On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 21:22:26 -0700, isw wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 23:39:54 -0700, isw wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 10:47:04 -0700, Kent wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Have you tried Better than Bouillon?
>>>>> http://www.seasonedwithlove.com/chickenbouillon.jpg We think this is
>>>>> better
>>>>> than any canned or boxed product we've tried. I frequently use it simply
>>>>> to
>>>>> enrich a stock or soup. In small quantities you don't know it's there.
>>>>> The
>>>>> chicken Better than Bouillon product is uniquely better than their other
>>>>> similar products..
>>>>>
>>>>> Kent
>>>>
>>>> i haven't tried the chicken, but i use the beef version in some dishes
>>>> like
>>>> pot roast or stew.
>>>>
>>>> how is the chicken 'uniquely better'?
>>>
>>> It's a meat base. Better than bouillon? I think so; just check the table
>>> of contents -- bouillons do not usually contain actual pieces of meat.
>>> And the flavor is way superior.
>>
>> i understand that. i just wondered why the BtB chicken was better than,
>> say, the beef.
>>
>>> B-t-B is just one brand of meat base, but it's easier to find, if a bit
>>> more expensive, than some others. For other brands/flavors/better
>>> prices, check out your local restaurant supply house.
>>>
>>> I keep jars of chicken, turkey, beef, ham, and mushroom (well, OK;
>>> that's not meat) bases around all the time. Great for adding flavor to
>>> all sorts of dishes (I use them mostly for pan sauces). The salt content
>>> means that they'll keep forever.
>>>
>>> Isaac
>>
>> i am a little skeptical of the ham base. do you get good results from it?
>> could you make a successful red-eye gravy from it?
>
> I don't know. For red-eye gravy, you need pig fat, and that's not in the
> ham base. OTOH, it makes a good addition to a lot of bean-type soups, if
> your ham hock is a bit wimpy.
>
> Isaac

o.k., thanks.

your pal,
blake