I finally got to use mine to make chicken stock tonight! I can't wait to
make soup out of it tomorrow! I feel so accomplished. We also had REAL
mashed potatoes with the chicken we had for supper prior to making the soup
stock.

Dawn

DawnK wrote:

>I finally got to use mine to make chicken stock tonight! I can't wait t=
o
>make soup out of it tomorrow! I feel so accomplished. We also had REAL=

>mashed potatoes with the chicken we had for supper prior to making the s=
oup
>stock.
>

Just a little technicality, Dawn and congratulations.

If you had meat in there, you made a broth.

If you only used bones, you made stock.

Just thought you might like to know.

--=20
Sincerly,

C=3D=A6-)=A7 H. W. Hans Kuntze, CMC, S.g.K. (_o_)
http://www.cmcchef.com ,
"Don't cry because it's over, Smile because it Happened"
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/=20

"H. W. Hans Kuntze" > wrote in
s.com:

>
> Just a little technicality, Dawn and congratulations.
>
> If you had meat in there, you made a broth.
>
> If you only used bones, you made stock.
>
> Just thought you might like to know.
>

Hans,

Thanks for pointing this out. I had known about the
different terms,
but always wondered how one could possibly get a stock
with a distinct
chicken flavor since all that is in it is bones (and
perhaps some
vegetables and herbs - onion, some carrot for color as
much as flavor,
celery, some parsley, some peppercorns, one or two bay
leaves, perhaps a
small amount of thyme). When I make broth I always start
with lots of
cheap chicken (like the 39 cents/lb. chicken leg quarters
one can buy in
10-pound bags) and reinforce that with the chicken bones
and scraps that
I save up in my freezer. (In a pinch I can get chicken
carcasses for 69
cents each from the local Chinese supermarket.) I've
always felt that
the bones gave body to the broth, but not much flavor. I
dimly remember
once trying to make stock (bones only) and ending up with
something that
was fairly weak-flavored. I doubt it was not cooking long
enough, since
I tend to do things like let my broth simmer over night.
FWIW, I never
put any salt in my broth as I am brewing it, since I might
want to use
it in a reduced form in some recipe. As far as my own
ability to taste
goes, I do know that adding salt does seem to bring out
other flavors
too. So perhaps my broth seemed tasteless because it was
saltless?

Debbie

--
Anti-spam advisory: The email address used to post this
article is a
throw-away address. It will be invalidated and replaced
with another if
and when it is found by spammers.

"Debbie Deutsch" > wrote in message
. 97.132...
> "H. W. Hans Kuntze" > wrote in
> s.com:
>
> >
> > Just a little technicality, Dawn and congratulations.
> >
> > If you had meat in there, you made a broth.
> >
> > If you only used bones, you made stock.
> >
> > Just thought you might like to know.
> >
>
> Hans,
>
> Thanks for pointing this out. I had known about the
> different terms,
> but always wondered how one could possibly get a stock
> with a distinct
> chicken flavor since all that is in it is bones (and
> perhaps some
> vegetables and herbs - onion, some carrot for color as
> much as flavor,
> celery, some parsley, some peppercorns, one or two bay
> leaves, perhaps a
> small amount of thyme). When I make broth I always start
> with lots of
> cheap chicken (like the 39 cents/lb. chicken leg quarters
> one can buy in
> 10-pound bags) and reinforce that with the chicken bones
> and scraps that
> I save up in my freezer. (In a pinch I can get chicken
> carcasses for 69
> cents each from the local Chinese supermarket.) I've
> always felt that
> the bones gave body to the broth, but not much flavor. I
> dimly remember
> once trying to make stock (bones only) and ending up with
> something that
> was fairly weak-flavored. I doubt it was not cooking long
> enough, since
> I tend to do things like let my broth simmer over night.
> FWIW, I never
> put any salt in my broth as I am brewing it, since I might
> want to use
> it in a reduced form in some recipe. As far as my own
> ability to taste
> goes, I do know that adding salt does seem to bring out
> other flavors
> too. So perhaps my broth seemed tasteless because it was
> saltless?
>
> Debbie
>
> --
> Anti-spam advisory: The email address used to post this
> article is a
> throw-away address. It will be invalidated and replaced
> with another if
> and when it is found by spammers.

Well, stock then! I wasn't sure of the difference.

Chicken stock

2 pounds chicken scraps, including some bones
Cold water to cover (at least 2 quarts)
1 large onion, peeled and stuck with 3 or 4 cloves
1 large clove garlic, peeled
1 or 2 ribs celery, halved crosswise, with leaves if available
1 or 2 carrots, cut into chunks
1 bay leaf
2 or more parsley sprigs or 1 tablespoon dried parsley flakes
1 teaspoon tarragon
1/2 teaspoon thyme
1/2 teaspoon dillweed
Salt, if desired, to taste
12 peppercorns or 1/4 - 1/2 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper

1. Place all the ingredients in a large pot with a cover. Bring the liquid
to a boil, reduce the heat, partially cover the pot, and simmer the stock
for at least 1 hour. The longer the stock cooks, the richer it will become.
But don't cook it until the broth evaporates.

2. Pour the stock through a fine strainer, sieve, or cheesecloth into a
fat-separating measuring cup, bowl, or other suitable container. Press on
the solids to extract as much liquid as possible.

3. If using the fat skimmer, decant the fat-free broth into containers for
storage. Otherwise refrigerate the broth until the fat hardens enough for
easy removal. (Depending on the amount of gelatinous protein in the chicken
scraps, the broth may gel at refrigerator temperatures).


To make soup the next day, I heat up the broth, add an assortment of onions,
celery, and carrots. Then add pepper, sage, thyme, maybe more dill and
simmer until the veggies are tender. Then I might add some frozen
vegetables (maybe half a bag of mixed veggies) and some noodles that I
already cooked, along with meat from the chicken we usually had the night
before.. For chili, I cook 1 cup of creamettes elbow noodles. This would
probably work for the chicken soup, too. Lucky for me, we have colorful
elbow noodles, so I will be using those instead.

I usually do the refrigerator method for getting rid of the fat.

Dawn

"H. W. Hans Kuntze" > wrote in message
s.com...
DawnK wrote:

>I finally got to use mine to make chicken stock tonight! I can't wait to
>make soup out of it tomorrow! I feel so accomplished. We also had REAL
>mashed potatoes with the chicken we had for supper prior to making the soup
>stock.
>

Just a little technicality, Dawn and congratulations.

If you had meat in there, you made a broth.

If you only used bones, you made stock.

Just thought you might like to know.

--

Actually this stock/broth distinction is a fiction. I do not know where it
originated but it is one of several "kitchen legends" that regularly surface
on this group.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

On 10/14/03 2:32 AM, in article
, "H. W. Hans Kuntze"
> wrote:

> DawnK wrote:
>
>> I finally got to use mine to make chicken stock tonight! I can't wait to
>> make soup out of it tomorrow! I feel so accomplished. We also had REAL
>> mashed potatoes with the chicken we had for supper prior to making the soup
>> stock.
>>
>
> Just a little technicality, Dawn and congratulations.
>
> If you had meat in there, you made a broth.
>
> If you only used bones, you made stock.
>
> Just thought you might like to know.


Hmm, that's interesting. When I make stock I usually start with whole
chickens (meat and bones). After the first hour or so, I remove the
chickens from the broth, remove the meat from the bones and use it for other
things like soup later, put the bones back in the broth and simmer all day.
I'm pretty sure what I have at that point is stock...

--
Michael Harp
http://CopperPans.com

The American Heritage Dictionary (www.bartleby.com) does not distinguish
between stock and broth. But, this perhaps reflects common rather than
specialist usage.

The food dictionary at www.epicurious.com makes the slight distinction that
stock is the strained liquid that is the result of cooking vegetables, meat
or fish and other seasoning ingredients in water. Their definition for
broth doesn't say strained.

The meat vs bones distinction seems useful and plausible at least among
professionals. But, is there a second authoritative source for it, other
then our Chef Hans?

Regards

Louis Cohen
Living la vida loca at N37° 43' 7.9" W122° 8' 42.8"

"H. W. Hans Kuntze" > wrote in message
s.com...
DawnK wrote:

>I finally got to use mine to make chicken stock tonight! I can't wait to
>make soup out of it tomorrow! I feel so accomplished. We also had REAL
>mashed potatoes with the chicken we had for supper prior to making the soup
>stock.
>

Just a little technicality, Dawn and congratulations.

If you had meat in there, you made a broth.

If you only used bones, you made stock.

Just thought you might like to know.

--
Sincerly,

C=¦-)§ H. W. Hans Kuntze, CMC, S.g.K. (_o_)
http://www.cmcchef.com ,
"Don't cry because it's over, Smile because it Happened"
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/

Louis Cohen wrote:


> The meat vs bones distinction seems useful and plausible at least among=

> professionals. But, is there a second authoritative source for it, oth=
er
> then our Chef Hans?

Of course Louis.

Chef Auguste good enough? Escoffier that is.

Le Guide Culinaire.

And most other professional cookbooks too. Semantiks to reduce=20
confusion, important for the pros.

I don't care if you guys call a table a chair, as long as nobody puts=20
glasses and butts on the same surface,OK by me. :-)
--=20
Sincerly,

C=3D=A6-)=A7 H. W. Hans Kuntze, CMC, S.g.K. (_o_)
http://www.cmcchef.com ,
"Don't cry because it's over, Smile because it Happened"
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/

"H. W. Hans Kuntze" > wrote in message
s.com...
Louis Cohen wrote:


> The meat vs bones distinction seems useful and plausible at least among
> professionals. But, is there a second authoritative source for it, other
> then our Chef Hans?

Of course Louis.

Chef Auguste good enough? Escoffier that is.

Le Guide Culinaire.

And most other professional cookbooks too. Semantiks to reduce
confusion, important for the pros.

I don't care if you guys call a table a chair, as long as nobody puts
glasses and butts on the same surface,OK by me. :-)
--

No, Chef Auguste is not good enough. The fact that an old French cookbook
makes the stock/broth distinction may be of interest to culinary historians
but is of little relevance to the present discussion. At best this tells you
that some French chefs 50-100 years ago used the words in this way. Word
usage changes and what a word meant 100 years ago is irrelevant when
discussing what it means now. I have numerous professional cookbooks (modern
ones) and none makes this distinction.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

Geezz - Does anyone really care?

ELAhrens


"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
.. .
> "H. W. Hans Kuntze" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> Louis Cohen wrote:
>
>
> > The meat vs bones distinction seems useful and plausible at least among
> > professionals. But, is there a second authoritative source for it,
other
> > then our Chef Hans?
>
> Of course Louis.
>
> Chef Auguste good enough? Escoffier that is.
>
> Le Guide Culinaire.
>
> And most other professional cookbooks too. Semantiks to reduce
> confusion, important for the pros.
>
> I don't care if you guys call a table a chair, as long as nobody puts
> glasses and butts on the same surface,OK by me. :-)
> --
>
> No, Chef Auguste is not good enough. The fact that an old French cookbook
> makes the stock/broth distinction may be of interest to culinary
historians
> but is of little relevance to the present discussion. At best this tells
you
> that some French chefs 50-100 years ago used the words in this way. Word
> usage changes and what a word meant 100 years ago is irrelevant when
> discussing what it means now. I have numerous professional cookbooks
(modern
> ones) and none makes this distinction.
>
>
> --
> Peter Aitken
>
> Remove the crap from my email address before using.
>
>

ELAhrens wrote:

> Geezz - Does anyone really care?[....}

Not if your priority is learning to hold a knife straigt. Then=20
intricacies are out of your field of interest.

--=20
Sincerly,

C=3D=A6-)=A7 H. W. Hans Kuntze, CMC, S.g.K. (_o_)
http://www.cmcchef.com ,
"Don't cry because it's over, Smile because it Happened"
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/

In article <LY1jb.563368$cF.240727@rwcrnsc53>, "Louis Cohen"
> wrote:

> The American Heritage Dictionary (www.bartleby.com) does not distinguish
> between stock and broth. But, this perhaps reflects common rather than
> specialist usage.

> The meat vs bones distinction seems useful and plausible at least among
> professionals. But, is there a second authoritative source for it, other
> then our Chef Hans?
>
> Regards
>
> Louis Cohen

Actually I have two sources that contradict this and say a broth is called
stock when it is used as a liquid to cook something else in.

The first source is James Peterson¹s ³Splendid Soups² who states on page
59: ³if a broth is being used as a backdrop for other flavors
(technically, this is called stock) * as in vegetable soups * it isn¹t
necessary to use meat² Note the reference to meat is incidental (not
central) and the distinction is that stock is broth that is being used to
cook something else.

The second source is the volume on Soups in the Time Life Series ³The Good
Cook². Here they state on pgs 5-6: ³Most of the names by which different
types of soup are known date only from the mid-19th Century and are
frequently misapplied. In particular, a murky confusion surrounding the
terms broth, bouillon, stock and consommé has led many people to believe
that each must be different from the others. In fact, so far as mode of
preparation is concerned, they are all one and the same thing: any
difference among them reside in their respective roles and strength of
flavorŠ²

They go on to say: ³ Stocks *aptly named fonds de cuisine, meaning
³foundations of cooking² are made in the same way as broths. A stock is,
however, meant to serve as a braising medium or a sauce base; it should
give richness and body to a dish without masking the flavors of the basic
ingredients. Stocks, therefore are much more gelatinous than broths and
somewhat less assertive in flavor. Since the flavors of beef or chicken
would tend to overpower those of other ingredients, a stock might well be
made with veal cuts only."

The Time Life Series has Richard Olney as series consultant and generaly
very competant series editors and consultants (Jane Grigson and the like)
so is probably as good a source as any.

Hans may be right in a practical sense- In the sense that you might not
want assertive flavors in a stock, (i.e. leaving out the meat removes an
assertive flavor hence suitable for cooking something else in). On a pure
technical word definition sense Hans appears to be wrong.

Roland

"Joe Doe" > wrote in message
...
> In article <LY1jb.563368$cF.240727@rwcrnsc53>, "Louis Cohen"
> > wrote:
>
> > The American Heritage Dictionary (www.bartleby.com) does not distinguish
> > between stock and broth. But, this perhaps reflects common rather than
> > specialist usage.
>
> > The meat vs bones distinction seems useful and plausible at least among
> > professionals. But, is there a second authoritative source for it,
other
> > then our Chef Hans?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Louis Cohen
>
> Actually I have two sources that contradict this and say a broth is called
> stock when it is used as a liquid to cook something else in.
>
> The first source is James Peterson¹s ³Splendid Soups² who states on page
> 59: ³if a broth is being used as a backdrop for other flavors
> (technically, this is called stock) * as in vegetable soups * it isn¹t
> necessary to use meat² Note the reference to meat is incidental (not
> central) and the distinction is that stock is broth that is being used to
> cook something else.
>
> The second source is the volume on Soups in the Time Life Series ³The Good
> Cook². Here they state on pgs 5-6: ³Most of the names by which different
> types of soup are known date only from the mid-19th Century and are
> frequently misapplied. In particular, a murky confusion surrounding the
> terms broth, bouillon, stock and consommé has led many people to believe
> that each must be different from the others. In fact, so far as mode of
> preparation is concerned, they are all one and the same thing: any
> difference among them reside in their respective roles and strength of
> flavorS²
>
> They go on to say: ³ Stocks *aptly named fonds de cuisine, meaning
> ³foundations of cooking² are made in the same way as broths. A stock is,
> however, meant to serve as a braising medium or a sauce base; it should
> give richness and body to a dish without masking the flavors of the basic
> ingredients. Stocks, therefore are much more gelatinous than broths and
> somewhat less assertive in flavor. Since the flavors of beef or chicken
> would tend to overpower those of other ingredients, a stock might well be
> made with veal cuts only."
>
> The Time Life Series has Richard Olney as series consultant and generaly
> very competant series editors and consultants (Jane Grigson and the like)
> so is probably as good a source as any.
>
> Hans may be right in a practical sense- In the sense that you might not
> want assertive flavors in a stock, (i.e. leaving out the meat removes an
> assertive flavor hence suitable for cooking something else in). On a pure
> technical word definition sense Hans appears to be wrong.
>
> Roland

Things are always subject to interpretation and interpretations vary widely.
I once asked 4 chefs what the difference was between stewing and braising
and got 4 answers. Perhaps the distinctions don't really matter.

Fred
The Good Gourmet
http://www.thegoodgourmet.com

Fred wrote:
[...]
> Things are always subject to interpretation and interpretations vary wi=
dely.
> I once asked 4 chefs what the difference was between stewing and braisi=
ng
> and got 4 answers. Perhaps the distinctions don't really matter.

Yo Fred.

There are at least as many differences between stewing and braising=20
as there are differences between the interpretatation of "chef".

As long as anybody can have a license to kill and the customer does=20
not know or care, true, " Perhaps the distinctions don't really matter."

And as long as people pour water in the pan (as recently suggested in=20
rec.food.baking of all things) when roasting prime rib and can expect=20
to be taken seriously, I don't see things changing in a hurry.:-(
--=20
Sincerly,

C=3D=A6-)=A7 H. W. Hans Kuntze, CMC, S.g.K. (_o_)
http://www.cmcchef.com ,
"Don't cry because it's over, Smile because it Happened"
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/

"Joe Doe" > wrote in message
...

> Hans may be right in a practical sense- In the sense that you might not
> want assertive flavors in a stock, (i.e. leaving out the meat removes an
> assertive flavor hence suitable for cooking something else in). On a pure
> technical word definition sense Hans appears to be wrong.

Surely you are not suggesting that the Time Life series is a better and more
credible source of information on cooking terms than professional cook
books?

Rich

"Fred" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Joe Doe" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <LY1jb.563368$cF.240727@rwcrnsc53>, "Louis Cohen"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > The American Heritage Dictionary (www.bartleby.com) does not
distinguish
> > > between stock and broth. But, this perhaps reflects common rather than
> > > specialist usage.
> >
> > > The meat vs bones distinction seems useful and plausible at least
among
> > > professionals. But, is there a second authoritative source for it,
> other
> > > then our Chef Hans?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Louis Cohen
> >
> > Actually I have two sources that contradict this and say a broth is
called
> > stock when it is used as a liquid to cook something else in.
> >
> > The first source is James Peterson¹s ³Splendid Soups² who states on page
> > 59: ³if a broth is being used as a backdrop for other flavors
> > (technically, this is called stock) * as in vegetable soups * it isn¹t
> > necessary to use meat² Note the reference to meat is incidental (not
> > central) and the distinction is that stock is broth that is being used
to
> > cook something else.
> >
> > The second source is the volume on Soups in the Time Life Series ³The
Good
> > Cook². Here they state on pgs 5-6: ³Most of the names by which
different
> > types of soup are known date only from the mid-19th Century and are
> > frequently misapplied. In particular, a murky confusion surrounding the
> > terms broth, bouillon, stock and consommé has led many people to believe
> > that each must be different from the others. In fact, so far as mode of
> > preparation is concerned, they are all one and the same thing: any
> > difference among them reside in their respective roles and strength of
> > flavorS²
> >
> > They go on to say: ³ Stocks *aptly named fonds de cuisine, meaning
> > ³foundations of cooking² are made in the same way as broths. A stock
is,
> > however, meant to serve as a braising medium or a sauce base; it should
> > give richness and body to a dish without masking the flavors of the
basic
> > ingredients. Stocks, therefore are much more gelatinous than broths and
> > somewhat less assertive in flavor. Since the flavors of beef or chicken
> > would tend to overpower those of other ingredients, a stock might well
be
> > made with veal cuts only."
> >
> > The Time Life Series has Richard Olney as series consultant and generaly
> > very competant series editors and consultants (Jane Grigson and the
like)
> > so is probably as good a source as any.
> >
> > Hans may be right in a practical sense- In the sense that you might not
> > want assertive flavors in a stock, (i.e. leaving out the meat removes an
> > assertive flavor hence suitable for cooking something else in). On a
pure
> > technical word definition sense Hans appears to be wrong.
> >
> > Roland
>
> Things are always subject to interpretation and interpretations vary
widely.
> I once asked 4 chefs what the difference was between stewing and braising
> and got 4 answers. Perhaps the distinctions don't really matter.
>
> Fred
> The Good Gourmet
> http://www.thegoodgourmet.com
>
>

And to think the last two nights for supper, I have just enjoyed my chicken
soup without worrying about whether it came from broth or stock!

Dawn

DawnK wrote:
[...]
> And to think the last two nights for supper, I have just enjoyed my chi=
cken
> soup without worrying about whether it came from broth or stock!

It would have made a poor soup if it was made from stock, without=20
refining it elaborately, Dawn.

If you enjoyed it, I would assume the broth you made it from was good=20
to exellent.

Of course, there is the chance, your standards of taste are too low,=20
or you were ravenously hungry, neither of which I would even dare to=20
suggest, Dawn.:-)

That is not to say, you cannot make a soup from fond or stock.
You can, but the process is entirely different.

--=20
Sincerly,

C=3D=A6-)=A7 H. W. Hans Kuntze, CMC, S.g.K. (_o_)
http://www.cmcchef.com ,
"Don't cry because it's over, Smile because it Happened"
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/

"Rich Bednarski" > wrote:

>
> "Joe Doe" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Hans may be right in a practical sense- In the sense that you might not
> > want assertive flavors in a stock, (i.e. leaving out the meat removes an
> > assertive flavor hence suitable for cooking something else in). On a pure
> > technical word definition sense Hans appears to be wrong.
>
> Surely you are not suggesting that the Time Life series is a better and more
> credible source of information on cooking terms than professional cook
> books?

I would suggest that any published overview is as good as the sources
the writers used for their information.

"Rich Bednarski" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Joe Doe" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Hans may be right in a practical sense- In the sense that you might not
> > want assertive flavors in a stock, (i.e. leaving out the meat removes an
> > assertive flavor hence suitable for cooking something else in). On a
pure
> > technical word definition sense Hans appears to be wrong.
>
> Surely you are not suggesting that the Time Life series is a better and
more
> credible source of information on cooking terms than professional cook
> books?
>
> Rich
>
>
Any why not? Many expert chefs were involved in preparation of that series -
Jacques Pepin for example.

But what is clear from this thread is that the words stock and broth are
used in a variety of ways by a variety of people and sources. To claim that
they have one precise meaning as regards meat/bones, and that all other uses
are wrong, is blatant foolishness. Unfortunately that is a common commodity
here!

--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
...
> "Rich Bednarski" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Joe Doe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > Hans may be right in a practical sense- In the sense that you might
not
> > > want assertive flavors in a stock, (i.e. leaving out the meat removes
an
> > > assertive flavor hence suitable for cooking something else in). On a
> pure
> > > technical word definition sense Hans appears to be wrong.
> >
> > Surely you are not suggesting that the Time Life series is a better and
> more
> > credible source of information on cooking terms than professional cook
> > books?
> >
> > Rich
> >
> >
> Any why not? Many expert chefs were involved in preparation of that
series -
> Jacques Pepin for example.
>
> But what is clear from this thread is that the words stock and broth are
> used in a variety of ways by a variety of people and sources. To claim
that
> they have one precise meaning as regards meat/bones, and that all other
uses
> are wrong, is blatant foolishness. Unfortunately that is a common
commodity
> here!
>
> --
> Peter Aitken
>
> Remove the crap from my email address before using.
>
>

I just had fun making a soup base and wanted to share it. I didn't want to
get in a debate over whether I made broth or stock. To me it just doesn't
matter. This is as bad as my husband's email lists when they start talking
about whether camera lens filters degrade the quality of the picture you are
taking.

Dawn

In article >, "Rich Bednarski"
> wrote:

> "Joe Doe" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Hans may be right in a practical sense- In the sense that you might not
> > want assertive flavors in a stock, (i.e. leaving out the meat removes an
> > assertive flavor hence suitable for cooking something else in). On a pure
> > technical word definition sense Hans appears to be wrong.
>
> Surely you are not suggesting that the Time Life series is a better and more
> credible source of information on cooking terms than professional cook
> books?
>
> Rich

Nobody has actually cited a professional cook book. A vague reference
was made to Escoffier (no chapter and verse was cited). There were no
real citations of any kind. I asked a friend to look at Wayne Glissen's
"Professional Cooking" before I made my original post and she said no
distinction is made in this book. I have not looked at it myself so
cannot vouch for her accuracy.

Secondly, even if a professional cook book states something, it is not
necessarily more correct. Ultimately, the bulk of professional chefs are
hacks turning out food for the masses. Books aimed at professionals are
aimed at how to produces large amounts of food at a cost effective basis.
They are seldom scholarly. Lastly, if you think the Time Life series is
lightweight you are seriously misinformed - it is very well researched.

Roland

Joe Doe wrote:
>
> Nobody has actually cited a professional cook book. A vague reference
> was made to Escoffier (no chapter and verse was cited). There were no
> real citations of any kind. I asked a friend to look at Wayne Glissen's
> "Professional Cooking" before I made my original post and she said no
> distinction is made in this book. I have not looked at it myself so
> cannot vouch for her accuracy.
>
The 5th edition of The New Professional Chef has these definitions:

stock - A flavorful liquid prepared by simmering meat, poultry, seafood,
and/or vegetables in water with aromatics until their flavor is extracted.
It is used as a base for soups, sauces, and other preparations.

broth - A flavorful, aromatic liquid made by simmering water or stock with
meat, vegetables, and/or spices and herbs.

"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
...
> Joe Doe wrote:
> >
> > Nobody has actually cited a professional cook book. A vague reference
> > was made to Escoffier (no chapter and verse was cited). There were no
> > real citations of any kind. I asked a friend to look at Wayne Glissen's
> > "Professional Cooking" before I made my original post and she said no
> > distinction is made in this book. I have not looked at it myself so
> > cannot vouch for her accuracy.
> >
> The 5th edition of The New Professional Chef has these definitions:
>
> stock - A flavorful liquid prepared by simmering meat, poultry, seafood,
> and/or vegetables in water with aromatics until their flavor is extracted.
> It is used as a base for soups, sauces, and other preparations.
>
> broth - A flavorful, aromatic liquid made by simmering water or stock with
> meat, vegetables, and/or spices and herbs.

To me, those sound like pretty much the same thing.

Dawn

"DawnK" > wrote in
:

>
> "S Viemeister" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Joe Doe wrote:
>> >
>> > Nobody has actually cited a professional cook book. A vague
>> > reference was made to Escoffier (no chapter and verse was cited).
>> > There were no real citations of any kind. I asked a friend to look
>> > at Wayne Glissen's "Professional Cooking" before I made my original
>> > post and she said no distinction is made in this book. I have not
>> > looked at it myself so cannot vouch for her accuracy.
>> >
>> The 5th edition of The New Professional Chef has these definitions:
>>
>> stock - A flavorful liquid prepared by simmering meat, poultry,
>> seafood, and/or vegetables in water with aromatics until their flavor
>> is extracted. It is used as a base for soups, sauces, and other
>> preparations.
>>
>> broth - A flavorful, aromatic liquid made by simmering water or stock
>> with meat, vegetables, and/or spices and herbs.
>
> To me, those sound like pretty much the same thing.
>
> Dawn

I would have to agree... My agreement stated, however, I usually think
of stock as being perhaps a bit more concentrated and more strongly
flavored. Well, then again, maybe not. <G>

Wayne

DawnK wrote:
>
> "S Viemeister" > wrote in message
> > The 5th edition of The New Professional Chef has these definitions:
> >
> > stock - A flavorful liquid prepared by simmering meat, poultry, seafood,
> > and/or vegetables in water with aromatics until their flavor is extracted.
> > It is used as a base for soups, sauces, and other preparations.
> >
> > broth - A flavorful, aromatic liquid made by simmering water or stock with
> > meat, vegetables, and/or spices and herbs.
>
> To me, those sound like pretty much the same thing.
>
They do, don't they!

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 20:46:36 -0400, S Viemeister
> wrote:

>Joe Doe wrote:
>>
>> Nobody has actually cited a professional cook book. A vague reference
>> was made to Escoffier (no chapter and verse was cited). There were no
>> real citations of any kind. I asked a friend to look at Wayne Glissen's
>> "Professional Cooking" before I made my original post and she said no
>> distinction is made in this book. I have not looked at it myself so
>> cannot vouch for her accuracy.
>>
>The 5th edition of The New Professional Chef has these definitions:
>
>stock - A flavorful liquid prepared by simmering meat, poultry, seafood,
>and/or vegetables in water with aromatics until their flavor is extracted.
>It is used as a base for soups, sauces, and other preparations.
>
>broth - A flavorful, aromatic liquid made by simmering water or stock with
>meat, vegetables, and/or spices and herbs.

The difference between a stock and a broth is this:
A stock requires the use of bones, broths do not. The collagen from
the bones dissolves to form gelatin.

In article >, S Viemeister
> wrote:

> DawnK wrote:
> >
> > "S Viemeister" > wrote in message
> > > The 5th edition of The New Professional Chef has these definitions:
> > >
> > > stock - A flavorful liquid prepared by simmering meat, poultry, seafood,
> > > and/or vegetables in water with aromatics until their flavor is extracted.
> > > It is used as a base for soups, sauces, and other preparations.
> > >
> > > broth - A flavorful, aromatic liquid made by simmering water or stock with
> > > meat, vegetables, and/or spices and herbs.
> >
> > To me, those sound like pretty much the same thing.
> >
> They do, don't they!


The distinction is the last line for the entry on stocks i.e it is used
as a base for......

A broth is considered a finished product. A stock is an intermediate
product used for other stuff.

To please the pedants I have looked at Larousse Gastronomique and they
more or less confirm this as does the Oxford Companion to Food.
Incidentally, both these sources and others (Cooks Illustrated best Soup
recipes etc.) say that the distinction has broken down and in contemporary
usage are interchangeable. The Larousse entry in the latest American
edition actually says to look up broth under bouillion and then bouillion
is listed as Bouillion (stock)!!!! This was not the case in some older
editions. The entry under stock does make the distinciton outlined above
in the very first line.

Cooks Illustrated takes an even more bizarre step. They say in common
household understanding stock is homemade and broth is store bought and
they will follow that convention!!


Roland

In article m>,
H. W. Hans Kuntze > wrote:
>Louis Cohen wrote:
>
>
>> The meat vs bones distinction seems useful and plausible at least among=
>
>> professionals. But, is there a second authoritative source for it, oth=
>er
>> then our Chef Hans?
>
>Of course Louis.
>
>Chef Auguste good enough? Escoffier that is.
>

Good enough for me.
Dictionaries are useless for technical
terms.


Joe

In article >,
Joe Doe > wrote:
>In article <LY1jb.563368$cF.240727@rwcrnsc53>, "Louis Cohen"
> wrote:
>
>> The American Heritage Dictionary (www.bartleby.com) does not distinguish
>> between stock and broth. But, this perhaps reflects common rather than
>> specialist usage.
>
>> The meat vs bones distinction seems useful and plausible at least among
>> professionals. But, is there a second authoritative source for it, other
>> then our Chef Hans?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Louis Cohen
>
>Actually I have two sources that contradict this and say a broth is called
>stock when it is used as a liquid to cook something else in.
>
>The first source is James Peterson¹s ³Splendid Soups² who states on page
>59: ³if a broth is being used as a backdrop for other flavors
>(technically, this is called stock) * as in vegetable soups * it isn¹t
>necessary to use meat² Note the reference to meat is incidental (not
>central) and the distinction is that stock is broth that is being used to
>cook something else.
>


This is what I would've guessed.
Not to mention that I revere James
Peterson. :-)


Joe

In message >,
duh-duh-duh-Doof! says:

> In article m>,
> H. W. Hans Kuntze > wrote:
> >Louis Cohen wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The meat vs bones distinction seems useful and plausible at least among=
> >
> >> professionals. But, is there a second authoritative source for it, oth=
> >er
> >> then our Chef Hans?
> >
> >Of course Louis.
> >
> >Chef Auguste good enough? Escoffier that is.
> >
>
> Good enough for me.
> Dictionaries are useless for technical
> terms.
>
>


technical terms! Does you guy's love us or whut? uh-oh!
doof ****ed on hisself again, mommy.

In message >,
duh-duh-duh-Doof! says:

> In article >,
> Joe Doe > wrote:
> >In article <LY1jb.563368$cF.240727@rwcrnsc53>, "Louis Cohen"
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The American Heritage Dictionary (www.bartleby.com) does not distinguish
> >> between stock and broth. But, this perhaps reflects common rather than
> >> specialist usage.
> >
> >> The meat vs bones distinction seems useful and plausible at least among
> >> professionals. But, is there a second authoritative source for it, other
> >> then our Chef Hans?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Louis Cohen
> >
> >Actually I have two sources that contradict this and say a broth is called
> >stock when it is used as a liquid to cook something else in.
> >
> >The first source is James Peterson¹s ³Splendid Soups² who states on page
> >59: ³if a broth is being used as a backdrop for other flavors
> >(technically, this is called stock) * as in vegetable soups * it isn¹t
> >necessary to use meat² Note the reference to meat is incidental (not
> >central) and the distinction is that stock is broth that is being used to
> >cook something else.
> >
>
>
> This is what I would've guessed.
> Not to mention that I revere James
> Peterson. :-)
>
>
can I cook or whatt? I've been hiding in doofburg
and now the cows are homecoming. we don't smoke
because, if we did it more, our cud would go
stinky. Aint' that funniy?