Jump to content


Welcome to the eG Forums!

These forums are a service of the Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, a 501c3 nonprofit organization dedicated to advancement of the culinary arts. Anyone can read the forums, however if you would like to participate in active discussions please join the Society.

Photo

Veal Stock -- a personal reflection


  • Please log in to reply
181 replies to this topic

#1 Daily Gullet Staff

Daily Gullet Staff
  • host
  • 152 posts

Posted 15 November 2007 - 11:30 AM

hspace="8" align="left">An exclusive excerpt to the Daily Gullet

by Michael Ruhlman

That veal stock today should be so phenomenally underrepresented in all media directed at the home cook during what's considered to be a "food revolution" in America is ironic.

I should here counterbalance what might seem on the surface a sort of veal stock fanaticism of mine. Most cuisines of the world do not rely on veal stock at all. The whole body of vegetarian cuisine, for example, gets along perfectly without veal stock. Asian meat-based stocks rely largely on chicken and pork. Italian cuisine uses it occasionally but on the whole seems relatively indifferent to it. One of America's most innovative chefs, Jean-Georges Vongerichten, a classically trained Frenchman, became well known in chef circles for eschewing veal-stock-based sauces at his restaurant Vong. Judy Rodgers, the Francophile and French-trained chef at the very American, very eccentric Zuni Cafe in San Francisco, includes no veal stock recipe in her Zuni Cafe Cookbook, which hews so strictly to the recipes used at the restaurant, her cooks refer to it continually in their daily work. She says she simply hasn't found a good source for veal near her restaurant and so doesn’t use veal stock.

But, of course, Vongerichten and Rodgers can work wonders with plain water. It’s the non-pro who stands to gain the most from veal stock, the home cook. Taking this one item, veal stock, and adding it to your kitchen is like taking the four-cylinder engine of your Mitsubishi and turbo charging it; with the addition of a turbo, the engine becomes not only faster but more fuel efficient. Veal stock, same thing -- it not only makes your food taste better by miles, it makes you more efficient in your efforts at creating delicious food.

Here's how simple using veal stock is. Dice mushrooms, about a cup's worth, and mince a shallot. Have ready a quarter cup of tasty white wine and a cup of veal stock. Get a sauté pan smoking hot over high heat. Add a coating of oil, which should ripple when it hits the pan and begin to smoke. Toss in your mushrooms, let them cook for a few seconds, then stir -- the more browning you get the better the flavor -- and cook for a minute or so. Add the shallot and cook, add the white wine and continue cooking till it’s almost cooked off, then add the veal stock and bring it to a simmer. Add some salt and pepper, stir or swirl in a couple tablespoons of butter, and you have sauce for four portions of a meaty mild fish, such as halibut or cod, or slices of beef tenderloin. This same sauce would be perfect for sautéed veal (add a squeeze of lemon) or pork medallions (add a tablespoon of mustard). If you’ve salted and cooked your meat properly, the dish will taste better than the fancypants dishes at your favorite French restaurant --rich and mushroomy and meaty, with great body and, from the butter, smooth texture and lusciousness -- because it is fresh and made à la minute, and because it came from your kitchen. Deglaze the pan you've roasted a chicken in with veal stock and you will soon have an amazing sauce just as it is, or easily enhanced by adding, say, basil, tomato, and olives, or tarragon and chives.

You can do this with chicken stock -- you can do this with water, for that matter -- but it’s not the same.

There's nothing like veal stock. It's a marvel.

None of this is news to a restaurant chef, and any restaurant chef worth his salt could abandon veal stock and make do because they’re chefs and have a great range of tools and techniques at their disposal.

But the home cook, limited by time and money and cooking knowledge, ratchets up his or her talent by a factor of ten by making veal stock. Honest to God, it's like magic, like getting your wings.

+ + +


From THE ELEMENTS OF COOKING by Michael Ruhlman. Copyright © 2007 by Michael Ruhlman. Reprinted by permission of Scribner, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, Inc.

The Daily Gullet thanks Mr. Ruhlman and Scribner. Buy the book here.

#2 jsmeeker

jsmeeker
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 2,505 posts
  • Location:Dallas, TX

Posted 15 November 2007 - 03:50 PM

Thanks for the sneak peek. I know Ruhlman had his eyes opened by veal stock when he went to the CIA to write "Making of a Chef". Nice to see he still feels strongly about it, even if it seems to have fallen out of favor in lots of restaurants.

I gotta get my hands on some veal bones. Somehow, someway. I Gotta do it.

Jeff Meeker, aka "jsmeeker"
jmeeker@eGullet.org


#3 Fat Guy

Fat Guy
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 29,303 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 15 November 2007 - 04:01 PM

I concur that veal stock is a great force multiplier. In my experience, however, for the home cook, beef stock is about as useful as veal stock -- and it's usually easier to gather the ingredients. Veal is almost a specialty item, whereas beef is plentiful and cheap at every level of supermarket. Home cooks are also more likely to have leftover beef bones and trimmings than they are to have veal bones and trimmings. A combination stock is also quite workable for the home cook: a combination of beef and poultry bones and trimmings, kind of like an Italian brodo.
Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

#4 tim

tim
  • participating member
  • 816 posts

Posted 15 November 2007 - 04:49 PM

This is a wonderful reflection on an overlooked art. I grew up in the dairy country and veal knuckles were always available. I was also raised by Julia and long simmers came naturally. One of my sons frequently calls about a 14" calf leg that his restaurant is tossing and I have become adept with the bone saw.

Yes, veal stock is a treasure and all it takes is some veal breast and a few split veal knuckles.

And I thought Ruhlman was an impudent kid.

Tim

#5 RobertCollins

RobertCollins
  • participating member
  • 301 posts
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 15 November 2007 - 06:00 PM

I'm about 25% thru and just the essay on seasoning/salting is worth the cost of the book.

Ruhlman, is a really good writer. I feel like I'm listening to a good story-teller spin a yarn and I mean this in a good sense. MR just writes well. I've never heard him speak but I'll bet he talks much as he writes.

Robert

Seattle


#6 JAZ

JAZ
  • manager
  • 4,885 posts
  • Location:Atlanta

Posted 15 November 2007 - 08:02 PM

What is it, exactly, that makes veal stock such a wonder for the home cook? Why do you think it's categorically different from beef stock or chicken stock? Is it the texture? The taste? The umami element? I have no doubt that the pan sauce described is great, but this description seems to beg the question:

If you’ve salted and cooked your meat properly, the dish will taste better than the fancypants dishes at your favorite French restaurant --rich and mushroomy and meaty, with great body and, from the butter, smooth texture and lusciousness -- because it is fresh and made à la minute, and because it came from your kitchen.

The butter adds texture and lusciousness; the mushrooms add the mushroomy element, presumably. The part about being fresh and made a la minute from my kitchen would hold regardless of what liquid I used. Is it merely that veal stock is rich and meaty? That's a wonderful thing, but what makes it richer and meatier than beef stock?

#7 slkinsey

slkinsey
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 11,087 posts
  • Location:New York, New York

Posted 15 November 2007 - 08:15 PM

Janet, I think the difference is that veal stock has more gelatin and an inherently richer texture than chicken stock, but it doesn't have as distinctive a flavor as beef stock. For example, whereas a mushroom sauce enrichened with veal stock works for fish, I wouldn't say the same of beef stock.
Samuel Lloyd Kinsey

#8 Marlene

Marlene
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 8,123 posts
  • Location:Alberta, Canada

Posted 15 November 2007 - 08:28 PM

I make both veal and beef stocks, and the one thing I find is that veal stock gives a dish a more "velvety" taste if that makes any sense at all. Probably not. But that's the best way I can describe it. It also seems to be more delicate in flavour whereas beef stock seems to be more robust.
Marlene
cookskorner

Practice. Do it over. Get it right.
Mostly, I want people to be as happy eating my food as I am cooking it.

#9 saturnbar

saturnbar
  • participating member
  • 229 posts
  • Location:New Orleans, LA

Posted 16 November 2007 - 06:43 AM

Our local supplier of baby white veal sells frozen veal stock, or is it demi glass, at a good price. I can attest to its wonders as its almost always on hand on goes in just about everything. ch

Edited by saturnbar, 16 November 2007 - 06:44 AM.


#10 Katie Meadow

Katie Meadow
  • participating member
  • 1,245 posts
  • Location:Bay Area / East Bay

Posted 16 November 2007 - 10:24 AM

Can anyone clarify some definitions? What exactly is a demi-glace? Google/Wiki has some contradictory info. Some sources say a demi-glace is a reduction of combined beef and veal stock. Others imply that it is a blend of veal stock and brown sauce.

As step #1 of our thanksgiving gravy, my husband and I have always made a brown sauce using an old James Beard recipe which specifies as an ingredient beef bouillon. What exactly is bouillon? Is it basically a reduction of beef stock? Would any intense stock be an equivalent?

Last year, in an attempt to get away from any canned and over-salted products we subbed some flavorful beef stock we had frozen earlier. It was fine, but I am thinking that a rich or reduced veal stock might be even better (not that I plan on making it myself.) What do you think?

#11 Fat Guy

Fat Guy
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 29,303 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 16 November 2007 - 10:50 AM

Can anyone clarify some definitions? What exactly is a demi-glace?

View Post

I don't think you're going to find a credible, definitive answer to that question. It's possible to say what Escoffier's recipe for demi-glace was, but in contemporary culinary usage one can arrive at demi-glace by at least three paths and each of those paths has branches. First, you can do the classic Escoffier method or any of a number of variants. Second, you can simply make a strong reduction of meat stock. Third, you can make something in the neighborhood of a quintuple-strength stock/coulis by repeated remoistening. You'll find professional sources (e.g. James Peterson) referring to all three of those things, and more, as demi-glace.
Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

#12 Daily Gullet Staff

Daily Gullet Staff
  • host
  • 152 posts

Posted 16 November 2007 - 12:29 PM

In conjunction with Michael Ruhlman and his publishers, we arranged a series of member-written mini reviews of The Elements of Cooking. The first one follows. Needless to say, the opinions expressed are those of the reviewer and not those of the Daily Gullet or the eGullet Society.

+ + +


Paradigm Tossed

by Dave Scantland aka Dave the Cook

Most every school-trained cook I know carries around a little book that you're not allowed to read any more than you're permitted to browse your daughter's diary. In it is his formula for beet caviar, his means of resuscitating a broken sauce (and what clever thing to do if it’s irretrievable), his brine for belly. It contains every recipe, tip or truc he's begged, borrowed or stolen since he decided to spend his life in clogs and checks. He keeps it safe in his pocket, consults it like Pat Robertson talks to God, and compounds its value with new entries in type so tight it's the province of mice. So imagine my delight when Scribner announced Michael Ruhlman's The Elements of Cooking: Translating the Chef's Craft for Every Kitchen. This CIA alum with little-book-level access to some of the country's top-tier restaurants would be opening up his culinary journal for the benefit of all. And imagine my disappointment when it turned out to be a maddening bundle of contradictions, misinformation and misdirected emphasis.

In a set of essays that precede the glossary, we're told that four different things are most important to the home cook: veal stock, salt, heat and eggs. And though Ruhlman might consider veal stock essential (he provides a rare recipe), the equipment needed to make it isn't. The list of required tools, limited to an arbitrary five, omits a stockpot and strainer. The manifest expands as the book progresses, but I pity the cook who tries to shoehorn ten pounds of bones (and the requisite ten quarts of water) into the eight-quart vessel that Ruhlman promises is all he or she will need forever.

It's not that I disagree with much of what Ruhlman relates; on the contrary, most facts and singular bits of advice are dependable. But when error and evasion dance in, frustration and bafflement shimmy along with them. Potatoes, we're told, are distinguished by their skins; starch content is a mere related factoid. Persistent references to "mashed" potatoes squander the opportunity to discuss pommes puree, an omission that belies the book’s expressed dedication to refinement. Elsewhere, roux proceeds well enough, but the ostensibly helpful formula (by weight, one-to-ten, roux to liquid) neglects to mention that thickening power decreases as roux-browning increases. For that -- as Ruhlman directs with irritating regularity, but doesn’t in this case -- see McGee.

So why not bypass this bantam bible and get On Food and Cooking? Because the very word "elements" promises a valuable economy of expression, a distillation to essentials that McGee eschews. Yet Ruhlman fritters away his word count like a toddler with too many toys, plying us with paragraphs on the obscure "tallow," the obvious "trim" and the overexplained "bacon." There’s room for "pincage" (common or uncommon, depending on which end of the paragraph you scan), "pink salt" and "Pyrex," but none for "soy sauce," "sofrito" or "barbecue." Shoulders, it seems, are for sausage -- short ribs and flatirons go begging for definition, as do the short loin and round.

On second thought, do get McGee -- along with Child, Herbst and Pepin (the rest of Ruhlman’s recommendations are redundant or too idiosyncratic for any but the advanced). And while you’re at it, pick up a small, blank book and start scribbling your own little reference. It will serve you far better than the disappointing, miscalculated lexicon that is The Elements of Cooking.

* * *




#13 Blamo

Blamo
  • participating member
  • 42 posts

Posted 16 November 2007 - 03:55 PM

I went to college for a degree in English. I came out having acculated a standard dictionary, two unabridged dictionaries, a rhyming dictionary, a Latin dictionary, and an illustrated reverse dictionary. All of these dictionaries had their uses at university; however, now I typically only use one of them, and there are those that I haven't been opened since I left years ago.

Categorizing these dictionaries by usefulness (standard to rhyming), I'd have to say that Elements, like my Latin dictionary, will be a book left practically unused. Overall, I really wanted Elements to be more, considering I'm the target audience, but instead of reaching for Elements, I will continue reaching for Food Lover's Companion and On Food and Cooking when in doubt, which is quite often.

#14 Jane Die

Jane Die
  • participating member
  • 99 posts
  • Location:US

Posted 16 November 2007 - 04:15 PM

I think that review by Dave the Cook was more helpful to me than the Amazon.com reviews on Ruhlman's book. I'm glad I read it (the review, instead of the book).

Edited by Jane Die, 16 November 2007 - 04:17 PM.


#15 Marlene

Marlene
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 8,123 posts
  • Location:Alberta, Canada

Posted 17 November 2007 - 11:09 AM

I'll be interested to see further member reviews. I don't think Dave's review would stop me from buying the book. First of all, I like Michael Ruhlman's style of writing and I've enjoyed all his books.

Secondly, a review, any review, is subjective I think. One person may hate the same dish I love, hate the same movie I love, hate the same book I love. Is it going to be the definitive resource for the home cook's kitchen? I doubt it, but then, I have several books of resource and don't rely on just one anyway, including my own little notebook.
I think I have to read it for myself to decide. :smile: It's on my Christmas list.

Edited by Marlene, 17 November 2007 - 11:14 AM.

Marlene
cookskorner

Practice. Do it over. Get it right.
Mostly, I want people to be as happy eating my food as I am cooking it.

#16 maggiethecat

maggiethecat
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 6,053 posts
  • Location:Chicago Burbs -- West

Posted 17 November 2007 - 12:04 PM

Un veritable bouquet garni of reviews are to come.

Margaret McArthur

"Take it easy, but take it."
Studs Terkel

1912-2008

A sensational tennis blog from freakyfrites

margaretmcarthur.com


#17 Michael Ruhlman

Michael Ruhlman
  • participating member
  • 466 posts

Posted 17 November 2007 - 04:49 PM

Reading Dave Scantland’s comments on my book I would like to clarify what my book is and is not. It’s not meant to be a comprehensive food glossary (like the excellent Food Lovers Companion) or even a traditional reference book for the kitchen. It’s an opinionated glossary of cook’s terms, everything I think cook’s need to know in the kitchen, everything I needed to know when I entered the CIA, and all that I’ve learned since, working with so many passionate, talented chefs throughout the country. It is an effort to translate the language of the professional kitchen and make it available to the home cook.

Do not expect to find food terms such as sofrito and soy sauce (Scantland was confused by their omission) or, what else, ketchup, Tabasco, etc., in there. Mayo IS in there, because it’s a fundamental. Basic foods are in there such as potato but only in the most fundamental way, with the most basic practical info, which Dave takes issue with. Roux is another fundamental and Dave the Cook is upset that I don’t say how much brown roux you need, as compared with a pale roux, given that pale has a greater capacity to thicken (the answer is, it depends on how much the roux been cooked, there’s not a hard and fast rule I could add beyond what I did).

No doubt there are many failures in the book, ones that I will work to correct as I learn of them or find them myself. I’ve started a second blog to discuss various "Elements" and I urge readers to question the text and point out errors so that they can be corrected (http://blog.ruhlman....nts_of_cooking/). And yes, the book is Eurocentric, because the fundamentals of Western cuisine were first articulated and codified by the French—but the fundamentals themselves are universal. Certainly the book doesn’t fail in its essay on tools or its lack of defining potato puree, or in its acknowledging Harold McGee where he might be helpful for further reading or where he provided information I could have found no where else (issues Dave the Cook was bothered by). This is my take on the language of the kitchen, what I feel is important to know; two excellent chefs, CIA instructors, have read the entire thing and added valuable comments and some of the best chefs in the country have weighed in with their comments. I am surprised by the bitterness of Dave the Cook’s comments. Mr. Scantland and I exchanged some chilly emails after some of my posts were deleted from a thread on two years ago, as I recall, on the restaurant comp issue. I do hope there’s nothing personal here. This is my work after all, I care about it, and if I’ve truly failed a reader, I’d like to do everything I can to account for it.

#18 Bueno

Bueno
  • legacy participant
  • 295 posts
  • Location:Ontario

Posted 17 November 2007 - 05:15 PM

I'm glad Michael was given the opportunity and took the time to respond, so that both sides could be weighed.

If you'll excuse me, I need some time to Ruhlmanate over this.

#19 Michael Ruhlman

Michael Ruhlman
  • participating member
  • 466 posts

Posted 17 November 2007 - 05:24 PM

other issues brought up in comments.

I disagree, respectfully, with Fat Guy about beef being as versatile. It's true beef bones are more plentiful in the store, but it tastes like beef--there's nothing like veal stock. What he says about meat stock generally is certainly true. As for availability, anyone who'd like to try to make veal stock, can simply ask your meat dept for a veal breast, which has both meat and connective tissue and is reasonably priced (ask the butcher to cut it into 2-3 inch pieces for stock).

What makes veal stock so special is its neutrality. It adds body and enhances flavor without adding its own. i agree with slkinsey.

katie, bouillon is the french term for broth. bouillon cubes are to be avoided. turkey parts, such as wings are available and inexpensive, buy some and roast them and make stock from them as your base for gravy.

what is demi-glace? i'd post my definition from elements of cooking but I'm afraid Dave would take issue with that as well!

#20 edsel

edsel
  • participating member
  • 984 posts
  • Location:NEO (North-East Ohio), US

Posted 17 November 2007 - 05:49 PM

katie, bouillon is the french term for broth.  bouillon cubes are to be avoided.  turkey parts, such as wings are available and inexpensive, buy some and roast them and make stock from them as your base for gravy.

View Post

I've got turkey backs, necks, and wings cooking just below the simmer. I assiduously skimmed the stock until no Keller-offending scum was left floating on the surface. :wink:

what is demi-glace?  i'd post my definition from elements of cooking but I'm afraid Dave would take issue with that as well!

Heh. I liked FG's summary of the various interpretations of what is understood to be demi-glace. My own take is that it's veal stock cooked down with sauce espangole, pretty much straight out of the guide culinaire. But that's how I learned it (self-taught). FG is correct that different people interpret the term differently, at least in the U.S.

#21 azlee

azlee
  • participating member
  • 265 posts
  • Location:New York City

Posted 17 November 2007 - 06:10 PM

I concur that veal stock is a great force multiplier. In my experience, however, for the home cook, beef stock is about as useful as veal stock -- and it's usually easier to gather the ingredients. Veal is almost a specialty item, whereas beef is plentiful and cheap at every level of supermarket. Home cooks are also more likely to have leftover beef bones and trimmings than they are to have veal bones and trimmings. A combination stock is also quite workable for the home cook: a combination of beef and poultry bones and trimmings, kind of like an Italian brodo.

View Post


Here in NYC, Fresh Direct sells veal bones for $1.99 a pound. I almost always have some in the freezer.

#22 JAZ

JAZ
  • manager
  • 4,885 posts
  • Location:Atlanta

Posted 17 November 2007 - 07:32 PM

What makes veal stock so special is its neutrality.  It adds body and enhances flavor without adding its own.

View Post


Okay, I can see that: it's like MSG, then.

But I'm still curious about your example. It seems to me (from your description) that of all the elements in that sauce -- mushrooms, shallots, wine, butter, salt and pepper -- the veal stock is the least essential. That is, if the veal stock were missing (replaced with water), I'm sure the sauce wouldn't be as good. But if any of the other elements were missing, I'm guessing the sauce would be bad -- weak or unbalanced or thin, that is -- and no amount of veal sauce could make it right.

#23 edsel

edsel
  • participating member
  • 984 posts
  • Location:NEO (North-East Ohio), US

Posted 17 November 2007 - 08:26 PM

But I'm still curious about your example. It seems to me (from your description) that of all the elements in that sauce -- mushrooms, shallots, wine, butter, salt and pepper --  the veal stock is the least essential. That is, if the veal stock were missing (replaced with water), I'm sure the sauce wouldn't be as good.

View Post

I think you've touched on what makes MR so rapturous about veal stock. Rather than "least essential", I would substitute "most ineffable". I can't speak for Mr. Ruhlman, but I get the impression that he's enamored of the way that veal stock can elevate something ordinary into something more. I heard him speak at a kitchen demo (posted in the Heartland forum), and he did indeed point out that you can use water to deglaze the fond in a pan to make a very serviceable jus.

The veal stock provides a silky texture that can't be explained by simply noting the presence of gelatin in the stock. (I'm with him on that one). But you're on to something with the MSG analogy. If MSG pumps up the umami flavor, perhaps veal stock does something analogous in regards to texture.

#24 Marlene

Marlene
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 8,123 posts
  • Location:Alberta, Canada

Posted 17 November 2007 - 09:02 PM

, I would substitute "most ineffable". I can't speak for Mr. Ruhlman, but I get the impression that he's enamored of the way that veal stock can elevate something ordinary into something more.



Yes, and yes. I used a veal demi glace a while back to finish a dish for the first time, and it "just did something" that I can't really explain. It was a dish I've made several times in the past, but the demi glace just elevated it. I was totally wowed by the dish in a way that I never had been before.

The veal stock provides a silky texture that can't be explained by simply noting the presence of gelatin in the stock.


Again, yes. And I can't explain it either except to agree with the silkiness. Beef stock is wonderful and I use it a lot. But it's got a flavour going all its own and it's robust. But veal adds that silkiness and wow factor, without adding a distinct flavour, that beef stock just can't do. Add some veal stock to a french onion soup and notice the difference. Add it to a sauce and note the velvety taste on your tongue.

Edited by Marlene, 17 November 2007 - 09:09 PM.

Marlene
cookskorner

Practice. Do it over. Get it right.
Mostly, I want people to be as happy eating my food as I am cooking it.

#25 JAZ

JAZ
  • manager
  • 4,885 posts
  • Location:Atlanta

Posted 17 November 2007 - 11:08 PM

I have several comments and questions here.

What makes veal stock so special is its neutrality.  It adds body and enhances flavor without adding its own.

If the point of veal stock is "neutrality," then why, in your recipe in Elements, do you call for browning the bones and meat and adding tomato paste and mirepoix? It seems to me that if you want something that adds a silky texture and no discernible flavor of its own, you'd do better to make a white veal stock -- no browning, no aromatics, no tomato paste. I mean, I'm all for brown stocks, but surely a brown veal stock will be nearly as robust as a beef stock -- certainly more so than chicken.

But I'm still curious about your example. It seems to me (from your description) that of all the elements in that sauce -- mushrooms, shallots, wine, butter, salt and pepper --  the veal stock is the least essential. That is, if the veal stock were missing (replaced with water), I'm sure the sauce wouldn't be as good.

View Post

I think you've touched on what makes MR so rapturous about veal stock. Rather than "least essential", I would substitute "most ineffable".

I think that some experiences might be ineffable; I'm not sure that veal stock is one of them. It may not be a particularly romantic notion, but I'm quite sure that whatever veal stock does for a sauce can be described, and at least in part explained.

I can't speak for Mr. Ruhlman, but I get the impression that he's enamored of the way that veal stock can elevate something ordinary into something more. I heard him speak at a kitchen demo (posted in the Heartland forum), and he did indeed point out that you can use water to deglaze the fond in a pan to make a very serviceable jus.

Of course, in his example, the wine is what he says to use to deglaze, not the stock. Veal stock goes in later. And I would bet that if you substituted water and a pinch of MSG, you'd get a very similar "something more."

#26 Andrew Fenton

Andrew Fenton
  • participating member
  • 3,352 posts
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 18 November 2007 - 12:18 AM

To continue further with the idea of "neutrality" in a stock, I wonder how a stock made from chicken wings would compare? In my experience that provides a ton of gelatin, but very little flavor; exactly what you've described above.

#27 moosnsqrl

moosnsqrl
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 2,048 posts
  • Location:Kansas City

Posted 18 November 2007 - 07:19 AM

I think that review by Dave the Cook was more helpful to me than the  Amazon.com reviews on Ruhlman's book. I'm glad I read it (the review, instead of the book).

View Post

I couldn't decide which post to reply to here, but I chose Jane Die's because it struck me the most. I have not finished Elements yet but, at approximately the half-way point, am enjoying it. To think that one bad review would prevent someone from reading it makes me sad.

To focus on the 5-tool count is to miss the point - I don't think it was intended to be a hard-and-fast limit. Taken in the most literal sense, not only was the stock pot left out of the count but so were the oven, the cooktop and the kitchen and house! The point of the 5 tools, to me, is to encourage people to cook even if they can't afford all of the bell-and-whistle equipment being foisted on us by Madison Avenue and TFN; a secondary take-away is to buy fewer but higher-quality tools and add to them over time. Think loaves and fishes.

As I left the essay portion of the book and entered into the glossary part, I did find some of the information redundant (although "squandered word count" is a bit harsh). But then I realized, when I'm going back to it as a reference (not having just finished the essays) it will be more useful that way. I'm curious to hear some examples of self-contradiction. Perhaps I wasn't parsing it as carefully as Dave the Cook.

In summary, while we all find such dialog useful on these forums, I hope you'll give this a read and judge for yourself, much as you might be inspired to try durian by Fat Guy's writings rather than listen to the legion of those who despise it. [Apologies to the author for comparing his writing to something so, um, pungent.]
Judy Jones aka "moosnsqrl"

Sharing food with another human being is an intimate act that should not be indulged in lightly.

M.F.K. Fisher

#28 Fat Guy

Fat Guy
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 29,303 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 18 November 2007 - 09:03 AM

If the point of veal stock is "neutrality," then why, in your recipe in Elements, do you call for browning the bones and meat and adding tomato paste and mirepoix? It seems to me that if you want something that adds a silky texture and no discernible flavor of its own, you'd do better to make a white veal stock -- no browning, no aromatics, no tomato paste. I mean, I'm all for brown stocks, but surely a brown veal stock will be nearly as robust as a beef stock -- certainly more so than chicken.

View Post

In "The Making of a Chef," Ruhlman speaks a bit more in depth about the subject of the neutrality of brown veal stock. There, he clearly explains the position that brown veal stock is neutral, or "has the remarkable quality of taking on other flavors without imposing a flavor of its own." ("The Making of a Chef," page 27.) I understand this is the classical French way of thinking about veal stock, and it seems to be what the CIA is or was teaching, but I'm not sure the contemporary perspective embraces it.

The reason a lot of contemporary chefs don't -- as Ruhlman notes in "Elements" -- use veal stock is, as I understand it, specifically because veal stock does contribute it flavor to dishes. Thus, in many contemporary kitchens that use stock they make beef stock for beef dishes, pork stock for pork dishes, shellfish stock for shellfish dishes, etc. Or they go really old school and use jus. There are plenty of chefs out there who would argue, as I would, that veal stock, especially brown veal stock, is not neutral at all -- that all you need to do is make a sauce for fish with it and you'll see that the term neutral is a misnomer. It's more of a "baseline classical French haute-cuisine taste" than an actual neutral taste like MSG. Perhaps it doesn't impose a specific beef taste (and I submit if you make beef stock with mostly bones it doesn't impose much of a specific beef taste either), but it imposes a taste for sure.

To use a weak analogy, it's a little bit like a Chinese cook saying soy sauce is neutral. If you're acclimated to tasting soy sauce in a large percentage of your cuisine's dishes, you start not thinking of it as an added flavor, but it's really a baseline Chinese cuisine taste. If you come to America and start adding soy sauce to lobster you're not going to find that audience willing to accept the proposition that soy sauce is neutral. My two cents, at least.
Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

#29 Jane Die

Jane Die
  • participating member
  • 99 posts
  • Location:US

Posted 18 November 2007 - 09:04 AM

I think that review by Dave the Cook was more helpful to me than the  Amazon.com reviews on Ruhlman's book. I'm glad I read it (the review, instead of the book).

View Post

I couldn't decide which post to reply to here, but I chose Jane Die's because it struck me the most. I have not finished Elements yet but, at approximately the half-way point, am enjoying it. To think that one bad review would prevent someone from reading it makes me sad.


Don't be sad, moosnsqrl. :shock: My copy of is in transit from Amazon as of yesterday. Likely it was Mr. Ruhlman's response to DavetheCook's review that swung my decision. :wink: I think it is the essays I'm most looking forward to reading.

Edited by Jane Die, 18 November 2007 - 09:19 AM.


#30 Jaymes

Jaymes
  • participating member
  • 7,229 posts
  • Location:Houston, Texas

Posted 18 November 2007 - 10:30 AM

I think that review by Dave the Cook was more helpful to me than the  Amazon.com reviews on Ruhlman's book. I'm glad I read it (the review, instead of the book).

I couldn't decide which post to reply to here, but I chose Jane Die's because it struck me the most. I have not finished Elements yet but, at approximately the half-way point, am enjoying it. To think that one bad review would prevent someone from reading it makes me sad.

Don't be sad, moosnsqrl. :shock: My copy of is in transit from Amazon as of yesterday. Likely it was Mr. Ruhlman's response to DavetheCook's review that swung my decision. :wink: I think it is the essays I'm most looking forward to reading.


Me, too.

Actually, it was already on my Christmas wish list. After reading Dave's review, I considered removing it.

But then I read Mr. Ruhlman's gracious and thoughtful response. I'm leaving the book on the wish list and am hopeful someone in my family will gift me with it.

And if not, I'll buy it myself after the holidays.

I'd like to thank Mr. Ruhlman for taking the time to come to eG and post his opinion. And in addition to being sure I get his book, I'm also going to make a determined effort to get more veal stock into my life.

:biggrin:

Edited by Jaymes, 18 November 2007 - 10:32 AM.

"KNOWLEDGE TENDS TO ELEVATE THE HORSES" - cdh