[Sca-cooks] Aha! was Chicken broth

[A F Murphy]

Just in case anyone is coming in in the middle of this - Muiredach
wasn't confused, I was. And yes, I now know several new things. Most of
which are interesting, rather than actually useful information, as I
don't tend to have a sauce espagnole hanging around my kitchen... but
now I know what I would do with it if I ever did. And how to make one if
I ever decided I wanted to.

I think standard terminology is always useful. I just don't know much of
it in cooking - now, technical theatre, shipping, merchandising, these
are all fields where I can speak jargon with the best of them! ;-)  So,
I'm learning...  Thank you!


Phil Troy/ G. Tacitus Adamantius wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
>