Is stew the most idiot-proof form of cooking? Literally impossible to fuck up

I think stew is easier. At least if you don't properly season a stew, the natural flavors in the ingredients still kinda pull their own weight. And if not, at least you can have something hot to bite into. In a broth, if you don't season it right, it's going to suck no matter what. Granted, you can season it later if you're cooking a dish with it, but I'm assuming here that the broth, like the stew, is the final product.

while I do enjoy a nice hot cup of broth in the winter, I thought I was the odd one out because of it

If for some reason you use lean meat and cook it for hours it becomes dry. Also if you use typical stew meats and don't cook them long enough, they'll be chewy
If you use carrots and potatoes, it's really hard to turn them into mush.

I've never made a stew before i should figure that shit out

step 1. get stock (broth, wine, cider, even water)
step 2. throw shit in
step 3. cook it

ez

you can season it afterwards too if it turns out too bland

Yep, pretty much. Gotta be pretty retarded to fuck up a stew.

I made some pretty shitty tasting stew when i was in my early 20s by using water instead of stock... as well as doing a bunch of other stupid shit, like using the wrong cuts of meat and not enough veg, thickeners, and seasoning...

If you are following a recipe, it should be very difficult... but there are some techniques, such as browning the meat and deglazing the pot, and making a roux or thickening the mixture which could be a little tricky.

I generally make my stock WITH the stew. The cheapest, toughest cuts I can get and some bones, browned/roasted with a bit of fine mirepoix, and simmered for hours with the base/hard spices/herbs/leaves.

Interesting. How's that turn out?

That stew looks greasy as fuck

>most idiot proof
I argue that notion

I can't agree.

Stews have many subtleties that without experience or much foreknowledge on flavor and how to draw it out, they can be watery or in most cases, a missed opportunity.

Many people just use water and literally just dump things in. Others don't even have a clear idea or goal and throw everything in but the kitchen sink which is crapshoot.

If homemade stock is used, that implies additional hours of work, and stock CAN be fucked up too, turn out too funky, too weak or maybe just not versatile enough that it serves as just a base without remaining as the single element you'll taste in the stew.

I see it much like baking, a labor of love that is much more delicate and subtle, the signs to watch while cooking can be easy to miss.

This, Stews would typically be done without stock (they make their own) since stews were peasant food and stocks were expensive (in terms of time and fuel cost to simmer water for 8 hours). An example would be Lyonaiise onion soup won't have beef broth in it.

Even poor people could make stocks, user. The raw materials are bones and trim--something a poor person would certainly have access to. Also, in a cool climate it was normal to have a fire going 24/7 anyway for heating purposes. It took no additional energy to simply stand a pot next to the fire or pushed partway into the coals.

You could add bones to the stock but you'll get more flavor from making a stock first and then adding it to the stew because the stock can cook a lot longer than the stew could.

From Michael Ruhlman's Blog

That's a specific soup from a particular cuisine.

No, all stocks were costly and time consuming. Think about it, sweetie. Why would a stock be "Costly and time Consuming" to make onion soup but not for anything else? Is critical thinking not in your repertoire?

>sweetie

The blog post you cropped refers to one dish in a particular cuisine.

You can use nicknames all you want. What you're stating beyond the blog is only your opinion.

It says it wouldn't be used for that soup, not that they did not use stock for any dish or that they didn't even make it. It's not meant to be characterized as prohibitive in its cost, only that it was not used for that soup, which the author uses to justify his stance on the purity of the dish's flavor without it.

>costly and time consuming
>costly
>Peasant stews.

Things just aren't sinking in are they? Stocks were used by careme and escoffier not the peasants.

The third party account you posted here as your source speaks of only one dish. Sorry you can't see the nature or your source objectively.

So your citations are better than a food writer that has worked with Michelin starred chefs such as Thomas Keller? Show them to me, i'd like to see.

I'm staying on your own. It's more than sufficient.

You are misrepresenting its content. That's all I'm pointing out.

In a general conversation about stews the blanket statements that they were typically not done with stock was backed up with a blog entry about a specific dish, in a particular type of cuisine, from one country. Do you not see the inherent flaws in using that to back up such a broad generalization?

>I have no citations
alright, keep thinking that peasants had the extra coals to heat up large pots of water and the meat to throw away after making a stock. No, the great thing about a braise/stew is that it makes its own stock during the cooking process.

You didn't even read.

God I hope you're a troll.

I asked for citations and you gave me none.

Good day.

You can't always get what you want, but I did give you what you needed.

You gave me a preposterous notion that peasants had meat to throw away in a stock and they could afford coals to heat up the water. Both are insane. I'm guessing you're the type of suburban soccer mom that thinks," why don't people just get healthy food at whole foods? It's what I do and I'm healthy! "

neck yourself.

>so much shit I never typed
>meat

I mean, user, get a grip.

Stock is made with meat (gives it flavor) and bones (gives it body)

Jesus you don't even know what stock is.

You really need to get a grip.

You're picking imaginary fights and can't even focus on what's actually typed due to what you infer BECAUSE you want to pick imaginary fights.

>meat

Ok.

So. What you think constitutes stock is only made using both meat and bones. Your statement is stock needs meat. You know it came be either or, right? You don't need meat to "throw away".

Yup, you don't know how to make stock.
Good luck with your gelatin water.

>-cooking a stew with water instead of something flavorful like stock or wine

Stupid faggot.

How is it you would....

>all bones from every animal produce the same result and aromatics dont exist

Am I doing it right?

People ruin stew by using cheap cuts and falling for the 'cook it for hours at a low heat' meme
I use prime cuts, like fillet for example.

are you idiots a stew advert company

Or perhaps Carl Weathers.

Water-using "cook" detected.

Yes, they are advertising home cooking.

You fucking inbred mongoloid.

Maybe soccer mom tier beef and vegetable pre portioned in a bag with a seasoning mix that has the cooking instructions on it stew. but that shit is boring

I truly think the most idiotproof form of cooking (that is using non microwave heat to actually cool something not shit like making a sandwich) is breakfast food like scrambled eggs or pancakes

Yes, they can be undercooked or overcooked but the room for error is huge.

homemade stock > water > bought stock

This.

You CAN use water, but why would you these days?

EVERYTHING is better when you use stock instead of water. It's one of the things that separates a good dish from a great one.

Save your bones / trimmings, toss them in a pot with some water, simmer that shit over night, store in the freezer until needed. Too easy.

a stock pot is not a garbage can, user

I keep a plastic bag in the freezer with beef and poultry bones and trimmings, and once I have enough, I do a stock run. It's too easy.

does your family get grossed out if you pick their gnawed on chicken bones off their plate and put it in your baggie?

Doesn't work that way, user.

Only the raw stuff that gets left behind during prep work gets saved.

I go through a lot of chicken thighs because they're cheap and delicious, and I de-bone them sometimes. Likewise, when I buy whole chickens, I'll spatchcock them and save the spine. Same thing for the beef.

>Doesn't work that way, user.
sure it does. Ever heard of brown stock where you roast the bones before making stock?

yeah scrambled eggs are something people pretend to be finnicky about but really they are edible in just about any form.

you can let it go too long and the meat falls apart, or you can go not long enough and the meat is cooked but tough

>Literally impossible to fuck up.

Wrong. My mother does so bad I think she trolling.

>uncooked venison cut into 2" square pieces
>onion, potato, carrot, celery each a mouthful by themselves
>literally need a fork to eat as nothing fits on spoon and is mush outside, raw inside
>stock is...............ketchup

lollll

Sure, but that's not how I do it. I just save stuff from prep, and anything that gets cooked, gets tossed after. If I want brown stock, I'd just roast up the stuff I saved from prep.

When I would walk in the house and smell ketchup "cooking" I lied my ass off: have to work, have a date, going to [sporting event] at school, etc.

That fucking smell, made me instantly hate life. My dad though, eats that shit like he's in a competition with me (though i'm, skinny, I feel like Lardass from Stand by Me - ready to throw up on the spot.

That's a lot more roasting since you're not just caramelizing but actually cooking it.

Why not also, additionally, save cooked bones from roasts?

Do you never cook any meat with a bone?

All the recipes I've seen say to brown the meat in the same pan you make the stew in, but my only one is really shallow (pretty much flat) and can't be put in the oven.

Brown your meat in a fry pan on the stove burner
deglaze with some liquid. (look up the word deglaze for the method)
then pour the liquid into your stew pot.

this same techique is used by people with slow cookers.

>Do you never cook any meat with a bone?

Mostly chicken and pork butts, but not too much beef.

I'll save a cooked ham bone, but I don't go through the trouble of saving the small bones from cooked meals the way this user thinks

>don't brown the meat
>don't simmer long enough
>too much water

First time I made stew, I did something I wasn't aware you could fuck up with...

>Adding flour to the meat too long before searing

meat turned into a sticky mess that wouldn't brown in the pan. It was horrible. Stew came out okay, but I can't help but wonder if it would've been better had I done it right...

>All these people in the thread saying you can fuck up a stew

Just because someone didn't make stew the "right way" doesn't mean they fucked up. It doesn't matter if they didn't wear the meat, have mushy vegetables, didn't use stock or enough salt, they still made stew that is still edible.

The ONLY way to fuck up stew is to burn it.

I have witnessed some terrible fuck-ups with soup. Most people think of stew as even more simple, thick soups, and they tend to fuck them up less as a result, but I've tasted some where people tried to get too creative with their chili and other more "normal" stews and fucked it up with weird flavors. It's not bad when it is simply a little different, but when the flavors are simply off and they know it, then keep adding other stuff to try to fix it until it's this hodgepodge of stuff that doesn't work together and just kind of clings to your memory as a morbid curiosity until the next bite, just for confirmation, it's not a good fix.

Oh, I've also seen a roommate used russets, totally over cooked the veg, and then stirred too much, resulting in mealy potato carrot tomato stew slop.

>all these fine dining fucks thinking you have to strain and refresh the veg because it gets fork tender.
Christ, you think you use the techniques/waste of a michelin starred joint and separate your meat from aromatics and strain a stew.

>Told her I hated her stew
>Dad grinned like a Cheshire Cat
>He drew closer to Mom
>She was trembling, frantically trying to understand
>She muttered "F-fine, more for your Father!"
>He pushed her aside
>Looked me in the eyes and said:
>It would be my privilege

>Is stew the most idiot-proof form of cooking
>pic is literally peas, carrots, cabbage, green beans and celery in the lamb stew

To me, stew should be like 80% meat and stock with 20% carrot/celery/onion.

Late reply, but we didn't have any stock at the time. But thanks for the tip, i'll know what to do for next time if it happens again.

Use demi glace or better than bouillon paste, fool.

This should be in addition to wine and good vinegar.

how to screw up a stew as done by my mother.

>use good expensive lean cuts of meat
>add no fat
>boil everything in just straight up water.
>no spices or herbs. except salt and black pepper
>hope you like tomato. because i just added a 36 oz can of diced tomato and the juice. so now all you taste is tomato.
>i don't like doing prep work. so meat and veggies are all cut into large pieces. you'll never have more than one item on your spoon at a time.
>all brought to a boil as quickly as possible than then considered done.

That's just like... your opinion man

Peas and beans are good in most stews. I don't think I'd ever add cabbage to them, but cabbage is also good in certain stews (especially with a bit of a Hungarian or Slavic spin).

Mirepoix is a given, but it's not an end, just a means.

I actually like my stews with "mushy" vegetables

Well no fool am I! haha
Look guys, I make stew all the time.
Sometimes only with ingredients that rhyme!
Best use of leftover meats before aquiring slime!

Stew is what I do. Oh, do-ey do-ey do!
If ya knew me well you would know it was true!
Stew! Stew! Stew!

>idiot-proof

No such thing exists.

Some things are more idiot-RESISTANT than others, like stew, but NOTHING is idiot-PROOF.

I messed up ice cubes once. I think I added too much water