RE: Re: Bone stock nutritional value

[Guest guest]

,

I second that!!

Chrissie

BunnyearsFamily Heritage Farm

firstclassskagitcounty.org

N. Snohomish/Camano Is. WAPF

,

Would you share your recipe for head cheese?

Belinda

[Guest guest]

said:

Basically what you will find it that bones have no nutritional value

worth mentioning.

Could you please cite a source for this statement?

Thanks,

Kathy

---- Cody <lecody2001@...> wrote:

=============

,

I did a google for you. Here is the web address for the search.

http://www.google.com/search?

q=nutritional+value+of+bone+soup+and+marrow & rls=com.microsoft:en-

us:IE-SearchBox & ie=UTF-8 & oe=UTF-8 & sourceid=ie7 & rlz=1I7SUNA

or

http://tinyurl.com/6qrul2

The marrow on the other hand, is primarily fat.

Given the history of human growth, developement, and evolution, I

would say the driving force was fat and not protein, since early

early man was more of a scavenger than a hunter and all that was left

was bone. So if bone broth is to have any value, the marrow must, in

someway leach into it and of course the nutrient value of anything

you choose to add to it.

Bone marrow from Caribu seems to be particularily fat filled....

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c226S.html

bone broth Prepared by prolonged boiling of bones to break down the

collagen and extract it as gelatine. Of little nutritional value,

since it consists of 2–4% gelatine, with little calcium. See also

stock.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O39-bonebroth.html

>

> Friends

> I understand bone stock is very nutritious (it is the main reason I

no

> longer have duodenal ulcers!), but do we have any numbers, info on

> exactly how nutritious it is? Aka, how much calcium and other

minerals

> it contains for any of the major stocks (chicken, beef, lamb,

turkey),

> etc...

>

> Much thanks

>

[Guest guest]

responded privately with this source:

---------

bone broth Prepared by prolonged boiling of bones to break down the

collagen and extract it as gelatine. Of little nutritional value,

since it consists of 2–4% gelatine, with little calcium. See also

stock.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O39-bonebroth.html

--------

I'd sure be interested to hear what others think of this statement: Of little

nutritional value

kathy

---- Kathy Dickson <kathy.dickson@...> wrote:

=============

said:

Basically what you will find it that bones have no nutritional value

worth mentioning.

Could you please cite a source for this statement?

Thanks,

Kathy

---- Cody <lecody2001@...> wrote:

=============

,

I did a google for you. Here is the web address for the search.

http://www.google.com/search?

q=nutritional+value+of+bone+soup+and+marrow & rls=com.microsoft:en-

us:IE-SearchBox & ie=UTF-8 & oe=UTF-8 & sourceid=ie7 & rlz=1I7SUNA

or

http://tinyurl.com/6qrul2

The marrow on the other hand, is primarily fat.

Given the history of human growth, developement, and evolution, I

would say the driving force was fat and not protein, since early

early man was more of a scavenger than a hunter and all that was left

was bone. So if bone broth is to have any value, the marrow must, in

someway leach into it and of course the nutrient value of anything

you choose to add to it.

Bone marrow from Caribu seems to be particularily fat filled....

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c226S.html

bone broth Prepared by prolonged boiling of bones to break down the

collagen and extract it as gelatine. Of little nutritional value,

since it consists of 2–4% gelatine, with little calcium. See also

stock.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O39-bonebroth.html

>

> Friends

> I understand bone stock is very nutritious (it is the main reason I

no

> longer have duodenal ulcers!), but do we have any numbers, info on

> exactly how nutritious it is? Aka, how much calcium and other

minerals

> it contains for any of the major stocks (chicken, beef, lamb,

turkey),

> etc...

>

> Much thanks

>

[Guest guest]

On May 5, 2008, at 6:17 PM, louisvillewapf wrote:

> There are pits and all sorts of spots that

> used to be bone and the bones are much softer, so I don't understand

> how, if bones are made of minerals and the bones are clearly losing

> themselves into the stock, how then the stock does not contain the

> minerals of the bones.

Actually, the bulk structural components of bone are protein and

minerals. (The protein is what prevents healthy bones from being

brittle like chalk.) It could well be that the vast majority of

what's being pulled out of the bones and into the stock is the

protein, though I wonder whether adding acid, as NT recommends, might

change that somewhat.

-

[Guest guest]

and others,

> Actually, the bulk structural components of bone are protein and

> minerals. (The protein is what prevents healthy bones from being

> brittle like chalk.) It could well be that the vast majority of

> what's being pulled out of the bones and into the stock is the

> protein, though I wonder whether adding acid, as NT recommends, might

> change that somewhat.

Not only the acid, which seems to me at that level of dilution should

have a pretty minimal effect (just guessing...) but the time. If you

look for a nutritional breakdown, if you can find one, you'll probably

get one made from a standard recipe that simmers for 2 hours instead

of 24, which will clearly have much less nutrition.

It seems pretty strange to me that so much protein would leach out and

the hydroxyapatite would just stay put. The hydroxyapatite is bound

to the proteins. So, if the proteins dissolve, it seems rather

imperative that the hydroxyapatite would at least just kind of fall

into the broth if not actually dissolve, and since they are not

aggregated in the bone, they would probably be more or less dissolved,

or somehow integrated into the colloidal suspension of protein.

In any case, " no nutritional value " isn't fitting to say of something

loaded with gelatin, because gelatin is 1/3 glycine, which is used for

detoxification in the liver, and is conditionally essential during

pregnancy, being one of the limiting factors for fetal growth. Also,

it gets depleted in the detoxification of excess methionine, so it

makes sense to balance a diet with a lot of animal protein with plenty

of gelatin.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> Not only the acid, which seems to me at that level of dilution should

> have a pretty minimal effect (just guessing...) but the time. If you

> look for a nutritional breakdown, if you can find one, you'll probably

> get one made from a standard recipe that simmers for 2 hours instead

> of 24, which will clearly have much less nutrition.

Good point. Now that I think about it, I always add a lot more acid

than NT calls for, but even that might not be enough to make a

meaningful difference, whereas the cooking time surely does.

> It seems pretty strange to me that so much protein would leach out and

> the hydroxyapatite would just stay put. The hydroxyapatite is bound

> to the proteins. So, if the proteins dissolve, it seems rather

> imperative that the hydroxyapatite would at least just kind of fall

> into the broth if not actually dissolve, and since they are not

> aggregated in the bone, they would probably be more or less dissolved,

> or somehow integrated into the colloidal suspension of protein.

I don't think hydroxyapatite is tremendously soluble in water, though,

whereas gelatin obviously is, and on top of that, the bones I throw

out after making stock (and for beef/bison/lamb stock, I simmer for 48

hours) are extremely crumbly, suggesting that more protein has been

removed than minerals. Then again, whatever protein remains very

likely wouldn't be structurally effective after all that cooking, so

who knows...

This all just underlines the long-standing need for nutritionally

analyzing NT-style stock.

I'd also love to see a comparison of stock made strictly according to

the NT recipe with stock made with more acid per my usual practice. <g>

> In any case, " no nutritional value " isn't fitting to say of something

> loaded with gelatin, because gelatin is 1/3 glycine, which is used for

> detoxification in the liver, and is conditionally essential during

> pregnancy, being one of the limiting factors for fetal growth. Also,

> it gets depleted in the detoxification of excess methionine, so it

> makes sense to balance a diet with a lot of animal protein with plenty

> of gelatin.

The proline in gelatin also appears to boost the health and enzyme

production of the intestinal lining, IIRC.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> I don't think hydroxyapatite is tremendously soluble in water, though,

> whereas gelatin obviously is, and on top of that, the bones I throw

> out after making stock (and for beef/bison/lamb stock, I simmer for 48

> hours) are extremely crumbly, suggesting that more protein has been

> removed than minerals.

I'm not sure exactly what that suggests. I think maybe it suggests

that the bone is broken apart, proteins denatured, etc. I don't

understand how the hydroxyapatite can be left in the bone in a visible

structure, since it is laid between protein molecules molecule by

molecule. For it to be left in the bone with protein gone, it would

have to reorganize into a crystal or something I would think.

> This all just underlines the long-standing need for nutritionally

> analyzing NT-style stock.

True.

> The proline in gelatin also appears to boost the health and enzyme

> production of the intestinal lining, IIRC.

Interesting, I didn't know that.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> I'm not sure exactly what that suggests. I think maybe it suggests

> that the bone is broken apart, proteins denatured, etc. I don't

> understand how the hydroxyapatite can be left in the bone in a visible

> structure, since it is laid between protein molecules molecule by

> molecule. For it to be left in the bone with protein gone, it would

> have to reorganize into a crystal or something I would think.

Well, no matter how much protein we pull out of the bones and into the

stock, I'm sure a good deal is left behind, so I don't see why it's

not possible that NT-style stock has some calcium and more protein.

How much of the crumbliness of used stock bones is due to denaturing

of the remaining protein and how much is due to removal of protein,

though, is probably anyone's guess.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> Well, no matter how much protein we pull out of the bones and into the

> stock, I'm sure a good deal is left behind, so I don't see why it's

> not possible that NT-style stock has some calcium and more protein.

> How much of the crumbliness of used stock bones is due to denaturing

> of the remaining protein and how much is due to removal of protein,

> though, is probably anyone's guess.

I'm not saying the ratio has to be exactly what it is in bone, just

that it seems kind of implausible to me that if the protein

solubilizes into the water, the hydroxyapatite associated with it will

all recombine with other protein molecules in the bone rather than

fall into the aqueous portion.

I think the crumbliness is probably explained very simply -- the bone

is full of holes. There might be more to it than that, but it seems

to me that might be sufficient.

Chris

[Guest guest]

When I make bone broth, my bones are mush when I finish. I get 3 quarts of

broth from chicken bodies (legs, breasts, things, and wings removed) and I

use 1/4 cup of unpasteurized ACV. I LOVE this stuff and there is no way I

believe it has no nutritional value.

Kathy

Re: Bone stock nutritional value

My sister told me that she used to make bone broth and after the bones

had boiled for awhile she would break open the bones, remove the marrow

and add it to the stock. Then she used the stock to make soup. It

seems to me the marrow would add alot of nutrition to the broth.

>

> Anyone who has a fish tank and gadgets to measure alkalinity of the

> water can use those gadgets (test kits?) to check out their bone

> broth. On another list, one mom checked out her 24 hour chicken broth

> and it came in at 300mg calcium/L (I think).

>

> -jennifer