Veal Stock question

[pfps823]

I'm cooking Thomas Keller's veal stock recipe which calls for 10 lbs of bones, but I only have 6.5. I could make up the difference with either Veal Breast (which has little bone) or beef short rib bones. My inclination is to go with the veal breast, since he and others make a big deal about the benefit of veal over beef, but I also want to make sure it ends up gelatinous enough. Any ideas? Thanks!

[ipsedixit]

How about not using either veal brest or short rib bones and just reducing the other ingredients proportionally to the amount of bones you do have on hand -- e.g. 6.5 lbs / 10 lbs.

[pfps823]

Because the process takes so much time, and you only end up with 2 quarts of finished stock per 10 lbs of bones, I would prefer to make as much as I can and freeze whatever I don't use. I'm actually thinking the next time I do this I may double the recipe and buy 20 lbs of bones.

[almansa]

Interesting - I prefer a good beef stock to a good veal stock, and generally I only use a veal stock to prepare a sauce for a veal dish. I also like to make all stocks with a good chicken stock as the base. Anyway, to address your question, the breast will give your stock a better flavor, and the bones will contribute more toward its texture. This really matters most if your goal is best yield and you plan to reduce the stock to a sauce. If you plan to use it for a base for soup or a braise, then go for flavor.

[TomSwift]

Just to show that every question has at least two sides, I'd go with the short rib bones (assuming you're making a brown stock with roasted bones) rather than the veal breast. I just made a dark veal stock with veal marrow bones but didn't have enough and made up the difference with short ribs. It turned out wonderfully. If you're doing a dark stock the flavor will be intense and I didn't detect any noticable difference because of the addition of the beef.

[opinionatedchef]

i also would go w/ the beef bones here. my all purpose veal stock from jacques pepin is 1/3 @ chicken, veal and beef. rich and lovely.

[pfps823]

I'm planning to try other chefs stock recipes as a comparison to Kellers, cause he's so finicky. Pepin's sounds like it would be a good one to contrast and see if the "purity" of veal is all Keller makes it out to be.

[bushwickgirl]

Good question! I'd go with the veal breast too; you'll get a little extra collagen from the meat. I would trim off the fat though, if it has alot of that as you'll just end up skimming it off later.
I'm curious about T. Keller's stand on the benefits of veal over beef; is that for stock particularly? Is he talking about the bones specifically? Or does it have anything to do with the neutral taste of a good veal stock? Let me know. Thanks.

[cassoulady]

Keller and Michael Ruhlman both say veal stock is one of the main things that can transform a home kitchen beause of the neutral flavor that goes with a lot of foods.

[bushwickgirl]

Yeah, only veal stock will give you that neutral flavor for many applications, beef stock is too brawny, although it certainly has it's uses. I was trying to get the OP to tell me what T. Keller's stand is on veal over beef; I assume he was making the point for using veal bones solely, rather than beef, to get the neutral stock. It's good stuff to have around the kitchen and, as a confidence booster for the OP, stock making is not rocket science.

[pfps823]

Thanks for the responses! Keller writes that it is much cleaner in taste than beef, which he never uses for stock. He also never roasts his veal bones for stock for the same reason - clarity of flavor. He does roast venison, duck and chicken bones. Not sure why there's a difference.

[bushwickgirl]

A white veal stock (unroasted bones) is a cleaner, less complex flavor than one made with roasted bones and especially beef bones; better for use with a wider variety of food products, say, pan sauces where you wouldn't want a more robust roasted flavor to mask a delicate food product. I have never made venison stock but I do roast chicken and duck bones for a richer, deeper stock from a product that is normally rather mild-flavored, as is chicken. It's not about the stock per se, (no pun here) but rather the application of the stock. You know, if you're just cooking at home, making soups, stews and such and plan on using your veal stock for those dishes, you don't really need to have it be so pure. You should make as much as you can in one shot, because it is time consuming; much easier to make a large quantity than several small quantities. You may find, in the future, that for your needs, a dark veal stock is more the thing. There's no wrong stock, consider what you're using it for and that will be your guide.
I used to make beef stock but only for hearty braises and soups, not for pan sauces. Now I just make chicken stock and use that for everything.
Have fun!

[pfps823]

Great advice. Thanks!