BEEF SOUP

BEEF STOCK SHOULD TASTE LIKE BEEF—ALMOST as intense as pot roast jus or beef stew broth—and be flavorful enough to need only a few vegetables and a handful of noodles or barley to make a good soup.

We began our testing by making a traditional stock using four pounds of beef bones fortified with a generous two pounds of beef, as well as celery, carrot, onion, tomato, and fresh thyme, all covered with four quarts of water. Our plan was to taste the stock after 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16 hours of simmering.

At hours 4, 6, and even 8, our stock was weak and tasted mostly of vegetables. And while the texture of the 12-and 16-hour stocks was richly gelatinous, the flavors of vegetables and bones (not beef) predominated.

Knowing now that it was going to take more meat than bones to get great flavor, we started our next set of tests by making broths with different cuts of meat, including chuck, shank, round, arm blade, oxtail, and short ribs. We browned two pounds of meat and one pound of small marrowbones, and we browned three pounds each of different bone-in cuts, such as shank, short ribs, and oxtails. We browned an onion along with each batch. After browning we covered the ingredients and let them "sweat" for 20 minutes. We added only a quart of water to each pot and simmered until the meat in each pot was done.

After a simmer of 1¹/₂ hours, our broths were done, most tasting unmistakably beefy. Upon a blind tasting of each, we agreed that the shank broth was our favorite, followed by the marrowbone-enhanced brisket and chuck. Not only was the broth rich, beefy, and full of body, the shank meat was soft and gelatinous, perfect for shredding and adding to a pot of soup (see figure 5). Because it appeared that our broth was going to require a generous amount of meat, the brisket's high price ($3.99 per pound compared with $1.99 for both the shanks and the chuck) knocked it out of the running.

Though not yet perfect, this broth was on its way to fulfilling our requirements. It could be made from common supermarket cuts like shank, chuck, and marrowbones. Second, it didn't take all day. This broth was done in about 2¹/₂ hours and was full-flavored as soon as the meat was tender. Unlike traditional stocks, which require a roasting pan, stockpot, oven, and burner, this was a one-pot, stovetop-only affair. Finally, this broth didn't require a cornucopia of vegetables to make it taste good. To us, the more vegetables, the weaker the beef flavor. At this point, our recipe called for one lone onion.

What we sacrificed in vegetables, however, we were going to have to compensate for in meat. It took two pounds of meat and one pound of bones to make a quart of broth.

At this point our richly flavored broth needed enlivening. Some broth recipes accomplish this with a splash of vinegar, others with tomato. Although we liked tomatoes in many of the soups we developed, they didn't do much for our broth. And although vinegar was an improvement, red wine made the broth taste even better. We ultimately fortified our broth with a modest half-cup of red wine, adding it to the kettle after browning the meat.

What we had done in developing our recipe for beef broth was to follow our method for making chicken broth—browning and then sweating a generous portion of meat and bones, adding water just to cover, and simmering for a relatively short time—without giving it much thought. We knew the ratio of meat to water was right, but we wondered if it was really necessary to sweat the meat for 20 minutes before adding water. Side-by-side tests proved that sweating the meat did result in a richer-flavored broth. Moreover, the sweated meat and bones did not release foamy scum, thus eliminating the need to skim.

After much testing, we came to this inescapable conclusion: if you want to make beef soup right, you can't skimp on the meat.