happy medium - "double stock" is the way to go for me. I might also try roasting first as suggested. This would eliminate the wasted chicken and I wouldn't have to simmer a second chicken after the stock is done.

Kosher chicken as suggested could be something to try also.

Thanks for all the great advice everyone.

 

[Andy M.]

Next time, try this.

Start by simmering a whole chicken in water until it is just cooked through. That might take about an hour. Then remove the whole chicken and remove the meat from the bones.

Return the bones to the pot and continue to simmer for a few more hours. The remaining meat, cartilage and bones will continue to flavor the stock. Then strain the broth and make your soup with the juicy tasty chicken you removed earlier.

 

[gwh]

Thanks - that's sounds perfect. Will it a try.

 

[Catseye]

In my opinion, what produces the most flavorful chicken AND stock is to first roast.

I agree. I roast the chicken to completion, that is, as if I were going to serve it right then. Then it goes into the stockpot. Be sure you add in all the goo from the roasting pan.

Further to your question, before I put the chicken in the stockpot, I remove the breasts altogether. They don't contribute much to the stock, and then I've got the breasts for another use. If they're big enough, you can accessorize them with sides and have two meals out of 'em. Best of both worlds.

 

[gwh]

I'll have to try it both ways and see for myself. Thanks for another alternative.