Bone Broth Question

[Owen'nZoe]

I don't follow NT, but figured you all would be the people to ask about bone broth. Hope that is OK!

I've been making bone broth from chicken carcasses after I roast the chicken for the family. I just use the chicken carcass with a little meat left on it, water, a tablespoon or so of white vinegar and a piece of kombu, and put it in the crock pot on low for the whole day. It turns our really well, and gels in the fridge, which I've read is a good sign that it is a good, healthy broth.

However, I was just talking to my mom about it, and she thought that since I roasted the chicken first, and didn't make the broth with a whole stewing chicken, it probably isn't very nutritious. She felt that the roasting destroyed all of the good stuff in the bones. Also, I mentioned to her that I never seem to have the layer of scum that all the recipes say I should be spooning off for the first hour, and again, she said this was a sign that the good stuff wasn't leaching out of the bones.

Thoughts? Is mom right or can I just disregard? Thanks! Also, if anyone has any suggestions for improving my broth making method, I'd appreciate it!

[Rhiannon Feimorgan]

I'm still learning this stuff, so I might be way off bace but it's my understanding that most of the "goods stuff" coming out of the bones are minerals. As far as I know, while vitamins can be changed or destroyed by high temperatures like roasting or frying (this is one reason it's better to steam veggies than boil them), minerals withstand this better.

I find that the less "other stuff" meat, skin ect I have on my bird the less scum I end up with.

[kallyn]

I've read that the scum is coagulated protein strings, so it would make sense that if you didn't use meat you would get less scum. The scum isn't something you want to eat, so I don't see why its presence would necessarily make the stock better!

[velcromom]

My copy of NT says to roast meaty beef bones at 350 til well browned before making the stock. If the roasting were going to ruin the value of the stock I don't think it would be recommended.

I cannot see wasting a good carcass when I'm thinking that the pp is probably correct in that the minerals are still present in the bone even after the meat has been cooked, otherwise they'd be soft, and the fact that the resulting stock gels upon cooling is proof that the gelatin-producing components like cartilage were still there as well.

Even if we were totally wrong about that, the fact remains that broth made with the bone, previously cooked or not, tastes a million times better than any other! Good enough reason to do it!

[tboroson]

Now, why would roasting the bones diminish the nutritional quality, but that nutrition is not damaged by boiling them?

Bonestocks without the meat are pretty darned traditional. Most chefs do it that way. When you boil the meat for hours, eventually it turns out pretty dried out. Most chefs aren't going to waste that meat like that.

[Owen'nZoe]

Thank you ladies! I'm going to keep making those wonderful broths just like I have been.

[saratc]

Compared to bones, meat contains very little minerals. Meat has it's place providing phosphorus, protein, and such but based on a traditional diet, the whole animal is valuable and will give you complementary nutrients. And as pp mentioned, usually you get scum with cooking the meat, and some of the scum is coagulated blood from the meat and some are protein strings. Cooked well until it gels and the bones get soft (and almost disintegrate), I would say bone broth is more nutritious than what the meat can provide.