Guest guest Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 So what is the bottom line? In other words: Can I use only lemon to make my bone broth and I will draw out sufficient and equivalent amounts of minerals out of the bones? Ultimately I care the most about the minerals in the broth, but secondarily I care about taste and I love lemon much more than ACV. If lemon is just as good, I will switch immediately! Thanks for clearing this up, Millie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 I'm not sure why everyone is making such a big deal about lemon juice vs ACV, when I make bone broth, I can't smell or taste the ACV. I have a pretty sensitive palette, but I cannot discern a quarter cup in a gallon or more of water, especially after it has all the good flavor in it from the bones. But, to answer your question, the recipes that I looked at on the WAPF site listed ACV, not lemon juice. Kathy ---- Millie Krejci <moozy21@...> wrote: ============= So what is the bottom line? In other words: Can I use only lemon to make my bone broth and I will draw out sufficient and equivalent amounts of minerals out of the bones? Ultimately I care the most about the minerals in the broth, but secondarily I care about taste and I love lemon much more than ACV. If lemon is just as good, I will switch immediately! Thanks for clearing this up, Millie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 Well, from a solubility viewpoint, the maximum amount of calcium that can be dissolved in the two salts we are talking about is: Calcium acetate: 400 grams per liter Calcium citrate: 9.5 grams per liter So in theory, you COULD dissolve more calcium with acetic acid. I kinda doubt that anyone gets up to those levels though. IME the bones don't actually dissolve: they get soft, meaning the connective tissue (protein) is dissolving, but the mineral part stays intact. You'd need to add quite a bit of acid to dissolve the bones. I don't know if anyone has actually tested the amount of mineral that actually dissolves though. Well, actually someone in this group did some time ago, and there was dissolved calcium, but not to those levels. The French cookbooks say that when the bone starts dissolving the broth gets an odd taste: something that would be interesting to test too. I got this interesting tidbit from Wikipedia: " If an alcohol is added to a saturated solution of calcium acetate, a semisolid, flammable gel forms that is much like " canned heat " products such as Sterno.[1] Chemistry teachers often prepare " California Snowballs " , a mixture of calcium acetate solution and ethanol. The resulting gel is whitish in color, and can be formed to resemble a snowball. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_acetate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_citrate I wonder what would happen if you drank some really concentrated bone broth and downed a few glasses of Scotch :-) This is an interesting article on broth (tho again, no hard numbers about how much calcium is actually dissolved): There is one PubMed article about making bone broth: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8082052?ordinalpos=1 & itool=EntrezSystem2.PEnt\ rez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Because low dietary calcium intake may accelerate bone loss, patients often are advised to increase their dietary intake of calcium. However, some patients may be unable to tolerate good calcium sources such as dairy products. We postulated that the calcium content of soups and stews could be increased by prolonged cooking with a beef bone. Three experiments were done to prove this theory: (1) a bone soup made with a beef bone and distilled water, cooked for 24 hours; (2) a bone-vegetable soup cooked the same way; and (3) a vegetable soup made the same way but without the bone. It was concluded that prolonged cooking of a bone in soup increases the calcium content of the soup when cooked at an acidic, but not at a neutral pH. Which seems to indicate that the calcium maxes out at 3 hours. I couldn't access the article itself though, to see the details. I'm pretty sure you COULD dissolve all the calcium in a bone into the soup ... I'm not sure if it would taste good, or how much acid you'd need. Our ancestors actually ate quite a bit of bone, just plain bone. Esp. fish and small bird bones (either of which is less likely to contain much lead or mercury than a longer-lived animal). For instance, if you cook fish in the Japanese manner, where the bones are exposed by splitting the fish down the middle, the bones get crispy and are rather nice to eat (like potato chips!). On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Millie Krejci <moozy21@...> wrote: > So what is the bottom line? In other words: > > Can I use only lemon to make my bone broth and I will draw out sufficient > and equivalent amounts of minerals out of the bones? Ultimately I care the > most about the minerals in the broth, but secondarily I care about taste and > I love lemon much more than ACV. If lemon is just as good, I will switch > immediately! > > Thanks for clearing this up, > Millie > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 That PubMed abstract is very strange because the conclusion -- ie acid not neutral medium -- isn't part of the experiment which only seems to differ bone/boneandveg/no bones. All three were cooked for 24 hours which is interesting but I can't see where the conclusion about acidic medium has come from Sally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 The abstract also doesn't say anything about reaching a peak in 3 hours, but a comment ABOUT the PubMed article said that. Anyone here a student or have access to articles? On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Eva family <bobsallyeva@...> wrote: > That PubMed abstract is very strange because the conclusion -- ie acid > not neutral medium -- isn't part of the experiment which only seems to > differ bone/boneandveg/no bones. All three were cooked for 24 hours > which is interesting but I can't see where the conclusion about acidic > medium has come from > Sally > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 Where was the comment? Have you got the original Pubmed reference? Sally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 It was at: http://thegoblet.blogspot.com/search/label/calcium (Lots of other good info there too: quote below) ======================= According to a Pubmed abstract (1994) I found, calcium content of chicken soup increases with duration of cooking. So simmering your bones for 3 hours will leach the most calcium into the soup. (Note: a beef bone was used in this particular experiment but common sense would say that any bones would be helpful. Also, the study was performed in mind of people who could not use dairy for a calcium source. The calcium content appears to have maxed out at three hours. Apparently there was no improvement in calcium content of the soup after that period of time.) There are caveats though, the broth needs to be acidic. That means plenty of acidic vegetables need to be in there with the bones and water. So, if you don't add the cabbage, you will never get the same leaching of calcium, no matter how long you boil those bones. Grandpa was right, it's just not the same without the cabbage. Docguide.com: Chicken soup revisited: calcium content of soup increases with duration of cooking. Calcif Tissue Int. 1994 Jun;54(6):486-8. On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 1:14 AM, Eva family <bobsallyeva@...> wrote: > Where was the comment? Have you got the original Pubmed reference? > Sally > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 I usually use ACV, but last time we ran out I didn't feel like buying more. Instead, I filled the bottle with kombucha! I'm a bit sensitive to vinegar and stock is the only thing I use it for. Plus, the kombucha got very acidic (it does have plenty of acetic acid). I've been using that lately and it seems to work too. > > ============= > So what is the bottom line? In other words: > > Can I use only lemon to make my bone broth and I will draw out sufficient > and equivalent amounts of minerals out of the bones? Ultimately I care the > most about the minerals in the broth, but secondarily I care about taste and > I love lemon much more than ACV. If lemon is just as good, I will switch > immediately! > > Thanks for clearing this up, > Millie > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2008 Report Share Posted August 17, 2008 > Which seems to indicate that the calcium maxes out at 3 hours. I > couldn't access the article itself though, to see the details. So, according to this article, it would be actually better to only boil it for three hours, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2008 Report Share Posted August 17, 2008 On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 2:44 AM, maartendeprez <maarten.deprez@...> wrote: >> Which seems to indicate that the calcium maxes out at 3 hours. I >> couldn't access the article itself though, to see the details. > > So, according to this article, it would be actually better to only > boil it for three hours, right? It depends what you are after. Are you after calcium? And why does it max after 3 hours? My guess is that the vegies have some acid in them (which is what the article implies), which would be oxalic acid maybe? Once that is used up, no more calcium will leach. But if you add more acid, I think more would leach. You can dissolve bones totally, if you use enough acid. (there was this scene in a movie ... !). I cook bones though mainly for the collagen ... so I cook it til the collagen dissolves. This doesn't take too long in a pressure cooker. Usually I bring it up to pressure, cook for a bit, then turn it off and let it set 8 hours or so (it takes forever to cool down: and it's cooking that whole time). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 Actually, it's better to never bring your broth to a boil, just under a boil is best. HTH, Sal! according to this article, it would be actually better to only boil it for three hours, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 I'm a little concerned about this. Usually I boil my broth at the beginning so I can skim it more easily. Then when it's done I remove all the bones and bits of meat and skin and put it on a very high boil. Even boiling like mad it still takes hours and hours to reduce the volume to a reasonable amount and a decent strength. Sometimes I reduce it to a fumet - this is very handy because we don't have much room in the fridge. Is this wrong? Mike > > Actually, it's better to never bring your broth to a boil, just under > a boil is best. > HTH, > Sal! > > according to this article, it would be actually better to only > boil it for three hours, right? > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 What are you skimming? Fat? If you aren't skimming the fat, boiling it hard does damage the fat. Kathy ---- captainmikee <captainmikee@...> wrote: ============= I'm a little concerned about this. Usually I boil my broth at the beginning so I can skim it more easily. Then when it's done I remove all the bones and bits of meat and skin and put it on a very high boil. Even boiling like mad it still takes hours and hours to reduce the volume to a reasonable amount and a decent strength. Sometimes I reduce it to a fumet - this is very handy because we don't have much room in the fridge. Is this wrong? Mike > > Actually, it's better to never bring your broth to a boil, just under > a boil is best. > HTH, > Sal! > > according to this article, it would be actually better to only > boil it for three hours, right? > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 No, I'm only skimming the scum. I don't think I'd be able to skim the fat while the stock was still in the pot. I wonder if that's why my fat always comes out runny.... Mike > > > > Actually, it's better to never bring your broth to a boil, just under > > a boil is best. > > HTH, > > Sal! > > > > according to this article, it would be actually better to only > > boil it for three hours, right? > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 There are so local woman that teach NT-style cooking classes. And they taught us not to cook it too hard, or too long because it damages the fat. Since I use free-range and grass-fed bones, that's real important to me cuz there are lots of goodies in that fat! I don't skim my scum. I agree it would be hard to skim when its hot. Kathy ---- captainmikee <captainmikee@...> wrote: ============= No, I'm only skimming the scum. I don't think I'd be able to skim the fat while the stock was still in the pot. I wonder if that's why my fat always comes out runny.... Mike > > > > Actually, it's better to never bring your broth to a boil, just under > > a boil is best. > > HTH, > > Sal! > > > > according to this article, it would be actually better to only > > boil it for three hours, right? > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.