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