Peter Aitken" writes:
>
>>"Andy Katz" wrote
>>"Peter Aitken"
>> >
>> >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?

Stock, broth, and bouillion are synonymous... the resultant strained liquid
from cooking meat and/or vegetables. Being gelatinous is not a requirement...
vegetarian stock doesn't contain any gelatine yet is stock nevertheless.
However, consommé is different, that's *clarified* stock.


---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````