 |
| California Bay (left) and True Bay (right) |
Living here in the San Francisco Bay area, I find that there is a lot of confusion about the difference between the leaves of our native “California Bay” (which many locals call “Bay Laurel”) and the leaves of true "Bay Laurel”. This isn’t an esoteric distinction, as each of these plants' leaves are used as culinary herbs. I was misinformed about them when I first moved here. Someone told me that the trees growing in the hills were “Bay trees” and that the leaves were great for cooking. Another friend said that they were the same plant from which we get “Bay leaves”, though they were more pungent than the ones grown around the Mediterranean - because of location, not species. Though I understood that gourmets prefer the more refined taste of Mediterranean bay leaves, it only made sense to use the abundantly available leaves of “bay” trees growing right here in the “Bay Area.”
It turns out that “Bay Laurel”, or “True Bay” - the Mediterranean tree from which we get the bay leaves that most people use for cooking - is actually Laurus nobilus. “California Bay” is Umbellularia californica. Both plants are in the same family, Lauraceae, but, as the Latin names show, they are not just different species, they come from different genuses. Being in the same family, it is not surprising that they share a number of physical features and their leaves include similar flavonoids that make them comparable in cooking - but they are not the same.
For the food chemists out there, the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry (J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61, 12283−12291) tells us that 1,8-cineol is the primary essential oil in Laurus nobilus. Laurus nobilis contains 57% of this compound, but it makes up only 20% of the essential oil in U. californica. Conversely, Umbellulone is 37% of the essential oil in U. californica, but it isn’t found in L. nobilis at all. Methyleugenol, thymol, and α-terpineol make up 8.4%, 7.8%, and 6.5% of U. californica but are mostly or entirely missing from oil of L. nobilis. There are many other differences in the composition of oil extracted from leaves of these two plants. I have reformatted the table from the JAFC article and provided it for your enjoyment at the bottom of this post.
What’s really important for Californian cooks is the awareness that these are different plants with different flavors. Both leaves are equally edible and both can be used in cooking, but substituting one for the other could produce different results. You can think of it like using Italian basil in place of Thai basil, or, possibly, like replacing lime juice with lemon. If the ingredient is a minor element in a recipe, the results might be indistinguishable. But, if it is a key component of a dish, substitution could create a very different taste.
Though L. nobilus is not native to the area, it grows very well in our Mediterranean climate, so one might run into both of these trees. If you're not up to the task of nibbling on a leaf and saying "ahhh, yes, I definitely sense 8.4% methyleugenol", how do you tell them apart? Here are some of the major physical differences between their leaves.
The photo on the left shows the tops of the leaves, the image on the right is of the undersides. In each picture, a leaf of Umbellularia californica is on left and Laurus nobilus is on right
The leaves of Laurus nobilus:
- Wider than Umbellularia californica
- Pointier
- Deeper green
- Have a slightly wavy edge
- Thicker and more brittle than those of U. californica
- Narrower than those of Laurus nobilus
- Have rounded tips
- Are lighter green
- Have a smooth edge
- Are thinner, softer, more supple, and more readily bent than those of L. nobilus.
 |
| Umbellularia californica in bloom |
 |
| Umbellularia californica bearing fruit |
 |
| Umbellularia californica fruit and nut |
The following table lists the compounds found in L. nobilus and U. californica. It is from from The Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry. It has been edited for format, not content.
| Compound | RRI-a | RRI-b | U. cal % | L. nobilius % | ID method |
| α-pinene | 1032 | 939 | 0.1 | 3.8 | tR,MS |
| α-thujene | 1035 | 0.4 | tR,MS | ||
| β-pinene | 1118 | 979 | 0.1 | 3.6 | tR,MS |
| sabinene | 1132 | 975 | 0.1 | 5.7 | tR,MS |
| myrcene | 1174 | 991 | 0.2 | tR,MS | |
| α-terpinene | 1188 | 1017 | 0.2 | 0.2 | tR,MS |
| dehydro-1,8-cineole | 1195 | 0.9 | MS | ||
| limonene | 1203 | 1029 | 0.1 | 1 | tR,MS |
| 1,8-cineole | 1213 | 1031 | 19.5 | 57.4 | tR,NMR,MS |
| γ-terpinene | 1255 | 1060 | 0.3 | 0.3 | tR,MS |
| p-cymene | 1280 | 1025 | 2.1 | 2.2 | tR,MS |
| terpinolene | 1290 | 1089 | 0.1 | 0.1 | tR,MS |
| α,p-dimethylstyrene | 1452 | 0.1 | MS | ||
| trans-sabinene hydrate | 1474 | 1098 | 0.1 | 0.6 | MS |
| camphor | 1532 | 0.2 | tR,MS | ||
| linalool | 1553 | 1097 | 0.4 | 0.3 | tR,MS |
| cis-sabinene hydrate | 1556 | 1070 | 0.1 | 0.6 | MS |
| trans-p-menth-2-en-1-ol | 1571 | 0.1 | 0.2 | MS | |
| pinocarvone | 1586 | 0.3 | tR,MS | ||
| bornyl acetate | 1591 | 0.2 | tR,MS | ||
| terpinen-4-ol | 1611 | 1177 | 6.6 | 4 | tR,MS |
| cis-p-menth-2-en-1-ol | 1638 | 0.1 | MS | ||
| trans-p-mentha-2,8-dien-1-ol | 1639 | 0.5 | MS | ||
| thuj-3-en-10-al | 1642 | 0.5 | MS | ||
| myrtenal | 1648 | 0.8 | MS | ||
| umbellulone | 1657 | 1171 | 36.7 | tR,NMR,MS | |
| trans-pinocarveol | 1670 | 0.5 | tR,MS | ||
| δ-terpineol | 1682 | 0.6 | 0.9 | MS | |
| α-terpineol | 1706 | 1189 | 6.5 | 3.8 | tR,MS |
| α-terpinyl acetate | 1709 | 7 | tR,MS | ||
| borneol | 1719 | 0.1 | tR,MS | ||
| β-bisabolene | 1741 | 1506 | 2.2 | MS | |
| phellandral | 1744 | 0.1 | 0.4 | MS | |
| (E)-α-bisabolene | 1784 | 0.5 | MS | ||
| ar-curcumene | 1786 | 0.1 | MS | ||
| myrtenol | 1804 | 0.3 | tR,MS | ||
| nerol | 1808 | 0.1 | tR,MS | ||
| trans-p-mentha-1(7),8-dien-2-ol | 1811 | 0.3 | MS | ||
| p-mentha-1,5-dien-7-ol | 1814 | 0.2 | MS | ||
| 2-tridecanone | 1815 | 0.1 | MS | ||
| trans-carveol | 1845 | 0.1 | tR,MS | ||
| p-cymen-8-ol | 1864 | 0.2 | 0.2 | tR,MS | |
| cis-p-mentha-1(7),8-diene-2-ol | 1896 | 0.3 | MS | ||
| cuminyl acetate | 1981 | 0.1 | tR,MS | ||
| caryophyllene oxide | 2008 | 1583 | < 0.1% | 0.1 | tR,MS |
| methyleugenol | 2030 | 1404 | 8.4 | 0.9 | tR,MS |
| (E)-nerolidol | 2050 | 1563 | 0.3 | tR,MS | |
| p-mentha-1,4-dien-7-ol | 2073 | 0.3 | MS | ||
| elemol | 2096 | 1550 | 0.4 | MS | |
| cumin alcohol | 2113 | 0.5 | 0.1 | tR,MS | |
| cis-p-menth-3-en-1,2-diol | 2184 | < 0.1% | MS | ||
| eugenol | 2186 | 1359 | 0.4 | 0.1 | tR,MS |
| γ-eudesmol | 2185 | 0.2 | MS | ||
| thymol | 2198 | 1290 | 7.8 | tR,MS | |
| carvacrol | 2239 | 1299 | < 0.1% | tR,MS | |
| elemicine | 2245 | 1557 | 0.1 | MS | |
| α-eudesmol | 2250 | 1654 | 0.1 | MS | |
| β-eudesmol | 2257 | 1651 | 0.2 | 0.3 | MS |
| chavicol | 2353 | 0.2 | MS | ||
| dodecanoic acid | 2503 | 0.3 | tR,MS | ||
| hexadecanoic acid | 2931 | 0.1 | tR,MS |
RRI-a: relative retention indices calculated against n-alkanes on polar column.
RRI-b: relative retention indices calculated against n-alkanes on apolar column (Adams, 2001).
U Cal %: % of compound found in Umbellularia californica.
L. Nobilius %, % of compound found in Laurus nobilius
Identification method: tR, identification based on the retention times (tR) of genuine compounds on the HP Innowax column; MS, identified on the basis of computer matching of the mass spectra with those of the Wiley and MassFinder libraries and comparison with literature data. NMR spectra were recorded on American Varian Mercury plus 400 NMR spectrometers.
RRI-b: relative retention indices calculated against n-alkanes on apolar column (Adams, 2001).
U Cal %: % of compound found in Umbellularia californica.
L. Nobilius %, % of compound found in Laurus nobilius
[each of these % calculated from FID data for polar column]
Identification method: tR, identification based on the retention times (tR) of genuine compounds on the HP Innowax column; MS, identified on the basis of computer matching of the mass spectra with those of the Wiley and MassFinder libraries and comparison with literature data. NMR spectra were recorded on American Varian Mercury plus 400 NMR spectrometers.
Posts
Have you tried a Little Rag Sweet Bay?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.monrovia.com/plant-catalog/plants/3697/little-ragu-sweet-bay/?utm_source=Sunset&utm_medium=BN&utm_campaign=Q12015
Thanks for pointing this plant out. It looks like a nice little tree. The one I am growing is the straight species. This one is Laurus nobilis 'MonRik' PPAF [Note that "PPAF" means "Plant Patent Applied For."] It is said to have been discovered as a sport of Laurus nobilis 'Monem' by Monrovia. Since it is patented, it would only be available from nurseries that retail Monrovia plants. One can only assume that its leaves would be comparable to the straight species in cooking.
DeleteThank you! this was very helpful!
ReplyDeleteFinally! thank you ...
ReplyDeleteWhat a great article, thanks for writing it.
ReplyDeleteVery helpful as I was in a quandary. Thanks you very much for taking the time to write it.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much! When I was a child in Brittany, France there was a huge Laurel nobilis At my grandmother’s, as huge as a house and rounded. My cousin and I had made it our house (being French, the kitchen and the food were the most important: we had brought Camembert, a bottle of (hard) cider, and had plans to raise the shrimps we had caught in our nets at the beach… in the month of August!!!). When I smell those leaves a whole wave of happy memories comes back to me…
ReplyDelete