Talk:Stock (food)

Broth
Seriously, you can tell the author's are American... Broth is in NO WAY the same as stock... Next time you vist the UK or Ireland ask for a bowl of stock and a bowl of broth in a restaurant and see what you get... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.8.106 (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Fume vs. fumet vs. stock
I haven't heard of "fume" but do you mean "fish fumet"? If so, I think that fish fumet and fish stock are two different things -- fumet is a *concentrated* fish stock where the ingrediants have been first browned together in a pan. Also according to the Larousse Gastronomique -- and my cooking teacher -- cooking fish stock for more than 30-45 minutes spoils the flavor.

Re: I am in agreement here, about the cooking time. However, Fumet is neither concentrated, nor browned. A slightly different Mirepoix is used, known as 'white mirepoix' which replaces carrots with parsnips or turnips or mushrooms. None of these ingredients are pre-cooked. Often, white wine is added as well.

Concentrating the Fumet might result in it tasting very much like, will... old fish.

Gisslen
This article reads like something taken out of Wayne Gisslen's "professional cooking."

Stock v. Broth
I think I grasp this pretty well except for one thing: vegetables. Shouldn't all vegetable-derived liquids (vegetable foo, mushroom foo) be broths, since there're no bones involved? Or can vegetable stock depend on animal or vegetable gelatinizers and thus be different from vegetable broth? My grocery shelves imply the first, but I don't think that that's a reliable source. Also, are there any regional variations in usage? VermillionBird 00:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone just erased a paragraph about meat and fish. I am confused. There's a sentence about fish stock made from bonito flakes -- is that actually broth, even though everyone calls it stock? --csloat 08:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK guys, here it is: there is no real difference between stock and broth, the two terms can be (and are) used interchangeably. Sure, in general, stock is made from bones and broth from meat, but they don't have to be. After all, what do you get when you have something flavored by both meat and bones, "stroth?" And I know there is such thing as vegetable stock. As far as actual practical usage goes, stock usually refers to when the "flavored liquid" is going to be used as an ingredient in a greater dish, and broth is what's plated as final product (soup being just broth or a combination of solid ingredients and broth). But even in this usage, the terms are interchangeable. Check out this page for one source: http://www.pgacon.com/KitchenMyths.htm   There's nothing wrong with using "stock" to refer to liquid flavored by bones and "broth" for liquid which is flavored by meat, just be aware that there's no real hard and fast rule. Durty Willy 21:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The word 'stock' actually describes a type of broth that requires a very specific formula and procedure in its making in order to standardize the foods that are derived from it, which is not so with broth.


 * Durty Willy 07:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Please, cite your source, Ironlion45, and if you do, I can cite more than one definition, each contridicting each other, from equally accredited sources. Actually, you citing multiple sources would be preferred (save me some time ;)). What you describe above is closer to describing "recipe" than "stock." One can have "a very specific formula and procedure in its making in order to standardize the foods that are derived from it" and still have a final product of the "formula and procedure" as a finished item or an ingredient of another item. Multiple and varied recipes for "Lady Fingers" can result in both a finished product and what you describe as a "standardized ingredient," (for example, in "Insalata Inglacia," etc.) and I haven't seen two recipes for Lady Finger cakes that are identical, or even strictly similar to each other (except for shape and sweetness of the end product). Lady Fingers can be the product of a complex process, or just sliced up cupcakes. I've seen them cookie-like and cake-like. Ur...Lady Fingers is kind of a weird example; chili might be better. Or maybe not, people get kind of weird about chili. Maybe you mean something more like demi-glace? Again, no. Demi-glace, for instance, will have some variation in its creation depending on source, but the production is still similar no matter who's making it. Demi-glace means demi-glace, but stock and broth is still defined by it's users (both propessional and amature) even more wildly than lady fingers.  Durty Willy 07:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Stock is a soup? The section 'Comparison with broth' states: Broth differs in that it is a basic soup... The soup page states that stock can be an ingredient to make a soup. So, I think this creates an ambiguous definition. What should be the basic preparation, soup or stock? Chimalli (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a little simpler than all of the above. Per the Thorndike-Barnhart dictionary a stock is the ingredient of something else. A broth can be a stock. I often use vegetable and meat broths as stocks. if it's an ingredient of something else it's a stock. It's raw material for something. Dave Kramer

Source
If anyone wants to use this, I got it from On Food and Cooking by Harold McGee.

The reason that we start with a cold liquid, such water/remouillage for stock, or broth/stock for consomme, is more for the purpose of clarity than of protein extraction. When brought slowly to a simmer, proteins will bind together(coagulate) into somewhat cohesive massesas they slowly rise to the surface. If hot water is used to start, or if the liquid is boiled rapidly instead of being simmered, the impurities will break apart and make it more difficult to skim. Mr. Mcgee does not mention any sealing or other benifits to protein extraction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.161.120.135 (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Difference between stock, broth and bouillon?
Can someone please explain the difference between stock, broth and bouillon to me? According to the latter, stock serves a completely different purpose in the french cuisine than broth and bouillon. But what purpose? Stock is made from bones (if not completely from vegetables) while broth can be made from both bones and meat? --Ediug (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Let the academic infos to speak.....its derivatives...
--58.38.43.52 (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+stock+powder&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--58.38.43.52 (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+bouillon+powder&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--58.38.43.52 (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+broth+powder&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

Merger proposal
I propose that Bone broth be merged with Stock (food). The differences between "Bone broth" and "stock" appear to be negligible, and the article presents no citations to explain why Bone broth must be cooked a longer time. As for the added spices, the stock article clearly says that flavoring so are an ingredient in Stock. There's hardly anything left of the original article, which was written by a spammer/SPA. There's not much to merge other than the name, which could be added to the list of types of stock. Tim D. Williamson yak-yak 03:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: I can't find any evidence to indicate that bone broth is different from stock in any way, except that bone broth is the term used when stock is drank from a mug. A couple places indicated the difference is that the bones break down into powder in a bone broth, which would mean bone broth is just overcooked stock with a pretty name. -- T K K ! bark with me!  19:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

New stock versus broth template
I have created a template for the "Stock versus broth" section like the "Shrimp versus prawn" section in those articles. This is so the content appears identically in both articles.

It now contains the content from both stock and broth articles. There may be some redundancies that need sorting out.

It can be edited at Template:Stock versus broth.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

example of In Popular Culture
This isn't really about stock as a food. Grogu could have been drinking anything and the scene would have been identical.that's the definition of a meaningless and irrelevant trivia item.

If "he could be eating something else" or "the specific type of food need to change the scene" were valid objections we could hardly ever discuss food in movies and other culture. Read MOS:CULTURALREFS and first note the absence of your made-up conditions for inclusion, and secondly please tell me how to implement an example ever if I need to meet arbitrary criteria such as yours.

In contrast, I have provided quality sources that discuss the way a character consumed the specific subject of this article (bone broth) and how that impacted culture. If you have any objections against this, I'd like to hear it, User:Oknazevad. CapnZapp (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I stated my reasoning in my edit summary. The passage is also poorly written; we shouldn't use the fan nickname even if the old sources do because they were written before the episode revealing Grogu's name was revealed. Speaking of the sources, they're improperly formatted (bare URLs) and most don't really support the idea of "bone broth" impacting popular culture. They're about Grogu's popularity and a meme, not the soup. The second one is just a regurgitation of a Know Your Meme post. Third one is a passing mention. The last one, and the near verbatim last sentence taken from it, are less than a passing mention. What none of them are the actual potential source mentioned in the guideline. What all of them lack is coverage of the subject of this article, which is stock, in some depth, as the guideline explicitly calls for. I'm not making up any new criteria, I'm calling for actual compliance with the existing criteria. oknazevad (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * First off, that guideline made an example. Please don't pretend it is a prescriptive part of the guideline that any article discussing Baby Yoda's bone broth must discuss recipes. (That said, here are two:  Not that I see the point, but maybe that's what missing according to you. I'd be happy to include them.)  Please don't call the writing of other editors "poor" just because they don't use the naming you prefer, and definitely don't revert such work. The source I quoted used the name "Baby Yoda" over and over again so I made a judgement call and deemed using anything else to be more confusing than worth it. It's not as if I broke a rule or anything, and besides: piped links exists (and I used them). Likewise, if you find bare URLs less than ideal, and can't simply be thankful sources were added at all, please go ahead and fix them. What you don't get to do is revert such additions — bare URLs are not prohibited, and using them is not grounds for reversion. From the bare URL information page:  Adding a bare URL reference to Wikipedia is much more helpful than no reference. If you only have time and inclination to copy the reference URL you found, that is a helpful first step, and we thank you for your contribution!  Finally back to your first sentence: I stated my reasoning in my edit summary. No, as I stated, you raised some objections. I addressed them. I countered them. You don't get to just repeat them. If you don't respond to my specific arguments, I'm going to assume you drop those objections, so please don't just refer to them as if they're still valid. In summary, you've thrown a wide array of arguments at me, but at the end of the line it seems you undid my work because you didn't like it?  CapnZapp (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, you seem to miss my point, which is that the contents of Grogu's cup being bone broth is incidental and non-defining, and therefore doesn't rise to anything more than a trivial passing mention, the exact sort of thing the guideline is supppsed to discourage. oknazevad (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't miss your point. I addressed it at the top of this talk section: If "he could be eating something else"... You haven't engaged here. Instead you added more objections - all of which I have also responded to. Now you're circling back to your first objections. (At least that must mean you have accepted my answers and dropped those extra objections?) The point is that when our guidelines discussion "trivial passing mentions" they're talking about sources. You appear to talk about the show itself. There's a difference. We are discouraged from using sources that just mention "Baby Yoda had bone broth". But that's not the kind of sources I've supplied. As for whether the actual tv show mention was "trivial" or "passing", that's not up to us. That's up to our sources to decide. CapnZapp (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * My assessment upon reading the sources is that the material here is not sufficient for inclusion. The entire second sentence quoting Bryce Dallas Howard has nothing to do with bone broth and everything to do with Baby Yoda. It doesn't add anything to the article of substance. oknazevad (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

First off - for the future, please change your arguing style. You have responded multiple times and this is the first time I would say you engage in a real discussion. Stop wasting the time of other editors by basically throwing everything at them to see what sticks - that style of argument is exhausting and counterproductive. Even more exasperating, please realize you basically ignore any of my counter-arguments without conceding you saw my point. To be blunt: you don't get to force other editors to meet your spurious arguments and then move on like nothing happened, despite forcing that other editor to choose from backing down or wasting time meeting those nonsensical arguments. It gives you the air of an editor that struggles to admit when you make featherweight arguments or wrong calls. It makes you out to be an editor attempting to "win" discussions by exhausting your counterpart, rather than engaging in respectful and honest discussion. Thank you.

Now then:

Which of the sources do you feel fails to establish the fact I'm trying to convey here, that Baby Yoda's bone broth moment had a pop-cultural impact? And for the third time, you need to expand upon "it doesn't add anything of substance" - you can't just repeat that as a shield against having to actually discuss the issue. Again, I ask you: are you sure you don't mix up our policies here? You appear to argue that just because you don't feel this moment was significant, and/or that the fact none of the sources discuss the actual contents of, recipe to, or preparation of, the bone broth in question, disqualifies the fact from inclusion. But what policy do you base this off of? Instead, I have supplied sources that establishes that bone broth has had at least one impactful moment in popular culture, which is what In Popular Culture sections are meant for. CapnZapp (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a further few days before I'll assume the point has been conceded, and that I can restore my edit. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for being busy in real life and not responding sooner. I never changed my argument style, nor my point, which remains that while that moment of Grogu sipping soup may have had some immediate pop culture impact, it is incidental and trivial that it was said to be bone broth. The impact was entirely about Baby Yoda being cute, not what was in the cup. Even the sources say that. That's why it's irrelevant to this article, which is not about Baby Yoda (where this would be appropriate) but is about one of the oldest and most important basic food stuffs in the world. It's WP:RECENTISM at best, utterly trivial, and makes Wikipedia look like TV Tropes. oknazevad (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * One, the difference between Wikipedia and TV tropes is: they don't require editors to source claims, and establish that their tropes has actually been discussed in relevant sources. Your comparison, unfortunately, comes across as derogatory - as if you want to suggest Baby Yoda's bone broth was not discussed in several reputable media. That you think it is "utterly trivial" remains a light-weight argument. Clearly another editor (me) disagrees, so let's say our two opinions is a wash, removing that argument from the table. RECENTISM probably doesn't mean what you think it means (but I could be wrong). My most charitable interpretation is that you're saying that only cultural moments that are still discussed many years after the event should be included on Wikipedia, and that we should hold off any inclusion. This is clearly not a supportable position - we aren't news, but we do include events and impacts as soon as it is clear they became notable or impactful. Are you saying you don't think enough time has passed for Baby Yoda's bone broth moment to be considered impactful by reputable sources?  As for you being busy, that's quite alright. I did check your contribution history - had I seen zero activity I would have held off any comment, but since you proceeded to edit elsewhere after my last comment, and because of your earlier prompt replies, I wanted to make sure you hadn't disengaged. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You still aren't addressing my point. Address the argument, not the person, please.
 * Those sources do not support your claims that they're discussing bone broth. They clearly are about baby Yoda's popularity, not the food he happened to be slurping down. All they do at most is verify that it was called bone broth, high the original episode does. They do nothing to establish the notability of that fact to the subject of this article.
 * I don't think it rises to worthy of inclusion here. This is an article about a major and ancient component of food, and minor passing mentions in pop culture are unworthy of inclusion. It is unimportant to an understanding of the subject. We're writing an encyclopedia, not a magazine article. It would be exercised by any professional writer or editors It makes Wikipedia look unprofessional to insist on inclusion. oknazevad (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You speak about "major and ancient" as if this article somehow is above pop culture. Get off your high horse. I got the idea to add the text from Wikipedia's own policy, which clearly is open to the idea of adding pop cultural references even to a "major and ancient" (rolleyes) article subject. What you call "minor passing mentions" is what pop cultural mentions usually amounts to. Are you sure you accept In Popular Culture sections at all, because so far you have taken exactly zero steps to provide constructive suggestions, only playing the part of a gatekeeper saying "no". I have already suggested two additional sources "discussing" the contents of Baby Yoda's broth. So far you have ignored them. CapnZapp (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's ask for a third opinion. oknazevad (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Seeing that you have only used 3O once (back in 2017), and that the article still appears to heed the uninvolved editor's advice, that seems fair. I am still smarting from how much time you made me waste on spurious arguments, though, and no matter how this ends, I sincerely hope you reconsider your future editing - and reverting - interactions with other editors. CapnZapp (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a further few days to give you time to read my reply and decide on how you want to proceed. Hopefully you understand that given your absence, I will choose to interpret it as you choosing to disengage. CapnZapp (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I ask you to file the 3O request, being you're the one looking to add material that's been challenged. oknazevad (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No. You brought this idea up, not I. If you persist in opposing my addition without even once giving a constructive counter offer, and you expect me to escalate, 3O is not going to be my choice. But let's not discuss that. Instead - as I see it, the best path forward right now is to again ask you: what lofty ideals do I have to fulfill in order to be given your personal seal of approval? What about Baby Yoda's eating of bone broth is missing for you to stop opposing the addition? How much more of a cultural moment does it need to be for you to give it your royal assent? Only once did you come close to giving a hint: when you referred to the text in the In Popular Culture policy example. But when I did supply recipes, I got only dead silence in return. CapnZapp (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)