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 consume, 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 the various gelatins that would be present in a stock, which is probably why it is deemed a good food for invalids. Adamantius Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:25:31 -0500 From: david friedman <ddfr at best.com> Subject: SC - Period Veggie Broth (was: It's Harvest Time) Brangwayna wrote: >> ... The recipe just specifies "good broth"; I >>used vegetable broth because I wanted it to be a vegetarian dish. ... and Alex Clark/Henry of Maldon replied: >If you'd like to try period-style vegetarian cooking, consider substituting >almond milk (and perhaps a little olive oil) for the broth. There are some >recipes that seem to indicate that this was a fairly usual practice, such as >"appulmose," no. II 35 in _Curye_on_Inglysch_. But I don't recall ever >seeing a period reference to vegetable "broth." Le Menagier de Paris (late 14th c.), in his discussion of potages, sometimes uses almond milk instead of meat broth on a fish day, but sometimes uses water from boiling onions or from boiling peas. Elizabeth/Betty Cook Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:11:03 +0100 From: Christina Nevin <cnevin at caci.co.uk> Subject: SC - Period Veggie Broth Brangwayna wrote: >> ... The recipe just specifies "good broth"; I >>used vegetable broth because I wanted it to be a vegetarian dish. ... and Alex Clark/Henry of Maldon replied: >If you'd like to try period-style vegetarian cooking, consider substituting >almond milk (and perhaps a little olive oil) for the broth. There are some >recipes that seem to indicate that this was a fairly usual practice, such as >"appulmose," no. II 35 in _Curye_on_Inglysch_. But I don't recall ever >seeing a period reference to vegetable "broth." Elizabeth/Betty Cook wrote: >Le Menagier de Paris (late 14th c.), in his discussion of potages, >sometimes uses almond milk instead of meat broth on a fish day, but >sometimes uses water from boiling onions or from boiling peas. The Perre recipe from Two Fifteenth Century Cookbooks (Cariadoc's Miscellany) also reads: Take grene pesyn, and boile hem in a potte; And whan they ben y-broke, drawe the broth a good quantite thorgh a streynour into a potte, And sitte hit on the fire; which can be interpreted to mean using the pea water rather than mushed peas. Lucretzia ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Lady Lucrezia-Isabella di Freccia | mka Tina Nevin Thamesreach Shire, The Isles, Drachenwald | London, UK Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 21:46:36 EDT From: LrdRas at aol.com Subject: Re: SC - Good Broth kerric at pobox.alaska.net writes: << How was broth made? And from what? >> I usually save up the bones and skin and stuff from various meats prepared throughout the year. Freeze them and cart the packages off to the site. The first thing I do is put a big kettle on the stove dump all the pieces and bits into it and fill it with water. I bring it to a boil and reduce to a bubbling. I either add to or take away from during the feast preparation depending on what the recipe calls for and what stage the preparation is at. Ras Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 21:38:47 -0600 From: "Karen O" <kareno at lewistown.net> Subject: Re: SC - Good Broth >kerric at pobox.alaska.net writes: ><< How was broth made? And from what? >> The "Good Book" (Joy of Cooking) says that broth "unlike stocks, which are made primarily from bones, broths are made from meat (except veggie broth) and they cook for shorter periods of time. The resulting liquid has a fresher, more definable flavor but less body than a stock. For this reason, broths are ideal for soups." ABOUT STOCKS: the characteristics of any good stock are flavor, body and clarity. Of the three, flavor is paramount, and the way to get it is by using a high porportion of ingredients to water. The most flavorful stocks are made with only enough water to cover the bones, shells, or veggies. Instead of calling for tender, young ingredients, stocks are best made with meat from older animals and mature veggies, cooked slowly for a long time to extract every vestige of flavor. Because I was starting to wonder about "good broth" myself, and then what the diff was between broth and stock. Caointiarn Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:55:34 -0400 From: "Robin Carroll-Mann" <harper at idt.net> Subject: Re: SC - Good Broth I believe the original question was, "What did medieval cooks mean by 'good broth'?" They seem to have used the term for any kind of flavored liquid made by cooking meat, poultry or fish in water. I have not seen the word "stock" used in any of the medieval cookbooks. Broth seems to be the term used to describe the whole spectrum of flesh-based liquids. In the Spanish sources that I know best, "good broth" is usually chicken or mutton. Some recipes specify that the broth should be fatty or lean, well-salted or bland, according to the nature of the dish, but not how strong it is, nor how it is made. The only recipes that specify a concentrated broth are those for "solsido", which is a specialty dish for invalids, made by slowly cooking a hacked-up chicken in little or no water. Lady Brighid ni Chiarain Settmour Swamp, East (NJ) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:22:59 -0400 From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com> Subject: Re: SC - Good Broth Robin Carroll-Mann wrote: > I believe the original question was, "What did medieval cooks mean by > 'good broth'?" They seem to have used the term for any kind of flavored > liquid made by cooking meat, poultry or fish in water. I have not seen > the word "stock" used in any of the medieval cookbooks. Broth seems > to be the term used to describe the whole spectrum of flesh-based > liquids. > > In the Spanish sources that I know best, "good broth" is usually chicken > or mutton. Some recipes specify that the broth should be fatty or lean, > well-salted or bland, according to the nature of the dish, but not how > strong it is, nor how it is made. The only recipes that specify a > concentrated broth are those for "solsido", which is a specialty dish for > invalids, made by slowly cooking a hacked-up chicken in little or no > water. True. It'd probably be worth looking at some sources in their original language. Some French recipes roughly equivalent to identifiable English counterparts seem to use a word along the lines of bouillion, I think, rather than anything like fond, which is the modern French term for what we know as stock. I'd say, offhand, that when the source meat is identified at all, in English sources, the meat for the broth tends to be either beef (more likely something along the lines of a white beef stock, not the brown stuff) or capons. Mutton somewhat less often. Probably you boil either meat, usually in water, sometimes spiked with vinegar and/or wine, use some, or half, of your bouillion, with the meat, for your sauced meat dish, then reserve the rest of the bouiilion. Then there's the possibility of that Eternal Stockpot thang, in which case your Good Broth might be a sort of mutant composite stuff. I'm inclined to think, though, that the concept of boiling everything in one pot is a little less common than some believe. Adamantius Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:29:59 EST From: LrdRas at aol.com Subject: Re: SC - Good Broth oftraquair at hotmail.com writes: << In specifying good broth, is the writer warning that being too cheap to toss out the contents of the ever present and economical stock pot will only result in wasting even more food? >> Possibly. My take on it when previewing it's occurrence in period recipes is that 'the best' was what was intended. Therefor 'gode brothe' would be translated as 'the best broth.' In actual experience, I have found that the best broth in the particular recipes that mention it specifically seems to indicate full flavored broth as opposed to more diluted broth. Of course, my mileage is just as much conjecture as yours. ;-) Ras Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 20:28:42 EST From: LrdRas at aol.com Subject: Re: SC - Good Broth macdairi at hotmail.com writes: << Sounds like a good premise to me, but let's ask the redactor what his interpretation of it was... Ras? >> Hard one to call. When I do a feast, I usually put a large pot of water on the back furthest burner and fill it about half way with water. Since I normally start feast preparation on Friday evening and do no preprep there is never a lack of things to throw in the kettle. However, I generally restrict the contents to meat scraps, bones, and skin from the meats that I use. As each meat is processed, all these things are thrown in the kettle which is maintained at a simmer until the feast is served or until the contents are gone. When a recipe calls for good broth or broth I just dip into the kettle and pour the contents through a strainer to the amount I need. Those things that require long cooking naturally get a weaker broth because it is removed from the pot earlier in the day Saturday. Those things that require a stronger broth such as pies, vegetables and sauces which take less cooking time and need a broth that is stronger because they have little time to produce their own get broth from the kettle later in the day after it has had a chance to concentrate. This has always worked well for me and I never need to rely on bouillon cubes or commercially canned broth. Ras Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 23:06:10 EST From: LrdRas at aol.com Subject: Re: SC - Good Broth ChannonM at aol.com writes: << Would just boiling a whole lotta veggies be reasonable? Seems to me I would need to do some sauteing first to build up some flavor. What are others ideas? >> A vegetable broth could be accomplished in much the same way as the meat broth except throwing in peelings, as well as reinforcing it with perhaps a pound of carrots a couple of onions and maybe a stalk or 2 of celery. Personally, I am reticent to take such an approach because a varied menu with a good selection usually covers just about anything. Ras Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 00:42:44 -0500 From: Christine A Seelye-King <mermayde at juno.com> Subject: Re: SC - Good Broth >Would just boiling a whole lotta veges be reasonable? Seems to me I >would need to do some sauteing first to build up some flavour. What are >others ideas? > > Hauviette Roast your vegetables first, just as you would to start a dark brown sauce. Place your vegetables, including onions with the skins on, carrots with peels, celery, etc. in a roasting pan and place in a hot oven until they start to carmelize to the pan. Take it out, deglaze the pan with water, and pour the whole mess into a stock pot to boil. You can also take whole onions, cut them in half - with the skins on, and put them cut-side down on a hot, dry grill top or frying pan to turn black. This will add a great deal of color and flavor to your stock, which will make a big difference in an all-veggie stock. Use a bouquet garnish of fresh or dried herbs, fresh bay leaf adds a whole dimension to the stock all on its own. Christianna ok, my French restaurant roots are showing... Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 02:07:30 -0500 From: "Richard Kappler II" <rkappler at home.com> Subject: Re: SC - Good Broth >What are your suggestions about dealing with vegetarians. >I have made my own meat broth for eons, but haven't >worked much with vege type. Would just boiling a whole lotta veges be >reasonable? Seems to me I would need to do some sauteing first to build up >some flavour. What are others ideas? > >Hauviette Personally, with vegetables I briefly sear, then roast for about ten minutes at 375, then into the stock pot they go. With large veggies such as taters, turnips etc, I'll roast for 1/2 hour. Before roasting, I drizzle a little olive oil over the top, salt and pepper, then into the oven they go. After simmering for two hours or so, I get a good rich stock. I have found the key to be using barely enough water to cover, though YMMV. regards, Wulfrith Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 07:36:44 EST From: Bronwynmgn at aol.com Subject: Re: SC - Good Broth ChannonM at aol.com writes: << What are your suggestions about dealing with vegetarians. >> My solution to this has been to ask the vegetarian members of our shire to assist me by providing me with veggie broth. They routinely keep vegetable peelings in the fridge or freezer until they have enough to do a good batch of broth for their own use. I simply tell them how much I think I will need, and ask them to note what vegetable bits are in it for the ingredients list. When they have not been able to do this, I've resorted to vegetarian vegetable bouillon or canned veggie broth (although those usually include tomato among the ingredients). Since veggies often don't get cut or prepared until closer to the actual feast time, depending on what is being done with them, it might be little more difficult to implement Ras' ever-simmering stockpot for veggie broth - but if you kept your own household peelings and started it with them, it might work. Although at least one person on this list doesn't agree with me, I think, if the recipe does not specify that it has to be meat broth, and since we know that vegetables were boiled for various dishes, that it might be reasonable to use vegetable broth for dishes to be served during Lent. Until I get a chance to study any surviving Lenten menus, and see if all of the dishes in them use almond milk, or if there are others specifying "good broth", I think using vegetable or possibly fish broth to make vegetarian dishes is logical. Brangwayna Morgan Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 10:22:25 EST From: LrdRas at aol.com Subject: Re: SC - Good Broth mermayde at juno.com writes: << Use a bouquet garni of fresh or dried herbs, fresh bay leaf adds a whole dimension to the stock all on its own. Christianna >> Is there any evidence that such a procedure was used in the MAs? While I would tend to agree that the above procedure would produce a nice 'stock,' i am leery about applying it to medieval cookery. The foremost problem that I see is the introduction of flavors (e.g., bay laurel and others herbs) not mentioned in the original recipe. The second is that using such a technique that you describe quickly transposes a simple broth into a 'stock' which is a completely different thing. The third is that there are several techniques and suggestions in medieval manuscripts which indicate the procedure for replacing broth with other liquids none of which include vegetable broth. The description I gave previously would work and be less obtrusive in the area of adding undocumented flavors but I would personally never use it for fear of transforming a perfectly acceptable period recipe into something unnecessarily period-like. The best way would be to simply follow and use period recipes that fit the criteria. At the Weekend of Wisdom, I had only one person contact me in advance concerning an allergy to almonds. Since only one dish contained almonds, I did nothing to change the menu or recipes. At the feast site, there were several people who came to me with this 'food problem' or that 'food problem.' Again I listened to what they were saying and pointed out the ingredients list posted outside the kitchen and at the troll. I did not change the menu or the recipes and the feasters were able to go away with the satisfaction of knowing that the feast was an event happening and NOT a restaurant offering. No one left the hall hungry and complaints of too much food were heard by the end of service. The only real complaint with possible merit was that there was not enough bread. I thought 3 loaves per table was sufficient and still do given the large number of dishes served. I did use water to make the rice after the milk was scorched because I had little choice and it was a period substitute. Ras Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 11:14:24 EST From: LrdRas at aol.com Subject: Re: SC - Good Broth Bronwynmgn at aol.com writes: << that it might be reasonable to use vegetable broth for dishes to be served during Lent. >> The most common period reference to vegetable broth used as an ingredient that I could find is pea broth. I found no references to other vegetable broth being used as substitutes for meat broth. They may or may not exist but given the short time I had to look for them, I found none. Ras Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:31:35 -0500 From: Jeff Gedney <JGedney at dictaphone.com> Subject: Re: SC - Need venison advice! >>> Bernadette Crumb <kerelsen at ptd.net> 12/15 2:22 PM >>> >What I want to know is if venison bones make a good base for >broth? Everyone around here just throws theirs away and tells me >that leaving the bone in the meat makes it taste gamey, but I >hate to waste these bits if they can really be used. I am not sure, but I think that a good broth can be made if you brown the bones first, and then use beer instead of water.... Brandu Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:45:46 EST From: Aldyth at aol.com Subject: Re: SC - Need venison advice! I have never had good luck with the taste of the broth when I used venison bones, so by and large I toss them after I butcher. I do roast the ribs though, if I have not stripped them down for jerky. Be careful giving the bones to your dogs, though. Venision is higher in protein then they may be used to, and it can have some nasty consequences to clean up, so to speak. Make sure you remove all visible fat before you package and freeze, or you can get the same gamey taste. Aldyth Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:38:09 -0500 From: "Alderton, Philippa" <phlip at morganco.net> Subject: Re: SC - Need venison advice! Definitely save those bones and use them for broth! The gamy taste which so many people object to actually comes from the fat, and while I like it, it is definitely an acquired taste. If you're not used to it, don't make a stock without roasting the bones first- roasting helps render more of the fat away, so the flavor in that direction isn't as strong, and you'll get more of the browned flavor. <snip of other venison info - see venison-msg> Phlip Philippa Farrour Caer Frig Southeastern Ohio Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:08:04 EST From: WOLFMOMSCA at aol.com Subject: Re: SC - Need venison advice! Take all the bones and leavings and put them in a covered roasting pan with enough apple cider & scotch to cover. Roast them at 250 degrees for a long, long time. Eventually, you'll end up with some really great juice. You can then use this juice to marinade beef. We did this at a feast once, and we fooled everyone. Even the seasoned hunters/venison gourmets thought they were eating roasted venison, when in actuality it was just roast beef, soaked in venison juice. Super stuff. Wolfmother Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 07:56:35 -0500 From: grizly at mindspring.com Subject: Re: Re: SC - chicken broth questions Chris.Adler at westgroup.com writes: >Skin? Into the broth. Always into the broth. >And don't forget to add the feet. Here's a boot to the head . . . we can buy chicken feet here in Atlanta, and the latest price I found is $2.29 per lb. That's more than their skinless, boneless thighs! The injustice of it all :o) I hope it is seasonal and that feet season brings down the price. Feet stock is an incredible base for rice dishes. niccolo difrancesco Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 17:51:15 -0500 From: "Robin Carroll-Mann" <harper at idt.net> Subject: SC - A milestone, and a comment on cooking without meat I'm feeling somewhat pleased with myself. I have just finished the rough draft of de Nola's chapter on meat dishes -- 179 recipes!! -- and have begun the Lenten section. As there are only 64 Lenten recipes, many of them short, I have high hopes of finishing the translation sometime before the end of the current geological epoch. :-) The introduction to the next chapter contains an interesting remark about adapting meat dishes for Lenten cooking. De Nola says: "Although the victuals that you can make for meat days are infinite, many of them can be made in Lent, because in the chapters on those victuals where I say to dissolve them with meat broth, those sauces or pottages can be dissolved with salt and oil and water, but first you have to give it a boil. And in this manner it is as good as meat broth if it is well tempered with salt and if the oil is very fine, and in this manner, many victuals which are put forth for meat days can be made in Lent." Lady Brighid ni Chiarain Settmour Swamp, East (NJ) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 00:49:04 -0400 From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com> Subject: Subject: SC - daryoles > I am playing with a recipe that calls for fresh broth...it is a kind of > cream pie with strawberries. Any ideas as to what kind of broth? > > gwyneth In the Anglo-Norman recipe corpus, I'd guess the most common broths specified would be "fresh broth of beef" or "of capons". In general, these would be likely to be white bouillions/stocks made as a by-product of boiling meats, not brown stocks made from roasted bones. You'd probably want to use less water per pound of meat than the usual quart per pound generally called for in modern stock recipes, on the assumption you want to eat the meat you're boiling, rather than cooking the meat to bone-dry rags and throwing it away. You might try perhaps two quarts of water for a four-pound baking chicken (egad, a substitution!!! this is somewhere between a roaster and a fowl) or piece of beef. Start with cold water and simmer a chicken, depending on type, between 30 and 90 minutes, or a piece of pot-roast type beef, such as bottom round, chuck or brisket, for perhaps 2 hours. Cool your meat in the broth, off the heat, for an hour or so, drain, skim and strain the broth, or chill it overnight and lift off the fat that way. If you find yourself using canned stock, your best bet would be one of the low-sodium chicken stocks. Brown beef stock would probably be too strongly flavored for a dariole or doucet, and would be a less likely candidate, I think, for an accurately prepared dish. Adamantius Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 22:39:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Huette von Ahrens <ahrenshav at yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Subject: SC - daryoles I think that this is a perfect example of how the medieval cook looked at fruit and sweet dishes as compared to how we now look at fruit and sweet dishes. In today's world, we think of fruit as a salad ingredient or a dessert ingredient or on occasion as a sauce for a main course. However, to the medieval cook a sweet strawberry pie was more likely to be looked on as a side dish than a dessert, which is why they used a meat broth or stock in such a dish. A modern cook would never think of putting meat broth in a strawberry pie because we would never consider a sweet pie as a side dish. Adamantius please forgive my addendum. I know you and a hundred others on the list know this, but I think there are some novice cooks on this list who might not know this. Huette Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 10:10:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Stanifer <jugglethis at yahoo.com> Subject: SC - Free Bones for stock (was Alosed Beef) - --- Jeff Gedney <JGedney at dictaphone.com> wrote: > The fat I get free at the supermarket, they > just throw it away otherwise so they are happy to give it to me. > I trim out the connective tissue and process everything lightly in the > cuisinart. Just a quick note along these lines, in case some of you out there were not aware of this... When you buy "boneless" meat at the supermarket, or have the butcher de-bone the meat for you, you are still paying for the bones. In most areas, if you ask the butcher to give you the bones, as well, they will. I used to do this all the time when I worked in a restaurant where we made our own stock. Most of the time they were rib bones, chine bones or the like, and not the BEST bones for stock, but they certainly worked well enough FOR FREE. Of course, the best bones are those of young veal, particularly the knuckle, but how often do you buy boneless veal knuckle these days? Balthazar of Blackmoor Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:14:01 -0600 (CST) From: phlip at morganco.net Subject: Re: SC - Meat jellies Brigid asked: > 2. Would any of the experienced cooks like to share their favorite methods of > *completely* defatting a broth? My gravy separator did a decent job, but > missed a little of the fat. When I make a broth or a stock, I usually make it the day before and chill it. Next day, you can just lift out the fat solids, or if you want them completely gone, strain them through a sieve or mesh strainer. One thing you might want to keep in mind, though- you may want a little fat in your broth- it adds a bit of flavor. I know when I make my shrimp stock, I use the shrimp heads (as well as the shells) because the heads have a fair amount of fat in them, and strain hot (collander, fine metal strainer, then coffee filter) so that I don't lose the tasty shrimp fat. Phlip Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 10:29:21 -0500 From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com> Subject: Re: SC - Meat jellies harper at idt.net wrote: > 2. Would any of the experienced cooks like to share their favorite methods of > *completely* defatting a broth? My gravy separator did a decent job, but > missed a little of the fat. Ah, you got the little blob that likes to hole up in the spout of the gravy separator, didn't you ; ) ? Once you've skimmed it enough to reach the tiny-little-dots-of-fat-across-the-surface stage, you can use strips of clean brown paper, like butcher's paper, or even clean paper towels, dragging them by one end across the surface, quickly and repeatedly. Change strips as needed. They'll absorb miniscule amounts of whatever liquid they touch first, including the fat droplets. This is a pretty standard trick taught in cooking schools. Adamantius Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 10:57:53 EST From: Seton1355 at aol.com Subject: SC - de-fatting When I want to de-fat chicken soup, I stick it in the freezer for about an hour or two. You want it to freeze, but not solidly. Then when you take the soup out, just lift off the layer of fat that will have frozen. Phillipa << 2. Would any of the experienced cooks like to share their favorite methods of *completely* defatting a broth? My gravy separator did a decent job, but missed a little of the fat. Brighid >> Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:30:47 -0800 (PST) From: Nisha Martin <nishamartin at yahoo.com> Subject: SC - easy way to defat stock... >2. Would any of the experienced cooks like to sharetheir favorite > of *completely* defatting a broth? My gravy separator did a decent job, > but missed a little of the fat. I usually stick my stock (pot and all) into the refrigerator, and leave it over nite. In the morning all of the fat is in a very obvious layer on the top. I've also heard of people pouring cooled stock over a lined colander filled with ice. I've never done that particular one, but I've heard it works. Nisha Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:46:27 -0600 From: "Michael Gunter" <countgunthar at hotmail.com> Subject: Re: SC - Soup figuring? >I guess we go about this quite differently. When I make soup, I usually do >not roast the chickens, but boil them to create both the stock and the cooked >chicken. Either way is acceptable, depending on the type of stock you want. Roasting the chicken first creates a darker, richer stock which is great for some dishes but is too strong for others. Chicken pies, hearty chicken stews, things with full-flavor are great for a roasted chicken stock. But if you want something lighter or more delicate then the boiled chicken stock is needed. But you can never really go wrong with the boiled stock. >Kiri Gunthar Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 17:37:50 From: "Vincent Cuenca" <bootkiller at hotmail.com> Subject: SC - Re:pig parts >I read "somewhere" pork makes too sweet a stock, and isn't good for using >with any other type meat. Funny, I haven't found this to be true. Of course, I have a tendency to mix bones, usually pork and chicken, and add leek greens and a few slices of ginger. Also I tend not to use the stock for soup, but rather for sauces and gravies and so forth. Vicente Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 09:45:05 -0400 From: johnna holloway <johnna at sitka.engin.umich.edu> To: sca-cooks at ansteorra.org Subject: [Sca-cooks] Re: Ingredients list SOUP BASES If you can manage a trip to a good food/restaurant wholesaler, then you ought to be able to obtain professional soup bases. You can mail order them also from a number of places, including PENZYS SPICES in Wisconsin. WWW.PENZYS.COM or 1-800-741-7787. They aren't offering a vegetarian base at the moment, but they do offer ham, pork, seafood, beef, chicken and turkey. Try those for a comparison to your little grocery store cubes. Johnnae llyn Lewis Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:56:32 -0600 To: sca-cooks at ansteorra.org From: Gorgeous Muiredach <muiredach at bmee.net> Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] Duck bones, and other parts >Definitely roast them. How do I know this? Well, I didn't, until about a >year ago I wanted to make a beef barley soup, and managed to produce the >most insipid, pallid, boring excuse for a beef stock... So then I >decided that maybe I should learn how. AHhh, but for soup, one wouldn't roast the bones and would end up with what is called "White stock" or fond blanc. Typical reason for insipid fond blanc is too much water, not enough aromatic elements... Brown stocks, or fond brun, where bones are roasted are usualy intended for sauces Gorgeous Muiredach Rokkehealden Shire Middle Kingdom aka Nicolas Steenhout Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 06:30:41 -0500 To: sca-cooks at ansteorra.org From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com> Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] onion soup not period? Also sprach Stefan li Rous: >You're not the first to ask about this. I asked a very similar question >here some time ago. Most of the period onion soups we have are, I think, >white soups in an almond milk or similar base. I think the darker, broth >based onion soups show up later. I'm not sure that we came to a >conclusive answer. If someone can point me to some early in period, >dark onion soups, I'd like to hear about it. In general, one of the big limitations on soups in period Europe is likely to be an effective absence of brown stocks. While I could see the bones from roast meat going into the stockpot (hopefully not after being among the scented rushes and chewed by dogs), the kind of caramelization of the bones required for a good brown beef or veal stock doesn't seem to be happening in period, AFAIK. Adamantius Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:38:00 -0500 To: sca-cooks at ansteorra.org From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com> Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] onion soup not period? Also sprach A F Murphy: >Remember, when I posted a while back about making a brown stock (or, in >my case, not making a really brown stock) for soup, Muirdach gently >explained to me that you don't use brown stock for soup anyway. You >explained to him that us weird Americans do... Weird Americans (tm) have been known to use brown stock for soups, either because (a) they are using canned beef broth, and I have never seen canned white beef stock; it appears to be invariably brown, or (b) for certain specialty soups such as French Onion Soup, which in America may have about as much to do with France, conceptually, as French Fries (i.e. little to none), various English soups such as Brown Windsor Soup, Mock Turtle Soup, etc. Most Vegetable Beef soups (a style that may be influenced by the canned soup industry) seem to use brown stock. It may well be that today, white stock is preferred for soups in France for some reason of tradition or taste, and we all know Americans have precious few traditions and even less taste (or at least that is our rep). >So, what does that say about the question of brown stock in soup in >period Europe? If it isn't standard now, at least in fine French >cooking, is the problem not that it didn't happen, but that we (perhaps >incorrectly) think it should? Am I making sense? Lessee. What I'm saying is that while medieval recipes are full of references to beef broth, I don't know how much of it is made specifically _to be stock_, rather than as a byproduct of boiling beef. This would be more akin to a white beef boullion, generally more neutrally flavored, with perhaps less gelatin. The modern French, while they do make brown stock for various purposes, don't seem to tend to use leftover (cooked) bones very often. Rather, they roast raw bones to caramelize them for brown stock, and the stock is not the byproduct of another cooking process, which I suspect is the case for a lot of medieval recipes. Of course, the French preference for white stocks in soup may actually support the idea that little or no brown stock was used in period; it may simply be a throwback to medieval eating habits, especially middle and lower-class eating habits. Bear in mind that in France, the evening meal for the lower classes and country people featured soup quite often in past centuries (and for all I know, today); the name of the meal in French (and in English) is etymologically linked to soup. Poorer people probably tended not to have ovens or fuel for stuff like roasting bones (assuming they even had such things for cooking meats), whereas brown stocks for brown sauces to go on grilled, roast, and sauteed meats, seems to suggest a somewhat higher socio-economic position than the guy pictured supping in "The Bean-Eater". What I know for sure is that I've never seen any evidence in medieval recipes to suggest that brown stock was used, or even that stock made from bones is what is being called for, rather than broth made by boiling meat -- the frequent requirement being "good broth of good beef," etc. Adamantius From: "Robin Carroll-Mann" <rcmann4 at earthlink.net> To: sca-cooks at ansteorra.org Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 21:47:50 -0500 Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] onion soup not period? On 7 Mar 2002, at 6:30, Philip & Susan Troy wrote: > In general, one of the big limitations on soups in period Europe is > likely to be an effective absence of brown stocks. While I could see > the bones from roast meat going into the stockpot (hopefully not after > being among the scented rushes and chewed by dogs), the kind of > caramelization of the bones required for a good brown beef or veal > stock doesn't seem to be happening in period, AFAIK. I've seen a number of recipes that say to take meat broth (type of meat unspecified) and color it yellow with saffron. That wouldn't work with a brown stock. As far as onion soup with cheese, there's cebollada in Nola. No bread, though. I believe Cariadoc and Elizabeth did a redaction of it. It does call for almond milk as an ingredient. Brighid ni Chiarain *** mka Robin Carroll-Mann Barony of Settmour Swamp, East Kingdom From: "AnnaMarie" <wolfsong at ida.net> To: <sca-cooks at ansteorra.org> Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] Chicken broth Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 09:04:25 -0700 > Is there an economical way to make large quantities of chicken > broth without resorting to cubes and concentrates? Can cheap > chicken parts like backs and wings be used for this purpose? > > Brighid ni Chiarain *** mka Robin Carroll-Mann > Barony of Settmour Swamp, East Kingdom I make my chicken stock in this manner (it's the pre-curser to alot of chicken soup). You could always scale back on how many chickens too. Twelve chickens - cut them up. Put breasts in bags for meals. Put legs and thighs aside for soup. Put wings aside for Buffalo Sauce. Take backs, all excess skin (I tend to skin the breasts and leg/thigh parts too). Put them in a large stock pot, cover with water, add onions (2 cut into quarters), three stalks of celery cut into largish pieces, make a bouquet garni with peppercorns, cloves, bay leaves, garlic cloves and whatever other spices you like. I usually make four small bags so they'll mix around. Bring to a boil and skim the scum off. Down to a simmer for eight hours. Strain out all the solids, you usually get enough meat off the backs for chicken in gravy over toast, Bonus!! Put the liquid back into the stockpot. I put it overnight in the garage (I only do this in the dead of winter) and the next morning skim off the schmaltz. You then have a jelly like stock. Sometimes I just freeze this or sometimes I make it all into soup. YMMV. Kristianne Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 13:49:05 -0500 To: sca-cooks at ansteorra.org From: "Phil Troy/ G. Tacitus Adamantius" <adamantius.magister at verizon.net> Subject: RE: [Sca-cooks] Chicken broth Also sprach Gorgeous Muiredach: >I don't bother with sieve and especially not coffee filters. Again, if >you've controlled your heat and removed the stock outof the pot carefully, >you dont' need to strain like that, as impurities should be mostly >out. Plus if you let it sit over night, it's going to drop to the bottom >and float at the surface. What he said. Another useful trick (I find; YMMV) is to simmer your liquid, once it has begun to boil and actually turn into stock, rather than just water with stuff in it, with the pot slightly off-center on the burner. What you then end up with is a hot spot which, instead of simmering and sending concentric ripples out from the center of the surface, sends waves off from one edge to the other. In practice, this creates a wad of surface gunk and fat which collects all together on one edge of the pot, making skimming and removal of said gunk a lot easier. Absolute death (the official cause of death of my mother-in-law's soups) results from boiling the stock after the initial boil, but before removing the solids (or the stock therefrom, more accurately), which is how you can get that greasy, thick, white dishwatery stuff, in which various fats and particulates which are supposed to either settle out or float on the surface, become mixed and emulsified into your liquid. Now, you can boil your stock down to a glaze if you want to, but not before skimming, straining and/or otherwise removing it from the stuff you don't want mixed in. Adamantius Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 13:57:10 -0500 To: sca-cooks at ansteorra.org From: "Phil Troy/ G. Tacitus Adamantius" <adamantius.magister at verizon.net> Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] Chicken broth Also sprach Robin Carroll-Mann: >Is there an economical way to make large quantities of chicken >broth without resorting to cubes and concentrates? Can cheap >chicken parts like backs and wings be used for this purpose? In short, yes. Your best bet might be to explain to your butcher (or the supermarket functionary who does this job) what you need, and explain that you need to find the most economic way to accomplish this. Standard industrial proportions call for approximately one pound meaty bones (such as backs, necks, wingtips, etc.) per quart of finished stock. My butcher (the good one, the one I go to for the hard jobs) sells 5-lb. bags of backs and necks for very little. He used to give them away for free, but if you need them in quantity, some small fee might be needed just to be sure he has them when you need them, which is why I order them and there is an associated fee. What, maybe 39 cents a pound or something? Adamantius Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 06:24:57 -0500 To: sca-cooks at ansteorra.org From: "Phil Troy/ G. Tacitus Adamantius" <adamantius.magister at verizon.net> Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] Chicken broth Also sprach Robin Carroll-Mann: >On 8 Dec 2002, at 13:57, Phil Troy/ G. Tacitus Adamant wrote: >> Standard industrial proportions call for approximately one pound >> meaty bones (such as backs, necks, wingtips, etc.) per quart of >> finished stock. My butcher (the good one, the one I go to for the >> hard jobs) sells 5-lb. bags of backs and necks for very little. He >> used to give them away for free, but if you need them in quantity, >> some small fee might be needed just to be sure he has them when you >> need them, which is why I order them and there is an associated fee. >> What, maybe 39 cents a pound or something? > >Hmmmm..... my local supermarket has leg quarters for 39 cents/lb >right now. How much meaty parts per quart of stock does one >need? It works out to about the same. Collagen is collagen. Normally bones are used because it's cheaper to use a by-product that you wouldn't be eating, but you can use meaty parts as long as there's some bone. If you use only meat, you end up with bouillon, which is tasty but has less gelatin component than fond, or stock. The mouth feel is different. Also, were I you, I would avoid the temptation to use less weight of chicken because of the price, and probably you should avoid trying to use the meat afterwards. After the requisite 4-6 hours of simmering, most of the virtue of the chicken meat is already in your stock. I guess I'm trying to say it doesn't make much difference, and you still need one pound per quart. Which, if you can get them cheaper, is an argument in favor of backs and necks. Adamantius Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 01:13:51 -0500 From: Gorgeous Muiredach <muiredach at bmee.net> Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] Aha! was Chicken broth To: sca-cooks at ansteorra.org >Now, trained chefs please bear with me, here... In Standard American >Non-professional Home Cook Usage (Can I copyright that phrase? I think >it will be useful, here) at least as I have encountered it, Brown=Beef >and White=Chicken. But I am gathering from this conversation that Brown >vs. White is a matter of technique, rather than ingredients, and that >you can make either with either. Am I the only person who had missed that? Dunno if others missed it. Lemme review :-) Hope this will help. You can make white stock or brown stock from any beast you choose. The main difference is that you would roast the bones in brown stock, and not in white stock. There are a few other subtle differences. Were I to make a white stock of beef, I would likely put the bones in cold water, bring to a boil, remove from the water, trash the water (and scum) that would come up. Rinse the bones in cold water. Then put the bones back in the pot, add my aromatic elements (celery, onion, parsley, bay leave, thyme, fresh garlic, carrots [some argue against carrots in white stock, as it might colour it]). Add water, spices (black whole pepper, clove, NO salt [which isnt' technically a spice anyway]). Bring to a boil, control the heat, let simmer for a good long while (4, 5 hours, depending on your bones) Were I to make a white stock of poultry, I wouldn't bother with the par cooking of the bones, and would proceed the same way. Were I to make a brown stock of beef, I'd throw my bones in an oven at 500F, and let them brown until *just* before they are burnt. With experience, you get to know when to add the vegetables, which I would also roast, but not leave in to roast as long as the bones. I would then throw bones/vegetables in my pot, with spices and herbs. I would deglaze the roasting pan over the fire with water, and get as much of the juices/stuff that adhered to the roast pan, and pour that in the stock pot, then add water and spices, *and* some tomato paste, bring to a boil, control the heat and simmer. I'd do the same with poultry. I tend to prefer doing brown stocks with game bones, especially duck. I tend to bone my quails and prepare a brown stock with the bones to make my sauces. Typically brown stocks get thickened with a brown roux, enriched with other aromatic elements to make a basic all purpose sauce, known as "sauce espagnole", though most times nowadays a thickened brown stock is used (set me straight if I'm wrong guys and gals still in the field). Reduction can also be used. While I'm here, I should go into the difference between a "glace de viande" (glaze), and a "demi glace" (demi-glaze). A glaze would be reduced brown stock, with (or without) a bottle of sherry thrown in. Whereas the demi glace would be the espagnole, worked on some more and "perfected". This is huge generalities. I didn't say that last paragraph to make Classical French cooking more rarified, just to explain one of the oft mis perceived concepts. Gorgeous Muiredach the Odd Clan of Odds Shire of Forth Castle, Meridies mka Nicolas Steenhout From: "Phlip" <phlip at 99main.com> To: <sca-cooks at ansteorra.org> Subject: Beef Barley stock- was Re: [Sca-cooks] Aha! was Chicken broth Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 09:58:52 -0500 > Now - I still don't really know what I should do to improve that soup... > I'm going to try it again in a few weeks, when I have a bit of time > again. I've made a great chicken broth for years, but I've never really > made beef broth, as I don't tend to just happen to have a lot of beef > bones and meat hanging around, and most of my soups have been meatless. Well, if you can make a good vegetarian or chicken stock, you can make a good beef stock. One thing you might be doing, if you actually were roasting the bones, is thinking it was stock before it was reduced enough, because of the darker color- It mat well be that all you'd really needed to do was reduce it a bit more, to bring it down to the 1 lb bones/ qt of stock. My suggestion, for your stock is as follows: Get several lbs of beef bones (for soup) or (for pets) from your butcher or grocery store. Particularly look for the ones with the marrow exposed. Often, they have the