Stock vs Broth - Page 2

Broth is for the customer and stock is for me.  Broth is finished  with appropriate seasoning etc and served to guest. Stock is strained out of pot of bones and  mirepoix and herbs. and stored or used for something else. Thats my definition for what it's worth.

I'm in the stock is made from bones, broth is made from mostly meat camp.

With stock, I think, you actually DON'T want a strong flavor. Thats why veal is the most highly prized for making a rich, gelatinous stock. It's fairly neutral, and when you go to make a sauce later it won't interfere with the other things you want in the sauce, but still give you the gelatin you want for body and mouthfeel. But bones, in general, don't have a lot of flavor to just themselves.

IMO, broth's are generally meant to be served "as is" and should be pretty intensely flavored. Usually they are made from meat (or a mixture of meat and bones, like a chicken carcass) and often the meat is served with the broth, like in chicken soup or chicken pot pie. 

This doesn't mean that, say, a stock can't make a good base for a soup, but it will most likely need to be fortified with vegetables and meat.

But again, I would say, stock has more neutral flavor and much more body, where a broth has much more flavor but less body. 

I know someone already mentioned bones and their wonderful contributions, but I tend to say "Broth" when I"m making potages. Often, with no "stock" but a vegetable simmered in water and then served as is or pureed.

I'm taking culinary classes and one textbook is "On Cooking: A Textbook of Culinary Fundamentals". It says "The techniques for making stocks discussed in Chapter 10 are identical to those used for making broths. Like stocks, broths are prepared by simmering flavoring ingredients in a liquid for a long time. Broths and stocks differ, however, in two ways. First, broths are made with meat instead of just bones. Second, broths (often with a garnish) can be served as finished dishes, whereas stocks are generally used to prepare other items."

We also use the On Cooking textbook in the restaurant/food lab at my school. I was also taught that the difference between a stock and a broth was that a stock had clean rinsed bones while a broth was bones, fat, meat, etc. Another big difference between the two was that a good stock was crystal clear. You'd have to constantly skim the scum and fat off the stock and make sure it NEVER reached a boil or else it would cloud and you'd have to throw it out or clarify it (lessening quality). Broth is way more forgiving but tends to have a lighter mouthfeel and less flavour. A good stock is like a punch in your face.

A stock, if you run definitions in the dictionary, is something that is ready to be converted at a moment's notice.

Like all the other professionals,  my definition is  a stock is any liquid that is mildly seasoned and with very little or no salt, but with great depth of flavour..  Like this, it can be reduced heavily for a sauce or glaze without being overly salty, or can be used as is  for soups with salt added.

A broth is anything that the customer eats--it is seasoned properly.  As such it can not be reduced for  sauces or glazes without becoming overly salty.