broths-msg - 3/3/08
Broths in period recipes. Substitutions.
NOTE: See also the files: aspic-msg, roast-meats-msg, roast-pork-msg, chicken-msg, sauces-msg, soup-msg, stews-bruets-msg.
************************************************************************
NOTICE -
This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that I have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday.
This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org
I have done a limited amount of editing. Messages having to do with separate topics were sometimes split into different files and sometimes extraneous information was removed. For instance, the message IDs were removed to save space and remove clutter.
The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information given by the individual authors.
Please respect the time and efforts of those who have written these messages. The copyright status of these messages is unclear at this time. If information is published from these messages, please give credit to the originator(s).
Thank you,
Mark S. Harris AKA: THLord Stefan li Rous
Stefan at florilegium.org
************************************************************************
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 15:51:58 EDT
From: Seton1355 <Seton1355 at aol.com>
Subject: Re: SC - Substitutions
Varju at aol.com writes:
<< Is a vegetable stock a good substitution for chicken stock? >>
Why not? Vegetable stock renders the dish suitable for vegetarians.
Vegetable stock is often much lower in fat than chicken stock and can
indeed be made completely fat-free. (With chicken stock, even when you
remove the fat, it still has a little fat in it.)
The taste changes only slightly unless you use cabbage or broccoli (strong
flavors - I wouldn't.)
Respectfully,
Phillipa Seton
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 16:20:37 -0400
From: mermayde at juno.com (Christine A Seelye-King)
Subject: Re: SC - Substitutions
Well, it depends on why you are substituting. Vegetable stock does not
have the fat associated with chicken stock, and so seems a little
'thinner'. If your aim is to get away from animal products, vegetable
stock is a good substitution, it is much better than just using water.
If you are making it from scratch, I would recommend roasting your
vegetables first, especially your carrots and onions (in the skins, cut
in half or large chunks) to release the sugars within and to add to the
color and aroma of your stock. I usually let my onions get black on the
bottom before adding them to a stock pot for this very reason. Be
careful of using pungent veggies such as turnips in the stock, for the
flavor these impart will be very noticable in the finished product.
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 23:09:08 -0400
From: Mike Hobbs <llewmike at iwaynet.net>
Subject: Re: SC - Substitutions
When cooking for vegetarians, I have used a good strong celery stock in
place of chicken. Add just a touch of wine for body. LLEW
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 03:00:08 EDT
From: Varju <Varju at aol.com>
Subject: Re: SC - Substitutions
Thank you all!
Now I have an answer to pass on. I know my mother's solution was to use what
we called "potato water" (water left after boiling potatoes) especially to
soups, because it added a bit of body.
Noemi
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:02:35 -0700
From: david friedman <ddfr at best.com>
Subject: Re: SC - Substitutions
Noemi asks:
>Is a vegetable stock a good substitution for chicken stock?
As far as period recipes are concerned, you often get substitutions when
going from a meat-day version of a recipe to a fish-day or Lenten version.
Le Menagier de Paris recommends water that has been used to cook peas (I
would guess dried peas); almond milk (the white liquid you get by infusing
well-ground almonds in water) or water with a little oil added are
substituted for meat broth in some recipes; and I think I have seen both
onion broth and "half water half wine" used.
Elizabeth/Betty Cook
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 21:55:58 -0400
From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com>
Subject: Re: SC - Pot Luck
Angie Malone wrote:
> At 09:39 AM 5/27/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >Usually, If I know I will have access to eletricity, I will take barley
> >and beef broth and mushrooms and onions and just let them cook all day on
> >low in a crock pot. Not a period recipe but it is perioid and it
> >introduces people to barley........ I've done the same with rice in a
> >slow cooker, also.
> >
> >Mercedes
> >
> What a great idea. I am going to try this, although I am going to use
> chicken broth or vegetable broth only because I don't like beef broth, well
> the kind I've ever had usually overpowers the rest of the taste so much
> that I just don't like it. But that's my prejudice. ;- )
>
> Angeline
You might try a white beef stock, made more or less like ordinary beef
stock, only without the caramelizing/roasting of the bones and veg.
So far as I know, though, this product is unavailable canned. The good
broth of beef referred to in period recipes is probably more likely to
be a white beef stock, or something in between the two. Chicken broth is
a decent substitute.
Adamantius
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 19:27:55 -0400
From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com>
Subject: Re: SC - bone soup
Karen O wrote:
> Here is a question: I am planning next camp's kitchen menu, and my
> butcher shop has its own smoked ham. I usually get a boneless, coz there is
> only the two of us at home, and I still make a nice soup with the "ham
> scraps". Besides being cheaper per pound, I am wondering if the Bone adds
> more to the flavor of the broth.
Yes, the bone adds flavor and gelatin to the broth, as does any skin
that may be on the beastie. I'm guessing the bone, etc., comprises maybe
30% of the total weight of the whole ham. So, you can do the math
something like this example: if a boneless ham is, say, $.99/lb, weighs
seven pounds, and costs $6.93, while a ham on the bone costs $.79/lb,
weighs 10 1/2 pounds, and costs $8.30. The total cost of the _meat_ on
that larger ham on the bone is still $8.30, but for around seven pounds
of meat, which means, for practical purposes, that the ham really costs
$1.19/lb. You then need to decide if the bone is worth it to you. It
does make a great stock for things like pea soup, etc., but I don't know
if I'd eat much of the marrow from a ham bone, it can be pretty
overpowering compared to, say, beef or veal marrow.
> I would use the ham meat for a meal
> (maybe two if I have enough for sandwiches) and then the scraps for a soup.
> I remember growing up my Mom loved to eat the marrow from a beef bone after
> she cooked it all day.
All logic aside, I usually look in my freezer and see if I have room for
such an addition. In a perfect world I'd make stock twice a week and
save all the bones that come into the kitchen, but in the real world I
end up throwing most of them away, unfortunately.
Adamantius
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 22:36:30 EDT
From: LrdRas at aol.com
Subject: Re: SC - bone soup
kareno at lewistown.net writes:
<< Besides being cheaper per pound, I am wondering if the Bone adds
more to the flavor of the broth. >>
Possibly, Especaially if you brown it in the oven before putting it in the
soup kettle. Another real advantage of using bones in making soup broth is
the texture or mouth feel of the finished product. The bone adds body in the
form of gelatin to the broth which can make a diffrence between a 'thin'
stock and a more substantial stock.
Ras
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 21:14:24 -0600
From: "Brian L. Rygg or Laura Barbee-Rygg" <rygbee at montana.com>
Subject: Re: SC - bone soup
> Ok, new cook question time. If I'm going to use a bone in a soup, can
> I just put it in whole? Or should I split it some way? Do I just add
> it to the soup? Or should I boil it in water or broth first and then
> add the other ingredients?
> --
> Lord Stefan li Rous Barony of Bryn Gwlad Kingdom of Ansteorra
> Mark S. Harris Austin, Texas stefan at texas.net
That depends. Most bones will leave some scum on top when boiled
separately. If you're making a splitpea, it won't matter. If you want a
clear broth, boil and skim first.
Raoghnailt
Stan Wyrm, Artemisia
rygbee at montana.com
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 23:18:47 EDT
From: LrdRas at aol.com
Subject: Re: SC - bone soup
stefan at texas.net writes:
<< Ok, new cook question time. If I'm going to use a bone in a soup, can
I just put it in whole? >>
I just add the bone to the pot before I add anything else and dump everything
else on top. The bone can be fished out when the dish is done.
Ras
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 23:28:36 EDT
From: LordVoldai at aol.com
Subject: Re: SC - bone soup
stefan at texas.net writes:
> Ok, new cook question time. If I'm going to use a bone in a soup, can
> I just put it in whole? Or should I split it some way? Do I just add
> it to the soup? Or should I boil it in water or broth first and then
> add the other ingredients?
There are several preperations you can use depending on the result you want.
Roasting the bone(s) will give a deeper richer flavor (also makes the
difference between a brown and light beef stock). Breaking the bone will let
the marrow out faster giving more gelatin (and also more impurities) to the
stock. Get rid of the impurities by keeping the stock at a _low_ simmer and
skimming off the scum as it forms, a high boil will incorporate the
impurities into the stock. these impurities are merely non soluable proteins
and give the stock a cloudy look, nothing harmful. The length of boiling
time depends on the type of bone, fish bones give up their flavor faster than
poultry which is faster than beef bones. A fish stock should take around
30-40 min while a beef stock simmers for around 4+ hours.
voldai
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 00:04:28 -0500
From: "Chris and Anne House" <house at texoma.net>
Subject: Re: SC - bone soup
>stefan at texas.net writes:
>> Ok, new cook question time. If I'm going to use a bone in a soup, can
>> I just put it in whole? Or should I split it some way? Do I just add
>> it to the soup? Or should I boil it in water or broth first and then
>> add the other ingredients?
>there are several preperations you can use depending on the result you want.
>roasting the bone(s) will give a deeper richer flavor (also makes the
>difference between a brown and light beef stock). breaking the bone will let
>the marrow out faster giving more gelatin (and also more impurities) to the
>stock. get rid of the impurities by keeping the stock at a _low_ simmer and
>skimming off teh scum as it forms, a hight boil will incorporate the
>impurities into the stock. these impurities are merely non soluable proteins
>and give the stock a cloudy look, nothing harmful. the length of boiling
>time depends onteh type of bone, fish bones give up their flavor faster than
>poultrywhich is faster than beef bones. a fish stock should take around
>30-40 min while a beef stock simmers for around 4+ hours.
If you want a truly clear - read uncloudy - broth for some reason, try a
raft. Egg whites mixed with *extremely* lean meat and a mirepoix gently -
gently now - poured onto the top of a barely simmering broth after you have
discarded all else you wish to. The "raft" will rise and take the impurities
with it. Very, very carefully use a ladle to press down onto the raft near
the edge and siphon off the broth. Very clear, very nice, especially when
made with a beef shank.
Kiriandra
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 06:55:23 -0400
From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com>
Subject: Re: SC - bone soup
LordVoldai at aol.com wrote:
> Kiriandra gives the preperation for a consumeé, does anyone know if this is
> a period preperation?
>
> voldai?
I don't think so. Consomme is probably 18th century, but I have no hard
data on it. There are various stock-related preparations for the sick in
quite a few period sources, but they seem to be going primarily for a
concentrated richness more than clarity. Generally they involve cooking
the stuff in a sealed pot, sometimes with no added liquid, relying on
the liquid from the meat itself.
Today such dishes get less stuff (i.e. fewer herbs, ground gems, etc.
; ) ) added to them, at least in the European tradition, and are called
meat teas in English.
Adamantius
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 06:44:20 -0400
From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com>
Subject: Re: SC - bone soup
LordVoldai at aol.com wrote:
> stefan at texas.net writes:
> > Ok, new cook question time. If I'm going to use a bone in a soup, can
> > I just put it in whole? Or should I split it some way? Do I just add
> > it to the soup? Or should I boil it in water or broth first and then
> > add the other ingredients?
> there are several preperations you can use depending on the result you want.
> roasting the bone(s) will give a deeper richer flavor (also makes the
> difference between a brown and light beef stock). breaking the bone will let
> the marrow out faster giving more gelatin (and also more impurities) to the
> stock. get rid of the impurities by keeping the stock at a _low_ simmer and
> skimming off teh scum as it forms, a hight boil will incorporate the
> impurities into the stock. these impurities are merely non soluable proteins
> and give the stock a cloudy look, nothing harmful. the length of boiling
> time depends onteh type of bone, fish bones give up their flavor faster than
> poultrywhich is faster than beef bones. a fish stock should take around
> 30-40 min while a beef stock simmers for around 4+ hours.
This is all excellent advice, I'd say. Just a couple
of...ahemhem...clarifications: yes, for a pea or bean soup (a standard
use for ham stock) the clarity doesn't matter all that much to most
people, and many people do simply add the bone in while cooking the
soup, without a huge difference in product quality. This is probably
because the ham bone has been smoked; to some extent it has been
"cooked", and some of its collagens have been converted into gelatin
already. Also, the biggest carrier of that smoky ham flavor is the fat
that gets into the soup. The great thing is that while fat, in the case
of a ham bone, does bring a great amount of the flavor into the coup, it
can still be skimmed off before serving without losing the flavor. It's
basically just a transport medium.
In general, classic stockmaking procedure involves, at least, bringing
the bones and water to a boil for just a few seconds, then lowering the
heat to a low simmer, skimming, and letting it cook slowly. If you're
really retentive you can also blanch the bones by placing them in cold
water, bringing them to a boil, then rinsing them off before proceeding.
I never do this myself, and find that it makes no real difference as
long as you skim well.
A comment on whether to chop up the bones (although many at home would
find this difficult anyway): probably the best argument in favor of it,
given the long cooking times for most types of stock, is that it is
easier to figure out how much water to use if the bones aren't sticking
out of the top of the pot. In theory the rule is a quart of water to a
pound of bones and/or meat, but if youi have something like a long leg
bone, the temptation can be strong to be sure to add enough water to
cover the bones, which can cause difficulties (like a really weak stock).
With regard to cooking times, I was taught (and have experimented
subsequently) that a good fish fumet gets around 40 minutes, a poultry
stock ~4 hours, a beef or veal stock ~6-8 hours. The 8-hour cooking time
is probably best for a really brown beef stock; while a white beef stock
(i.e. unroasted, Stefan ; ) ) can probably get by on less, like
maybe 4, probably better with six, hours.
Adamantius
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 08:07:12 -0400
From: "Alderton, Philippa" <phlip at morganco.net>
Subject: Re: SC - bone soup
Adamantius, as usual, covered all the bases, but just as a suggestion, if
you have a whole leg bone and you want it cut up, either to fit into the pot
or to release the marrow more easily, a basic hacksaw, a tool most people
have around the house, will do the job. If you don't have one, they, and
their blades, are cheaper than say, a meat saw.
Philippa Farrour
Caer Frig
Southeastern Ohio
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 08:21:40 -0500
From: upsxdls at Okstate.edu
Subject: Re: SC - bone soup
I use a hammer to crack ham bones. The ham has normally been cooked already and
most of the meat removed. I throw the whole bone in with the beans.
If I'm making beef stock, I talk to my friendly butcher and ask for "bare
rendering bones" and "please cut them into 2 or 3 inch pieces." For a dark
stock, I bake in the oven (350 deg) until they turn brown. For a light stock,
put in your stockpot and cover with water. I add onion, celery and carrots.
Then, bring to a simmer and cook on low overnight. Add more water to keep bones
barely covered. Then I strain the bones and toss.
If I'm using chicken hindquarters, I cut the backs off and use them to make
chicken stock the same way. Skim the foam off as it forms. Any of these stocks
can be preserved by freezing or canning. Liandnan
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 22:00:45 -0400
From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com>
Subject: Re: OT/OOP beef tea (was Re: SC - bone soup)
kat wrote:
> Adamantius writes:
> > Today such dishes get less stuff (i.e. fewer herbs, ground gems, etc. ; ) )
> > added to them, at least in the European tradition, and are called
> > meat teas in English.
>
> So THAT'S what beef tea is! I suspected from the description that it was
> some sort of bouillon-type preparation... now I know.
>
> Thank you!!!
> - kat, oft-puzzled avid reader
Yep. Although beef tea is often made either from nasty chemical
bouillion stuff today, or some kinda mysterious flavored yeast extract
in the UK, with names like Oxo and Bisto. Real beef tea (including
places outside of Texas!) is made by scraping a piece of lean steak with
the edge of a serrated knife, to get an untrafine pulp, but to leave
behind an astonishing network of elastin and collagen fibers. Looks like
something out of "The Invisible Man". In its most basic form, the beef
tea is made by cooking the pulp, which will be pure red with virtually
no fat, or anything else, in it, either with just a bit of added water,
or no additional liquid at all, in a double boiler for a couple of
hours, as I recall. The resulting liquid is drained off the meat solids,
which now resemble an inedible hamburger made of fine sawdust, skimmed
of any fat (there generally isn't much), and then for the real party
animals a tiny bit of salt is added.
The end result is more than a bit like beef consomme, actually, but
without the complex flavor of the added aromatics and tomato, which,
obviously, aren't there. It's also lighter in body than stock, lacking