Re: [CH] A question about stocks

Joe Ferguson (coredump@coredumps.org)
Tue, 9 Feb 1999 20:58:14 -0500 (EST)

You might want to look at the publishing date of your books.  Most of mine
from the 80's have very few references to pork-anything, while those from
the 50's - 70's have as many as they do seafood.  My best guess would be
that there was a time that pork was kinda' out of favor...???

But done right...hell, even if you mess it up a little!...pork stock can
be much more rich and full than chicken, beef, or fish stock.

I know you can make vegetable stock...wonder if you can make a chile
stock...anyone tried?

-joe

## Peppers! @ CoreDumps.Org
## http://www.coredumps.org/peppers/

On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Brent Leatherman wrote:

> Hey,
> Can any of the uber-cooks out there help me with this? As I was making the
> green chile stew mentioned earlier on the list, I discovered a little
> incongruity that might be common knowledge to everyone but me. The
> directions called out for chicken stock (which I used), but I got to
> thinking that pork was the dominant meat, so why wasn't pork stock called
> for? I then looked through my "reference" cook book, and discovered that
> while beef, vegetable, poultry and fish stocks were described, both pork
> and mutton were ignored. Is there a reason for this?
>   thanks,
>      Brent
> *************************************************************************
> 
> "A sound mind, a healthy body. Take your pick...."
>       Mr. Hedge, KPIG
>