"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.