"aem" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Aug 5, 4:39 pm, "cybercat" > wrote:
>> Took five pounds of roasted leg quarters and divided them between two
>> pots,
>> filled with water, brought to a boil and then down to a two-bubble
>> simmer.
>>
>> I could take them off after five hours, or leave them on.
>>
>> There is nothing else in there, I just wanted pure, concentrated chicken
>> stock to freeze for soups and such.
>
> At some point the law of diminishing returns has to set in, I
> suppose. My experience and vaguely remembered reading seems to tell
> me that I don't get much out of chicken stock beyond about two hours.
> Then again, I never roast it first so I don't know if that means there
> might be more to get out of it. I doubt it. I do chicken stock for
> about two hours, usually a little bit more, fish or shrimp stock for
> half an hour or so. Beef/veal stock is a whole 'nother deal that can
> go for many hours.
>
> Incidentally, even when I'm making a "pure" stock without any veggies
> I still add a bit of salt and a splash of dry vermouth, as both those
> assist in drawing everything out into the stock. Then I throw the
> dead, tasteless meat and bones away because all the flavor and
> goodness have gone into the liquid. -aem


Roasting really helps to draw off bad flavors. If you use backs for example
and they aren't absolutely clean, especially of liver bits and lymph glands,
the stock will inherit those flavors. Roasting helps to cook off those
flavors before being added to the stock.

I have never made stock with premium cuts of meat. It's not what stock is
about. Stock, chicken for example, for me is necks, backs, wing tips etc.
I also can tell when the blood is not cooked off. It makes for a metallic
taste in the stock. Roasting helps eliminate this.

Paul