[Sca-cooks] Aha! was Chicken broth

[Phil Troy/ G. Tacitus Adamantius]

Also sprach Gorgeous Muiredach:
>>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.

In other words, that had been your previous impression? If so, no,
which I guess you now know.

>>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.

Correct. A possible source of confusion may be the fact that poultry
stocks are _usually_ white, and beef stocks, especially commercial
ones, are _usually_ brown. However, the meat/bones from which they
are made (not to mention the vegetables) are not the factors which
determines the whiteness or brownness of the stock; the technique is
the determining factor.

>Dunno if others missed it.  Lemme review :-)  Hope this will help.

<accurate technical stuff snipped; some chefs would quibble over the
presence of garlic in a basic, unallocated, white stock not
specifically intended for some garlicky purpose, like a Provencale
white bean soup, say, but we're among friends and life is too short
to argue garlic>

>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.

Classically, it would be roux. SImple reduction (where the natural
gelatin in the stock is the only thickener) would be used to make
what is commonly (and, in classical parlance, maybe inaccurately)
called a jus. This is an example of culinary evolution, where
something new (or at least more common than it used to be) has been
adopted under the mantle of "classical" cookery when, previously, it
was known, but less common, and therefore not considered part of the
classical repertoire. Until recently ;-).

Common additions to a classical espagnole would be red wine, mushroom
trimmings (later strained out) and/or a little more of a tomato
product.

>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.

Again, "classically", demi-glace would be made by mixing equal parts
of finished espagnole sauce (which, you see, you have lying around
anyway in your classical kitchen; Maitre Escoffier told you to make
some just yesterday) and brown stock (which, again, you have lying
around anyway in your classical kitchen), and reducing it all back to
the original volume of your batch of espagnole. So it is either
half-way to a glaze, or, if you prefer, half of its components are
cooked down to a glaze, hence the name. A common addition (or at
least it appears commonly on menus which do this sort of thing, and
is what I was taught) would be some Madeira. Demiglaze is
characterized by tasting _more_ like the brown part of roast or
grilled meat than roast or grilled meat does ;-).

>I didn't say that last paragraph to make Classical French cooking more
>rarified, just to explain one of the oft mis perceived concepts.
>
>>  So. I like learning the professional terminology, because it is much
>>more precise that anything I am familiar with.
>
>Yes, there is a reason professions develop lingo and terminology, it makes
>communication easier once said lingo is learned :-)

Well, yeah. It's a tool which, when properly understood and used, can
be incredibly helpful (you get a lot more done when everyone involved
is on the same wavelength), or, when abused, can create problems.

Adamantius