"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