Re: Calcium and Bone Broths

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Soaking a

>bone in an acidic solution, such as vinegar, dissolves its mineral salts,

>causing the bone to become rubbery and flexible. "

Yes, but vinegar is hugely more acidic than broth. When we make broth, we

add a little vinegar -- or wine, which isn't even as acidic as

vinegar. And when we make broth (or at least when I make broth) bones come

out crumbly and kind of honeycombed-looking, not rubbery and flexible.

Look, I'm not disputing that our stocks have more calcium than regular ones

-- probably much more. I'm just suggesting that we're not transferring

minerals from the bones we use to the stock en masse like some people

sometimes suggest we are.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> >Soaking a

> >bone in an acidic solution, such as vinegar, dissolves its mineral salts,

> >causing the bone to become rubbery and flexible. "

>

> Yes, but vinegar is hugely more acidic than broth. When we make broth, we

> add a little vinegar -- or wine, which isn't even as acidic as

> vinegar. And when we make broth (or at least when I make broth) bones come

> out crumbly and kind of honeycombed-looking, not rubbery and flexible.

I understand that, and, in fact, I bet adding two tbsp of vinegar to a gallon

of water for chicken stock doesn't even change the pH much at all. The

excerpt from the book wasn't meant to " prove " that that would occur, but was

meant

to illustrate the concept of how mineral salts are formed in bone, as a basis

for my inability to understand how the collagen could dissolve and leave the

mineral salts behind. It just doesn't make sense, the way the two are

intertwined. Dissolving the mineral salts and leaving the collagen behind is

much

more likely, since the collagen is much bigger.

> Look, I'm not disputing that our stocks have more calcium than regular ones

>

> -- probably much more. I'm just suggesting that we're not transferring

> minerals from the bones we use to the stock en masse like some people

> sometimes suggest we are.

Perhaps not, but they must have a significant amount of calcium, and it seems

much more likely that the associated Ca salts are dissolving with the

collagen than not. The mineral salts are not associated in a giant crystal like

a

big rock, they are associated in microscopic crystals in the spaces between

collagen. When the collagen is gone, are they just going to magically

crystallize

in place? If so, you would see a radical gemoetric restructuring of the bone

and it would get much smaller. Instead what you see is the same-shaped,

same-sized bone with a bunch of pits and holes in it.

Anyway, we should be able to calculate it. It was difficult for me to figure

out how to find the change in K with a change in T, because most of the

formulas utilized some data point we didn't have. There are only two formulas

that

relate G or K to G *standard* (which is what the thermodynamic data charts

give you), and one, delta G = delta G standard + RT lnQ requires you to know Q

or K, which is what we're trying to find out. Anyway, if, later, I can find

out how K changes with T, we should be able to make a reasonable guestimate how

much CaCO3 and Ca(3)PO4(2) is going to dissociate into solution when boiling

it. We can also figure how the pH affects this by determining the formation of

HPO4, H2PO4, H3PO4, HCO3, and H2CO3, all of which would push the equilibrium

for the dissociation of the respective compounds to the right.

Again, I suspect the pH modification of the amount of acids recommended in NT

is somewhat miniscule, but maybe that can shed some light on how we can

rearrange the recipe to maximize Ca content of the broth.

This would be a rather laborious calculation, but for various reasons, I

don't mind it, as I'd like to keep my chem and math skills sharp, so I'll

probably

try to do it when I get home this evening.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>It just doesn't make sense, the way the two are

>intertwined. Dissolving the mineral salts and leaving the collagen behind

>is much

>more likely, since the collagen is much bigger.

Presumably collagen is much more soluble than calcium, but whether it makes

sense or not, we're not getting rubbery bones, we're getting crumbly,

brittle lumps of calcium. Presumably there's some collagen left, but from

the texture of the bone remnants, I tend to think that we're sucking out

more collagen than calcium.

Anyway, if you find the time to do a calculation I'd be interested in the

results.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/04 5:22:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,

michaelantonparker@... writes:

> Bone size, strength considerations could totally throw the numbers

> off I think. Consider as a thought experiment the case of taking a

> bone and smashing it or grinding it using mechanical energy, not heat

> energy, and then placing it in the stockpot. In the extreme case if

> your grinding was fine enough then you get 100% Ca dissolution with

> no relation to heat input!

The calculation would be a rough estimate, hardly perfect, but would just

give us a reasonable idea of what to expect. However, mechanically grinding the

bone would do nothing to increase the solubility, which would be limited by

the solubility equilibrium. Of course you need exposure, but the proteins that

contribute to tensile strength and that hold the mineral salts in place are

much more soluble than the salts themselves, and clearly dissolve into the

water, so I dont' really see why that's an issue.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/04 5:22:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,

michaelantonparker@... writes:

> But

> please follow through with this wonderful exercise anyhow! There's

> no doubt something good will come from it, at the very least a

> wonderful clarification of the questions to ask! It would be

> especially great to run your results past some senior expert in a

> relevant field. Integrating various domains of sophisticated

> knowledge like that is very impressive! (Heck, that's the kind of

> stuff that'll get you into better phd/md programs!) Go for it!

Thanks for the tip and the encouragement :-)

I think I'm going to have to go to an expert just so I can find the

appropriate thermodynamic data. It's almost impossible to find on the internet.

I

just realized that the data I have is the delta G of *formation*-- I was

assuming

I could just reverse the sign for the dissolution of the compound, but I just

realized that formation doesn't mean formation from Ca and PO4, it means

formation from each element in their naturally stable state, which includes the

phosphate formation from phosphorus and diatomic oxygen.

So I need to find the delta G for the actual dissociation reaction. I assume

someone will have some sort of encyclopedia that has all these values.

I'm doing independent study research into nanocrystals, and this week I have

to review solubility, so on Friday I'll run this by my teacher, since its sort

of on the subject.

Chris

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@

> But we should be able to calculate how boiling would increase the

solubility

> equilibrium for calcium carbonate and calcium phosphate with

> K=e^(-detaGstandard/RT) for T=373K (boiling) if one gets the

standard change in free energy

> from a selected thermodynamic data chart.

@@@@@@@@@@@

Wouldn't you need to use surface area in your calculations? That

would vary hugely for different animals and different types and

shapes of bones... I mean otherwise you'd have numbers reflecting

the solubility equilibrium for stuff that was in the middle of a

chunk of bone even after the full heat treatment period, since we all

know large bones don't *completely* fall apart, or even mostly fall

apart. Maybe you could fudge with average diameter numbers for

multiple cases.

Bone size, strength considerations could totally throw the numbers

off I think. Consider as a thought experiment the case of taking a

bone and smashing it or grinding it using mechanical energy, not heat

energy, and then placing it in the stockpot. In the extreme case if

your grinding was fine enough then you get 100% Ca dissolution with

no relation to heat input!

My gut mathematical feeling is that things like this would skew your

numbers so much that they wouldn't have any practical meaning. But

please follow through with this wonderful exercise anyhow! There's

no doubt something good will come from it, at the very least a

wonderful clarification of the questions to ask! It would be

especially great to run your results past some senior expert in a

relevant field. Integrating various domains of sophisticated

knowledge like that is very impressive! (Heck, that's the kind of

stuff that'll get you into better phd/md programs!) Go for it!

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

Mike-

>In the extreme case if

>your grinding was fine enough then you get 100% Ca dissolution with

>no relation to heat input!

Except it's even more complicated than that, because you'd almost certainly

reach the saturation point long before you dissolved all that calcium in

the water.

I'd love to see Chris' calculations, but even so, as you say, they're

almost certainly meaningless in any real-world sense due to the

multiplicity of other variables that would need to be accounted for.

-

[Guest guest]

Hello everyone. I've decided to let , my son, age 2 1/2, try some raw

goats milk in the form of yogurt and kefir. I'm a little concerned about

this, however, because both sides of the family are lactose intolerant. I

have read that many lactose intolerant people do better with yogurt/kefir,

so I'm willing to try it. I want to replace the soy yogurt I have slowly

phased out of his diet. He has so many picky issues that I feel a source of

minerals and protein like goats milk would be a nice addition to his diet,

seeing that he will probably stop breastfeeding within a year or so. I know

lastase production decreases with age for many people, so I'm thinking I

could just watch for any signs.

Has anyone here been able to digest dairy after being lactose intolerant?

What about your children? I know in Cuba and Trinidad( is

Cuban/Italian/Trinidad/Guyanese) there was alot more goat milk being used,

so I feel it would be a better animal. Also, I know the proteins are easier

to digest.

Any information regarding this subject would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Michele

_________________________________________________________________

There are now three new levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Learn more.

http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us & page=hotmail/es2 & ST=1