"Andy Katz" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:29:55 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> > wrote:
>
> >The stock/broth distinction youu mention is an artificial one. Some
people
> >use it but it is really meaningless. For example, if I simmer a whole
> >chicken - meat and bones - would I end up with stock or broth? The terms
are
> >usually used interchangeably.
>
> That's not my experience, Peter. Stock is usually defined as having
> more collagen from bone marrow and thus greater body, than broth,
> which is purely liquid. Cool a good veal or chicken stock, and it
> thickens coniderably, while a broth, which is more similar to
> bouillon.
>

First of all, bone marrow does not contain collagen - it comes from the
cartilage, tendons, etc. But I stand by my comment. Some people do make the
distinction between stock and broth but many others do not - and this
includes many cookbooks I consulted. So it is wrong to claim it is "proper"
usage to make the distinction.

And what about my whole chicken example? When I make stock this way, or from
whole chicken legs, it most certainly gels when cold. It's made from meat
*and* bones, so where does it fall? And while I haven't tried it, I bet if I
made stock from just chicken skin, which contains collagen, it would gel -
but no bones are used. Stock or broth? And if you make stock from just bones
that have no meat on them it will be pretty flavorless. See what I mean?
From the perspective of the cook who is using it, the distinction you draw
between stock and broth is meaningless so why bother?


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.