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 >