I currently have neither and just make it on the stove, but for every year my daily consumption of magical bone-broth is adding to my life, it is taking at least that much away from my husband's due to his anxiety that I will start a grease-fire with my 24-hour+ simmers and burn the house down. Plus the smell kills him and I have promised to do something about it.
In a recent question I asked about how long people simmer their broth and several people mentioned both slow-cookers and pressure-cookers. I like the idea of the stuff being contained and of not spending a ton on electricity (as it seems making it on the stove does), but I am conflicted about which way to go. On one hand, the speed of the pressure-cooker is very appealing, especially since it seems the odds of one blowing its top are quite small. On the other hand, I can't shake the feeling that the pressure-cooker is just not paleo...by which I mean, it is creating a very artificial situation that might be changing the nutritional status of the food, much like some people believe a microwave does. Does anyone know if there is a nutritional downside to cooking with a pressure cooker and beyond that, if you use either, which do you prefer and why.
Thank you...I just want to make the right decision before I part with more money.
I've been making bone stocks in a slow cooker for YEARS - and it works well. 24 hours with enough water to cover, the juice of a lemon to leach minerals out of the bones, and a few bay leaves - to make the smell a lot better!
But about 3 months ago I dug out my pressure cooker and used it to make stock out of chicken bones. 40 minutes instead of 24 hours, and the stock was AWESOME. The gel set was incredible; far firmer than I have EVER got with the slow cooker, and the flavour was AMAZING. Again, far better than I have ever had from the slow cooker. And no need to use lemon juice - the extra heat makes the bones soften well so I am sure all of the minerals are in the broth.
I have now been using it for all of my stocks except one, and it performs really well. The only stock I now make in the slow cooker is when my (organic) butcher gives me BIG beef bones which won't fit in the pressure cooker. Yes, I could find a way to smash them up (a nice stone axe would be very primal!) but I don't.
Otherwise, pork knuckle stock, chicken carcass stock, lamb bone stock, chicken foot stock - they are the best I have made in 40 years of cooking.
I want a BIGGER pressure cooker!!
I used my pressure cooker this week to make it. Came out quite gelatinous and the bones were falling apart (good indicator all the goodies are in the broth IMO). All that in under two hours. I think I'm a fan so put me down for the PC.
I have some classical french training and I would NEVER EVER use a slow cooker. A good stock should never boil, keep it at a very low simmer. It should take hours. My veal stock can easily take 24 hours. A slow cooker is simply too hot, even on its lowest setting.
Now the Modernist Cuisine people love the pressure cooker for stock. Even the amazing Heston Blumenthal supports the use. I now use the pressure cooker for chicken, beef and pork stocks. I still use the over night, very slow method for veal.
More from the Modernist Cuisine people: http://modernistcuisine.com/2012/10/the-amazing-pressure-cooker/
If you're going to buy a pressure cooker just for that I would go with a slower cooker. I made my first batch last week in my slow cooker and I'm addicted. I think ill throw a weekly batch in on Friday nights.
I want a pressure cooker and its great but I'm trying to save money right now so slower cooker it is.
I use a slow cooker, but it it totally about my being lazy than about flavor or "real stock."
I can throw bones and water into the slow cooker, and then ignore it for hours and never deal with it. With stovetop or pressure cooker methods, I have to be home and babysit it.
It does create a smell (my previous roommate hated the smell, so I had to do the broth in my bedroom, which was annoying.) If the smell is an issue, get a pressure cooker so it can be over and done with quickly.
Bonus? Slow cookers are amazing, and any sort of low and slow cooking is great in it. Pork shoulder, brisket, osso bucco, whatever meat, delicious with little work.
Hi, I think I responded to your earlier thread. I endorse the pressure cooker. And of course, if you get a pressure cooker you will be able to use it for a lot of other things as well. e.g. vegetables, braised meats, etc...
Re: nutrients, take a look at this site:
I have had a slow cooker for years, and a pressure cooker for a week. My first batch of chicken broth in the pressure cookers was WAY better than the slow cooker. I don't think I will ever bother with the slow cooker method again. I let the pressure go for about 40 minutes, and the smell was minimal.
I use one or the other depending on my schedule and what i am cooking. A beef knuckle is geat in the pc. For a stewing hen, i might start two in the large slow cooker, ten remove the meat. Bones and skin, which is thick on a retired pastured egglayer, go in the pressure cooker for another round, with the strained broth. After an hour in there i get superrich concentrated stock.
I also love artichokes steamed in the pressure cooker. Even the biggest ones are done in under 20 mins, and turn uot sweeter, without being waterlogged from boiling. Whole beets, too.
Setting for Crock Pot Broth 3 Answers
How long can I slow cook beef? 5 Answers
Bad to heat broth in the microwave? 4 Answers
Do You Eat the Whole Fish? 9 Answers