"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 Petersonıs 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 isnıt
> 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