• 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 FeChef
      This year i decided to take a 22lb turkey and remove the Leg quarters and sous vide @165F for 6 hours. I also removed the turkey crown and sous vide it @ 150F for 4 hours. Both were immediately ice chilled and put into the fridge. The plan is to reheat back in the sous vide @ 135F and right before serving time, deep fry in the turkey fryer for a few minutes to crisp up the skins.
       
      I just am just not sure the time needed to bring this pretty large whole deboned (3-4 inch at the thickest spot) turkey breast up to temp. The leg portion is about the same thickness maybe slightly thinner. Given there is 4 hours till serving time, I am wondering what effect 135F would have if left in for 4 hours? I am looking for traditional textures. Relatives will not eat if any hint of pink.
       
      Anyway, 1,2,3,4 hours @ 135F from 38F already pre cooked. 3-4 inches thick.
      thanks
    • By TdeV
      I've just cooked two lamb shanks sous vide for 72 hours at 141F in separate bags. When I opened the first bag, the shank looked and smelled great.
       
      The second bag, however, smelled bad (to me). The shank was covered in gelatinous red stuff. My husband is less smell-impaired than I, so he ate that one.
       
      The two shanks were purchased from the meat market associated with the Department of Animal Sciences at the local university where the students will have butchered the animals.
       
      I'm wondering if what's possible is that one of the shanks did not have all the blood drained out. And that the smell which I've associated with "bad" is actually the smell of blood.
    • By ulterior epicure
      Can anyone illuminate me on the appeal of cooking meat by putting it in a plastic bag and boiling it? I've had this at many a (fine) restaurant and I fail to appreciate the ecstasy at which some seem to undergo when encountering (or offering) this preparation...
      Short of sounding absolutely ignorant, I realize that the technique affords great advantages to some products (like foie gras), but chicken? pork? Tender as they may be, I prefer a more natural way of "sealing" food - perhaps the age-old bladder or other non-porous offal
      I ask only because I wish that I could be "enlightened" and join the swooning masses when offered this preparation at a restaurant...
      U.E.
    • By bhsimon
      I want to make mint spheres for use in a hot sauce. (Think lamb with mint caviar.)   Can this be done? Is it possible to make heat-stable spheres?   What is the most effective way to extract mint flavour from the raw leaves? I don't want the resulting spheres to contain alcohol as it will be served to children. My cursory investigations indicate that glycerol may be an alternative—has anyone done this?
    • By boudin noir
      I recently did some halibut steaks sous vide. They were about 1 1/2  inches thick. I did them for 30 minutes at 122 degrees. When i took them out to brown them, they were very fragile. As I browned them they fell apart. They were delicious, perfectly cooked from an eating point of view, but ugly. Too hot, too long or both?
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.