I'm very interested in alternative ways of constructing stock. Does anyone
know a book exclusively dealing with the subject of stock? A book dealing
with the very chemistry of stock would be even better.

Thanks,
Steve

"Annie Hedden" > wrote in message
.. .

> I'm very interested in alternative ways of constructing
> stock. Does anyone know a book exclusively dealing
> with the subject of stock? A book dealing with the
> very chemistry of stock would be even better.

I don't know of any which are exclusively about stocks -- it's a relatively
simple subject. James Peterson's excellent books _Splendid Soups_ and
_Sauces_ both have detailed sections regarding stocks, as does the Culinary
Institute of America's _New Professional Chef_.

Seriously, making stock is not complicated, though it can be time-consuming.

-j

Steve wrote:
> I'm very interested in alternative ways of constructing stock. Does anyone
> know a book exclusively dealing with the subject of stock? A book dealing
> with the very chemistry of stock would be even better.
>
> Thanks,
> Steve

Ok, Steve, it's alright to be a little anal, but when you start talking
about "constructing" stock, you've gone over the top! Please seek help!
Don't even want to comment on "a book dealing with the chemistry of
stock"!
Have a nice, highly organized, day!

Haha, alright, I came off as anal, but I assure you, I live in complete
squalor. I've made soup stock many times, but the reason I say "construct"
and "chemsitry" is because --

when making meat stock, the gelatin is prized from the animal. So, for
instance, is there a replacement for the gelatin? Okra produces a sappy
liquid, which is used for gumbo, but what about using it in stock itself?
What about fruit pectin instead of gelatin? This is why chemistry is
important, so one thing can be replaced for another and still stay in the
boundaries of being stock. Stock is a serious subject if you come from the
French side of cooking (aka, everything the Joy of Cooking bases itself
around). To change what stock you are using changes everything. Developing
a unique stock is necessary for anyone seeking an anal originality in their
cooking. I don't know about you guys, but I won't be able to call myself a
cook until I can find a stock recipe that says "I am a anal, brilliant
******* who can make a great Veloute sauce because no one has any clue
what's in my stock". Stock in French is "Fond" (did I miss an 'e'?) and
this means "base". I don't want to put make-up on my cooking, I want to
build it up from the genes.

Applying my God Complex to Cookery,
Steve

Annie Hedden wrote:

> I'm very interested in alternative ways of constructing stock. Does anyone
> know a book exclusively dealing with the subject of stock? A book dealing
> with the very chemistry of stock would be even better.

You're making a simple subject very complicated.

Read "On Food and Cooking" by Harold McGee for the science. Any decent
cookbook will have stock-making directions.

There aren't too many alternatives for making stocks. Water, meat,
bones, aromatics, cook gently for a while, strain = stock.

Pastorio

Annie Hedden wrote:

> Haha, alright, I came off as anal, but I assure you, I live in complete
> squalor.

Intellectually, anyway.

> I've made soup stock many times, but the reason I say "construct"
> and "chemsitry" is because --

I don't believe you because of what you say below.

> when making meat stock, the gelatin is prized from the animal. So, for
> instance, is there a replacement for the gelatin?

The gelatin is integral to the process; it comes from the animal sources
of the flavor in the stock. If you'd ever made it, you'd know that.

> Okra produces a sappy
> liquid, which is used for gumbo, but what about using it in stock itself?

"Sappy liquid..." What's in your head. You just mipselled "snot," right?

> What about fruit pectin instead of gelatin?

<LOL>

> This is why chemistry is
> important, so one thing can be replaced for another and still stay in the
> boundaries of being stock.

Nonsense. Stock is long since settled. Defined. Detailed.

> Stock is a serious subject if you come from the
> French side of cooking

Every culture makes stocks. And they all do it the same ways. And
they're all serious about it.

>(aka, everything the Joy of Cooking bases itself
> around).

Not really. The initial few editions were much more tilted towards
German cooking. The newer ones are more attuned to contemporary American
approaches.

> To change what stock you are using changes everything.

How does one spell "duh" on your planet?

> Developing
> a unique stock is necessary for anyone seeking an anal originality in their
> cooking.

What an attractive picture that sentence conjures. Even suggests flavors
in your cooking.

> I don't know about you guys, but I won't be able to call myself a
> cook until I can find a stock recipe that says "I am a anal, brilliant
> ******* who can make a great Veloute sauce because no one has any clue
> what's in my stock".

You won't ever be able to call yourself a cook with thinking like that.
Better to make a veloute' with the ingredients that actually define it
and do it so well that knowledgeable people recognize the depth and
skill it took.

Anyone can scribble on a wall so it defies analysis. Not a big skill.

> Stock in French is "Fond" (did I miss an 'e'?) and
> this means "base". I don't want to put make-up on my cooking, I want to
> build it up from the genes.

Sure. Sure. Now put down that crack pipe and finish straightening up
your room.

> Applying my God Complex to Cookery,

What fatuous bullshit. You haven't the remotest chance of becoming a cook.

Pastorio

Don't worry about this blokes post. Strangely enough in a totally unrelated
newsgroup, this bloke also showed his ignorance.

He didn't get the hint the first time, so I will say it again:

'It is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool, than to open
it and remove all doubt'.


"salgud" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Ok, Steve, it's alright to be a little anal, but when you start talking
> about "constructing" stock, you've gone over the top! Please seek help!
> Don't even want to comment on "a book dealing with the chemistry of
> stock"!
> Have a nice, highly organized, day!
>

Harry wrote:
> Don't worry about this blokes post. Strangely enough in a totally unrelated
> newsgroup, this bloke also showed his ignorance.
>
> He didn't get the hint the first time, so I will say it again:
>
> 'It is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool, than to open
> it and remove all doubt'.

Oh, thank you. There's not enough smug, self-satisfied pontificating in
the world. Please lecture more. Maybe something from several different
cultures, in the native languages, please.

Idiot.

Pastorio



> "salgud" > wrote
>>
>>Ok, Steve, it's alright to be a little anal, but when you start talking
>>about "constructing" stock, you've gone over the top! Please seek help!
>>Don't even want to comment on "a book dealing with the chemistry of
>>stock"!
>>Have a nice, highly organized, day!
>>
>
>
>

Annie Hedden wrote:
> Haha, alright, I came off as anal, but I assure you, I live in complete
> squalor. I've made soup stock many times, but the reason I say "construct"
> and "chemsitry" is because --
>
> when making meat stock, the gelatin is prized from the animal. So, for
> instance, is there a replacement for the gelatin? Okra produces a sappy
> liquid, which is used for gumbo, but what about using it in stock itself?
> What about fruit pectin instead of gelatin? This is why chemistry is
> important, so one thing can be replaced for another and still stay in the
> boundaries of being stock. Stock is a serious subject if you come from the
> French side of cooking (aka, everything the Joy of Cooking bases itself
> around). To change what stock you are using changes everything. Developing
> a unique stock is necessary for anyone seeking an anal originality in their
> cooking. I don't know about you guys, but I won't be able to call myself a
> cook until I can find a stock recipe that says "I am a anal, brilliant
> ******* who can make a great Veloute sauce because no one has any clue
> what's in my stock". Stock in French is "Fond" (did I miss an 'e'?) and
> this means "base". I don't want to put make-up on my cooking, I want to
> build it up from the genes.
>
> Applying my God Complex to Cookery,
> Steve

You have managed somehow, to dig yourself even deeper! I hope you enjoy
your search for the Holy Grail of stock. I'll just keep making mine the
way I've made it for years. It's just stock!