• Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create an account.

  • product-image-quickten.png.a40203b506711f7664fc62024e54a584.pngDid you know that these all-volunteer forums are operated by the 501(c)3 not-for-profit Society for Culinary Arts & Letters? This holiday season, consider a tax-deductible Quick Ten Bucks to support the eG Forums and help us remain completely advertising-free. Thanks to all those who have donated so far!

porpoise_oil

Calcium Lactate vs. Calcium Lactate Gluconate

9 posts in this topic

I've recently started experimenting with spherification, and particularly reverse spherification.

I bought calcium lactate and was initially just using this when I was doing reverse spherification, but when I went to my local supplies store recently they suggested I get calcium lactate gluconate as well - although they were a bit vague on why I'd use this in preference to calcium lactate, saying only that it was "better".

Would anyone mind telling me what the 'gluconate' bit adds or changes to calcium lactate? Is there a rule about when I would use one over the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Cooking Issues Hydrocolloids Primer:

Different recipes specify the use of different calcium salts. The three most common are calcium chloride, calcium lactate, and calcium lactate gluconate. Calcium chloride is 36% calcium, is inexpensive, and is very soluble in water, but has a terrible taste. Calcium lactate is 13% calcium, is more expensive, and is not nearly as soluble as calcium chloride, but it tastes much better. Calcium lactate gluconate, or calcium gluconate, is only 9% calcium, is much more expensive than the others, and is not very soluble—it needs to be dissolved in hot water, but is flavorless. In recipes, calcium chloride baths are usually between 0.8 – 1.5%. Calcium lactate and calcium gluconate are usually used in quantities between 2–5%.


Chris Hennes
Director of Operations
chennes@egullet.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lactate-gluconate is pretty much undetectable taste-wise, the lactate slightly less so but still infinitely better than calcium chloride (which is absolutely horrible). Other than that, in some cases you may need to use a little more lactate-gluconate as it contains less calcium by volume than lactate. I've rarely found that necessary in real-world use though. Usually you can 1:1 lactate and lactate-gluconate. There will be very few (if any) cases where you will notice the difference taste-wise in actual use so I would disagree that you actually "need" both. If you're uncomfortable with having to make an adjustment and/or will be extremely disappointed over failures if something happens to not 1:1, having both means you can just exactly follow established and tested recipes designed for either.

Edit: should have known the CI guys would already have it covered... good find Chris!


Edited by Tri2Cook (log)

It's kinda like wrestling a gorilla... you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is tired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting - I was wondering the same thing a few months ago and googled around to find an answer. I made some notes that the combination of calcium lactate and calcium gluconate is especially soluble, which is the opposite of what the CI text listed above says. I wish I made a note of where I read it, so I can compare sources. Unless it was referring to solution clarity, rather than solubility. If calcium lactate gluconate makes a clearer (ie more transparent) solution then I can see why it would be preferred for spherification. So now I'm wondering why one source is saying the calcium lactate gluconate is especially soluble, while another says it isn't...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much for all the information!

ChrisZ - I came across the exact same information about CLG being more soluble than CL. I saw it in this post on the eGullet forums: http://egullet.org/p1520456. It lists this PDF as one of its sources: http://www.jungbunzl...onate_Aug02.pdf.

That PDF states:

CLG has the highest solubility of all commonly used calcium salts

This seems (from my understanding anyway) to contradict the Cooking Issues Hydrocolloid Primer that Chris Hennes linked to above. However I haven't read either in full yet - tonight's job!

Also, for what it's worth, the cost difference between the two was negligible when I bought it - it worked out to be AUD$0.01/g more expensive for CLG than CL.

So I'd be curious to know which is correct too - I now have both CL and CLG so I might just try running a little experiment myself to see which seems to be more soluble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I learned yesterday that CLG is used in many drink formulations for weight loss, weight gain, protein drinks, and etc. A friend of a neighbor used to own a body-building supplement company and CLG was incorporated into their various mixes because it remains in solution and helps other mineral salts to also remain in solution instead of rapidly precipitating out after being liquidized in COLD liquids.

He says it is especially effective in liquids that contain a significant amount of acid (fruit juices) where other calcium salts will not only precipitate out but will actually clump in the presence of acid and also with certain proteins and fats.

The subject came up because I was showing the forum to some of my neighbor's guests on an iPad and this guy saw the topic title.

He also said that it is also often combined with magnesium because the combination has a higher absorption rate - to replenish electrolytes - than the minerals alone.

He's not a chemist but has a degree in physiology and studied the activity of minerals etc., in the body. I think he is going to join the forum as the list of topics sounded interesting.

I realize this doesn't answer your specific questions but I learned something and thought you might find it somewhat interesting.


Edited by andiesenji (log)

"There are, it has been said, two types of people in the world. There are those who say: this glass is half full. And then there are those who say: this glass is half empty. The world belongs, however, to those who can look at the glass and say: What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!" Terry Pratchett

My blog:Books,Cooks,Gadgets&Gardening

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Everyone.. my 1st post..

Its very hard to get these ingredients in Hong Kong so I'm actually having these ordered on Amazon and getting my friend to help me bring these back.. so, I'm trying to buy as least as possible too keep his free couriering services indefinite, thus i need your experiences in helping me get the correct ingredients for Spherification.

from what i have read and deduced (from www.molecularrecipes.com):

Calcium Chloride is for Basic Spherification, and does not taste so good.

Calcium Lactate less bitter and dissovles in Fat. and used in Reverse Spherification

Calcium Lactate Gluconate, for high Acid, no tastes, alcohol and fats are good.... Reverse Spherification..

So, my questions are:

#1, can Calcium Lactate Gluconate be use for both Reverse AND Basic Spherification?

#2 If CLG is can be used for Basic Spherification, i would only need the one calcium - CLG ?

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short answer is yes, just the CLG will cover all jobs including the standard spherification. The slightly longer answer is that it may require a little experimenting on your part when substituting in a recipe based on one of the other options. Also, unless it's just in the interest of following a recipe exactly, there's no benefit to even using the standard spherification. I don't do much of it anymore, for me it was more about wanting to learn how than actually having much actual use for it, but I pretty much adapted all of the recipes I was doing to the "reverse" method.


It's kinda like wrestling a gorilla... you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is tired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By eG Forums Host
      Introduction

      Welcome to the index for the Sous Vide: Recipes, Techniques, & Equipment topic, one of the largest and most influential topics on eG Forums. (The topic has been closed to keep the index stable and reliable; you can find another general SV discussion topic here.) This index is intended to help you navigate the thousands of posts and discussions to make this rich resource more useful and accessible.

      In order to understand sous vide cooking, it's best to clear up some misconceptions and explain some basics. Sous vide cooking involves vacuum-sealing food in a plastic bag and cooking it in a water bath at precise temperatures. Though it translates literally as "under vacuum," "Sous vide" is often taken to mean "under pressure," which is a misnomer; not all SV cooking involves food cooked in conditions that exceed atmospheric pressure. (See below.) In addition, calculations for SV cooking involve not only time and temperature but also thickness. Finally, due to the anaerobic conditions inside the bag and the low temperatures used, food safety issues are paramount.

      You can read the basics of SV cooking and equipment here. In the summer of 2005, Nathan Myhrvold (Society member nathanm) posted this informative, "I'm now going to answer my own initial questions" post, which addresses just about everything up to that point. For what came next, read on -- and be sure to order Nathan Myhrvold's highly anticipated Modernist Cuisine book, due in spring 2011.

      As with all indexes of on-going discussions, this one has limitations. We've done our best to create a user-friendly taxonomy emphasizing the categories that have come up repeatedly. In addition, the science, technology, and recipes changed over time, and opinions varied greatly, so be sure to read updated information whenever possible.

      Therefore, we strongly encourage you to keep these issues in mind when reading the topic, and particularly when considering controversial topics related to food safety, doneness, delta T cooking, and so on. Don't read a first post's definitive claim without reading down the topic, where you'll likely find discussion, if not heated debate or refutation, of that claim. Links go to the first post in a series that may be discontinuous, so be sure to scan a bit more to get the full discussion.

      Recipes were chosen based solely on having a clear set of information, not on merit. Indeed, we've included several stated failures for reference. Where possible, recipes include temperature and time in the link label -- but remember that thickness is also a crucial variable in many SV preparations. (See below for more information on thickness.)

      History, Philosophy & Value of SV/LTLT Cooking

      Over the years, we've talked quite a bit about SV as a concept, starting with this discussion about how SV cooking got started. There have also been several people who asked, Why bother with SV in the first place? (See also this discussion.) What with all the electronics and plastic bags, we asked: Does SV food lack passion? Finally, there have been several discussions about the value of SV cooking in other eG Forums topics, such as the future of SV cooking, No More Sous Vide -- PLEASE!, is SV "real cooking," and what's the appeal of SV?

      Those who embrace SV initially seek ideas about the best applications for their new equipment. Discussions have focused on what a first SV meal should be -- see also this discussion -- and on the items for which SV/LTLT cooking is best suited. There's much more along those lines here, here, and here.

      Vacuums and Pressure in Sous Vide Cooking

      As mentioned above, there has been great confusion about vacuums, pressure, and their role SV cooking. Here is a selection of discussion points on the subject, arranged chronologically; please note that later posts in a given discussion may refute earlier ones:

      Do you need a vacuum for SV cooking, and, if so, why? What exactly is a "vacuum"? Click here, here, and ff. Are items in vacuum-sealed bags "under pressure"? Does a vacuum sealer create a vacuum inside the bag? Do you really need a vacuum, or can you use ZipLoc bags? Also see here, here, and here. If "sous vide" means "under pressure," aren't the items in the bag under pressure? There is more along these lines to be found in this discussion.  

      The Charts

      We've collected the most important of many charts in the SV topic here. Standing above the rest are Nathan Myhrvold's charts for cooking time versus thickness and desired core temperature. We worked with him to create these three reformatted protein tables, for beef, fish, and chicken & pork.

      Nathan provides additional information on his charts here. Information on how to read these charts can be found in this post. For an explanation of "rest time" in Nathan's tables, click here.

      Other Society members helped out as well. Douglas Baldwin references his heating time table for different geometric factors (slab/cylinder/sphere) here; the pdf itself can be found here. pounce created a post with all three tables as neatly formatted images. derekslager created two monospace font charts of Nathan's meat table and his fish table.

      Camano Chef created a cumulative chart with information gathered from other sources including Thomas Keller's Ad Hoc. Douglas Baldwin shared this chart devoted to pasteurizing poultry. PedroG detailed heat loss and steady state energy consumption of sous vide cookers in these charts.

      Finally, there is also an eG Forums topic on cooling rates that may be of interest.

      Acknowledgment & Comments

      This index was built by Chris Amirault, Director, eG Forums. It was reviewed by the eGullet Society volunteer team as well as many Society members. Please send questions or comments to Chris via messenger or email.
       
       
    • By TdeV
      Wikipedia defines pork wings as: a pork product made from the fibula of a pig's shank - a single bone surrounded by lean, tender meat.
      Images from the internet look like a finger-size bit of meat around a bone.
      Mine, however, look more like the meat (lots) which surrounds a bone. My butcher called this cut pork wings.
      You can see on the right that there's a small amount of bone.
         
       
      My butcher said he regularly ate SEVERAL of these. But this one measures 15 oz (425g).
      He also said it had to be cooked slowly.
       
      So, if I cook these sous vide, what temp and for how long?
    • By jedovaty
      Good morning!
       
      Long story short: I am doing a spin off the coconut/chocolate/almond candy (almond joy), and trying to create a specific shape out of the almond.  My hands are cramped after a couple dozen failed attempts whittling roasted almonds, so now I'd like to try a different approach, and instead, create some kind of sub-candy or cookie with roasted almonds that I can put into a mold or use a mini cookie cutter.  I'm fairly new to sweets, my knowledge in this area is pretty slim.  Some ideas so far, I don't like any, but it might help turn some gears:
      1. dusting almond over a stencil, but that's not enough almond nor crunchy enough
      2. almond brittle, but that's too hard and sweet, I'd like it more of a soft crunch, and bringing the almond flavor forward
      3. meringue with almonds (sort of macaron-ish), however, weather has been humid and raining here, and I'm ending up with a gooey mess instead of that soft crunch
       
      In addition to having almond-forward taste and soft crunch texture, it'd be fun to explore something modernish - I have a accumulated a few tools and ingredients not customarily found in homes.
       
      There are dietary considerations I will have to account for, however, no need to worry about that now, I am just looking for ideas and a place to take it from there
       
      Thank you for your time in reading!
    • By Franzisaurus_Rex
      FOOD BRETHREN!
      I need some advice. I have one last piece of pork belly confit in the fridge. I brined these bitches for about 5 days (brine included pink curing salt), vacuum sealed the squares of pork belly with lard and sous vide them at 158 F for 16 hours. I cooked this on 11/10/16 and its been in my refrigerator since. 
      Here is the general recipe I followed, with some modifications based on my taste: https://www.chefsteps.com/activities/...
      The last piece is still vacuum sealed and submerged (mostly) in lard. Any visible pork only has contact with the bag. 
      It's staring at me. And calling my name.
      I want to deep fry this sucker and have a little date night with the handsome devil I see in the mirror every morning, but the last thing I want is spoiled food. I can't find any conclusive information about how long pork confit lasts for. I've only seen references that duck confit or in general that the confit technique will last for months in the fridge. I have found no sources which directly addresses pork confit.
      Questions/Factors I'm Considering:
      - Does pork confit keep for as long as duck confit?
      - Does vacuum sealing have any effect on the length of preservation?
      - Does sous-vide cooking method affect the length of preservation?
      I know I am probably being a bit paranoid, but I thought I would do my due diligence before taking the plunge, so to speak. Any advice on these questions would be extremely helpful and appreciated!
      The Franzisaurus-Rex
      PS - you should totally make this if you are into sous vide, confit, food, or have any respect for the enjoyment of life. Flash-searing these things after cooking was OUT OF THIS WORLD.
    • By JoNorvelleWalker
      The NY Times has a current article in the science section "A Universe of Bubbles in Every Champagne Bottle".
       
      The article asserts that it is better to serve Champagne at warmer than refrigerator temperatures so that the bubbles are larger and convey more flavor.  Also to serve in a narrow glass.
       
      However Gerard Liger-Belair (who is referenced as an authority in the Times article) points out in his book Uncorked (forward by Herve This) that the colder the wine the more viscous and the more dissolved CO2.  Liger-Belair also prefers a goblet to a flute.  I bought Uncorked after reading about it in Liquid Intelligence from Dave Arnold.
       
      Discuss.
       
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.