id
stringlengths 1
7
| text
stringlengths 59
10.4M
| source
stringclasses 1
value | added
stringdate 2025-03-12 15:57:16
2025-03-21 13:25:00
| created
timestamp[s]date 2008-09-06 22:17:14
2024-12-31 23:58:17
| metadata
dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
994
|
Did something happen to "Start A Bounty"?
Is it my imagination or could you Start a Bounty on someone else's question? I've finally found a question that I'm willing to give some rep to, but I cannot find the link.
There is a "start a bounty" link displayed on eligible questions. The criteria for bounties, listed in the FAQ, are as follows:
Questions must be at least 2 days old to be eligible for a bounty.
Users must have at least 75 reputation to offer a bounty.
There can only be 1 active bounty per question and per user at any given time.
Once initiated, the bounty period lasts 7 days.
After starting a bounty, you must wait 1 day before awarding it.
If you do not award your bounty within 7 days, the highest voted answer created after the bounty started with at least 2 upvotes will be awarded half the bounty amount.
Your question is probably not meeting the first criteria. Without knowing the question though, I can't tell you for sure.
In case it's not clear, the start bounty link is shown here at the bottom, just below the add comment link :
Thanks! The question isn't old enough http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11977/kids-lunch-box-suggestion-for-fruit-smoothie-packaging
Am I mis-reading, or was the bounty i put up on Russian Chili never awarded to Cold Oatmeal? I don't think i got a +100 refund or anything like that, but the question doesn't seem to indicate (maybe a browser issue; im on IE 7 at work) a +100 bounty for him (I let the 7 day auto-award do its thing since i had an answer in there).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-12T16:26:49.537760
| 2011-02-09T15:54:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.meta.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/994",
"authors": [
"JPrescottSanders",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/2274",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"None"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2063
|
I was asking a question but I accidently did it under Answers, how can I rectify?
Earlier today I found your website but asked a question before I knew how it worked. See my title
Your account is registered, so you should be able to see the deleted answer to copy-paste from if you can't remember what all you wrote.
First, don't worry. We know that people are not accustomed to our "one question - many answers" format and come with the expectation that we work like a forum.
You are welcome to ask about anything which is on-topic. For this, you can simply use the rightmost button in the navigation ribbon, Ask Question.
When you do this, you will get a box where you can type your own question. It gets a "thread" all to itself, and all the answers will be about it (we mods will take care to keep them to the point). Thus information can be found much easier later, as it is bundled around a single question. Also, you can later accept the answer which helped you most.
Your old post was deleted, to keep others' people questions focused on one thing. This is unfortunate for you, as you have to write it up again (sadly, the system does not have the function to turn it into a question for you, keeping the text) but it has no other bad consequences. You don't lose reputation (the points you see under people's names), you are not earmarked as "bad citizen", nothing. Everybody forgets and moves on.
We have quite a few rules, which new people tend to find tedious. But they ensure that we collect information which others find useful. I know it is a bit hard to orient yourself as a new user. But you have several options, all conveniently bundled in the Help menu:
First, there is a very short tour giving you a rough impression of the basics.
The second point, Help center, contains a very extensive list of pages explaining different topics in detail
If you are still unsure about something, you can ask us a question about how the site works. This is done not on the main site, but on its so-called Meta site, on which we are now. It is accessed through the third link in the Help menu. It works similar to the real Seasoned advice site, but instead of question about cooking, it is for questions about how Seasoned advice works.
When you are on Meta, the first link in the Help center takes you back to the main Seasoned advice site.
I don't see it listed on your profile, so I presume a moderator deleted it. All you have to do to rectify is go ahead and ask it as a question (but please read the help that shows up on the right on the "Ask a Question" page.)
At very minimum, please take the tour. It's short!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-12T16:26:49.666657
| 2015-04-25T21:36:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.meta.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2063",
"authors": [
"Bogdan Lataianu",
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/5009"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"None"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2092
|
Can we have country tags?
Questions like these could do with a country tag (see the comment answer).
I tried to edit one in, only to find out that there seem to be no country tags....
I'd be more inclined to just mention it in the question when it's relevant. Tagging is more a searching/organization thing than a way to convey important information about the question. You don't see the tags until you're done reading the question, and even then a lot of people skim over them, so tagging something united-states will only help so much.
Imagine you wrote a question "How do I make my pie less juicy?" (plus a suitable body) and never said what kind of pie it was until adding a blueberries at the end. Seems kind of unclear, right? I think the same applies here.
I can't imagine a country tag would be useful for very many questions. Your example might be one - terminology that's specific to one country - but even for that one, I don't think it would make sense to hang a "US" tag on it: there's lot's of cross-border shopping between the US and Canada, so sweet cream butter shows up here as well, but then does that mean it needs two country tags?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-12T16:26:49.670585
| 2015-08-06T08:38:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.meta.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2092",
"authors": [
"Rose Lynn Embry",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/7493"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2101
|
Can you provide links to FDA definition of organic that work?
None of your links to FDA definition of organic work.
For example:
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/42503/1672
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/42544/1672
organic == made from carbon.
I suspect that you're talking about some dead links in older answers, but I have no idea which ones...
Can you show where you've seen these links? It's better for us to fix them than for you to ask a new question. If you [edit] your question and include the links to the questions you're talking about, we'll try to fix the links.
I'm going to go ahead and migrate this to meta (the site for discussing things that are on the actual site). If you can point us at any dead links we'll be happy to fix them.
Usually you can fix these things by using archive.org to find the original document, then using Google to search for some snippet of text from it and find a still-working copy. Failing that you can always link straight to the archive.org copy.
Also, despite what that answer said, it's actually the USDA that publishes organic labeling requirements, not the FDA.
Fixed.
Fixed. (Dunno if it's the most useful link, but it's the new version of the site for the same program.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-12T16:26:49.671187
| 2015-08-12T14:57:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.meta.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2101",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Joe",
"eater",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/5122",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"None"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2238
|
just answer the question
Would it be too much to ask for an answer to my question, rather than multiple posts of answers I didn't ask for! I did not get an answer to my question about it being a foregone conclusion that the pork has gone bad? Yes or No?
For reference: the original question here
Repeatedly asking a question isn't going to get your question answered. It is our site's policy that, if an existing question answers a new one, it is closed as a duplicate. The answer you need is there, there's no need to keep asking the question.
Possible duplicate of How long can cooked food be safely stored at room/warm temperature?
Yes. And note that we expect different behaviour from all our users. Start with the [tour] and the [help], especially our be nice!
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is a follow-up rom a disgrunteled user, not a question.
And frankly, expecting us to answer a question as vague ast the original (how long has it been standing around, how does it smell...) is ridiculous. If in doubt, throw it out. We can't confirm what we can't see, touch or smell. Therefore, only the generic post on food safety remains.
Seasoned Advice isn't a one-on-one question and answer service; it's a community. Did you take the time to read the other questions/answers you were referred to?
Your question was answered, by closing it as a duplicate of a more general question. That question says that more than a few hours in the danger zone is unsafe, so there you go: your forgotten food is unsafe, assuming it was forgotten for at least a few hours.
I'm sorry this wasn't communicated clearly enough for you, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't give folks a hard time about it; closing questions as duplicates is part of how the site works.
Actually, yes.
We are not a "service", but a comunity of cooking enthusiasts who ask and answer questions in our free time and without any compensation or similar.
Seasoned Advice, like all other Stack Exchange sites, strives to build a knowledge base of information, not answer the same question over and over again. The original post was vague at best, so the best answer we could give was referring you to the general safety guidelines for food safety - which makes the question a duplicate and thus it was consequently closed.
To be more precise: You did not describe how long the food was at room temperature or any other detail. Yes, "foaming" is probably a sign of spoilage, but you are there, we aren't and none of us can make an informed decision without more (way more!) details. That said, in the linked duplicate post, you will find the often-repeated:
If in doubt, throw it out!
If you don't agree with the rules of this comunity, you are probably not a good fit.
While this is correct this time, we would have closed it even if the actual temperature and time were given in the question, for the reasons I outlined in my answer.
It is indeed difficult to strike a balance between being welcome to beginners (who want very simple information) and interesting to more advanced cooks (who are bored by the too simple questions). As with any expert, if you show enthusiasm in learning about our area, we are likely to have the patience to answer your questions.
Food safety rules happen to be designed around simplicity. You don't need an expert to decide if it is safe or unsafe, you read the rules (which are very short and clear) and apply them to your case, period. So, from our point of view:
if somebody comes to ask about the safety of food left out, this person probably did not know of these rules.
if the person never learns the rules, we will be swamped in trivial and boring questions, generating lots of work for us. The person will have to ask us every time (which takes many minutes) instead of deciding it for themselves (which takes a few seconds), generating a lot of work for them. It is a lose-lose situation.
if the person is presented with the rules and is not interested in learning them, this person appears to see us not in a mentor role (which many of us like having) but in the role of a free service providers (which many of us dislike having). Most people here resent answering the questions of askers not interested in learning (note that I'm not saying whether this is good or bad, just describing the situation).
So, what we do with trivial questions about food safety is to close them as a duplicate of a question describing the basic rules of food safety. Reading the answers to those questions once - even only the top answer - and applying them to the trivial situation is entirely sufficient to provide an answer, reduces our load of trivial questions and is useful for the asker (who is likely to encounter food outside of the refrigerator again in the future).
If your question is closed as a duplicate and you find that the answers don't fit your situation, you can always point that out and vote/flag for reopening. If enough high-reputation users or a moderator are convinced that you are correct, the question will get reopened and hopefully also gain answers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-12T16:26:49.690420
| 2016-04-25T16:44:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.meta.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2238",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"Catija",
"ElmerCat",
"Philip",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/5500",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"None"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3268
|
How do I delete my account?
I signed up by mistake but do not wish to participate. How can I delete my account?
Hello Berthalina, I am sorry to hear your experience was so bad. We are very particular about keeping all posts on the site civil, so I had to edit your question a lot - something which is not done in other cases. As for commenting, if signing up was sufficient to comment, we would be suffocating in messages left by spam bots who sign up automatically. This is why we ask for a bit of reputation before commenting. If you discovered a wrong link somewhere, you can suggest an edit to the post, even without signing up, and somebody will approve the edit.
We are part of a larger network of sites, so account deletion is documented for all sites at once. It is explained here: How can I delete my account?.
To summarize, there are two ways to delete your account. The first one is only available for very new users with almost no participation. In this case, you will see a "Delete" link on your user page under "edit profile and settings".
If you cannot find the link, or if you have already posted much content or voted, you need to request deletion from the contact form, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/contact. In the dropdown, choose "I need to delete my account". A team member will manually delete your account soon.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-12T16:26:49.693394
| 2016-07-30T11:53:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.meta.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3268",
"authors": [
"Daniel",
"brianb",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/6575",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/7175",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"None"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3394
|
Bolding of answers icon (when correct answer present) indents title in question list
Minor layout bug, seen in FireFox (currently latest version 54.0.1) under Windows (independent of browser width)
When the # answers icon is bold because there is a correct answer, the views counter and question title get indented a few pixels:
In addition, here is a specific case where answer vs. answers also shows alignment issues:
Might be Firefox-only - I don't see it in Chrome, on Linux or Windows.
It's a result of the fonts selected and the way they are rendered. Using Firefox on Linux, by overriding the font selection I can make it better, or worse. With default setting, and without knowing which fonts are actually used by each, I get the following results; Chrome- 4 pixel shift, Firefox- 5 pixel shift, and Konquerer- No shift (although the bold "answers" is still slightly longer, 3 pixels, than the regular weight version). If I force Firefox to use Courier 10 for all fonts, then the "answer" and "answers" without bold are not aligned, and the bold "answers" is even farther misaligned.
@GypsySpellweaver and for others reading along: I have Win7 with default fonts; no extra fonts were ever installed.
It looks like they designed the center column "answers" slightly to tight. Each browser, on each system will find its preferred fonts to use to satisfy the CSS font selections. My experiments only confirm your problem, and help isolate the cause, if and when the developers choose to fix it. Because it's such a small deviation, I suspect it'll be an ultra-low priority to correct it. Still, a good catch and a valid report.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-12T16:26:49.708535
| 2017-07-08T14:54:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.meta.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3394",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Lode",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/7829"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"None"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3588
|
Is asking for reliable sources taboo here?
Is asking for reliable sources taboo here?
I have no other way to explain why my question got four downvotes (and the answer got two).
When it comes to food safety, I'm just not very interested in hearsay (and I could easily find it myself, making posting a question requesting it pointless)
I know it's almost a year later, but even the final edit was a pretty vague question "Can ground flaxseed be added to boiling water? (Flaxseed oil oxidizes very quickly, when exposed to air and temperature)". Yes, you can do it. Are you asking about how much oxidation would occur? What if there were issues like clumping (like flour would have)? And then saying that you're only looking for specific types of answers makes it sound like you're either just planning on being dismissive of answers people give, or this is some sort of homework that you're trying to crowd source.
Is asking for scientific source a taboo? No. It’s obviously not good style (remember, we have the voting system as community based quality control mechanism), and I can see that it may raise a few hackles.
However, looking at your post, I doubt that this last paragraph is the main issue the down voters have.
First, asking “is it ok” is very vague. Please give us something to work with - what is your criteria? Flavor? Food safety? A specific property? There’s the tag food-safety, which may be an indication, the tag nutrient-composition that points in another direction and it’s apparently got something to do with fats, but readers don’t like to guesstimate.
Second, I recommend you look at the definition of food safety we use here - see the tag info. In short, “everything that can make a consumer sick within a short time frame”. In most cases, this will be about potential bacterial or fungal contamination and the byproducts of that. There’s an agreement that we will only accept answers based on the recommendations of typically government agencies that publish their information based on scientific studies. We will not accept anecdotal answers along the lines of “my gran did that all the time and we never had problems”. (So no need to call in the scientists, the FDA and others already did.)
But from the comments, it seems that you are not primarily interested in food safety as described above, but in the health benefits of a food item or ingredient. The community agreement at the time of this post is that we will not and can not discuss health effects beyond the immediate impact that is covered by food safety or is clearly measurable. We can answer how heating influences a certain vitamin, but not whether this will cause or prevent an illness.
If your question is about something within the scope of the site, I suggest an edit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-12T16:26:49.722034
| 2019-09-12T05:17:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.meta.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3588",
"authors": [
"Gabriel Fair",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8332"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"None"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3592
|
How do I determine if my knife must be honed and/or sharpened?
I don't think How do I determine if my knife must be honed and/or sharpened? duplicates How to test that a knife is sharp enough??
In the former, I'm asking when to use a honing steel vs. a whetstone/electronic sharpener.
Personally, when reading both questions back-to-back I can see why people would mark your question as a duplicate because you can infer the answer to your question from "How to test that a knife is sharp enough?" pretty easily. This inference, and learning could be done (and really should) as part of your preliminary research as per here.
While, there are differences to the questions - there really aren't enough to justify a whole new question. Combine that with the plethora of resources online about knives, knife care & maintenance and basic techniques. I can see why you got the result you did.
And if rumstcho added a comment about being a "possible duplicate" I would've up voted it for the reasons I stated, as I don't have the privileged to do it myself yet.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-12T16:26:49.722332
| 2019-09-25T04:18:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.meta.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3592",
"authors": [
"Matthew",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8339"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3595
|
For a mod other user was rude. I objected but now my post is gone. Why is my post unable to be edited without peer review?
Why is my post not listed under my questions? Why can’t I delete it?
I tried to put this in meta, but the site won't let me ask a question there. I was NOT permitted to add a comment to any post accept mine. NOW the site won't even let me change my post without it being peer reviewed. I was able to change it earlier. I know this because there was a typo and I changed that. Why???
If a user is not allowed to add to comments, it is not helpful to come tell them you should put your reply in comments. Especially if you aren’t going to answer the original question.
Jumping on a new user is like cyber bullying, and is not “nice”. Which you claim is the rule. New users can ask question and add answers. If you don’t want new members, then you should close membership.
Hi HangryLady, you are right that this post is meant to be on Meta. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/participate-in-meta, especially the end: the reason you weren't able to post here is that we require a first tiny bit of reputation for it, as a spam-prevention measure. Since your post is a legitimate Meta matter, I migrated it for you.
Thanks. Can you delete my original question about the jar of pasta sauce, since you are a Mod? Delete the whole thread? There is no delete question link when I view it. And I can't even edit the question. A user was rude but all of my comments were deleted but none of theirs. I did not believe I was beginning a controversial discussion when I asked about jarred pasta sauce food safety.
@rumtscho my question doesn’t even appear under my list of questions I asked. I am the one who originally asked it though. Would you delete the original question and thread please? I think it is not right that a newbie is bullied and then can't reply. My comments were deleted but other people's comments were left. I'd like the whole question to be removed. Thank you.
@HangryLady For what it's worth, as far as I can tell you've asked a fine question in asking about the jar of pasta sauce. I'm not aware of the context of the rest of what happened, but I think it would be a shame to delete a perfectly good question/answer combo! Perhaps the context I'm missing is key here, however.
@onyz the problem is that another user was unnecessarily rude. I called her own it and then others users backed her up. I didn’t come here to be bullied. If I’m not going to be treated fairly then the question should be removed. I’m not being treated fairly just based on other being allowed to delete or edit MY own post.
@HangryLady I'm very sorry to hear that. It's never fun when a new community isn't as welcoming as it should be. I can remember when I first joined StackExchange the experience was pretty much just as awful as you're describing. It's weird and rude. For what it's worth, the argument in the comments has since been deleted (rude people included) as far as I can tell. I'm not sure if this would be against the rules or anything, but I would be interested to know what the other user said specifically- it's possible that maybe there was just a misunderstanding?
@HangryLady I will note that as far as I'm aware it's not actually possible for moderators to prevent users from deleting or editing posts/comments/etc. Those functions are all done automatically by the StackExchange website for all users. Still, it's unfortunate that you're not having a good experience. I hope you can find something that works better for you.
@onyx for what it’s worth. Luciano confirmed that the delete button should be there but isn’t. My comments are gone. The other comments are just hidden and I can’t edit my question. I've never joined a new community and had it respond so nastily immediately. If that happens to others too, then that’s sad. Sad that it happened to you. Surprised anyone would stay after that.
You have been pointed to the tour and help pages, and have been provided various links and information regarding how the site works (and why you can't delete your question). It's no different for you than anyone else. While we welcome new users, I must ask that you be respectful of others.
@HangryLady as described in the link Sneftel posted, and in Stephie's answer, deleting your question would be against our policy and no moderator would agree to such a deletion. I don't know why Luciano can see the link, but chances are, it may not actually lead to deletion if he clicks it. In any case, we are bound by how the system is supposed to work. I know you regret having started the conversation and wish to make it un-happen. This is not possible. It did happen, other people invested their time in it, and it will continue have value for them and for new readers. So the question stays.
As the "rude" user in question, should I answer/comment providing my point of view, or will that just continue the argument unnecessarily?
@Elenna123 the question is mainly about edits and deletion, not any other events. You may of course answer, but it should clearly address the question. The „answer the question“ rule applies here as well.
@Elenna123 personally, I'd advise not spending any more time on this.
@rumtscho I can see the delete button on my questions, not on HangryLady's. I was just confirming that one should see the button in their own question, unless there's something I'm missing (I have been a user in other SE's for a while, I don't know if it's different for a completely new user). Edit: clearly I should've read the answers below
To answer parts of the literal question:
You can’t edit a post after the first few minutes if you aren’t registered. You also can’t comment on it without the “comment everywhere” privilege or delete it. That simple.
Edit to clarify:
The original question about the jar of pasta sauce was posted by an unregistered account, note the turquoise gravatar.
The posts after that we’re posted by a registered account with the same chosen user name, which has a pink gravatar.
That means that you can see all posts, including deleted posts younger than 60 days, that were posted by the registered account when logging in as such. You can also edit them or comment on them.
You can’t see deleted posts by your unregistered account. For the system, they are from two distinct users. Which means you can perform only those actions that you could do with any other post and that depends on what your privileges permit.
But looking at the other things that came up, maybe this needs a longer answer, covering more than just the question per se.
First, your actual question is quite interesting and it would be a pity to lose it. As it has an answer and that answer has an upvote, you can’t delete it. See here for details.
Second, all SE sites have a very clear format, which is basically “one question on top and multiple answers below”. This automatically means that all posts in the answer section that are not actual answers to the question will be removed. The community members with enough reputation (“points”) can and will do that via votes and/or flags, or a moderator can do that, if they happen to see it. And this deletion is not negotiable, sorry.
Third, comments are per definition temporary. They are intended for clarification or suggesting improvements. They can be removed any time and without prior warning. The remaining comments under your deleted non-answer starting with “Thank you” weren’t removed manually as they were deleted together with the post.
Four, there is the question about rudeness. Some comments were clearly outside what is considered a respectful discussion, calling users “gestapo” or “liar” when they simply point out something that doesn’t fit the site’s rules is not ok and never will be. These comments were correctly flagged as rude by a user and handled by a moderator accordingly.
It is within your rights to delete some1 of your posts. If you happen to be using the app (instead of the website), the “delete” can be tricky to find, it’s the little ‘x’. Maybe this screenshot will help?
It’s a known issue, but I don’t know when or if it will be fixed.
———-
1 Again: Within the limits outlined here.
Yes, I have deleted some of your content. Non-answers and rude comments. That’s not targeting, that’s my task as moderator. But I didn’t do anything to you posts apart from that.
I didn’t make any rude comments. I asked a question NICELY. And I said thank you and clarified in the only way possible. The elenna123 was the one that was rude. And you are rude. Just delete the whole question thread! It wasn’t answered properly.
@HangryLady I see that the answers and comments you are getting from Stephie and other users make you angry. This is not the same as being rude. I can see all posts on your jar question and here, including the deleted comments you and the others made. None of their posts are rude, but several of yours are. I get it that our system can be confusing for new users, since it is structured in ways you may not have encountered before. The purpose of this post, and most of the others, are to explain these rules to you, nothing more and nothing less.
@rumtscho I asked 1 on topic q. And gave 1 nice follow up reply including thank you. Afterward, Elena's whole comment was rude and wrong. Cindy followed me around to every comment to tell me inaccurate info. She didn’t try to answer the jar q. I'm not asking you to take my side but the whole thing should be deleted because it didn’t require all of this nonsense. It’s only a jar of pasta sauce.
@HangryLady we won’t delete your questions for the reasons outlined here.
@HangryLady I hope that my edit now clarifies a bit why you may have run into the “can’t see the post” / “can’t edit” dilemma. We are all trying to help. Please stop calling us liars.
Please read How does deleting work? What can cause a post to be deleted, and what does that actually mean? What are the criteria for deletion?, particularly the sections of the accepted answer discussing "When can't I delete my own post?" and "If I flag my question with a request to delete it, what will happen?". Questions and answers are meant to help the community at large, not just the original poster.
@HangryLady Please access the link provided by Sneftel. It explains why you can't delete your question - it has an answer with upvoted. Your post was in no way 'targeted'. And, no, everyone else can't delete their own questions regardless of answers or votes. That, too, is explained in the linked Q/A.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-12T16:26:49.722462
| 2019-10-17T10:15:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.meta.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3595",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Elenna123",
"FuzzyChef",
"Luciano",
"Onyz",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/70763",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/76810",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"None"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3598
|
How poorly do Vitamix blenders grate/shred/slice winter squashes?
How poorly do Vitamix blenders grate/shred/slice winter squashes? pertains to just Vitamix blenders, and so is more specific than Blender vs food processor vs juicer.
I'm uncertain how my post pertains to "brand recommendations", in view of Good (cheaper) alternative to Vitamix Blender.
The answer to the duplicate question is (basically):
The three types of appliances you have listed have different primary uses, and best purposes, although they have some overlap in their capabilities.
This also applies to any specific blender (such as a Vitamix).
A question that is more specific than its duplicate isn't necessarily better. For example, we also close questions like "I left my raw chicken in my car overnight, can I cook and eat it" with a canonical food safety example. I do not see this as any different.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-12T16:26:49.723401
| 2019-10-21T23:20:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.meta.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3598",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3600
|
Why doesn't this site come with a body-positivity disclaimer?
I've been thinking about why I found this site so very unhelpful and realized that this is because of the implied body-positivity of this SE.
This should be made more explicit to improve user experience, in my humble opinion.
I can't speak for everyone, but personally, I am very much not into body-positivity. I believe that people should strive to be healthy and fit.
In my opinion, cooking-related advice is meaningless unless nutrition and long-term health consequences are considered. Otherwise, I'd probably eat cookies and (real) ice cream all day, while drinking dessert wines every evening. Any food can be made tastier by putting more sugar and fat into it, which is what the food industry is doing, hence the current obesity epidemic.
Anyway, I don't expect to convince body-positive people that they are wrong. However, body-positivity is not something that everyone who finds this site believes in.
So why doesn't this site include some kind of prominent disclaimer saying that it's body-positive, and that advice given here explicitly ignores long-term health consequences (This is currently buried somewhere under food-safety tag info)?
In summary, this site is body-positive, but I'm not. I don't belong here. I can see that now, but if this site had a disclaimer, this would have saved me a ton of time.
Here's a disclaimer that I propose:
We support body-positivity
It should be shown in a way that CANNOT be missed.
I just think this site needs to acknowledge what it is.
Just a reminder: as described here “On posts tagged feature-request, voting indicates agreement or disagreement with the proposed change rather than just the quality or usefulness of the post itself.”
I totally disagree with the idea that "any food can be made tastier by putting more sugar and fat into it....". Taste is subjective and everyone has their own likes and dislikes.
For the record: while we have taken this question in good faith and attempted to answer it directly, some of the content of the question is bordering on what's acceptable under the code of conduct (http://cooking.stackexchange.com/conduct). It is absolutely, completely fine for everyone to have their own views on what is healthy and right for them to eat, and it is not our place to lecture others on the topic. This question does not literally do that, but there are implications I'm not completely comfortable with. So, everyone, please exercise care and respect in continuing this discussion.
The purpose of tags is to collect similar/related questions. Here on meta, the common thread for questions like this is really just that they're about what is and isn't in scope for the site, so I've added that tag. There's never going to be many questions about body-positivity, and additionally the way on which you're using the term here does not quite match common definitions, so I've removed that tag.
-1 because of the manipulative language of the question; body-positivity has nothing to do with this site, which is about cooking techniques and not health/fitness advice. We're here to help others with cooking issues; health issues should be discussed with your doctor or nutritionist.
You've received plenty of guidance at this point. Please remember that while we'll always start by assuming a good faith effort to have a constructive discussion, we do not have to continue making that assumption in spite of evidence to the contrary, and not all behaviors will be tolerated. (See also: the code of conduct.)
This site is not about asking what we should and shouldn't eat, and it's certainly not about telling people what they should and shouldn't eat.
It's about, once you know something about what you want to make and eat, how to make that happen.
Want to make full-fat, full-sugar ice cream? Great! Ask away.
Want to steam vegetables? Great! Ask away.
Want to modify a recipe to reduce fat or sugar? Great! Ask away.
All of these things are equally welcome. This site takes no stance on what people should or shouldn't eat, and certainly not on how they should or shouldn't regard their own bodies. Individuals make those decisions outside of the site, and we just answer the cooking questions they choose to ask.
I'd also like to emphasize something to other users reading this: you are welcome here. You should not be judged for your choices of what to cook and eat, or for anything you might somehow reveal about your body. This site does not explicitly, actively advocate for body positivity (we're just a cooking site!), but we do have a code of conduct that requires users to be respectful to each other. So, ask helpful questions, write helpful answers, and if anything comes up, flag it and we moderators will have a look.
@MaxB Knock it off. That last comment isn't even attempting communication, it's simply combative. I'm late to the conversation here, but what I am seeing now is one user seeing their own opinion as so superior to the opinions of others, that they feel the need to get snide. There is no need for that.
Body positivity? I am afraid that you under- and overestimate this site and its users.
Underestimate in the sense that we will always and without exception strive to be as welcoming and positive as we can - for each and every user that contributes positively to the site and the community. This stance isn’t about body positivity, this is way more. If you want a disclaimer, please see the Code of Conduct.
We don’t question the specific reasons for any food choices - both positive (using more of something) and negative (avoiding something) - an asker may have and we will treat specific information (“I am cooking for vegetarians”, “My father in law hates garlic”, “I am allergic to nuts”, “I don’t eat sugar”) as simple background information limiting the scope of the possible answers. When we ask for clarification, we’re trying to understand what exactly the asker means, e.g. their definition for the term “sugar”.
So if you’re following a specific diet for any reason, we will simply accept that. We will assume that you made an informed choice and that’s it. For the technical aspects of cooking, which is our focus, these reasons are utterly irrelevant.
But you overestimate what this site does. We treat cooking as a craft, a science and an art. But we are not nutritionists, medical doctors or similar. This community has in the past agreed to stay clear from health advice, the reasoning is detailed in various Meta Q/As. We don’t hide this information, it clearly states on the What topics can I ask about here page in the Help Center as off-topic:
General health and diet issue (e.g. "Is cauliflower healthy?")
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
If you are participating in an SE site, you do so within the scope, rules and boundaries discussed and decided on by the community. One of these decisions here on Seasoned Advice says we will not deal with long-term health topics. If you disagree, raise a Meta discussion (or post an answer to the existing Q/As explaining your suggestion), let the community decide. Change of scope is possible and happens, if you gain enough support from within the site’s user base. Until then, the community decision stands and is to be respected. By all users. You, me, anyone.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-12T16:26:49.723502
| 2019-11-13T03:06:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.meta.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3600",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"Jolenealaska",
"Luciano",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8386",
"linkyndy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"None"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3447
|
Questions pointing to video recipe (only) should be closed?
This question points to a Youtube video recipe.
There is no recipe (not even a part) in the text of the question.
IMO it should be closed (most likely as Unclear what you're asking).
Like answers, questions should contain the essential parts, so that they can be understood without requiring us to go to an external source, right?
It's a case by case thing, in my view, and it's always better to edit than to just close, if possible.
Sometimes the details of the recipe are really critical to the question, and sometimes they're not. If we try to make a strict rule about it, we're gonna get it wrong sometimes. We're not doing anyone any favors if we close a question because it linked to a video when it's actually answerable already without watching the video, but yes, we should close if the video details are critical and we can't manage to get them into the question.
This question is kind of a weird example, because it turns out the recipe was for chocolate sauce, so of course it's not solid. There's not much to answer, so the video recipe isn't really much of an issue. Your edit adding the title of the video recipe is enough, though maybe "why isn't this sauce solid?" is close-worthy for other reasons :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-12T16:26:49.730813
| 2018-02-12T08:48:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.meta.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3447",
"authors": [
"Rowell",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/7947"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3798
|
Why are some "Manuka honey" so cheap, like $1 USD/100 g?
I have a question about my Seasoned Advice post: Why are some "Manuka honey" so cheap, like $1 USD/100 g?
How can we rewrite Why are some "Manuka honey" so cheap, like $1 USD/100 g? to make it on topic?
I am not asking about "the economics of food markets". "The higher the [MGO] number, the more expensive your honey will be." Perhaps there are different qualities of Manuka honey?
Within New Zealand you might find cheaper honey that is labelled Manuka but which doesn’t bear an MGO or UMF label. Be aware — it may contain some Manuka, but there is really no way to tell how much.
You can remove all references to price.
The way companies choose to price their products is awfully complicated, and a true answer for a specific product requires the equivalent of at least a master's thesis research in economics. It is not that people cannot think of explanations on the spot, but in reality, these often turn out to be just-so stories.
What we can know, as cooks, is what qualities of manuka honey exist and get sold, no matter for what price. Also, we can suggest signs that may be evidence for good quality honey when you choose which one to buy. So you can build a question along these lines. We even have a tag for it, ingredient-selection. Don't ask for price, or "is this one honey good", but something like "how do I recognize good quality manuka honey".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-12T16:26:49.762018
| 2023-03-15T07:14:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.meta.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3798",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3800
|
Why did moderator rumtscho delete links and pictures in one answer, and delete another answer completely?
I have a question about my Seasoned Advice post: What are possible substitutes for pineapple in sweet and sour pork/chicken?
A picture is worth a thousand words. I showed links and pictures to prove that SOME restaurant uses strawberries. But moderator rumtscho slashed all my hard work to one sentence without proof
Many Chinese restaurants use strawberries to substitute out pineapple.
which makes my post flimsy.
And moderator rumtscho does not explain deletion of https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/123665.
tl;dr: for anybody who has eaten strawberries, a picture of a strawberry is not "worth a thousand words".
I removed the extra content from the answer, because it did not contribute to the answer, and constituted unwanted promotion of a restaurant (regardless of whether you are affiliated). We don't have one-size-fits-all rules on "no brand names" and similar, but we do moderate away gratuitous name-dropping.
In this case, I saw no reason for having the restaurant name and link there, or the pictures. What extra information would they carry? You don't need to provide proof that there are restaurants which use strawberries. This is a very plausible statement, and we believe it without requiring proof. Also, there is no need for visual illustration - people can imagine what a cut-and-cooked strawberry looks like.
The remaining one-line answer is indeed flimsy. If you wish to improve it, you should provide arguments why strawberries are a better substitute than any other fruit.
The second post was deleted, because it was flagged as "not an answer", and I agree with the flagger. There is, again, a large and unnecessary picture, but the text contains no information on how it is cooked. Saying that the broth can be made from chicken or fish is only the barest beginning of an explanation, and else the post contains no useful information.
Note that we don't automatically delete all pictures in general, but look at how useful they are for the readers. I also saw your post on another question, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/123666/4638https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/123666/4638. It also contains a picture. Since it is a food identification question, the picture there makes a lot of sense, and so the post was not moderated in any way.
I was surprised that strawberries are a common substitute, and the photos both helped intuitively confirm it and give me an idea of when in the cooking process they were added. Knowing that the restaurant was in Hong Kong is also conceivably relevant. If you don't see that being that important, okay, but I don't know that those things are somehow problematic enough to warrant being removed. (I can see pruning down to one photo, though, for brevity.) And... the fact that they are a common substitute does seem like a reason that it's a good substitute - it may match people's expectations.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-12T16:26:49.762149
| 2023-03-18T10:30:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.meta.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3800",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/users/1672"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"None"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3809
|
What's the tag for washing before cooking? Please create one?
Users wrongly tagged the following [cleaning], because [cleaning] is intended
For questions about cleaning kitchen equipment after use. Please also tag with type of equipment you're cleaning. Do not use for food preparation (washing produce, cleaning fish, etc), just use the tag for the food you're preparing
How do I clean kale and other leafy vegetables for cooking?
Can I safely clean/eat harvested foods that have aphids on them?
Is it normal to wash an apple, or other fruits, with dish washing liquid?
How to clean food that may have been contaminated by a cockroach?
What is the point of washing produce in cold water?
When washing ingredients, does it matter if the water is cold or warm?
What (new?) tag can envelop the following questions?
How briny should the water be when soaking broccoli to remove bugs?
Red apples safety
Should dry beans be washed before soaking?
What should I know about the peels of raw fruit and vegetables?
Basil - to wash or not to wash? Best practices?
How to wash vegetables without running water?
How do you wash fruit and veggies effectively?
does washing vegetables and fruit with baking soda make sense?
How do I properly wash bugs out of green onion?
is it okay to wash vegetables by soaking/submerging?
Is it safe to not wash mushrooms?
Do you have to wash frozen vegetables?
Appliance to wash or scrub fruit and vegetables? Washer or scrubber
Can I simply soak fruit and vegetables in water for several hours to sanitize them?
Do you need to rinse vegetables that can be peeled?
How important is washing produce?
Super tiny bugs in store bought raspberries
When to wash fruits and vegetables?
Peel first, wash first, or don't peel at all vegetables?
Agreed, we should add the tag WASHING-FOOD (or a similar name) for this. Mostly people seem to me using FOOD SAFETY, which is our most overused tag, making it not very helpful.
An alternative would be something like FOOD-PREPARATION, but that's probably too general to be useful.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-12T16:26:49.763555
| 2023-05-22T05:48:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.meta.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3809",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20072
|
Painted Pony beans pate
I'm going to make a pate using Painted Pony beans as a base. I want to add roasted walnuts, but I don't know whether basil and garlic would be acceptable to put to the dish.
Would this make for a bad flavor combination?
What further spices would you recommend incorporating?
Well basil and garlic could fit well with the walnuts (think about pesto, basil, garlic, cheese and nuts).
With the bean paste... I don't know, I guess it depends what kind of tone you would like to give to the dish.
Stated that the only way to know is to try, I would also try with nutmeg and, if you're brave, maybe even a pinch of cinnamon!
Thanks! I can't even imagine how could cinnamon taste with other ingredients)
@helicera: well, let us know if it works then! (I wouldn't go too strong with the cinnamon, anyway)
Garlic is definitely fine with beans. I haven't encountered the combination with basil, but wouldn't worry about it, it doesn't sound like it would clash.
@rumtscho: Beans with basil are also very good, as they are with garlic and parsley.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.854047
| 2011-12-30T07:13:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20072",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8517",
"jhoepken",
"lexeme",
"nico",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20579
|
Suggested edible quantity/scaling of Habanero Pepper per pound of meat
I would like to use habenero pepper in a chili, but would like to know how many fresh peppers / pound of chili should I use to maintain an edible chili or another what amount is safe to start with. I know there's probably not a cut/dry amount, but any experience in the matter would be greatly appreciated. I planned on pureeing the pepper(s) and slowly adding it in and testing, but a suggested amount would be good to know since I would like to 'marinade' my meat ahead of time.
How spicy is inedible? A pepper may kill some taste buds or cause indigestion but I don't think any reasonable quantity would be unsafe. This seems like it is going to be subjective enough that you will have to figure it out for yourself.
I agree with @Sobachantina. I personally know people who eat food that most people who consider inedibly spicy. The best thing you can do is use a small amount in the marinade and later use more if its not spicy enough. Spiciness generally do not make much of a difference if it isn't "marinaded" into the meat and is okay as an external flavor.
so going for the bare minimum, is 1 pepper/lb too much or is that a reasonable starting point
Do you or the target eaters normally eat/enjoy spicy food on a regular basis? you have to remember that Habernero is one of the spicies chilis you can find in a regular grocery store. If you are not used to it, i would even recommend less than 1 pepper/lb.
It depends what else is in the chili. Meat has a lot of fat and the capsaicin dissolves into it nicely. Chili- especially without beans- doesn't have much to temper the heat so it can get spicy fast. In my chili I think a single habanero would be tasty (especially after it aged for a day) but it would likely be too hot already for my kids.
thanks for the heads up on the effects w/o beans, my intent is to do 4lbs chuck 1lb pork bulk sausage 1lb chorizo all meat chili, so I definitely don't want it to reach blistering by adding too many to start.
BTW, I cut my garden habenaeros into thin slices and dry them. This allows you to add it a few grams at a time (but you have to grind the input---no problem for me since I always grind my own cumin seed anyway). I put a little in every pot of chili because the flavor is really nice.
One habanero per six quarts of chili, containing approximately one quart meat, provides a solid heat that an average palate can handle. I have cooked chili on numerous occasions for groups of people and found this formula works for most people. Typically I stack it with other, lower-Scoville peppers to produce a well-bodied heat.
Other things to bear in mind:
one habanero per six quarts will not really showcase the subtler flavors of the habanero, only bring out its heat.
capsaicin is fat soluble, more fats in the chili gives you more wiggle room to add more heat. Up the meat or oil (bacon fat), up the peppers
browning your meat in the diced peppers will lock away some flavor in the meat as long as you don't stew it forever
using the bulb's flesh, rather than up by the stem will lower the capsaicin in the pepper, discard seeds and pith as well; this will allow more pepper flavor without overwhelming spiciness
some habanero peppers are weaker than others, you might seek out some that are less spicy if trying to add heat
If all you're looking for is heat, a plurality of pepper types/cultivars will yield better heat; single pepper chili can be hotter, but have a thin kind of heat as opposed to a whole-bodied punch in the jaw kind of heat
nice follow-up, I appreciate it. I really want to get as much sweet habenaero flavor without overpowering the chili. Given your bullets, I think I shall cube my chorizo heat it up to draw out some of the fat add the pureed habenaero(minus seeds and white flesh) and add that mixture into my browned cubed chuck : )
@pyi chorizo, like any sausage, is quite ideal sure to its variable fat content. Also, if you select for smokey and sweet chorizo, and double down on paprika you should be able to nail it. Personally, smokey and sweet make for a great one-two
Also, the area of flesh around the stem and the nib at the bottom concentrate the collection.you can probably use two with that much meat is you discard those two areas and use bulb flesh only
for anyone interested, With 5-6lbs of meat, 2 cans 14oz tomato sauce, and some water; it took 10 pureed habanero peppers to get a nice, non-burning heat (which seems like a lot but I think the chorizo fat really did tone it down). That is in addition to fresh home made chili powder via Alton Brown's recipe.
@pyInTheSky how did it go in terms of the flavor being expressed relative to the heat?
the chili came out delicious, but the actual sweetness of the habanero just didn't come out. Perhaps they weren't fresh enough or came from a different region during this time of year, but both the heat/flavor from the peppers was pretty unsubstantial.
I have no experience with this, but making a preparation of pepper oil, then reserving the flesh, may yield lower capsaicin flesh (as I'm guessing the oil would leech the cap).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.854227
| 2012-01-18T19:36:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20579",
"authors": [
"Eldho",
"Flenny Boggins",
"Jay",
"Ryan",
"Sobachatina",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"fred",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8778",
"mfg",
"pyInTheSky"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21290
|
Does natural {peanut, cashew, almond} butter require refrigeration?
I have purchased a few different types of natural peanut butter and all have stated that refrigeration is required after opening. However, I recently purchased Archer's Farms Almond, Peanut & Cashew Butter from Target which doesn't say anything about refrigeration after opening. From what I've read on other sites (anecdotal) and some .edu sites, raw/natural nut butters can grow mold and do require refrigeration. Any ideas on why Archer's Farms butter doesn't say anything about refrigeration?
Peanut butter
unopened 6-9 months Refrigeration not needed. Keeps
opened 2-3 months longer if refrigerated. Natural
peanut butter must be
refrigerated after opening.
http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/yf/foods/fn579-2.htm
I don't think I've ever seen peanut butter grow mold, natural or commercial, refrigerated or not. What will happen with natural peanut butter is that the fat (of which there's plenty) will go rancid over time.
The oxidation process that leads to rancidity requires heat, light, and usually oxygen; keeping it in the refrigerator will therefore slow the process down significantly.
Manufacturers are probably not required to put the "keep refrigerated" warning on nut butters because eating rancid food technically won't kill you or make you seriously ill. When a product says to keep refrigerated, sometimes that's for safety, sometimes it's just for quality - in the case of peanut butter it's typically the latter.
Commercial peanut butter has a ton of sugar and other preservatives, which is why refrigeration is not necessary, even for quality purposes.
Commercial peanut butter often has a ton of sugar.... Most often, but you can buy can just ground up peanuts as peanut butter in the store.
My main concern here was natural/raw nut butter as it has no preservatives and sugar added. Still helpful info, though.
Maybe in USA? but in many parts of the world peanut butter is just ground peanuts, maybe some salt to taste, and maybe a little vegetable oil (often peanut) to help with less oily peanut varieties. Sugar in peanut butter....why?
Call the company directly and ask. I do that with all my foods (I live without a refeigerator). I met people who never refrigerate mayonaisse and lived to tell. Turns out you don't need to if you don't introduce any other food particles into it! Now I never refrigerate mayo, or many other foods and condiments. So it pays to call the company and insist on the truth :-)
While I am glad this works for you please do not encourage others to not follow proper food storage procedures. What we do in our own kitchens is one thing but it is not a good idea to advise others that those practices are okay. That said, no company is going to advise a consumer not to follow proper procedures. In fact, most are overly conservative concerning food safety.
I've never refrigerated my natural peanut or nut butters. I eat it regularly so it does not sit around for long. A quick stir before using.
How long is long? A week?
From what I've read, you can definitely leave natural peanut butter unrefrigerated for a month without it going rancid. Still, always sniff before use.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.854475
| 2012-02-12T19:55:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21290",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Fenin Springson",
"JSuar",
"TFD",
"Teong Henry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8942",
"lemontwist",
"rfusca",
"unforgettableidSupportsMonica"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23227
|
Can I use a Lid for a glass vessel for cooking in microwave?
Can you use a lid for a glass vessel when cooking in microwave?
Glass is fine in the microwave and lidded containers are fine- as long as steam can escape without an explosion.
... and of course, as long as the lid itself is microwave safe. E.g., not a metal lid.
What is your lid made of? What are you cooking? Some lids won't be safe, some dishes can't be sealed airtight or they will explode. If the lid is glass or some other safe material and you aren't creating a lot of steam pressure or the like, you'll be fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.854650
| 2012-04-20T16:07:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23227",
"authors": [
"Asim Khan",
"J. Butler",
"Sobachatina",
"Wally",
"dalimama",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52911",
"skay"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19651
|
How to do hot spiced apple cider without apple cider?
When I lived in the United States, I developed an addiction to hot apple cider. I relied on powder mixes (Alpine, Mott's and so on) - just adding hot water to the content of a package...
Now I'm back to Italy, and I need to make the hot spiced apple cider myself.
The first problem, in Italy is difficult to find apple cider. I've found only French cider from Brittany or Normandy, which is the fermented alcoholic drink.
Questions:
which version of apple cider should I ideally use?
can I use the French cider instead?
can I just use non-alcoholic apple juice instead of the cider?
Edit: it seems that a source of misunderstanding is the word cider, that may indicate different drinks. In the USA it may be a fermented alcoholic beverage made from apple juice, or an unfiltered apple juice. Which one should be used to make hot spiced apple cider?
Hot apple cider in the USA is generally made with non-fermented, unfiltered apple juice, although you can make it with alcoholic apple cider ("hard cider") as well.
According to Wikipedia, apple cider (US usage) is different from apple juice (US usage) in that:
"Apple juice and apple cider are both fruit beverages made from apples, but there is a
difference between the two. Fresh cider is raw apple juice that has
not undergone a filtration process to remove coarse particles of pulp
or sediment. Apple juice is juice that has been filtered to remove
solids and pasteurized so that it will stay fresh longer.
Or, in translation, "apple cider" is apple juice; "apple juice" is filtered apple juice.
So in Italy you should look for brands of apple juice with words like "with bits" or "unfiltered" on the label.
Well, when I was in the USA, I frequently drank alcoholic cider. Also wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cider) says that cider is a fermented alcoholic beverage made from apple juice. So, if I understand correctly, the word "cider" may indicate both the alcoholic drink and the unfiltered apple juice. Is that true? And, in the end, which one should I use for the hot spiced apple cider?
The packages, however, always make a non-alcoholic apple beverage. So to duplicate that, you'd need the unfiltered apple juice. Or, just buy whatever apple juice you can get, and heat it up with a cinnamon stick or two.
At the end of the day there's no "should". If you want alcoholic mulled cider, start with cider ("hard cider" in US English). If you want something akin to what you were making from a packet, use unfiltered apple juice ("cider" in US English).
You could try making your own. Pressing apples isnt that hard to do, but you require a descent amount to make it worth while. Ideally try and find someone with an orchard and ask if you can pick some, however it is very late in the season now and here in the UK at least you would probably be out of luck.
Alternativly just buy the best apple juice you can find, here in the UK we have a brand called Coppella which is high quality and not filtered (well, it contains sediment at least) which would probably work for this purpose.
But if you ask anyone in Europe for cider you will get an alcoholic drink, which can be served warm and spiced (it is around here at any rate).
And yes french cider is ok, but as vwiggins mentions you need to be careful of dry ciders - they will need extra sweetening.
I personally recommend Somerset cider if you can get it and strongly recommend against things like Bulmers, Magners and other mass produced cider.
"you need to be careful of dry ciders - they will need extra sweetening" -- only if you're a wuss ;)
Apple Cider, particularly for the purposes of heating and mulling, should be unfiltered, but more importantly unpasteurized. This is a primary difference you will taste. Also, don't rely on powdered mixes; if you are in Italy, look up a mix (i.e. clove, vanilla, star anise, whatever) and get some actual whole spices (I assume mulling spices are not uncommon) and prepare it like a tea.
I grew up with an apple orchard and moved away in late childhood, and am picky about my cider. I have had excellent pasteurized cider and terrible unpasteurized cider, although I suspect that the excellent pasteurized cider would have been even better unpasteurized.
@peter I would agree, I just mean as a rule of thumb, similar to buy fresh typically entailing better results.
In Europe we would use either.
Cider almost always refers to the alcoholic beverage (except in the US) and what I bought as cider in the US would be apple juice or apple squash maybe.
I think either spiced apple juice of spiced alcoholic cider are awesome. French cider can be very dry though so you would very likely need to add sugar (brown is nice but anything works, honey is very strong tasting with the spices)
Spiced alcoholic cider is quite good, although usually simpler in flavor than that made with raw cider.
The powdered mixes are mostly sugar, apple flavoring, and other spices, such as cinnamon. They are non-alcoholic. Therefore, to duplicate that, use apple juice (fresh, unfiltered, filtered, whatever you can get, but the closer to the apple the better), and heat it with a cinnamom stick and perhaps some other whole spices, such as cloves or ginger.
If you only want a single serving, then take the juice and store it in the fridge, with the spices still in it. Only heat what you want at a time.
You might consider ordering a few bottles of boiled cider, such as that sold by King Arthur. I can't say that I've tried to reconstitute it, but the catalog copy claims that it works.
Another option, if you're really determined (sounds like you might be) and can get apples in large quantity, is to build or buy a cider press and make your own cider. You could be responsible for introducing a new food to your region! Major down side: powdered mixes will never again be acceptable to you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.854753
| 2011-12-14T12:54:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19651",
"authors": [
"Dawny33",
"Eino Gourdin",
"FuzzyChef",
"James Hudson",
"Nameless Person",
"Peter DeWeese",
"Ranzal the pickler",
"Wizard79",
"chmixon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"mfg",
"slim",
"thursdaysgeek",
"user5837581"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
191
|
Which is a typically American way of seasoning spaghetti and other pasta?
When I visit the States I see a lot of pasta and spaghetti in the supermarkets. I wonder which is the typical seasoning (sauce or similar) used by Americans when they cook spaghetti. Of course, when they don't cook Italian-style.
At least, it's better then Sweden where they use Ketchup.
@Curry -- in The Dukes of Hazard, Boss Hog put ketchup on spaghetti. I remembered it always bothered me growing up, but it might be a regional thing. (and well, my mom's Italian-American)
@Curry: I need to move to Sweden, apparently. Parmesan, mozzarella, and ketchup, perfect toppings for any pasta! Add some bacon for extra flavor. /me apologizes to his Italian ancestors.
The most common preparation is tomato sauce and parmesan cheese.
Of course, some Americans will tell you that the only truly American way to eat spaghetti is to top it with chili, then shredded cheddar cheese, then chopped onions, then red kidney beans. It's hard to fully express the majesty of this dish, and should only be enjoyed on special occasions, like the Super Bowl.
In Canada (which I consider to be basically "American"), it's also fairly common to add or replace the tomato sauce with pesto sauce. Soft goat cheese is another common additive. Perhaps these sound "Italian" but I'd consider an Italian pasta to be something more like a bolognese, carbonara, alfredo, or even the trusty old butter/olive oil and parmesan cheese. You'll almost never see tomato sauce combined with pesto sauce in an authentic Italian restaurant (or in Italy), but it's common in American home cooking.
Thank you, this is just what I was looking for, a truly American way!
By the way... what is the "alfredo" pasta?
@Lorenzo: It's a cream sauce, generally made with heavy cream, butter and parmesan cheese, and a little seasoning (salt & pepper). Generally served with fettuccine. Actually, you can usually find Alfredo sauce in packages or jars in supermarkets, so I guess that's starting to become more American too, but it's definitely an imported recipe.
Thanks, I also googled it and it is definitely not a typical Italian way of seasoning pasta (although restaurants advertise as an Italian speciality - http://diario-californiano.blogspot.com/2008/06/pasta-alfredo.html). I think that "Alfredo" could be the real truly American way to eat spaghetti!
@Lorenzo: There's a problem with that analysis - Alfredo sauce is rarely used on spaghetti. To really get the sauce to "stick" you need to use a broader pasta (i.e. fettuccine, although linguine works OK in my experience). I don't know if Fettuccine Alfredo is incredibly common in all parts of Italy, but the recipe originated in Rome, so it's Italian. ;)
I never heard of "Fettuccine Alfredo" in Italy, not even in Rome (in Rome is typical "carbonara" and "amatriciana"). The blog entry I pointed (sorry it is in Italian) explains that this Alfredo pasta is common in the States although totally unknown in Italy. I reword the title to include not only spaghetti.
@Lorenzo: That is interesting. I obviously don't live in Italy and don't speak Italian, but did eat fettuccine Alfredo once when I was there, and do know for a fact that it originated there. I guess it was just never very popular there - wouldn't be the first case of domestic failure / international success.
Googling it I found some interesting links (like http://www.alfredo-roma.it). Although probably they have been actually invented in Rome, they are really unknown by Italians and I've never seen them in any restaurant (not even in Rome). Perhaps some tourist-devoted restaurant has them, but you can hardly call them a typical Italian dish. I will however try them as soon as possible as now I'm really intrigued!
That's just your basic 5-way chili ... there's nothing special occasion about it for people from Ohio.
@Joe: It was a bit of hyperbole. Still, I wouldn't want to eat something so heavy every week.
It appears that it is a relatively recent (1914) invention by a single Italian restauranteur. http://www.alfredos.com/roma.html
Those "some americans" would be an inaccurate minority. Not that the dish isn't good, but is in no way the typical american seasoning for spaghetti noodles.
@Tim: Says you. America is a big place; I pretty clearly outlined the most widespread (and boring) version and also pretty clearly indicated "some", not "most." It's your vote, but I don't think that I wrote anything inaccurate or misleading here.
@Aaron: Which is why I said they were inaccurate, not you. I'm not saying it doesn't happen at all, only that it isn't the typical overall american seasoning for spaghetti, which is what the original question was about. If you would rephrase the sentence to a region or particular cuisine style, I would be happy to change my vote.
@Joe, You've had that? On Spaghetti noodles? Because I've never heard of anything like that... (in Texas).
@JPhi1618 : yes, it's most common in the Ohio Valley area. The chain Steak & Shake serves it, as does the Washington DC regional chain Hard Times Cafe. As chili goes, there tends to be more fillers the further you get from Texas. (I've heard it has to do w/ stretching food during cattle drives ... dunno if that's true or not ... but I'd assume beef would be more expensive the further you got from where it was raised)
I might refer you to this video, where Malcolm Gladwell talks (a little bit) about spaghetti, and how Americans prefer to eat it.
Apparently, companies doing market research found that Americans say they want "real Italian pasta sauce," which is somewhat thinner than "American style," but actually prefer eating the chunkier, heartier sauces now common on supermarket shelves.
Besides what @Aaronut mentioned with Cincinnati style chili, if we're talking pasta in general, and not just spaghetti, I'd say the "American" pasta dish is macaroni and cheese -- from a box.
Although there's regional variations (eg, lobster in New England), it's found in a much wider area than (N)-way chili (3: spaghetti,chili,cheese; 4: add onions; 5: add beans)
Also popular is "macaroni salad", at least along the east coast from at least Pennsylvania to Georgia.
My mom's second-generation Italian-American, so I grew up with carbonara / pesto / oil and garlic / butter and parmesan / crab / tuna / primavera / bechamal / etc (bascially, whatever was in season and/or cheap). My neighbors on the other hand (friends from high school, we take turns cooking), never cooked anything other than tomato sauce from a jar and/or mac and cheese (from a box). They were even surprised when I introduced them to chili over pasta (but their kids loved it).
Normally tomato sauce (Ragu, Prego, etc) with Parmesean cheese on top.
By far, my most common pasta dish to cook is spaghetti in tomato sauce, straight outa my California Heritage Cookbook. Can't get more American than that, can you? ;-)
This tomato sauce is no marinara. It has ground beef, mushrooms, onions, garlic, and celery, and is otherwise made from a base of tomato sauce (29 oz) and tomato paste (6 oz), which gives it a particular consistency and flavor that I'm guessing is more American than Italian, since none of the Italian restaurants I've been to do bolognese in quite that way. The olive oil used for sauteeing the beef & mushrooms is first used to sautee the onions and garlic, which lends a fantastic aroma to the kitchen.
Baked spaghetti is another classic that my elementary school cafeteria loved to do. Take leftover spaghetti in meat sauce, liberally sprinkle cheddar and/or Monterey Jack cheese on top, and bake in a 350F oven for 30 min or so. For the full American educational institution experience, serve with an ice cream or similarly shaped scoop onto a styrofoam tray. :-)
Baked macaroni and cheese is the third I'd mention. It involves layers of large elbow macaroni and cheddar cheese, plus a dash of paprika in the sauce for flavoring (well OK, these days I use a bit more than a dash :-) ). I use the recipe from the Joy of Cooking. For the full-out American experience (not for the faint of heart!), substitute "American cheese" (can you even get this outside of the States?) and butter for the cheddar.
I think you're looking for New York Italian pasta.
The major influence on New York pasta was the unavailability of good quality pastas for quite some time.
The changed the ethos of the dishes from "It's all about the pasta" (the Italian way) to "It's all about the sauce" (the American way)
So what happened was the sauces became very heavy meat sauces (almost a chile con carne but without beans)
A typical recipe would be:
I Can Tomato sauce
1 Can Tomato Paste
Garlic
1 lb Ground beef/pork/sausage meat (or all three)
Mushrooms,
Green and red Peppers,
Onions,
Carrots (optional),
and of course, the Ubiquitous "Italian Seasoning" which is a blend similar to Herbs Provencal, but much heavier on the oregano.
Brown meat and drain,
Chop and saute veggies,
Mix it all together, and simmer for an hour or more.
You'll end up with a pretty thick sauce that can almost be eaten as a Sloppy Joe.
Keep in mind, as with all Italian cooking, there is absolutely no such thing as an "Authentic" or Canonical recipe. Each person has their own version, and there have been bloodbaths in the streets over who's mother makes the better dish.
The history of american spaghetti and meat sauce. It's popularity in America can be traced back to a cookbook published in 1920 by an association of pasta manufacturers.
Per the mass market/tv ads - with red sauce of some sort.
Per I hate tomato sauce on pasta, not in my house.
Just cheese is one method - I prefer a sharp cheddar, but am happy enough with a pecorino romano that's more convenient (seems fine if purchased grated/powdered, kept in fridge) while the sharp cheddar needs to be grated onto the pasta. Most american supermarket "parmesan" might as well be sawdust.
As a gardener (and I suppose per one answer, living near Canada, though I would not think of it as particularly Canadian) straight pesto or pesto with additional cheese is another, not too far off the reservation method.
Branching out into "thought odd" (but very American) land, peanutbutter, peanutbutter and vinegar or peanutbutter and mustard (think of it as "simple peanut sauce" if you like that thought better.)
"Macaroni and cheese" is a widespread product as well, in many variations from horrid to excellent, but done traditionally it's far more work/time than simply grating cheddar on angelhair is. If you apply the same logic that makes red sauce default (sheer volume and lots of advertising) then the horrible (kraft powdered orange "stuff" and competitors in "convenience") rules this market, and probably equals or exceeds the red sauce pasta sales volume, actually. It's "easy food that's widely accepted by children." I personally prefer radiatori as a pasta for for it, and the non-packaged bake it in the oven method if going to the bother at all. Grating cheese on hot pasta usually wins.
Lasagna has an arguably more minor, yet significant, niche.
Egg noodles often show up simply buttered, or in soup.
The Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink (via googlebooks) suggests that Mac and Cheese is both of earlier provenance in the US and indeed still exceeding "with red sauce" in sales.
A little salt in the water used to boil the spaghetti.
For a sauce, our family likes a tomato sauce, like a marinara, that we buy in a jar, and we add cooked ground beef to the sauce to make it a meat sauce.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.855125
| 2010-07-09T20:31:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/191",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chris W. Rea",
"Curry",
"JPhi1618",
"Joe",
"Jordan Parmer",
"JustRightMenus",
"Matt Miller",
"Michael Ekstrand",
"Tea Drinker",
"Tim Gilbert",
"Victor G",
"Wizard79",
"akent",
"derobert",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/945",
"rbp",
"sandy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3409
|
Doing túró at home
Is there a way to do túró (a Hungarian quark cheese/curd with a very specific taste) at home? I miss that specific taste and I've not found a cheese in Italy that approximate it (not even local quark cheese that is very different).
Updated my answer.
Yes, it is possible to do it, we are also doing it at home.
In my interpretation there are two kind of túró. One is created from cow milk, this one tastes sweet. The another is created from sheep cheese, and this one is a bit spicy. The second one is traditional food of székely's. In which one you are interrested?
Update.
The sweet turó from cow milk (this one for túró rudi and for túrósgombóc).
You have to let the milk for 2-3 days in a warm area, to get it slept.
After that you have to remove the stuff from the top of it.
Then put the rest to a slow fire and warm it a bit, not too much. (Do not stir it.)
Then you filter the content from the water with a gauze or something similar.
Done.
Spicy Túró (for túróscsúsza)
For this one you have to get sheep cheese.
You have to cut the cheese to small cubes (1-2cm).
Then put it into very salty water for a few hours.
Then you have to blend it with meat grinder (A blender would make it too small).
Done.
Hope you will make it very tasty:) Good luck.
Both kind I presume, as I would to cook túrósgombóc, túrós csusza and trying to do home-made Túró Rudi...
Some clarification needed:
Should I leave the milk outside the fridge in an opened or closed container? Have I to use whole milk? Will I get aludttej?
Which kind of sheep cheese have I to use?
Yes you should get aludttej first. I dont know how many sheep cheese types exists. We are doing from fresh, few weeks old sheep cheese.
There seem to be two schools of thought on making túró: one method just drains the whey from "slept milk" (aludttej), while another cooks the sour milk (on very low heat) first, then drains it. If you choose the cooked method, avoid stirring - you want to give the proteins a chance to coagulate.
In either case, the trick tends to be finding milk that will sleep properly, rather than becoming bitter unpalatable crud. If you can't find raw milk, or at least non-homogenized (but pasteurized) milk, you can try helping things along with an inoculation of yogurt/buttermilk, or a little bit of lemon juice/vinegar.
You can make túró with whatever fat-content you like: skim milk will curdle just as well as whole milk. In fact, most recipes call for removing the cream from the top of the aludttej before proceeding to the cooking/draining.
(I hear you about the so-called local equivalent -- "quark cheese", "cottage cheese" -- being nothing at all like the real thing. I don't know about Italy, but the closest I've found to túró here on the east coast of the US is actually something called "farmer's cheese". Unfortunately, it's a pretty localized thing - I never even heard of it while growing up in California.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.855941
| 2010-07-27T07:45:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3409",
"authors": [
"Dave",
"Garrett Albright",
"Rhama Arya Wibawa",
"Wizard79",
"aharris88",
"dombesz",
"hbune",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6667",
"werdnanoslen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4938
|
How to do English breakfast at home
I have been a week in London and I enjoyed the English breakfast: scrambled egg, bacon, sausage, toasted bread, warm tomato (I skipped the beans as I shouldn't eat them).
Now, how can I do it at home, in Italy (with local bacon and sausages), for a single serving? I really need a step by step comprehensive guide, as I tried to do a couple of time egg and bacon with an awful result. I assume that people doing it every day will know a lot of tips and secrets, such things that may seem obvious to you but are obscure to a foreign.
Of course, being a breakfast, it should be reasonably fast to prepare, so "logistic" tips are appreciated as well!
PS: please don't give me the recipe for "Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, baked beans, Spam, Spam, Spam and Spam".
Great answers, thanks to all of you. I really appreciated (and upvoted) the step by step guide provided by Aaronut, but I market as accepted Sam's answer for its reference to Italian availability of ingredients.
don't forget the prunes, the kippers, and the kedgeree
This seems like a recipe request to me: "step by step comprehensive guide". What exactly are you having trouble with?
@hobodave: for example: should I cook everything in the same pot? Which type of bacon should I use? Which sausage? What can I prepare in advance to speed up the breakfast preparation? And so on...
@Lorenzo: I think your question could use some improvement by: pulling your comments into the body of the question, clarifying what "an awful result" means. Can you not scramble eggs and cook bacon? If not, then I think those should be branched off into their own separate questions.
You can even find partial answers to how to cook bacon/sausage in the related links. There's also a scrambled eggs question dealing specifically with the addition of milk.
@hobodave: I interpret this as a menu/meal planning question, personally. There aren't that many different "recipes" for scrambled eggs...
And @hobodave, I kind of agree, except, being someone that makes almost this exact breakfast every weekend, there are a lot of things I do with the "combination" that wouldn't make sense with the individual elements. And it's a little tricky to get everything ready at the same time if you're inexperienced.
There's something very wrong with these breakfasts you've been served: the black pudding was missing!
I'm english. I mitigate timing issues by warming a pyrex dish or just a plate by keeping it under the pan I am grilling the stuff in (or in the oven on very low usually with the door open), then putting the bits that are cooked in the pan to keep warm. Generally this is because I'm doing it for more than I can do on the grill in a single sitting though, but it would work for single portions. I do this:
Grill (broil) your bacon (smoked back), sausages (pork) and tomato. Bacon should be flipped once, when the fat on the rind is just taking colour, sausages turned a few times, tomato should be halved and done cut side up.
whilst they are grilling prepare your scrambled eggs. Just mix 2-3 eggs a little in a bowl, no need to whisk to death, just mix till loosely combined. Add a little cream or milk if you want. whatever egg recipe flots your boat
The bacon will be done first (don't make it crispy - just a little colour on the fatty bits). remove it when done, and put on the warm plate under the grill pan to keep warm. Cover it with another plate or foil. When the sausages are nearly done, pop in your toast.
Then season with salt and pepper and cook your scrambled eggs. Again do this according to your favourite egg recipe, I melt butter in a non stick frying pan, add the eggs and stir with wooden spoon until set. some like the runnier than others. finish with a large knob of butter and check the seasoning.
toast, sausages and tomatoes should be done.
butter toast, put everything on a plate and eat with HP sauce and a hot cup of tea, no sugar, very little bit of milk, preferably from a pot of tea.
if you don't like the idea of timing the eggs/toast with the finishing of the sausage you can grill everything till done and keep it all on the warm plate in the oven/under the grill pan (not directly under the heat, but under the pan which is under the heat) whilst you make the eggs/toast/tea.
its not traditional, but I also like a slice of halloumi grilled with mine. maybe that's just me.
the bacon that is usually used is back bacon (I much prefer smoked)
but some people will use streaky bacon (again smoked is better IMHO):
It probably unlikely that you will get back bacon in italy, so you next best bet is slices of (smoked) pancetta which is similar to streaky bacon.
you might substitute a nice dry cured ham instead, but it won't be quite the same. though ham and eggs is a good breakfast.
OK, so I'm supposed to broil everything... I was doing that on a Teflon pan... Maybe there lies my awful result...
@Lorenzo: While I'm sure it's different, it's certainly not going to turn out "awful" to pan-fry. I always do the eggs in a non-stick skillet and the bacon/sausages in a big cast iron skillet.
@Lorenzo, you don't have to broil everything, I think a lot of people would do as Aaronut does and fry it all. In fact if you were having fried eggs, then I'd be tempted to do the same as then everything could be done in a single pan. But grilling is healthier. There again, as Aaronut points out, the sausages would almost certainly be better if they were fried. And if you were frying you could go for the full traditional experience and have black pudding, fried eggs and at the end fry the bread in the bacon/sausage fat, instead of toast. Makes your arteries harden just thinking about it.
@Sam: but if you add oil (or butter, or the bacon grease) on the broil, the food wouldn't actually fry?
@Lorenzo, no I meant you could fry everything in a frying pan. In fact that is probably more traditional, but I prefer grilled bacon and tomato.
@Lorenzo: I fry all of my breakfast. Its not the healty option, but its the option that tastes the best! :)
@Richard. That's true, but it does do something weird to the corn flakes.
Hmm, deep fried corn flakes... that sounds good!
@Sam: ever tried frying the milk? Thats tough!
In some places, the meal is called a "fried breakfast"; I would generally do everything in a frying pan. If you have a fried egg rather than scrambled, you only have to wash up one frying pan. Fried egg is more traditional IMHO.
This may not be a perfect answer, since I'm Canadian - but our breakfast is pretty close to what you refer to as the English breakfast, minus the tomato. I think an "authentic" English breakfast is rather different, but that's another question entirely!
If I understand correctly, you're hung up on two things, the first being timing and the second being specific preparations. So I'll tell you what I do; mine's ready in about 20 minutes and always comes out terrific.
Lay the bacon strips and sausages in a cold pan and turn the heat up to medium. I'm assuming the use of those thin breakfast sausages, which have approximately the same cooking time as bacon (slightly longer).
While the heat's coming up, crack 2-3 eggs into a bowl. Add some cream (this makes them fluffier), and whatever seasonings you prefer; most people use salt and pepper, I occasionally use garlic or onion salt/powder. Lightly beat the mixture with a fork.
At this stage, I like to get a second, small skillet for the eggs. Turn the heat up to medium and let the pan heat up until you can flick some water at it and see it form droplets (and evaporate). Now turn the heat on the egg skillet down to medium-low.
While the skillet's heating up, the bacon and sausage should be starting to sizzle. You'll want to flip the bacon and turn the sausages every 2-3 minutes from now on, until you see the bacon starting to crisp. Also constantly tilt the pan around so that the sausages actually fry in the bacon fat - this makes them cook faster and makes them tastier.
Get a large serving plate ready and line it with some paper towel.
At about 10 minutes in, the bacon should be just starting to crisp and turn brown in parts. You'll want to leave it on for just a couple of minutes longer, depending on how crisp you like your bacon (I like it a little bit tender).
While you're finishing off the bacon, melt about a tablespoon of butter in the smaller skillet. In the other pan, flip the bacon one last time.
As soon as the butter is melted (don't let it turn brown), pour the eggs into the small skillet. You can let them sit for a moment - the bacon should be about done now, so take the strips out and lay them on the plate with paper towels so the fat drains. The sausages will usually take a few minutes longer; turn the heat up to medium-high to speed this process up.
Now the eggs should be starting to set. For a twist here, I like to sprinkle some paprika and/or dill weed onto the partially-set eggs, but you can skip that if you like. Either way, start scrambling; use a spatula to break apart any areas that are set, push the edges into the center, and flip most of the pieces over. Keep doing this for about 2-3 more minutes.
While you're doing the eggs (you can take them off the heat for a few seconds if you're slow), put the toast on.
The bacon should be drained by now, so remove the paper towel. Remove the eggs to the same plate. The sausages should be just about done as well; if they're still not fully cooked, I usually start to "sauté" them at this point to get them cooked as evenly as possible. This should take a few more minutes at most; once done, remove them to the plate. (You can drain them too if you like; I usually don't bother.)
Toast is done. Butter it if you're into that. Slice it along the diagonal and remove to the plate.
And there you are. If you've followed all these steps correctly, you should already be able to feel your arteries hardening simply by looking at it. Serve with tea (if you're English) or coffee (if you're anyone else).
Total preparation/cooking time: About 20 minutes.
P.S. Don't forget the spam and baked beans.
crispy bacon?!? heresy!
@Aaronut: thanks, this guide is very useful. I'll have a try. Unfortunately the very first issue is that Italian bacon is so different: most of it is just fat, with a very thin meat portion. P.S.: Spam spam spam spam. Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!
You use butter for eggs, when you have bacon grease just sitting there, ready to be used?
@Joe: Yes. I was actually planning to make mention of that but it slipped my mind while I was writing this. First of all, I like the taste better. Second, it's a timing thing, using the bacon grease for the eggs means I can't start them until both the bacon and sausages are done. And third, I don't waste the bacon fat, I just strain it and reserve it for something else!
And @Sam: I don't crisp it all the way. I make it just a tiny bit crispy. Cultural differences perhaps. ;)
@lorenzo just a heads up, what these gentleman are talking about is back bacon, it's a lot closer to ham than the belly bacon you are talking about. I don't know what Canadian bacon translates to in Italian markets but i know it's not what you call bacon.
@sarge_smith: I'm a bit lost now... so which kind of bacon should I use?
@Lorenzo, I don't think you can get back bacon in italy. your closest is pancetta, which is more like our streak bacon. I updated my answer with a few pictures to help out
@sarge: Actually this answer refers to the streak bacon, which is the most common bacon here. "Canadian bacon" we always call peameal bacon here; if we just say "bacon" we're talking about the American style belly bacon. Yeah, I guess I should have been specific.
@aaronut gotcha, it just seemed through through his description and y'alls there was a language disconnect that was adding to the confusion.
I presume someone must sell English/American style bacon in Italy, as international hotels seem to have it. I did look up some UK mail order suppliers, but none of them do international exports - maybe I should tell the Italian family deli at the end of the road that they should be sending bacon the other way. British style toasting bread is difficult to come by to, but I would go with a white Italian bread over the long-life white 'American' bread I've seen in some supermarkets.
My routine, cooking for 2 :
Heat up grill.
Put sausages on grill, with the expectation they will take 15-20 minutes to cook through - I usually use a larger sausage (something like this from our local award winners).
Cut slices of bread, to make toast later.
Break 3 eggs in a jug or bowl and quickly stir with a fork (the aim is to scramble, not to create a perfectly even consistency). Warm butter in a pan. When the butter melts, lower the heat down to low, and add the eggs, stirring and folding them every minute or so. By cooking them slowly, you can stop the cooking when they are at your perfect consistency (I believe they should still be slightly runny). Adding milk or cream at the end helps this process.
I put the bacon on when there is about 10 minutes to go. The thinner the bacon, the less time it will need under the grill. I typically use a medium-to-thick-cut smoked back bacon, with relatively little fat.
At this point you should be turning the sausages & stirring the eggs. Turn the bacon once or twice during the cooking time.
At about 3 minutes to go panic, throw the bread into toaster.
Realise that the sausages are still not cooked through, and put everything into oven to keep warm while you carry on cooking.
Once cooked, quickly transfer the sausages and bacon onto kitchen roll to dry off excess grease/fat. I know the English Breakfast is traditionally known for being greasy, but personally I think there are enough fats in there without a coating of extra oil. Unless you are suffering from too much vino from the night before.
Options :
The grilled tomato - slice in half and put under the grill when you have about 15 minutes to go.
Mushrooms - either small chopped button mushrooms, fried in butter, or a single large mushroom cooked under the grill (turned once)
Black Pudding (blood sausage/buristo/Biroldo) - this is more popular in the North. It differs from Italian and other European blood sausages by containing a lot of oatmeal. It can either be grilled (alongside your bacon) or fried for about 5 minutes. Personally, this is one of the highlights of a full English breakfast, but it is not a healthy option.
Beans - we are not allowed baked beans in my house, due to my fiancé's phobia.
+1 for black pudding. There's also white pudding and fruit pudding in Ireland and Scotland.
What does "from our local award winners" mean? Is that a shop or a reference to somebody literally winning an award? If so what award? Sorry, I tried to google it to see if it was an easily explained Britishism.
@PrestonFitzgerald I'd guess "local award winners" = "local award-winning [butchers]". There are lots of award-winning butchers, perhaps because there are a lot of awards to be won...
I saw this Gordon Ramsey breakfast recently and it sounds like what you're looking for minus the sausage/bacon. The eggs are so artful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxV9QLuEwZo
If you are doing breakfast before going to work, you don't want to be watching the stuff cook on the stove - so I would make most of this stuff in the oven.
That might present a challenge in Italy, because many homes don't have ovens - but it is the leisurely way to do things when you want to get on with life at the same time as cooking, and it gives the least greasy product. It is also the slowest way to prepare breakfast, but it works.
Cooking is done on steel trays covered in aluminium foil, lightly smeared with rapeseed oil (Canola, as some people might say) or similar. Set the oven to about 180 degC. I like two trays, one is for sausages, mushrooms and tomatoes, the other for bacon and eggs.
You start with the sausages. Beginning from a cold oven, they take about 40 min, that's the length of the process. Put them on a tray, put the tray in the oven.
Clean and chop mushrooms, make a mushroom "grab bag" of aluminium foil, put them on the tray with the sausages.
If someone is insisting on beans (decadent ingredient originally popularised by US forces during WWII), open a can and put it in the bottom of the oven on a square of aluminium foil for when the sauce spills over (another pan wash saved).
Take a shower for 12 min.
Cut tomatoes in half, put them on the tray among the sausages. Arrange the bacon on the second tray, black pudding, and griddle rings for eggs. Put the tray in the oven to heat while you get ready to make the toast. After the tray has warmed up, put a spoonful of oil in each egg ring and put the eggs in.
Make coffee or tea, and toast. Serve everything up when it looks ready.
Low maintenance cooking - neglect until cooked, clean up by discarding aluminium foil, and it really is the best thing to do with streaky bacon if you're eating it for breakfast. You can make it go right through to crispy in the oven, and you won't mind at all!
I've been experimenting with cooking bacon in the oven and I've been rather happy with the results. I think I was expecting it to be more messy than it really is.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.856241
| 2010-08-11T22:45:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4938",
"authors": [
"AakashM",
"Aaron",
"Aaronut",
"Alexander Holsgrove",
"BozoJoe",
"Brad",
"Geoff",
"Goatmom",
"Guy",
"Joe",
"Johnny Lim",
"JulesLt",
"Kundan",
"Michael",
"Preston",
"Richard",
"Sam Holder",
"Tea Drinker",
"Thoma",
"Village",
"Wizard79",
"Yasin Okumuş",
"alison",
"hawkeye",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9993",
"kasey Creech",
"sarge_smith",
"slim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17285
|
What is vietnamese pho? What exactly does it consist of?
What exactly is pho? I know it's a type of vietnamese cuisine.
What does a bowl of pho typically consist of?
What are the bare requirements to consider it pho?
Full disclosure — I'm not Vietnamese :-)
The word "pho" (actually "Phở") is a corruption of the French word "feu", as in "Pot au Feu", the dish that it can claim as its ancestor. (That's from a Smithsonian Magazine article about Vietnamese food from sometime in the past few years.)
It's a stock-based brothy soup, usually with at least onions and rice noodles and often (by customer choice) one or more meat additions. Sometimes the meat is added raw to the boiling hot soup immediately before serving. The dish is almost always served with a side platter of fresh herbs, bean sprouts, sliced-up chiles, and lime. The herbs are usually something like mint, Thai basil, and cilantro (or equivalent).
It's not a super-fancy dish, and to my knowledge there's no International Phở Licensing Board, so the rules as to what is and isn't "correct" are probably pretty loose. I've had an awesome veggie-broth Phở, for example.
Note also the French-derived pronunciation, as explained in this helpful youtube video.
Without repeating or copying from wiki, I reckon the article from wiki is pretty good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ph%E1%BB%9F
I have had pho at home before and I think the bare requirements are
Beef or chicken stock
Rice noodles (thin)
Beef or chicken or even just beef balls
bean sprouts
some mint or basil
optional
small amount of fine sliced onion
very small amount of chilli
Pho is wonderful, a must try, at least once. Typical additions are as stated previously and things like tendon, thin sliced beef, tripe and probably many other things I haven't seen. If you get a chance try it. There are usually condiments like fish sauce, hot sauce or hot oil, soya and again probably others I haven't seen. Don't be afraid of the strangeness, it's all very tasty.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.857598
| 2011-08-29T20:39:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17285",
"authors": [
"Adrienne",
"Erik P.",
"Frankie",
"Raymond Ghaffarian Shirazi",
"Roxie",
"VickiG",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7092",
"klip"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19976
|
What makes a souffle rise?
A successful souffle is usually one that rises high above its own vessel. What active ingredients / parts of a souffle (regardless of the type of souffle) typically makes it lift or rise?
Short answer: Steam.
Long answer: Proteins in egg whites are almost uniquely suited to making foams of tiny bubbles, then stretching like a web of bungee cords as the water inside these bubbles turns to steam in the oven. Therefore, the critical element in making your souffle rise is the skill with which you whip the whites into a foam to the correct degree (just to stiff peaks, not over-whipped), followed by integrating (folding) that foam into the dense, flavor-filled base. There are a few tricks for augmenting the rise -- e.g., using a pinch of tartaric acid in the whites, using a copper bowl -- but if your technique is poor, these things won't make enough of a difference.
Alton Brown ("Good Eats" TV show) has an excellent program explaining the whole thing, including some basic chemistry, available free on YouTube:
Part 1
Part 2
By the way, you said that a successful souffle must rise above the vessel. While rising high is a major goal, I would not limit success to that event. Last night, I made chocolate souffle that only crested the vessel a little ways (not the ideal "double the volume"), but each bite was still ethereal and decadent at the same time. Everyone's plate was clean. THAT, to me, is a successful souffle.
Good points there. You're right a souffle should taste great and height is a secondary goal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.857805
| 2011-12-26T08:05:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19976",
"authors": [
"James Flattery",
"Kala J",
"Phil",
"chrisjlee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6320",
"scott.korin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16700
|
Is it possible to create good hummus without a food processor?
I don't own a food processor and because I don't have much storage in my apartment, I'm not entirely interested in purchasing one right now.
Is it possible to create good hummus without a food processor?
Would a blender be an alright substitute?
I made it a couple of times with a mortar and pestle. A bit more work than with a food processor, but definitely doable
I tried it once by mashing the peas with a fork. Would not recommend.
While you can make a decent hummus with a blender, it will be thinner than the hummus you would make in a food processor (at least thinner than my recipe).
If you have a potato masher or ricer, either would do the job nicely, giving you a texture that is less smooth than you might get with a food processor, but definitely good. I like the texture when done by hand (think lumpy mashed potatoes) and the flavor, of course, is the same. You can accomplish the same thing a little easier with a stand or hand mixer.
Keep in mind that hummus has been around a lot longer than the food processor, so if you do it by hand, it will probably be more like "real" hummus.
It's actually possible to get pretty darn thick hummus with an immersion blender.
For what it is worth, thickness is not a desirable property in traditional hummus. If you travel in the Middle East, hummus is universally a suave, creamy near-liquid that you could almost drizzle off a spoon, not a thick paste that you could turn upside down in a bowl and have it stick.
Ricer - good thought!
mortar and pestle works perfectly. Watch out for your fingers, though. When the pestle gets all slippery it is pretty easy to hurt yourself.
In a pinch, I have also used a heavy glass (think mojito) with a thick bottom as a pestle, and a plastic bowl as a mortar. Messy, but when you must have hummus messiness is just a detail.
Bonus points for prioritizing quality, homemade food over having to clean up a mess.
I've always made my hummus in the blender.
Just make sure to put the oil, yogurt and any other liquid ingredients at the bottom (in first) so that they're blended in first, before it gets too dry from the chickpeas. It'll get pretty thick, but a quick scrape with a spatula will get things moving again.
A recent trick I learned was to use warm chickpeas rather than cold or room temperature... a couple seconds in the microwave and they'll come out much smoother than if they're cold.
And don't forget the tahini!
Slow cooking your own chick peas make them come out very soft and easy to blend, it also makes for much better hummus than the canned variety, before I got an immersion blender, I used a potato masher.
Another idea: push the chick peas through a strainer with wooden spoon. You can probably get your hummus as smooth as you would with a blender. Worked for me.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Have you taken the [tour] and visited our [help] yet? It's a good idea to start there to get a better idea of how this site works.
I've used both the strainer method and the potato masher method. It was a bit labor intensive to get the chick peas through the strainer, but worked OK. I like the texture I get with the potato masher better. It's an easy cleanup too; the masher is much easier to wash than the strainer with chickpea remnants is.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.858016
| 2011-08-07T20:38:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16700",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chef",
"James Eustace",
"MargeGunderson",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mien",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Stephie",
"YiannisPho",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"jack",
"nico",
"quarague",
"tomstuder",
"wondering"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32371
|
How to reduce gas from eating beans?
I have heard a few suggestions for reducing gas (flatulence) from eating beans, including:
Kombu (seaweed)
Draining the beans after boiling
Any other thoughts?
How effective either of these.
The answers here are looking a bit better but this is still a duplicate. I'll merge these questions later.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.858437
| 2013-03-02T23:44:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32371",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17852
|
How to clean a clogged Misto oil sprayer/spritzer?
I use a Misto oil spritzer. You fill it up with oil and pump it up and spray a pan with it.
It's gotten clogged up so that it just squirts a steady stream of oil (not a spray).
Any ideas how to clean it and keep it from clogging again?
I've tried:
Soaking it on wine
Soaking it in boiling water
I'm going to try filling the bottle with vinegar and water. I've also heard that you should use regular (not extra virgin) olive oil. (Extra Virgin is apparently thicker).
The first question on the troubleshooting script (yes, it is supposed to be that dumb): Can you turn the nozzle? Some systems have a nozzle which revolves around the axis of the resulting steady stream. In a certain position, they deliver a stream, when turned to 90°, they deliver a mist. Can you please confirm this is not the problem in your case?
@rumtscho the misto doesn't do that.
I generally clear my clogged misters / spray nozzles by unscrewing the spray part from the bottle and then submerging the uptake tube in very hot (but certainly not boiling!) water and then pumping as long as it takes to clear the clog out and start spraying a mist / spray pattern again. The hot water should be enough to break up the clogs, and the pump action should force the clog out.
Adding some vinegar to the water may help to dissolve any particulate bits that may be attaching to the spray mechanism.
Cleaning (the manufacturer’s instructions):
We always recommend washing you MISTO® using directions included in the instructions booklet to keep the internal assembly clean and working properly. Usually MISTO® will need to be cleaned approximately every 6 to 8 weeks to keep it working smoothly.
Fill the MISTO® 1/2 full with hot tap water
Add one drop liquid detergent and shake to mix.
Pump 10-15 times
Spray for ten seconds
Allow the soapy water to remain in the sprayer for several hours or even overnight. This will allow it to break down any oil that has solidified in the sprayer.
Rinse, repeat the sequence above with fresh hot water.
I was having trouble with the directions in the accepted answer, but these manufacturer directions worked perfectly for me without any problems.
I empty my Misto and add 1/2 tsp of dishwasher detergent powder and fill half way with very hot water. Pressurize the Misto and empty the detergent solution. Then, rinse very thoroughly with several changes of hot water, then finally with two changes of good drinking water. The final rinse can be sprayed into your mouth to confirm the complete removal of all detergent. This has worked several times for me.
Is tasting the spray really the best way to test whether all detergent has been removed? I certainly don't enjoy a mouthful of detergent in the chance that it isn't clean.
@Jay, a nasty taste of detergent in a test spray might not be a pleasant experience, but it's probably a better idea than spoiling food with the taste of detergent.
I just cleaned our Misto using a cheap liquor (i.e. rum... not sugary liquor like brandy or tequila). Put about an oz in the canister, re-assemble, and pump enough pressure to spray. It worked its way through the atomizer nozzle. Then, dump out the excess, refill with water and repeat to rinse out the alcohol. I also put a few drops in the tube-insert, and scraped around with a small tip to clean that piece.
The rum dissolves the oil faster than soap and rinses cleaner than any soap. I taught my wife this trick and she now precleans all our cookie sheets with a quick rum-rub. She laughs at how easy it is. It lifted off years of caked-on cookie gunk. It sounds crazy, but it works.
We have a fair amount of liquor we don't particularly like (left behind by house guests), so we used that even though it is somewhat sweet. After the liquor, we followed with plain water to flush out any sugars.
When the output becomes a stream instead of mist, the problem lies in the atomizer's hole, not the bottle or the tube. Spraying soapy water through the hole generally isn't powerful enough to dissolve oil that has become a glob. Very caustic dishwasher detergent may be powerful enough but I wouldn't fool with that. A more practical solution is to mechanically clean the hole with a fine needle. Try first poking into the hole to unclog it and then follow all the other instructions for spraying hot soapy water. Make sure not to enlarge the hole by poking too hard. A small hole is what atomizes the liquid. A large hole will automatically result in a stream, no matter how clean. All you're trying to do is to dislodge any solidified oil or goop.
My sprayer never clogs. I put my dried herbs & peppercorns in a small cheese cloth bundle. No debris from the spices and aromatic oil with every spray. I too clean my unit with inexpensive alcohol such as rum or vodka, every 6 weeks. I stay away from water, for cleaning, it tends to spoil the oil over a short amount of time.
Although I never used the sprayer for oil. (I use mine for vinyl graphic application spray) When the nozzle becomes clogged I remove the nozzle by pulling it straight up and then I position the nozzle opening over the plastic tube and push down forcing the fluid backwards thru the nozzle. It clears it every time. I think it would work for you too. Just remove the oil and use hot water to flush the nozzle. It could be messy so hold it over your sink.
I am not sure if you can prevent the nozzle from ever clogging, though I am trying the regular olive oil now.
I tried the spraying hot water method which was helpful, but didn't completely clear the nozzle. I have been using extra virgin olive oil.
The tool that did the trick is a DenTek Easy Brush for Extra Tight Spaces, if you happen to have one lying around...
The tip easily cleared the tiny nozzle opening without force. It was able to clean out the gunk without damaging the sprayer.
After trying to use my Misto for several months and constantly cleaning it, I discovered that I could purchase small sprayers for a few bucks that work exceptionally well for oil and never need supplemental cleaning. I've one I've used for over 6 years with no issues. Sorry to say, but I recommend you toss the expensive oil sprayer - you'll never look back.
Some people report that releasing the pressure after use prevents this problem from occurring (although probably wouldn't fix it. I've not tried it yet. You can depressurize it after use by unscrewing the white screw-on top or by turning it upside down and spraying the last bit out.
Also, I read somewhere not to use thicker oils like Olive Oil. I've had much better luck using thinner oils like rapeseed (I think). Extra Virgin Olive Oils is much thicker than regular olive oil and really cloggs it up.
If you release the pressure by turning it upside down, then you're blowing all the oil out of the sprayer. It'd make perfect sense if that prevents clogging.
@derobert : actually, no. They have a stiff feed tube, so by turning it upside down, the feed tube would be out of the oil, and sucking air. I would assume that this would be better than simply depressurizing it, as you're blowing out any oil that might be in the nozzle and could solidify. (this is the same thing that you do with spray paint cans before storing them)
I'm not sure whether releasing the pressure will help (unless the extra air pressure inside adds enough extra oxygen to accelerate oxidation), but it's simple and I can't imagine that it would hurt. The oil viscosity definitely sounds like a useful point though.
Empty the oil, half fill the can with hot tap water (150-160 deg.f.) Pump and spray. Do it a few times with fresh hot water even though the clog appears to have been removed. Empty the can, pressurize again and spray until the water residue is sprayed out. No soap, no dishwasher detergent is necessary.
The Misto is rancid after I moved across country and had everything in storage for a few months Since I use my second sprayer for lemon juice I filled the Misto with lemon juice and the yucky oil smell is gone already. I'll have to clean the lemon juice out but that's easy compared to the awful odor of rancid oil.
I am not sure this solves the OP's problem. If you cannot pump anything trough the sprayer, I am not sure that filling it with lemon juice will change that.
To clear clogged misters or spray nozzles remove the spray part with uptake tube and submerge it in soapy, hot water and soak for 20 minutes. Then pump the soapy water through the tube until it sprays or mists as it should. Be sure to rinse thoroughly before use.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.858551
| 2011-09-19T13:46:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17852",
"authors": [
"CHersh",
"Cindy",
"Dee",
"JS Lavertu",
"Jay",
"Joe",
"Luby Williams",
"Mark Rushakoff",
"Painy James",
"Rick Knight",
"Rishab ",
"Seattle Exterminators",
"Steve",
"Tina",
"Trina Radcliffe",
"denniz crypto",
"derobert",
"flywire",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98258",
"mfg",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"tommy supeck",
"winnend"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17970
|
Is pyrex safe to use on a gas burner?
There seems to be conflicting views on whether a pyrex dish can be used on a gas burner. Can anybody here provide a definitive answer?
Question, why would you want to use a glass dish on the stove? Glass is a horrible conductor and you'd be wasting much of the heat from the burner...
I feel a Darwin award coming on...
Where do you live? European Pyrex is made from borosilicate glass, the same as in laboratory's equipment; American Pyrex is made from common soda-lime glass.
If you are in America, don't bother trying it at all; soda-lime glass is sensitive to thermal shock. Even though it's tempered for kitchenware, it is nowhere near good enough for the burner.
In Europe, you could take your chances if you have a bowl you don't mind risking. However, there is still a significant chance that it will break on the burner some day. While I think that they use the same raw material for both kitchen dishes and laboratory test tubes (which are obviously OK on a gas burner), kitchen stuff is much thicker. This makes it much more likely to break under thermal expansion.
If you decide to make the experiment with a borosilicate Pyrex, take care to warm it gradually, starting with a small flame, and don't pour cold ingredients into it. Proceed at your own risk. And ask yourself if you really have no pots better suited for the task.
I would be surprised if Pyrex brand is not just plain glass all over the world by now! Even so it is not made of enough purity and casting quality to be compared to lab glass, and lab glass goes bang all too often, so this has got to be an accident waiting to happen. See http://www.consumeraffairs.com/homeowners/pyrex.html
Also, Pyrex brand make ceramic pots safe for use on electric or gas stove top (hob). These should not to confused with their "pyrex" glass line
@TFD, from the German site for Pyrex: "Aus welchem Material ist Pyrex-Glas hergestellt? Pyrex-Glas besteht aus Borosilikat". From http://www.arc-international-cookware.com/de/products/classic/allround-gefaess-mit-deckel, there is a small "faq" tab beneath the second panel. It is confusing that the Pyrex line has products not made from Pyrex(r) glass, but I'm still quite sure that when they tell their customers that their dishes (rated for -40 to +300°C) are borosilicate, I believe them. Of course, they also say not to use them on a burner, which proves that it is a risky idea in itself.
@rumtscho - I'm in Australia. We have both US and European versions, but I think we'll play it safe and assume NO on this occasion. I seem to recall my mother doing something on the stovetop with hers in the 60's, but maybe she just got lucky.
@Bill ditto. And in today's world how can you be sure it's the real deal, and not some clone anyway
American (soda-lime glass) uses a lower-case pyrex® logo; European (and older U.S.) borosilicate uses a capitalized PYREX logo.
Just tried it - answer is no. Wish i'd read this before it cracked because of the heat.
This is not an answer. Edit your original post -1
I'd actually argue that this is an answer. A general question was asked if it was safe. He actually did an experiment (though not intentionally) and broke his dish. It's a clear answer that it is NOT safe. It may or not be the best answer, but it's an answer, and on topic.
Empiricism for the win!
@Mike Did you use an American Soda-Lime or European Borosilicate Jug?
From the PyrexLove FAQ:
Is it all right to use my vintage Pyrex directly on the stove?
We’d like to just nip this one in the bud and say - NO. Some pieces
actually say “Not for stovetop”, but we never put vintage pyrex bowls,
casseroles or whatever directly on the stove, ever. You can try it,
but we’d rather not risk it.
But we do get a lot of people who are asking about Flameware and
related Coffee makers / pots. Flameware was indeed meant to go
directly on the stove, and that includes the coffee makers. However,
some of those came with “heat spreader” grids to help diffuse the
direct flame or intense heat from an electric stove. Some modern Pyrex
(Visions, etc.) is also meant to go directly on the stove. Again, use
your best judgement, and never temperature-shock the Pyrex by putting
it on something cold!
No. Tried it today melting some butter on a low heat and it exploded violently sending glass shards in a 1 metre radius. Suprised me as I remembered using Pyrex test tubes over a Bunsen burner in science class. Won't be trying that again. Epic fail!
Test tubes are made with borosilicate, U.S. Pyrex dishes are made with lime glass.
Are you from the US or Europe?
No no no. I cooked a whole meal and had to throw it away because my casserole dish exploded!
I was heating hot pan drippings to make a gravy on my stove top and after 5 minutes on low-med flame it exploded and glass (chunks and very fine pieces) flew 2 rooms away! Thank god no no one was hurt.
I have personally successfully broken a Pyrex dish through heat shock so I'd answer this question with a, "be careful," or, "probably best not to."
In my case I was making marzipan for my Christmas cake. I used the dish on top of a second steel pot containing water to warm the egg on the gas stove. Then transfered from that hot location to a bath of cold water to try to quickly cool and set the marzipan. After a few seconds in the cool water I heard a crack sound. In lifting the the dish up, the rim separated cleanly from the lower half of the dish leaving me with a glass hula-hoop.
Glass of any kind is quite safe as a homemade double boiler. In fact, I prefer it, because it heats up much slower than steel bowls, giving me more time to react before the ingredients get cooked. Just don't shock it afterwards.
The issue was likely the cold water bath, not the stove ... I've broken a pyrex 9x13 dish from putting a bowl with hot (recently boiled) liquid in the fridge.
And I'll add that I've since cracked another one (brand new, just out of the box) ... was pre-heating it to make Pfannkuchen, and had started it in a cold oven, but I think something from the rack above dripped onto it, and it exploded.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.859640
| 2011-09-24T10:03:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17970",
"authors": [
"Alkaia",
"AndyB",
"AnnanFay",
"Bill",
"Chloe",
"Dan W",
"Ethel Evans",
"Jason Benn",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Joe",
"Marco",
"NANDI EVENTS STAGE SHOWS",
"Richard Fitoussi",
"TFD",
"Trey Jackson",
"Wizzy12",
"g33kz0r",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"rumtscho",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15557
|
Is it safe to cook a steak that was left out (raw) for 7 hours?
I left a round steak out for 7 hours in a container of cold water. It was wrapped very well, hadn't been opened yet.
Is it ok to cook this? I planned on cooking it in the crockpot for 8 hours.
One more thing. Botulism should be taken very seriously. In a non-oxygen environment, the bacteria could contaminate the food, and the toxins will not be destroyed by heat. The probability is very low, but if you are not lucky it could be lethal. Personally, depending on circumstances, I'd do the same as @Satanicpuppy and eat it.
The secret to a perfectly relaxing steak dinner: botulism! It's like botox for your whole body, including your heart!
It's perfectly safe to cook it, as long as you don't plan to eat it. The exception is if the water was at or below fridge temperature to begin with. When food temperature enters the "danger zone" of 40-140F/4-60C, there's a lag time of 2 hours before bacteria go into exponential replication. Any longer, and the bacteria counts start to increase exponentially, doubling every 30 minutes to an hour. With the bacteria counts, the risk of food poisoning increases exponentially. 7 hours is just beyond the pale.
Beyond the time/temperature problem, there are 3 things everyone needs to know about food safety:
You cannot smell pathogens, just rancidity/spoilage. With spoilage, your food is definitely unsafe to eat, but it may be dangerous long before it smells "off."
Cooking to ~165F/74C kills pathogenic bacteria. Different agencies and foods have slightly different temperatures, but most are at or below this temperature.
Cooking will NOT destroy toxins bacteria produce, so heavy cooking is not a solution to meat left out too long. Staphylococcus aureus ("Staph"), chlostridium botulinum ("botulism"), Escheria coli ("E. coli"), and chlostridium perfringens all produce toxic chemicals, which are not destroyed by cooking.
If it was a very expensive steak, I'd be tempted to cut off the exterior and cook it heavily for myself only (would never dare serve to another). But, for a simple round steak? Bin it and buy another, it's not worth the risk.
+1 for the reasoning. wish I could +1 again for the opening comment - haha!
Botulinum toxin is most certainly capable of being destroyed during cooking; it denatures at 60°C. With that said, there are many other toxins (e.g., diphtheria and the aforementioned E. coli) that are much harder to destroy. Chlostridium perfringens is particularly nasty, since the bacteria can start or continue to produce toxins after you have eaten them, even if they did not produce any toxins in the food itself.
@ESuntanik: Botulism is a particularly confusing case. I just checked, and wikipedia lists the 60C denaturing temp, but another couple sources list ~80C, and include a pH dependence. Also, the spores for botulism will survive quite high temperatures. Personally, I'd rather not trust to heat denaturing in this case, when death is the probable consequence of a mistake.
@BobMcGee: Agreed, I was just being nit-picky. With regard to the denaturing temp., I seem to remember a blurb about it in your relative Harold's book; I'll check it out when I get home later.
The difference between the 60C and 80C temps is the time required for the toxin to be denatured. Higher temperatures will accomplish this faster source. This indicates a 20 minute time for 80C and 5 minutes for 85C. I recall taking a food safety class that claimed lower temperatures could be used if held for much longer. In any case, achieving/holding such temperatures is unlikely and impractical for a steak.
You are really tempting fate. Unless your cold water was below 40f (which is doubtful), you have effectively replicated a bacteria culture for 7 hours. Since it's in an oxygen-free environment, your likely bug would be clostridium botulinum.
When your food's surface temperature rises above 40f, or drops below 130f, the safety clock starts ticking. Rule of thumb is four hours to consume. You are almost at double that time. Probably not good. Even though cooking in the crock pot will pasteurize your meat, it's not the pathogens that need to concern you (for the most part), but the toxins left behind.
You may be able to denature any toxins that have grown on your roast by searing ALL parts of the surface (good practice anyway), and then putting it into a preheated crock pot. But it's still pretty risky. So if it were me, I'd discard the beef and order a pizza.
Hmmm. How old was it to start with? Was it frozen? How cold was the water?
Obviously there isn't going to be anything living in it when you're done cooking it, but if its been warm long enough, you might still have enough dead bacteria/bacterial waste to make you a bit ill.
Myself, I'd eat it, but I'm not very cautious about such things.
If the water was very cold, I might cook it and eat it too, but... the question specifies a crockpot, and I'd be considerably more worried about the combination of improper storage and slow cooking.
@aaronut: Slow cooking usually guarantees longer time at higher temperature than most other types of cooking. Admittedly, there is that warm-up period.
It's the warm-up period that's the issue. The longer time at "higher" temperature will be around 90° C on the "high" setting, which is nowhere near high enough to inactivate bacterial toxins. I think the crock pot is flirting with danger here; if I'd left a steak out for that long, I'd pan-sear it and get it up to at least medium doneness in the oven.
@aaronut: For me, if I was slow cooking it, I'd sear it to start anyway. Typical procedure for a pot roast-type thing. Maybe I'd also start the pot liquid at a higher temp as well, if I was worried. Still, 90C is an unreasonable temp for a round steak. Might as well toss it at that point, because you sure wouldn't want to eat it.
Sure, I wouldn't want to eat a steak cooked to 90° C either, but the lower the temperature gradient in the crock pot, the longer time the meat is going to spend in the danger zone. As long as you sear it first (including the sides, if it's thick) then slow cooking won't make things any worse, so it'd be safe assuming it hasn't already spoiled to the point of being unsafe (i.e. assuming that the water it was stored it actually stayed cold and didn't just start cold). The searing is an important step here though, since that's where the bacteria live.
@Aaronut Searing is an excellent idea, just be generous about it. Bacteria swim, So with any meat cut, the surface with the grain in somewhat safe, but any cut surface can get bacteria in quite deep. I would use a pot on the stove or a microwave to get everything in the slow cooker hot before simmering
Large chunks of frozen meat tend to take several hours to warm up to room temperature for cooking. I see no problem if:
The meat has not been in a warm environment
The meat looks fine
The meat smells ok
Meat spoilage is almost never visible, and the smell test only works for rancidity, not bacterial contamination.
Well, people in Asia seem to do this every day without experiencing any problems. So, I would think that it would be quite safe.
I think it is totaly depended on the environment. If it was at a closed clean area and not very warm it might be safe. Sometimes we left meat meals outside of freezer and eat it again later and nothing happens.
"The plural of anecdote is not data." Pathogen contamination in industrially processed meats is a random process, and even very unsafe food handling won't always have consequences. Or in other words... even if you or your parents did it hundreds of times and were okay, you might do it the next time and get a wrenching, bowel-busting case of food poisoning.
And while we're commenting on statistics, this is necessarily a skewed sample. Dead people don't tell anecdotes.
you people are crazy! Eat the meat!
This is how the internet works, you only end up finding people who are worried about the same things as you, along with people who worry about things to the extreme. Other people wont find this discussion because they dont worry about these things.
7 hours in cold water over night? Where did you get the water? From the amazon?!
Otherwise I think you're pretty safe mate. If, by tiny chance, you get sick, you'll get better, and you're immune system will be stronger. Other people here wont last a second outside of their sterilized bubbles.
There are a lot of variables here that prevent us from saying: go ahead. As I've commented above, I'd eat it myself, but I wouldn't expose others to a potentially deadly risk. I prefer to be crazy (or to be called crazy) than irresponsible.
You are, of course, entitled to an opinion. However, I think that opinions based on confirmed data are better than somebody's reasoning. The US government paid specialists to observe the bacterial counts in meat left out for different lengths of time, and, based on their findings, created guidelines about food safety. The accepted answer cites numbers from these guidelines. If you follow them, you are reasonably safe from food born illness. If you don't, you have a chance of contracting something.
This can be a trivial illness which makes your immune system stronger (after a short or long period of misery, possibly aggravated through therapy cost), or something which cripples you for life (see hemorrhagic E. Coli in Germany last summer), or something which kills you outright (botulism). The pathogens which cause these are abundant on farms and contaminate the meat during slaughter, so it is irrelevant how clean your kitchen is. Nobody can stop you from eating the meat, but people whose job is to determine whether it is safe pronounced it non-safe. I don't call that extreme worrying.
-1 for... well you know people actually die from food poisoning, right? It's not always something you feel sick for a few days and then recover from. You're also encouraging risky food safety practices that are unnecessary and likely to make somebody sick.
@rumtscho: you have to admit though, it's a weird psychological phenomenon that some people trust their government without question and follow its advice scrupulously by timing that 2 hours with a stopwatch, but also smoke, drink, and break the speed limits ;-)
@SteveJessop people's risk perceptions and behavior are an extremely interesting subject, but they are off topic here - to the point where we would probably be much better off without the "food safety" subject in our scope.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.860185
| 2011-06-17T14:10:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15557",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"BobMcGee",
"Bryan Turner",
"Bugster",
"Dan Dascalescu",
"ESultanik",
"Gaelan",
"Jonathan Edwards",
"M Hattick",
"MSalters",
"Robert",
"Satanicpuppy",
"SourDoh",
"Steve Jessop",
"T McGrath",
"TFD",
"WhyAreTwo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70770",
"jmdg125",
"ksullie",
"painlessone",
"rumtscho",
"user32974",
"yoong",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15692
|
Why does a portafilter machine take so long to warm up and a modern machine doesn't?
I was wondering why a portafilter coffee machine takes up to 15 minutes to warm up in order to make an espresso.
On the other side, a modern Nespresso Citiz doesn't even take a minute to warm up.
What makes the difference here?
By portafilter I assume you mean the standard large coffeeshop espresso machine.
The Nespresso is only heating enough water for a single shot, which can be done pretty quickly. I'm pretty sure commercial machines take a long time for that first shot because they're preheating the large reservoir so it's possible to fully heat and pull shot after shot in fairly quick succession once you get going.
So the lag is because the bigger machine is heating a bunch more water--even if it doesn't superheat any more per shot than the Nespresso.
Somebody correct me if I have this all wrong, but that's what I was led to understand.
I think you also have to consider everything else that has to heat up. I know I preheat my Rancilio Silvia for 45 mins to an hour to increase temperature stability when pulling the shot, the water heats up probably in 10 minutes but all that brass at the group has to heat up too as well as everything along the brew path. Even with the added PID on my machine I like to give it a good solid 45 minutes to reach stability. Have a look at this thread http://coffeegeek.com/forums/espresso/machines/444952
It'll depend on how much stuff you need to warm up to maintain acceptable thermal stability. In a typical machine, you will have a brass boiler, attached to huge chunk of metal that the portafilter fits into,the grouphead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grouphead
The water in the boiler will probably heat up pretty quickly. However your grouphead and basket will still be cold. If you pull a shot now, you'll lose heat to the surrounding mass. This is no good when you are trying to maintain a particular temperature.
15 minutes is probably too short to wait though. I am waiting at least 30 minutes on my domestic machine with an E61 grouphead.
If you look at a Nespresso machine, well there is not much machine. The ones I have seen are kinda plastic-y as well. So not only are the internal water paths very compact, but they wrap the entire thing in an insulator. Probably pretty efficient.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.861118
| 2011-06-22T14:45:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15692",
"authors": [
"Bart",
"BrianH",
"C.Trauma",
"Kandice",
"Titan Tyler",
"bmhkim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6479",
"mattyc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15600
|
Can bean-to-cup machine make quality espresso/cappuccino?
I want to buy myself a coffee machine so I can get nice and tasty coffee throughout the day. Basically my goals are
Don't really want to invest half the day in front of my machine, experimenting with all sort of weirdness
Do want excellent and nice looking coffee.
Do want to have milk foam.
Don't want to go over 500 euros.
I'm OK with a cup of coffee taking like 15 minutes of preparation, but not much more.
I heard from people that a bean-to-cup machine makes not a real cappuccino or espresso, because that can only be done by a portafilter machine, where you have to grind the beans yourself and prepare for much longer. Is that correct, or is that only fanboy sayings?
EDIT: By "coffee", I mean espresso and cappuccino.
You should probably define coffee. Having lived in different countries I can assure you that ordering a simple coffee can result in massively different outcomes!
Assuming that the last paragraph is your main question, I've edited the title accordingly (it's a good question, didn't want it to be mistaken for a shopping recommendation).
Your best bet is to buy an inexpensive Nespresso type machine. I've been looking for a good coffee machine and I bought a professional machine for nearly 900€. The other option would have been an Nespresso for about 100€. Buy one with a milk foamer. A little bit more expensive, but within your range. Why do I recommend this type of machine? Capsules! All your cups come out equal. No hassle. A little bit more expensive than grinding your own coffee.
The next best bet is consumer grade expresso machine from Krups (for instance), but then you have to grind your own coffee.
You can get one of these if you don't mind a little manual labour when making your coffee:
http://aerobie.com/products/aeropress.htm
I have one myself and it produces some really good coffee. You do not get any real crema though, and you have to grind your own beans for best results.
Also, I would not recommend it if you are planning on making coffee for a group of people. Making more than two espresso shots in one go is not very practical.
[EDIT]
Just saw the note about milk foaming being a required feature. In that case, the aeropress is clearly not an option.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.861341
| 2011-06-19T11:27:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15600",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bobby",
"Catija",
"Kevin Fischer",
"TankorSmash",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"jqer",
"nico",
"olls",
"robut"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24987
|
how to have fresh steamed bluecrabs in the late afternoon that I buy live in the morning
I have a pretty awesome live blue crab hookup, but I can only get crabs there super early in the morning. I want to have a crab feast this coming weekend, but wont be able to have company over until late afternoon / early evening. I have heard they bluecrabs can live a long time out of water if you keep them in a cool humid spot, but i dont want to waste any of them. What are my options for having the best crabs when am able to have company over?
I assume my options are as follows, but I am not sure what I should do:
1.) Steam them in the morning and resteam them for a short period of time to heat them back up for the party. Tips for resteaming or reheating steamed crabs would be helpful. I had always considered that kind of a no no.
2.) Try and keep them alive, to be as fresh as possible. I am just worried that there would be too long of a gap between when i buy them, and when i will be able to cook them.
I realize that this question might be better split into two questions, like "How to keep crabs alive before preparation?" and "How to resteam/reheat crustaceans?". But since im kind of hoping for a new miracle solution to my ultimate issue, I figured I would just make one big confusing question. Feel free to give me comment advice on restructuring the question, or making new questions.... THANKS!!!!
I think it's a fine question. If I were in your position, I'd definitely go for option 2 - I think pre-cooked and re-steamed crab would end up a lot like oversteamed crab: mushy and gross.
As for keeping them alive, when I was a kid we used to go crabbing every weekend. Mom would just keep them in a cardboard box in the kitchen until we were ready to eat them for dinner (much to my dad's dismay).
According to Bluecrab.info:
Crabs can live for several days out of water as long as they are healthy and are kept cool, moist, and stress-free. The optimal temperature is about 50° F., anything colder will ultimately kill them.
If I remember correctly, mom would keep a damp towel on top of the box. But that may have been dad not wanting to look at them.
I'll answer question 2, as I think if you can store them well, you wouldn't want to cook them early.
Option 1:
Crabs from what I understand can live for days out water in the right circumstances. The best way is to drop the temperature (they'll become more lethargic) and keep it moist. You could take a cooler and put some ice and then find a way to keep the crabs on top of the ice, but out of the water (something to hold them up even after the ice melts). Alternatively, you could just put some ice packs in their with some newspaper that is soaked with water. That should provide the moisture without a pool of water. Make sure you leave the cooler open a crack.
If they get submerged in standing water, they will eventually suffocate when they deplete the oxygen.
Option 2:
Put them in a basket or wooden crate (something that isn't airtight) and then cover with a burlap sack or towel that has been moistened. You can then put ice on top of that. That should drop the temperature enough and keep the air humid.
Couple references:
http://www.bluecrab.info/cooking_faq.htm
http://www.ehow.com/how_5920109_keep-live-crabs-boiling-later.html
For #1, a normal cooler w/ ice in the bottom, but with the drain plug open so that no water will collect is the way I normally see it done. (or people keep them in the bushel baskets, typically when they're selling 'em on the side of the road, but that's not preferred for longer term storage) If you don't want to stink up your cooler w/ shellfish, get a styrofoam one and poke a few drain holes in the lower corners. (the slightly fishy styrofoam container can be used when you need to send something fragile overnight via UPS ... mark it 'live crabs' and they'll be sure not to drop it)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.861546
| 2012-07-11T11:07:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24987",
"authors": [
"Grow",
"Joe",
"Md. Ibrahim Hassan",
"Michael Mol",
"Nuclear Hoagie",
"Steven Gaudreau",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jumpdart",
"kukkicooks"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8687
|
How do I get my homemade english muffins to taste like english muffins?
I've finally mastered my technique for creating english muffins. They come out light with lots of air bubbles. Unfortunately, they don't taste like english muffins. They taste like regular bread.
My recipe is 2 cups flour, 1 cup water, 7g yeast, and 1/2 cup scalded milk. After mixing the dough/batter, I poor/scoop into english muffin rings on a bed of corn meal, letting them raise for about 90 minutes. They then go right into the oven for about 20 minutes at 425°F (220 °C), flipped over halfway through.
Am I missing an ingredient to get that english muffin taste? Or is my technique flawed?
It's possible that the issue is cooking it too far -- english muffins always seemed to have a vaguely dough-y quality to them, like they're just slightly undercooked (if we were to compare it to regular bread)
English muffins are not usually baked. Instead they are cooked in a skillet or on a griddle. You can bake English muffin dough, but it will turn out like a holey white bread (as you describe). To cook, heat a skillet or flat griddle to medium (temperature for a griddle would be 350 degrees F). Also preheat your oven to 350 degrees F. Brush the pan or griddle with vegetable oil or mist with spray oil, and place on pan 1 inch apart. Cook 5 to 8 minutes or until the bottom would burn if cooked longer. Carefully flip over and cook 5 to 8 more minutes. Both sides will be flat. Transfer pieces to a sheet pan and place in oven on middle shelf for 5 to 8 minutes, until center is cooked.
Also, the recipe that I have for English muffins (in Peter Reinharts' Bread Baker's Apprentice) describes it as an enriched dough, one that has fat added. My recipe calls for .5 oz. of shortening or butter.
I tried frying, but the texture turns out all wrong. They end up feeling like pancakes. Plus, when I pan fry them, the outsides don't look like english muffins.
@splattered bits - Reinhart suggests putting a towel over them to keep them from developing a "skin" while frying. If they flatten so much that they feel like pancakes I'd check for a different recipe.
I don't fry them in oil but just use cornmeal. I use an ordinary bread dough recipe and they taste like muffins to me. I also don't put them in the oven (primarily because I usually do this while canoe camping as a way to have fresh bread every day with no oven.)
I, too, found home-made English muffins to lack flavor. I use a well-regarded brand of flour and the "all skillet" or a hybrid "skillet and oven" baking procedure.
My solution: sourdough English muffins, as described by Culinary Exploration on his YouTube channel. The dough consists of:
275g water at room temp
15g sea salt
170g sourdough starter (100% hydration)
500g all-purpose flour (~13% protein)
Like all good sourdough breads, this is a "three day bread." On day 1, mix the ingredients, proof (covered) for 3- to 5-hours at room temp, then proof overnight in the refrigerator. On day 2, form the dough into 90- to 100-g balls, proof (covered) for 3- to 5-hours at room temp, then proof overnight in the refrigerator. On day 3, bring the proofed dough balls to room temp, dip in semolina and bake in a low skillet until a crust forms on each side, then finish in a 325F oven for 10-minutes.
The result:
Deeply savory EMs about 1-inch thick and 5-inches across with a small, open crumb - plenty of nooks and crannies to hold the melted butter or anything else you care to add.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.861874
| 2010-10-30T16:14:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8687",
"authors": [
"Chry Cheng",
"Cooter Brown",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Robert Goldwein",
"TEEKAY",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"justkt",
"splattered bits",
"user72273"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
292
|
Precautions making carpaccio
I saw in TV chefs making carpaccio.
They get a nice raw meat and fillet them in thin pieces.
Then they make a sauce and side dishes.
Isn't eating this raw meat dangerous?
Well, I usually add quite a lot of fresh lemon juice on it. This acid environment should kill most pathogens. However, you have to use the most fresh meat possible, when I eat raw meat (very common in Italy) I eat it the same day I bought it from the butcher.
Tell to your family butcher that you're going to do carpaccio (or generically that you will eat it raw), so that he can give you the appropriate cut.
Absolutely never use raw chicken or pork meat!
So, if I freeze the meat I shouldn't use, isn't it?
You could keep the meat in the fridge for few hours, however I will not eat raw meat bought more than 24 hours before. You should use only exceptionally fresh meat, and never chicken or pork meat! In Italy it is much easier, as butchers will give you specific meat if you say it is for carpaccio.
Yes. You can "cook" a number of things with lemon juice and other acids. I will not eat raw seafood but I did once enjoy shrimp at a tapas bar that cooked it via lemon juice.
As an addendum to Wizard79's answer, raw heritage pork is edible if the animal was raised by the breed's standards and humanely slaughtered. Heritage pigs do not do well raised by conventional, large-scale farming methods.
If you're interested in trying out any of the traditional raw meat dishes, such as Carpaccio or Steak tartare, maybe Crudos or Mett etc. the most important consideration is where you source the meat.
As Lorenzo said, only use fresh meat, I would add, only use organic meat that you can guarantee has been prepared in a hygienic environment by a certified butcher.
"organic" meat has no bearing here. You can buy poor organic meat just like any other.
Of course, if you are able verify the quality of the meat and the path it takes from farm to plate, non-organic is just as worthy as organic.
Starting with a whole chilled piece of meat, I quickly pour boiling water over all the outside surface. (I find this much easier than trying to sear every bit of surface in a pan.) Pathogens are generally only on the surface so this kills them off, and it cooks barely half a millimetre of the meat, turning just the outside grey. You don't notice at all if you then finely chop the meat for steak tartare. For carpaccio you, the cook, can always eat the two discoloured outside slices.
I've also considered rubbing vodka over the outside to sterilize without discolouring the surface (like a hand sanitizer), but I've never tried it!
And of course, you should eat raw meat only when it's from a reputable source.
The recipe I work from has you put the meat in the freezer, then pan sear it. This kills any pathogens on the outside and the time in the freezer prevents the heat from searing from getting too far into the meat. Trim off the cooked regions with a clean knife and you've got reasonably safe raw beef.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.862226
| 2010-07-09T22:43:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/292",
"authors": [
"Daniel Moura",
"Dinah",
"Gerbil",
"Itamar",
"Kip",
"Milner",
"Pulse",
"Wizard79",
"didxga",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6668",
"matt b",
"motorbaby"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
306
|
Why do burgers sometimes fall apart on the grill?
Sometimes when cooking a burger I have had it completely fall apart for no apparent reason. Is this due to using a ground meat that is too lean? I don't add anything to the meat and don't spend too much time working the meat in forming the patty.
See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/143/why-do-my-burgers-end-up-round/ for general homemade-burger preparation.
I've also had burgers fall apart when using ground beef that had been frozen, then thawed.
Do you have a photo? The most likely cause is that your meat is too lean. Fat is required to help hamburger hold together.
@SAJ14SAJ, no I don't have a photo. If I add there for example olive oil, will it help?
Oil will not work you want saturated fat, typically beef.
In addition to the fat content, making sure the meat is cold while forming can help.
I generally find that you need a binding agent in the pattie to ensure it stays together - either egg or breadcrumbs work well.
I second the breadcrumbs +1
I find additions like breadcrumbs and egg detract from the texture and flavour of a good burger.
@PaulS - I understand how maybe breadcrumbs could, but not sure how egg would dramatically change the texture and flavour.
I regularly eat burgers made with an egg. My favorite bar makes their burgers this way. They do use very little egg in a large batch of meat mix though. That said, I avoid adding anything like that. As they say, "Anything more than beef and you're making a meatloaf." I think that's prejudice talking more than culinary science, though.
I always use a patty press when I make my burgers since it compacts them really well and helps them stick together.
Freezing patties before cooking them keeps them much more solid on the grill until they're cooked enough to hold together and reduces the amount of sticking to the grill.
Try refrigerating the patties uncovered for an hour after forming. This will give the proteins time to cement together and can give seasonings time to meld. Handle gently while cooking as jwiley suggests.
Alternately you could a finer chop or work it with your hands or a mixer. The more it's worked the stickier it gets. But that kind of texture might not be what you are shooting for.
Cheers
How long into the process are you turning it over? In my experience I try to only flip the burger once, after the side it is first cooking on is done (you can see browning on the edge of the patty). If you try to flip it too soon before the meat has had a chance to fully cook on one side, the meat won't be done enough on that side to hold the rest of the patty together, and it will fall apart much easier.
Oil isn't going to help keep the beef together, the high saturated fats in the meat should be enough to handle this. I'd suggest either using a spatula large enough to fit under the size of the patty you're making, or letting it cook longer before trying to flip.
Your guess is correct. Sometimes it also sticks to the grill and gets damaged while turning it . You can use a bit of vegetable oil to make the grill surface less sticky.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.862530
| 2010-07-09T23:03:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/306",
"authors": [
"1ST Concrete Contractor spam",
"Andrew Lewis",
"Ansa211",
"Berry Guo",
"Darko",
"Eclipse",
"FreddyNoNose",
"Keith Taylor",
"LeopardSkinPillBoxHat",
"Mike",
"PaulS",
"Preston",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Tristan Su",
"anon",
"configurator",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7518",
"mbowles",
"ryskajakub",
"skootergrrl",
"user621",
"xkcd150"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30885
|
can a person taste the difference between coffee that has been ground 8 hours prior to brew vs 12 hours prior to brew?
I have read the other threads and understand that the fresher the bean the better. Also that the closer to brew the better. This question directly relates to the use of a morning cup that is brewed with a timer set drip maker in which the grind takes place the night before. Can someone truly taste the difference between a grind done 8 hours before a brew vs 12 hours before a brew? Will that 4 hours truly make a difference in the chemical composition in a perceptible fashion after it has already been sitting for 8?
While the timeframe between grind and brew affect the taste of the coffee I wouldn't go as far as measuring it down to hours. Of course it is best to grind directly before brewing, but in your case, as you use a timed drip maker I don't think it acutally does make that of a difference.
Plus other aspects also affect the flavor of your coffee (water temperature, temperature of surroundings (kitchen), way of extraction (in your case it could be the way the grounds sit in filter) and, for a great deal, the age of the coffee itself. So if you taste a difference, it could be the result of (an)other factor(s) as well. Not only the + 4 hours of 'sitting time' the grounds had.
To sum it up: Simply try it yourself (as Pete Becker mentioned in the comment).
It's sort of an exponential thing (well, logarithmic actually). There is a big difference in smell between, say fresh ground to four hours, but less of a difference between 4 to 8, and even less at 8 to 12. When it's first ground, much of the aroma evaporates into the air, so there is less to lose hours or days later.
If you have the luxury to grind the coffee right before you brew, then go for it. If you're trying to plan your day, though, so you can brew in 8 hours instead of 12, I'd say it's not really worth the extra effort. Grind it, put it in an airtight (mason) jar in the freezer, and you'll be fine for a week or so.
Much of taste is down to smell, if you cannot smell a difference in coffee that was ground 8 hours versus 12 hours before I doubt you would taste a difference. It would be an interesting experiment, if you try it let us know the results.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.862866
| 2013-02-13T13:38:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30885",
"authors": [
"Ahamad Talha khan",
"Brian Schetat",
"Swapnil Gupta",
"Thomas Owens",
"VICK B",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73526",
"re faile",
"thumbmunkeys"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53655
|
My flatbreads are still doughy inside after cooking?
So I am making basic flat breads using flour, water, oil, salt and spices. I kneaded the dough for 5 mins and rested it for 15.
I then rolled them out really thin and cooked on a super hot griddle, two minutes per side. Once they are charred, though, they are still doughy inside. Are they meant to be doughy? I was expecting something pitta-esqe.
You might've cooked the first side too long -- I think you want to just barely cook it, then flip. (if you cook the middle through, it won't turn into a 'pocket pita'). You might also try the oven, as you'll get better puff in there.
You also need to roll pitas quite thin. I personally prefer more naan-like flatbreads, and stretch mine ... sear on a hot griddle, then into a medium oven to finish cooking (while I keep making more)
Maybe "super-hot" is a bit too hot?
While you can make flatbread without letting the dough rest, 30 minutes or more will make the dough more elastic. To have any chance of a pocket on a bread with no leavening, you need to stretch and fold the dough before forming the final balls that you roll out.
What kind of flat bread are you going for? More like a tortilla or more like naan?
Your list of ingredients doesn't contain any kind of leavening agent. A leavening agent is an ingredient that helps to incorporate air and gas bubbles into the dough of the product. Without that inclusion of air bubbles, the dough doesn't have anything to lift it and make it lighter, so it will fall and become heavy, doughy and sad.
In many traditional flatbread recipes, such as Pita or Naan, the leavening agent is yeast. However, yeast-raised breads can be incredibly time consuming. That's why In some simple recipes it is possible to use baking powder or self-raising flour (which is basically flour mixed with baking powder) in the place of yeast, but know that this will cause a large difference in flavor and texture from the more traditional yeast-raised breads
In short, you'll need to amend your recipe to include one of the basic leavening agents. Here's a couple basic recipes for you, in case you need some inspiration. c:
http://www.jamieoliver.com/recipes/bread-recipes/easy-flatbreads/#s5UQEEaz0CUakBp9.97
http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/homemade-flat-bread-recipe2.html
http://allrecipes.com/Recipe/Peppys-Pita-Bread/Detail.aspx?evt19=1
There are unleavened flatbreads too. If this is what the OP wants to make, then adding a leavening agent will be counterproductive. Although you are right that, if he expects "something pittaesque", he should make them with yeast - neither an unleavened bread nor a baking powder leavened bread would have a texture similar to a pita.
I made the same recipe, as I was looking for one without yeast. I cooked the pitas on a pan for 1-2 minutes on both sides, then placed them in the oven to cook. I did not turn them in the oven, simply placed them under the broiler for 1-3 minutes. They inflated properly, but when opened, one layer of the pita was super thin (the layer that inflated) while the other layer (you could say the bottom) remained thick and doughy, almost uncooked. My pitas ended up being under cooked, and I believe the reason for the doughy part is either from a. Having too thick pieces of dough/bread or b. not rotating the pitas in the oven, or not baking both sides evenly.
I made a second batch, added more water to the dough, rolled them out thinner and cooked them the same way. Though the bread was better, there was still the issue of the doughy part. That I believe can be solved by cooking both sides evenly, in my case by rotating them in the oven. Learn from my mistakes!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.863092
| 2015-01-15T17:54:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53655",
"authors": [
"Barb Breece",
"Donna York",
"J Drake",
"Joe",
"Nadine Bauer",
"goldilocks",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"papin",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"user126111",
"user126115"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25984
|
Are spores an issue in sauteed pepper storage when you add garlic?
Typical food-storage for leftover sauteed or roasted peppers in oil, non-canned, seem to vary from one to two weeks when referencing online sources. However, if I make Hungarian peppers in oil with garlic, sauteeing until lightly browned, then left in the oven with a lid to soften, will the storage lifetime reflect standard peppers in oil, or will the issue of botulism spores shorten the timing due to inclusion of fresh garlic? In particular, once the leftover food is refrigerated, on what factors should I calculate storage lifetime?
Does cooking until the peppers brown lightly, then braising help eliminate the issue of botulism carried by the garlic?
Does the pH of the peppers carry enough weight to consider the result acidulated? (If so, how would I compare the acidity of a given pepper as it contributes to the pH of the final product?)
What is a reasonable storage lifetime?
Are there any finishing steps I could take to better preserve the peppers in oil when not made in the context of a canning/pressure-cooking operation?
To clarify, you're storing these refrigerated below 40°F?
@derobert yes, I'm just looking for some idea of time to trash of refrigerated leftovers
@mfg - to give you a guide, please clarify when the garlic goes in and in what form (sliced diced skinned?).
@klypos each clove is crushed, peeled, then put through a garlic press into hot oil sauteed until soft, then peppers added
It seems that temperatures in excess of 250°F for an extended period of time will destroy a significant percentage of the botulism spores but I cannot find a definitive, science based answer on botulism spore death.
Acidifying garlic can take three days to one week when stored in vinegar, so I would assume the pH will not carry enough weight.
As long as it's in the refrigerator, you've got a few days, at least.
How much are you making at one time? You can freeze garlic in oil and keep it for months that way. Googling suggests that freezing peppers in oil is a common technique, too, so you should be able to store the entire thing in the freezer for months. You could make a large batch and freeze them in ready-to-use portions and be confident that your food is safe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.863513
| 2012-09-04T17:52:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25984",
"authors": [
"Karen",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62459",
"klypos",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33163
|
Need help identifying a kitchen tool, with a wooden handle, and a cylindrical cutter
I have no idea what this thing is, and it appears to be a kitchen tool, but for what?
I put up a YouTube video of it, and would love to see if anybody knows exactly what it would be used for, because we have no idea:
http://youtu.be/do5_D8Sjhk8
It would appear to be some kind of corer, or to cut shapes out of some fruit, but I can't find anything similar to it online.
The video linked to above does a better job of showing it from multiple angles.
It looks like one I bought a few years ago, it was suppose to cut corn off the cob. You put it around the small end of the corn and rotate in a downward motion. I didn't like the results and went back to using a knife.
It is definitely a corn cob kernel remover, and works really well. See this video for how to use it.
You already posted an answer linking to this. I see that you registered this account (and not the one you used for the previous answer), so I'm inclined to delete the previous answer and let you keep this copy. Let me know if that's not what you wanted.
This looks like a butter looper/curler. They are used to create a nice presentation of butter for the bread course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butter_curler
That's the closest thing we could find so far too, except that most butter curlers found via google search tend to be less cylindrical and more more open, and thinner like the one at the wikipedia link you gave. We tried it too, and it didn't give good results trying to curl the butter. ;-)
alternatively, it could be an old school citrus zester, the hole on the side leads me to believe that it may be where you feed the peel out to keep it out of the cutting area.
The ribs on the cylinder and directional sawtooth suggest you torque/rotate the handle.
The one on You Tube was opened at the side andd looked like a corn cutter and I wonder if this one doesn't have an opening too. It looks like it but you really can't tell for sure.
My first thought was a citrus zester of yore. It would be fun to find out.
Jo
The YouTube video was posted by the person asking the question. It's the exact tool the question's asking about. That said, the existing top answer already says it's a corn cutter; you can show your agreement simply by upvoting it (clicking the up arrow on the left side).
Yes, it's the same one as in the photo.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.863723
| 2013-04-01T00:44:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33163",
"authors": [
"Avani",
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"David Emery",
"Debbie Golas",
"Fauxcuss",
"Harry millward",
"Josh Gust",
"Kevin Evans",
"MandoMando",
"Richard hunt",
"andrewgazelka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76951"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18090
|
What causes Béchamel Sauce to get so clumpy?
Possible Duplicate:
How not to mess up Béchamel sauce
Just starting to learn how to create cream sauces for dishes; as it's foreign to me. Most the sauces i know start with a slurry and soy sauce.
I tried creating sauces from this recipe.
Béchamel Sauce:
2 tablespoons butter
2 tablespoons all-purpose flour
1 cup heated milk
salt
white pepper
freshly ground nutmeg (optional)
It seems to get lumpy. What is the trick? I think i may have added the flour too quickly or the milk had to be much hotter
Normally, in industry, you combine the butter and flour, and cook it for a bit (usually gets a nice nutty aroma). Then, you heat the milk to a boil, and add some of the milk to the cooked roux (fat and flour). This will be VERY thick. You can easily whisk the lumps out of that. You then add this back into the other milk, which thickens the milk. Also, in industry, there is often just a big pail of roux, and a shortcut is to heat the milk, and then add the roux in a bit at a time, whisking like hell to get out the lumps. You can control the thickness of the sauce better that way. When you have the desired thickness, you then season.
I was taught to always add cold roux to hot stock/milk, or cold stock to hot roux in order to prevent lumps, and my culinary arts textbook (On Cooking, 4th Edition) confirms this. It is also possible you did not cook the roux long enough before adding milk; after a minute or two with whisking, it should be bubbling and pasty in texture, with no visible clumps. This texture means the fat and flour are fully incorporated, reducing clumping.
I cook the butter and the flour together for a bit, like mrwienerdog said, until its a very dense mass. The trick to avoid lumps is to then add the milk (I don't heat it, like BobMcGee said) very little by little.
I've found that adding a lot of milk will leave undisolved clumps of roux, but if you add a tiny bit of milk and mix it in, you'll get a slightly lighter roux, to which you can add another tiny bit of milk, and so on. All the while mixing vigorously over medium low heat. Once it has the right texture/consistency add the seasoning. Remember that once it cools béchamel will be (much) more thick than what it seems when your making it (don't over do it or it'll be solid).
Using warm/hot (rather than fridge-cold) milk helps a lot. Surely adding it little by little works too, but if you do both you're pretty much sure that you'll get no clumps
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.863970
| 2011-09-30T01:08:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18090",
"authors": [
"Minix",
"hmijail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24445
|
Does using frozen coconut milk lead to poorer consistency than canned?
Curries or baking, I use coconut milk/cream often with my share of failures. I put it down to the variations in fat content between brands or when measuring out of a large container -which I then freeze for later use... Could freezing be the source of some of my issues? Or is graininess, splitting while cooking, small flecks of pure fat after blending, all signs of my inferior skills?
This is from http://www.realthairecipes.com
"There are bags of frozen coconut milk available in some Asian groceries. While the flavor is better than canned, it separates and gets chunky when you heat it. I’m not sure why freezing does this to coconut milk. I’ve experimented with freezing my own homemade fresh-pressed coconut milk, and the same thing happens. The flavor is OK, but the consistency is quite odd. So, I recommend canned. If you are lucky enough to find Chao Koh brand coconut milk in a paper carton, this is even better."
*I prefer pure coconut in UHT packages (no gums or preservatives)
So you want to know if your failures are due to the coconut milk or cream that was frozen?
yup.is it me or the freezing
Just a side comment, if you are making Thai curries the idea is to split the coconut milk, so you have a layer of oil on the top, I guess you may already know this but if it splits while making Thai curry then its worked !
Jennifer Frazer experimented with frozen coconut milk and wrote about it on her blog.
The conclusion is that you can freeze cococnut milk. The taste is preserved, but the consistency is not.
Jennifer writes:
The thing is, you can still use it just fine for purposes that
don’t depend on coconut milk’s texture or consistency;
Coconut milk is an emulsion of oils in water. To freeze and thaw the coconut milk is enough to affect the emulsion. You can compare the situation to cow's milk. Cow's milk is also an emulsion and the mouth feel will change if you freeze and thaw it.
References:
Jennifer Frazer's blog
A paper on the stability of the emulsion in coconut milk.
thanks for my peace of mind: it is the freezing. now to establish where use of frozen is/isn't acceptable...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.864195
| 2012-06-14T06:14:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24445",
"authors": [
"Eduardo Polmann",
"Erick Major Dos Santos",
"Halo",
"Mien",
"Nancy Poinapen",
"Pat Sommer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"scottishpink",
"uday",
"wmsmith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22234
|
Can I fry my frozen Maitake pieces with other fresh mushrooms?
I was given a bag of frozen Maitake pieces and read online that they are best cooked without prior defrosting.
Can I throw into the skillet a handful of fresh shitake or oyster after awhile?
Sure, why not? If you're really worried about it, just saute the frozen and the fresh separately and combine them after the fact.
that was essentially my question; must I fry separately to achieve the fried texture vs stewed/steamed results.
It shouldn't be a problem. Flash-frozen veggies usually need to be sauteed longer as the freezing process adds some liquid. I'd just start with the frozen, and once they've in the pan throw in the fresh. You'll just need to cook off the excess liquid to get a proper caramelization. High heat and keep tossing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.864406
| 2012-03-13T12:51:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22234",
"authors": [
"Chihuahua Enthusiast",
"P. Arthurs",
"Pat Sommer",
"User1000547",
"Valri",
"engstrom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15907
|
How do I make brown rice bread rise without any wheat flour?
My brown rice bread is not rising and I do not know if I am doing something wrong or if yeast does not work with brown rice flour.
I baked brown rice bread in the following way:
600 g brown rice flour
100 g Chuño
Whole yeast block
100 g flax
Any tips on how to make it rise without any wheat or other gluten products?
(I cannot eat any gluten, so I need a 100% gluten-free solution.)
The yeast should be able to eat the starch in the rice flour and the potato. But the air bubbles won't get trapped due to the missing gluten. Do you see yeast activity, even without growing? Is maybe the yeast too old? Are you sure that the bread is meant to rise as much as wheat bread does? (Maybe it is just a rather dense kind of bread).
Rumtscho is correct. There needs to be something in there to help trap air. Also, you need to knead it like normal bread -- not to develop gluten, but to trap air bubbles, which the yeast can then expand. I'm using the King Arthur Flour recipe here, you need something like xanthan gum to stabilize it: http://www.kingarthurflour.com/recipes/gluten-free-sandwich-bread-recipe
I hope that I can find that Xanthan Gum here in Chile.
I did not knead the bread normally, I used a big fork to do it because it was very liquidish. Does that matter??
Is chuño the same as almidón de papa?
I have been making a gluten free yogurt bread with the brown rice flour and haven't had any problems. You are going to need xanthan gum with any kind of gluten free mix you need.
With the other gluten free bread recipes I have in my book, they are all calling for a tsp of vinegar in addition to the dry yeast. Not sure if that helps with the rising, but my recipes have all come out exactly like the book says and haven't had a problem with them not rising. I just turn my stand mixer on HIGH and don't worry about kneading the bread.
I think that AtlasRN has a very good point. Not the vinegar, the pH of dough is OK for yeast and it creates their own acid anyway, but the stand mixer.
Leavened gluten-free breads are very new, and are always made with xanthan (or other stabilizer) and a mixer. Xanthan works differently from gluten. It is more of an emulsifier, not an elastic protein like gluten. So it needs good aeration, and the big air bubbles of the yeast probably just escape into the air. On the other hand, a mixer forces air into the dough (batter?) and these small bubbles stay there, bound to the batter by the xanthan. Actually, whipping air into the dough works with wheat based dough too, there was a pizza lab article on that. But in a gluten-free bread, it is probably the only way to aerate.
Xanthan gum is commonly used in many foods, and it should be available around the world. It isn't used much in home cooking, so you can't get it at the supermarket. It should be possible to buy it over the Internet, or offline at a restaurant supply store or at a health food store. If you can't find xanthan, take guar, they are practically interchangeable. I don't know which one is easier to find, but my local health food store has guar and no xanthan.
Both xanthan and guar are used in very small quantities, so don't worry if it looks expensive. You can buy a kilogram, and store it in a dry place for months. It will be enough for hundreds of loaves of bread, so it should be a good investition even if you have to order online from a foreign site and pay international shipping and import tax.
The important part is to combine xanthan and an electrical mixer. A fork won't force the amount of air needed into the dough. You don't need an expensive stand mixer, a small hand held mixer should work fine. If you don't have one, you can try using a whisk and whipping vigorously, as you would egg whites, but I think that it will take a very long time and be very hard, because the batter will be much heavier than egg whites. A mixer will make it easy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.864524
| 2011-07-03T03:22:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15907",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Daniela Mejia",
"Johan M",
"LiddyLady",
"Mary",
"Thelambofgoat",
"apanloco",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95441",
"rumtscho",
"xb."
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18252
|
Udon soup seasoning
What is the name of the seasoning traditionally available for the diner to add to their Udon soup and what is in it?
I'm referring to the (I think) mix of spices that add a bit of a kick to the soup. I've seen this provided as an accompaniment to Udon in Los Angeles and Japan, but I can't remember what it is.
I think it's a Seven Spice Powder (Shichimi Togarashi) that may vary somewhat depending on where you are; It's something like this. Probably available at most asian grocery stores or on Amazon.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.864859
| 2011-10-07T14:58:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18252",
"authors": [
"Christian Adam",
"Emily Graves",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39435",
"mchid"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20574
|
How can I keep saffron fresh for longer?
We don't use saffron that often. The last batch we got went stale. Is there anything I can do to preserve it for longer? (For example, our spice rack gets a lot of direct sunlight, is that bad?) How long can I expect it to last?
Use common advices: closed jars, in a fresh and dark place (a bodega is wonderful for keeping the spices).
Direct sun is one of the worst enemies.
And when everything else fails, consume it ... f.ex. this very simple recipe, just rice + veg stock + mushrooms + garlic + persil + saffron
http://elsfogonsdelabordeta.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/arros-caldos-de-safra/
I would add that the jars should be as close in size to the amount of spice in them as practical. That way there is less air for the spice to interact with.
There are special glass jars made to protect herbs from damaging uva/b rays, proven to maintain freshness. Granted, these little jars are designed for a "different" kind of herb, I, on the other hand, use them for my ultra expensive, direct from the middle east saffron. Keep an open mind and enjoy your saffron!!!
www.herbpreserve.com
Welcome Kelly, I'd add a link to Carmi's suggestion to minimize air space in the jar. Maybe a vacuum jar would be even better. Nice link to medicinal herb site.
...who smoked my saffron?!
You can keep it in the freezer. It will probably keep for a really long time, if wrapped well and kept frozen.
Spices in general can be stored in the fridge or freezer for a longer shelf life - just like most other foods. You will want to be sure to wrap very well and make sure the container is good, since it will be a problem if condensation accumulates in the container. And whole spices will likely hold up better than ground.
As for saffron specifically, my parents brought back a huge thing of saffron from when they were in turkey years and years ago, and they kept it in the freezer - and it's still good, it smells strongly and flavors well when warmed up and isn't stale or anything. They use saffron often enough (for traditional Indian desserts) to keep a small amount in a jar in the spice rack that they could use when needed that could be refilled from the larger container, so the large container isn't exposed to temperature changes every time they want a pinch. For me, since I have a tiny little flat container and use it infrequently, I keep the whole thing in the freezer - it doesn't take long to grab a pinch out anyway, so it doesn't warm up too much -and it's still probably better stored than keeping it in the cabinet.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.864950
| 2012-01-18T18:01:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20574",
"authors": [
"Alex0021",
"BaffledCook",
"Carmi",
"Jam",
"Rita-Reet",
"The Bushwacker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"rackandboneman",
"s.d.u.",
"user583915"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16852
|
Does Arabic gum help keep frozen yogurt soft?
I'm trying to make frozen yogurt manually (no machine), but I would like it to be soft-scoop. My first batches froze hard (tasty but hard), regardless of whether I stirred them every half-hour or not. I was advised to try Arabic gum, but that doesn't seem to make any difference. Am I trying the correct additive? If not, what should I be trying?
The ice cream industry uses guar gum and xantham gum.
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12777/is-there-a-magic-ingredient-that-keeps-ice-cream-soft
Basically you can't actually make soft-serve style yogurt in a regular freezer. It's just too cold.
However, you can make it softer by doing one or more of the following:
adding additional sugar. After a certain concentration, sugar prevents ice cream, sorbet and frozen yogurt from freezing as hard.
Adding some concentrated source of alcohol. I often use an ounce or two of spirits or liqueurs in my ice creams (usually a 5-6 cup batch), which prevents the mix from freezing as hard because of alcohol's very low freezing point.
Adjusting the fat ratio. I don't know the exact magic ratio of fat, though I'm sure someone else can find it for us. I've found that low fat and very high fat ice cream tends to freeze very hard.
Adjusting the amount of air in your batch. The churning process that an ice cream maker would buy you adds a fair amount of air between the crystals and results in a softer batch.
An ice cream machine can also produce a result that you can serve up quickly after making so that you never get to the "hardening" stage that American-style ice creams go through when you put them in the freezer after churning.
I don't use gums in my ice creams, but the advantage that they give you has more to do with stabilization of the ice crystals, not softening, as far as I understand. They primarily help cope with the conditions of transport, as you tend to slightly melt the ice cream/frozen yogurt when you take it home from the store and then you refreeze it.
If the gums don't work, can you just not freeze it quite as cold? I wouldn't alter your freezer temp if you have other food in it, but could you put it inside an insulated bag, inside the freezer, and not let it get to 0 degrees F? I think I read somewhere that the main difference after milkfat content between ice cream and gelato is that gelato is not frozen to as cold a temperature, which is what makes its consistency different. May not be true, but worth a try.
Thanks for the answers so far. I'll experiment with the freezing temp and the other gums too. My son will happily eat the results regardless. :-)
Alternatively, put it in an insulated bag on the counter after freezing, before serving. Or just in the fridge for a bit before serving. The trick is to figure out how long it'll take to warm up enough...
Add vanilla extract which contains alcohol. Most frozen yogurt/icecream recipes call for Vanilla flavoring anyways.
You have to use a lot of alcohol to get ice cream to soften substantially, way more than you'd ever want to add (i.e. maybe a whole bottle, not a teaspoon or two). It'd be expensive and it wouldn't taste good.
There are also a lot of gluten free and non alcohol based flavorings out there these days, so not all vanilla extract is alcohol based.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.865181
| 2011-08-13T14:21:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16852",
"authors": [
"Alan C",
"Alexandre",
"Cascabel",
"Jim Bishop",
"Pat Sommer",
"Todd Lehman",
"Vicki T",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7038",
"lemontwist",
"user36027"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17057
|
How much Saffron to use?
I'm a bit confused with how much saffron to use in a paella recipe. I've seen numerous recipes that state to use 1gram. However I have a 1gram jar and that seems like a lot of saffron to me. I've spotted some recipes that say to use 1/2 a teaspoon and they state that this is about equal to 1gram. But my jar of saffron is a lot more than 1/2 a teaspoon.
I agree with the others that 1 gram is way too much saffron. Unless you're making one of those huge outdoor pans of paella which feeds 20 people.
Exact quantities depend on how much paella you're making, and the freshness of the saffron involved. I tend to use a hefty pinch, which would be around 12-20 threads, for a paella for 6 (2-3 liters). I'll adjust that downwards for very fresh saffron, and upwards for old stale saffron. You can tell how fresh your saffron is by (a) smelling it, and (b) soaking it in a small amount of warm water. Fresh saffron will smell strongly floral/spicy, and will turn the water bright yellow very quickly.
I like saffron a lot though, and also tend to err on the side of more rather than less.
Good information based on your experience (12-20 threads for 6-person paella). I have and make a paella recipe (for a 14" pan, 2-4 servings) that calls for a "large pinch". I have never cared much about being exact, but decided to see what the internet says. This article claims it is 50 threads, which seems like a lot. Regardless, next time, I will pay more attention and use the 12-20 for 6 servings as a gauge.
Err on the side of caution. Too much saffron can be overwhelming to the point that it will destroy the dish.
A couple (4-6) of threads should do it. Buy whole saffron. Soak it in warm water, and yes, don't use too much of it.
@BaffledCook has got it right- maybe even six is too much! One horrible experience 18 months ago and even the smell of it sickens me to this day.
Not to mention it's an expensive mistake.
A gram is an awful lot. Most recipes I'm familiar with call for a pinch or sometimes a specific (small) number of threads.
Crush the threads first; don't add them whole or you won't get as much out of them.
If your goal is the bright yellow color, soaking the crushed saffron threads in a little wine or vinegar for 10 minutes or so helps quite a bit. I don't know if this makes a difference on how much saffron flavor you get. (And obviously this has to be in a dish that won't mind a couple tablespoons of wine or vinegar.)
I add saffron sparingly, starting with a medium pinch of the threads as I'm cooking, and adding slowly as I go, with pauses for steeping of the flavor. Have occasionally used the powdered (really expensive) saffron and warn you to be extremely careful with that product - once ruined a beautiful seafood stew trying to 'tap' the powder out of the bottle.
Bottom line:
Start with small amounts and taste. It is an extremely powerful spice (used a lot by medicine manufacturers) and can end up making your dish taste like vitamin pills if you aren't careful. Experience will guide you as you use it more.
An interesting note for those interested: The yellow robes worn by Buddhists are colored with saffron. This fragrant spice was used to cover the smell of the original robe(s?), which were recycled death shrouds.
I'd read the color was supposed to be saffron, for the symbolism, but the dye used was turmeric, jackfruit, or other cheap plant-based yellow dyes since saffron is very expensive and to acquire it in sufficient quantities for dye would not seem in keeping with Buddhism's ascetic ideals. article of monks' robes and saffron color here
Take it from an old burned-out hotel chef of 40 years...You are going to have to use trial and error until you have mastered this spice or any other spice.
Heat the liquid you are using, add an average pinch for three cups of rice and go from there. If it works, good. If not, add more (or less) next time.
Add garlic powder, if there's too much saffron, to compensate. If not enough, add paprika and cumin to cover your mistake until next time you make the dish.
Eventually you will master the spice, just endure patiently...
One gram does seem like too much saffron. From what I've seen, most recipes call for 1 pinch to 1/2 teaspoon of saffron.
To make a pound of saffron, over two hundred thousand stigmas from
crocus sativus flowers must be harvested by hand. That's why saffron
is the world's most expensive spice, and also why so there are so many
fakes on the market. Fortunately, a little of the good stuff goes a
long way--it only takes a few threads to add saffron's distinct yellow
color and earthy aroma to a family meal of paella or bouillabaisse.
foodsubs.com
I have read that 2 to 3 strands per person is as much as you need to use when it comes to Saffron. Its not just overpowering to the dish but is also toxic in high amounts.
One medical site states that a medical overdose of saffron, whether used in a dish or medicinally (caps), is five grams and the symptoms range from vertigo, jaundice, vomitting, nosebleeds, bloody evacuations as well as death. Yes I know. Death. LOL.
On the lighter side just use very little saffron. The two to three strands per person seems like the best "rule of thumb" until u are more accustomed to the spice.
It is VERY hard to poison someone with Saffron since most Saffron are sold in little 1-2g jars. Unless you buy several jars of it and dump it all into a dish, this should be a non-issue. (There are much cheaper ways to poison someone...)
I'm going to disagree with the other answers a bit, and say you can have a recipe, a good recipe, that asks for a lot of saffron. Whether that's a recipe (or a flavor) you like is a different story, it is just not an automatic fail to ask for a larger amount.
I have a bread recipe that asks for a gram and a half of saffron (it does make two loaves)(oh, but it's so, so good). I use the whole amount, and do not regret it because I really like the flavor and color it gives. I have a few other recipes, a saffron and garlic mayo dip, and a risotto recipe, that I use saffron pretty generously for - starting with a heavy pinch (thumb-to-side-of-finger pinch) and occasionally adding a bit more to taste. I do make the most of the saffron I add with grinding, hot steeping, and rinsing spice dust into the dish, and I do admit I make these dishes very rarely, since saffron is dear, but that's how it goes.
And again, it isn't wrong to be sparing or prefer less, it's just also not wrong to be generous or prefer more. Mama would use a scant pinch, or a few threads, to give her (usually sweet)(often large quantities) dishes a bit of a saffron scent and that's enough for her. Plenty of people like it like that. But there's my brother, who has said that saffron "only gives a bit of color, right, there's no flavor to it" (based on history with mama's very light usage), and might benefit from a stronger-saffron'd dish if he was here to taste it. Along the same lines if I would get three dishes out of the same amount that gives her ten dishes, I like my three dishes enough more to go seven dishes without, so it's worth it to me.
So, to bring the whole thing back to your paella, I'd suggest finding a recipe that looks good (pictures, instructions, and reviews all appeal) and trusting it whether it asks for threads, tsp(s), or gr(s). And if in the end, the flavor of the saffron is a bit light or elusive, next time you make it you can add a bit more, and if it's a bit strong or feels out of balance, next time add less.
Saffron is one of the most appreciated (and expensive by weight) spices, due to the laborious process of obtaining it from the flowers. It is growth mainly in the Mediterranean area. You only need a small amount (0.15g or 3-4 threads) for a 6 people paella.
As a person who is in the business for Saffron, and who loves cooking ., i would say it depends on the quantity. generally 3 to 4 strands should suffice.
Actually, i meant quantity of Paella, like how many servings. Sorry for not being very clear.
As for the quality, well, there are so many ways to look for a "good quality".
The most important one is differentiating between real and fake Saffron. To test whether Saffron is fake or real, put a few strands in a glass of water. if the color of strand changes, then it is fake. also, if the water has orange color within 5 minutes, it is fake. real Saffron leaves a bright yellow color and the red color of the strand does not change. Fake Saffron is generally made of meat shreds or corn threads.
Provided you have REAL Saffron, the higher quality Saffron is measured by multiple factors. 1. the color dark red/maroon vs red (Afghan Saffron is considered of highest quality with dark red color), 2. The length of the strands (longer is better), and 3. the Freshness of Saffron.
The Freshness part is very difficult to tell, if you are not very experienced. Generally, when you buy Saffron, the stronger the smell, the more likely the Saffron is old . This is because it has already let some of its smell out. A lot of people think that stronger smell after opening the bottle is an indication of high quality, which is not true. it only indicates that Saffron is old.
Also, remember that Saffron does not leave any kind of moist. if you open the bottle and you feel it is moist, it is likely that it is fake Saffron, or that real and fake saffrons are mixed.
I hope this answers the "quality" question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.865582
| 2011-08-23T00:29:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17057",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Doug",
"Eric Malan",
"Frankie",
"Jason Capriotti",
"Jay",
"Louis van Tonder",
"Megha",
"Preston",
"Sergio",
"Spammer",
"Tony Adams",
"TyCobb",
"Zainab",
"chulbally",
"gd1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99715",
"janm",
"oasisbob",
"user36729"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27519
|
What can substitute Korean malt syrup?
I cooked this receipe Korean Grilled Chicken
which was delicious. I replaced the Korean malt syrup with corn syrup, but I am not sure about this switch. What is a good substitute for it? I couldn't find it at the store.
That recipe explicitly says you can use light corn syrup, among other things, and the Korean malt syrup (mool yut) appears to be light in color and made from barley and corn, so it sure sounds close, especially among things commonly available in the US and Canada. Is there some reason you think that's not a good substitute?
Sorry, I guess I skipped through or maybe I have dyslexia. Should I delete this post?
Feel free to leave it open in case there is in fact something better! I was mostly just checking to see if you had some idea what was different about the Korean version - it does say "malt" so maybe there's a little flavor missing with just plain corn syrup.
Was curious myself, so I did some more searching. I found a few sites that suggested honey as a alternative, but note that honey is sweeter, so you'll need to cut back. The majority of resources I found agree that corn syrup is your best and closest western substitute.
Traditionally the Malt Syrup (or Mul Yut? Mulyeot?) was apparently made from barley, but these days apparently mostly made from corn, hence corn syrup being a good substitute. Some resources/products even translate and sell Mulyeot directly as "Corn Syrup".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.866623
| 2012-10-02T00:03:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27519",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Judy D",
"Mel",
"Napster",
"PlasmaHH",
"Raavana",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62560",
"rsb5051"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44142
|
Is re-freezing the same beans bad?
I have a bunch of frozen beans in the freeze and I found out that pouring hot water on them is easier to take them out of their container with a measuring cup. But them I re-freeze them. Is this a bad idea or unhealthy? I'm too lazy to freeze a bunch of separate small cups of beans.
In general, refreezing food is safe--but your thawing method is not a good idea.
While the rule that pathogens grow in the temperature "danger zone" of 40-140 F is oversimplified, it does reflect the fact that these temperatures are the most friendly to them. By thawing with hot water, you are raising the temperature into this range.
You would be better off thawing them with cool running water, which is one of the four acceptable methods of thawing food—see: What are the acceptable methods to thaw food items?
Even so, foods thawed with that method should be cooked or consumed immediately, as it does not ensure they stay at a safe temperature the entire time.
IF you really plan to refreeze, you should thaw in the refrigerator.
The total time the beans spend in the thawed state outside of the refrigerator should not exceed approximately 2-4 hours. Each time you thaw the beans, that clock is ticking.
Within that time frame, assuming you are thawing them with a proper method (such as in the refrigerator), they will be safe to refreeze, although you may get some degradation of texture.
Still, all of this thawing and refreezing seems like more work than packing them in smaller portions... one might argue that individual portions is actually the lazier approach. You don't need expensive or bulky containers; small zip type freezer bags will do.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.866783
| 2014-05-15T00:55:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44142",
"authors": [
"Canoemom ",
"CellMates Spam",
"Foods castle",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103674"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51816
|
Buttermilk substitute for making creme fraiche?
I want to make creme fraiche. I have 2 cups of heavy cream, but I can't find any buttermilk in my Country. I've read that it can be substituted with lemon juice, or vinegar mixed with milk. The problem is that for creme fraiche you need the bacteria from the buttermilk right?
So how can I substitute my buttermilk for this recipe?
I doubt that you will get creme fraiche this way. The only difference between creme fraiche and other cultured creams like schmand and full-fat sour cream is that it uses special creme fraiche cultures. I doubt that your buttermilk is made with creme fraiche cultures. You will get a cultured cream indeed, but assuming that there is a different cultured cream with sufficient fat percentage in your supermarket, it won't be worth the hassle - your buttermilk-cultured cream won't be a better approximation of creme fraiche.
This recipe! found here , calls for buttermilk or sour cream. Perhaps you can find sour cream.
Crème fraîche
1 cup heavy or whipping cream, room temperature
1 tablespoon buttermilk or 1/2 cup sour cream, room temperature
In a jar with a lid, place whipping cream and buttermilk (or sour cream); cover securely and shake 15 seconds. Set aside at room temperature for 24 hours or until very thick. Stir once or twice during that time. NOTE: Cream will thicken faster if the room is warm.
Stir thickened creme fraiche well. Refrigerate at least 6 hours before serving. Cover tightly and store in refrigerator for up to 2 weeks.
1/2 cup of sour cream is a lot for 1 cup of heavy cream no?
Will it change the taste compared to 1 tablespoon of buttermilk?
I am planing to use 2 cups of heavy cream, therefore 1 cup of sour cream
@Cindy's recommendations are correct. I'll add that it helps if you can find cream that is pasteurized, but not ultra-pasteurized - but it will work either way. If your kitchen is really warm, it should thicken-up in less time, but in a normal kitchen the cream will take on a desirable consistency and flavor in roughly 24 hours. Is there a difference in taste between the buttermilk version and sour cream version? Technically...a little - just as your result will also differ in taste from commercial crème fraîche. Cream that is soured is a substitute - but a great and cheaper substitute.
Do I leave the lid open went I set it aside for 24h?
Well if you are not getting buttermilk, why not try making it yourself!! The method is really very simple and just needs two things - Full Cream Milk and a Blender/Mixer.
All you have to do is keep a pot full of cold drinking water besides you. Then pour the milk in the blender jar and blend it until the fat separates from the milk and starts to form lumps. Once these lumps are formed, you can filter the mixture to get the buttermilk. Also the lumps of fat is the butter so you can squeeze the lump together and float it in the cold water pot for sometime so that it keeps set like that.
Only thing to take care is that milk should be cold preferrably out of the fridge so that the fats don't melt.
I hope you ll be able to get some fresh buttermilk this way!!
Edit
This is a very local method of separating buttermilk in my country. If it doesn't suit your purpose you might want to look at the following page:
http://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-make-a-quick-easy-buttermilk-substitute-cooking-lessons-from-the-kitchn-185757
Sadly, this won't work at all. First, maybe you are not aware, but in current usage, "Buttermilk" means just cultured milk, not the original meaning of "liquid left after the butter has been removed". And in this case, it's very obvious that the buttermilk is needed for the culture in it, not because it has little fat. Second, your suggestion is unlikely to impossible to work for making the "old" buttermilk, unless you have access to raw milk. Nowadays, the milk in the supermarket is homogenized, and cream often has carrageenan added, to prevent fat separation.
I din't realize that I shared a local method! I have edited my answer to make it more relevant now.
The page with substitutes is still not an answer. It is indeed intended to create a substitute for the "modern buttermilk" and not the "old one" you are making with your local method. But the result is actually a cheese with the approximate tang and thickness of buttermilk. It still contains no cultures and so cannot be used as a starter for creme fraiche.
Okay..can't argue on creme fraiche!! So I leave it to the OP to do whatever he/she wants to do!
On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen has the following recipe:
A home version of crème fraîche can be made by adding some cultured buttermilk or sour cream, which contain cream-culture bacteria, to heavy cream (1 tablespoon per cup / 15ml per 250ml), and letting it stand at a cool room temperature for 12 to 18 hours or until thick.
Therefore for the magic to happen the bacteria must be present. Check ingredients of your cream base: it should list cultured cream or, sometimes, cultures themselves. And absolutely not UHT.
I added two tablespoon of apple cider vinegar to a cup of cream and let it sit for eight hours and produced a lovely creme fraiche. Also, I did the the same procedure with lemon juice and it turned out similarly. One never can produce what is consumed overseas so by using your local ingredients, a product will be produced specific to you. Try fruited vinegars like pear or berry for a unique dessert dip.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.866987
| 2014-12-21T15:58:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51816",
"authors": [
"Brooke McGovern",
"Kk L",
"Krystal McCoy",
"Lindy Elliott",
"Lisa Christiansen",
"Napster",
"Neels",
"Stephen Eure",
"Tara Murray",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34728
|
How to cook already cut roast beef
I am a new cook, and I want to freeze roast beef for later use. So I cut it in 2cm pieces. I never cooked roast beef before and realized that it is cooked as a whole.
What can I do now? Should I season it like steak and cook it like steak?
What cut was it exactly, and how have you sliced it? Cooking it like a steak will certainly work, but it may be tough depending on the cut you have.
They look like cutted slices of steaks. I don't know how else to describe it.
Post a photo? Tell us what the label said, if there was one?
You are not giving very much information to provide a quality answer. From a safety point of view, yes, you can absolutely cook them like steaks.
From a quality and palatability point of view, that may not be ideal, depending on where the roast from which the steak were cut came from on the animal.
The question is, are they better suited to rapid, high heat cooking (grilling, pan frying, and so on) or low and slow technique (such as braising)? Observe the cut steaks: are they full of connective tissue, and interspersed fat, which appear white or pale? If so, you probably (unless you have a very expensive piece of meat like prime, which you have not mentioned) have something suited to low and slow. If they are fairly uniform in red, meaty color, they are probably suited to grilling or pan frying.
For low and slow: I would suggest a braising technique, as for pot roast.
For rapid: I would suggest grilling them or pan frying them at high heat. Cut them across the grain if you can see and identify it.
This is not a very detailed or satisfying answer, because you have not given enough information on what you have, and roasts can come from all parts of the animal, and yield steaks with very different characteristics.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.867433
| 2013-06-17T16:14:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34728",
"authors": [
"Mari K-C",
"Napster",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Vishnu Suresh",
"conductorsha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81019"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44141
|
Where can I buy bulk wild meat in Montreal?
I've been to marché atwater and they said that usually they have in stock in the winter. But one of the stores had Bison but it wasn't totally wild but still was walking in the forest.
I want to increase my wild meat intake but is seems so hard to find. Where can I buy it?
http://firstpeoplesofcanada.com/images/firstnations/teachers_guide/inuit/hunt_bowarrow.jpg ?
Only applies to Montreal, are we going to do this for every small city in the world?
From what I have gathered searching for an answer to this question, caribou, seal, and hare are the only actual wild game meats that can be purchased in Canada. Due to low demand, hare and seal may be very difficult to find, even in-season. All other "game meat" including "wild" boar, venison, bison, and rabbit is farm-raised and butchered. There is no farmed moose in North America. A recent web article from the CBC, makes it seem like there may soon be a chance to find some trapped wild game on a limited number of Montreal menus, but not necessarily in stores anytime soon.
In the US we have similar restrictions that may vary slightly state-to-state. The venison, bison, ostrich, turkey, pheasant, and quail available for purchase is all farm-raised and often imported from other countries. Wild boar from Texas, though, may be wild/feral and is trapped by permitted individuals and butchered at USDA approved facilities. USDA regulations require ante- and post-mortem inspection, meaning that the animals must be delivered to the slaughterhouse alive. These regulations limit the number of domestic wild boar available, even though we have a huge wild hog problem throughout the South, California, and Hawaii.
It seems that the only way to get actual game meat is to be a hunter or know a hunter who is willing to share the fruits of their labor. In my experience, many hunters don't know what to do with large portions of the meat, and just grind almost everything but the loin and tenderloin into burger. It might be easier to get some of those tougher cuts from the front and hind limbs, especially if you offer to share some stew, a slow roasted shoulder, or some braised neck medallions.
Sources:
http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/410204
http://forums.egullet.org/topic/37573-wild-game-restaurant-in-montreal/
http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g155032-i51-k7231237-o20-Serving_wild_game-Montreal_Quebec.html
Place to try contacting:
Boucherie De Paris Enr, 5216 Avenue Gatineau, Montréal (514) 731-6615
Volailles Et Gibiers Fernando, 106 Roy E, Montréal (514) 843-6652
Also Kivalliq Arctic Foods in Nunavut (867) 645-3137, see if they can cold-ship it to you
The issue isn't where, the issue is when.
If you're looking for wild game, you're only going to find it (or find it at reasonable prices) during the proper hunting season for your area ... assuming you're even in an area that allows wild game meat to be sold.
Hunting laws vary by location, but most hunters won't kill animals that they can't consume, so you might be able to find someone who has capacity on their license, and would be willing to sell (or give, if they're not allowed to sell it) a whole or half animal, assuming they can bag it.
Your other option off-season is what's known as 'roadkill salvage' (collecting the carcasses of wild animals that have been hit by vehicles), but many areas have laws about that, too. (outlawing it, allowing it if you have a license but you're not allowed to sell the meat, etc.)
... or you just get farm-raised meat.
+1, the folks at Marché Atwater were presumably just indirectly telling the OP roughly when the season was.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.867611
| 2014-05-15T00:39:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44141",
"authors": [
"Best Online Store",
"Cascabel",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Exterminators",
"Lani",
"Oliver Walters",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"wrymoss"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54559
|
How does rub or marinade actually seep into meat?
This morning I began crockpotting my first (ever) pork butt in an attempt to make pulled pork. In preparation of this, two days ago I smeared the meat with a spice rub and put it in a large sealed bag in the fridge. I did this because the recipe I was following stated that giving the rub a few days to "sink in" to the meat was crucial. This got me wondering:
Does rub/marinade actually penetrate into meat, if so, how?
The animal is dead, so I would imagine anything along the lines of "osmosis" or "capillary action", etc. would no longer be functioning.
To me, it doesn't seem feasible that rub/marinade would actually penetrate into a (dead) piece of meat. If it does, I'd like to know how, and how deep the rub/marinade actually travels.
See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39436/how-deeply-will-the-flavors-in-a-brine-penetrate-chicken-experiment-results
Thanks for that @Jolenealaska (I'd upvote you if I had the rep to do so), but just to be clear, that answer addresses the depth to which brine will penetrate, now how/why. Thanks again for the great link!
It's worth noting that osmosis is a chemical activity, not a biological one, and therefore doesn't depend on alive/dead status.
The answer to this question (http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54538/why-did-my-steak-marinade-not-make-a-difference) may be helpful.
Marinades and Rubs are "surface treatments" only, they do not penetrate deeply into the meat.
A brine is a deep treatment, which does penetrate by way of osmosis.
For a quick explanation of this see Alton Brown's Good Eats
Thanks @Cos Callis - then why do some many recipes call for letting meat sit with a rub or in a marinade for hours/days? If it is in fact a surface treatment, then wouldn't in just have the same effect as if I put the rub/marinade on and then immediately began cooking the meat? Thanks again!
Various dry rubs and marinades may behave like a brine when left in place for a while. Many marinades are chemically a brine solution and so extended exposure may offer some benefit. Just because someone calls a concoction "marinade" does not mean it can not also be a 'brine'.
Some of this has already been said briefly in comments and the previous answer, but since the question is interested specifically in chemical mechanisms, here are a few more details.
The general process to think about first is diffusion. This is part of a general physical property of systems to move to a state of equilibrium. Suppose you had a container with a wall in the middle and filled the one side with plain water and the other side with brine. If you remove the wall, you'd expect the solutions to mix -- the salt would diffuse into the plain water, and eventually the whole solution would be equally mixed.
When you place food into a solution which has higher concentrations of additives than the food itself, the additives migrate into the food to attain equilibrium. In porous food and meats, these additives may move far into the meat due to simple diffusion. For example, if you marinate fish, the larger openings between the muscle fiber will allow the marinade to seep deep into the meat. To a much lesser extent, this same process also happens in the outer layers of other kinds of meats (beef, pork, chicken), though the muscle fibers are so dense that this simple diffusion doesn't generally get very far.
Marinades can make a limited use of osmosis. Going back to our container example with two sides, osmosis is like replacing the wall with a barrier that has very tiny holes in it (technically known as a "semipermeable membrane"). Cell membranes (and for vegetable matter, cell walls) allow only certain small molecules to cross the membranes. (The reference in the question to living processes is only applicable to so-called active transport processes in cells, which require energy from the cell to power them. Osmosis, on the other hand, is a simple physical process of molecules moving through pores from higher concentration to lower concentration.)
Technically, osmosis is about a membrane equalizing concentration by allowing a solvent to cross the membrane while other (usually larger) molecules don't, and the most common solvent is water. As Jolene's experiment in comments shows, this process is mostly effective with small molecules that can "piggy-back" on this water motion, like salt. It's a little more complicated than that, since cell membranes also can selectively permit or deny travel based on water or fat solubility or whether a molecule is polar or not.
With both simple diffusion and osmosis processes, for deep penetration into the meat, tiny molecules will move much faster. It's not that some larger molecules can't penetrate the meat -- many of them do get into the surface layers. However, diffusion works through the random motion of vibrating molecules, and with all molecules at the same temperature, large molecules vibrate and move much more slowly. So it may take days, weeks, or even longer for large molecules to move an appreciable distance, and the meat would spoil and break down long before you get appreciable penetration.
(Note that besides size, another reason for slow penetration of other flavors is the low concentrations of these molecules. Whereas salt and sometimes other things like sugar can be highly concentrated in a brine or marinade, a concentrated solution of most other flavor components would be incredibly powerful and unpalatable. Without high concentrations, any diffusion or osmosis processes will be much slower.)
In terms of typical food additives, salt is the fastest traveling, but other less common additives (e.g., certain phosphates) also move relatively quickly. Sugar, once it is broken down into its simple components like glucose, will also move deeper into the meat, but more slowly than salt. (Note that some more complex sugars like table sugar, sucrose, can naturally break down in an acidic solution, but it's a slow process at room temperature or lower.)
But even when we say salt travels "fast," it will typically only go somewhere around 1" in 24 hours (depending on type of meat and concentration of brine). If you have a very large hunk of meat, you're unlikely to get full penetration even over the course of a couple days, so if you want full salt flavor throughout, your best bet is to cut up the meat into smaller chunks.
A dry rub with salt works in a similar way to a brine. (Some people actually call it "dry brining.") The only difference is that salt -- which is hydrophilic -- will initially attract molecules of water from the cell and even the air to dissolve on the surface. At that point, it becomes mobile and will use diffusion and osmosis to move into the meat just as above, just as it would in a brine or a marinade.
Aside from salt and a few other small molecules (e.g., simple sugars), most of the flavoring elements stay near the surface of the meat, typically the outer millimeter or two. In this outermost layer, certain elements in marinades may help to break down the outer cells and denature/dissolve proteins. Ingredients like acid, alcohol, and various natural enzymes (which can come from fruit juices or purees) will help to break down this outer layer. This process will allow deeper penetration of other flavors than would happen without such ingredients. So, instead of the flavors only going a fraction of a millimeter, some might get in as much as 1/8" or so. Acids and alcohols are also small molecules and can penetrate more deeply over time, but they will be more destructive to the cells as they move, leaving the outer layer of the meat mushy. For stewed meat or something like that, this is not an issue (and may actually be desirable); for meat that is meant to be roasted or grilled, long marinades in strong acid and/or alcohol may breakdown the meat too much.
It should be noted that some molecules (such as alcohols) can navigate the world between water-soluble and fat-soluble flavors, which may be helpful in some marinades. While water readily diffuses through into the outer layer of meat and can carry some larger flavor molecules with it, the same is not as true of oils and fat-soluble flavors. Essentially, part of a good marinade mix is choosing molecules that can "piggy-back" on each other to help move the flavors into the outer layer of the meat.
One final thing -- some people hold to a rigid division between "brining" (with salt) vs. "marinating" (which, to some people, by definition contains no salt). This arbitrary distinction has probably led to more ineffective marinating than anything else. It probably comes from the observation that salt will "dry out" meat, as in long-term meat preservation.
But when the meat is fresh (as most people who practice brining know), after the first hour or so, salt will actually draw water into meat. Yes, salt is hydrophilic and will draw some water out of meat initially, but as the salt diffuses into the meat, it disrupts proteins in the muscle fibers and causes some of the to dissolve. These changes then cause the cells to want to dissolve more water, so any water that may have left initially is then reabsorbed. In a brine or salty marinade, the weight of meat may increase by 10% or more due to brine moving into the meat (which leads to the well-known "juiciness" of brined meat). Along the way, many dissolved flavor components in the brine can "piggy-back" on this water moving into the meat, increasing the effectiveness and penetration of the marinade. Again, most of the bigger flavor components will remain in the surface layers, but you'll absorb more of them faster (and slightly deeper) with salt than without it.
To summarize for the specific case of a rub mentioned in the question: Especially if it contains salt, letting the rub sit for a day or two will allow much better penetration of the salt (and perhaps sugar and a few other small molecules). The other flavors won't move much more beyond the surface whether you wait an hour or a couple days. Without salt or another hydrophilic compound (like sugar) to get the "water flowing" and move dissolved compounds around, the dry rub is truly a surface feature, and you might as well apply it just before you cook the meat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.867957
| 2015-02-09T15:33:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54559",
"authors": [
"Chelsea Pearson",
"Cindy",
"Cos Callis",
"Elizabeth Cowles",
"Erica",
"Francine Brescia",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kristina Thompson",
"Rena Lewcio",
"Sarah A",
"Zac",
"christopher stringer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
519
|
How do I cook ribs Chinese style?
I love Chinese style ribs. They seem to have a sweet plum flavour/fragrance to them and the meat seems to be caramelised. I'd like to try this at home, how are they prepared and cooked?
Perhaps reword to make it less subjective? "Best" implies opinion.
A cooking site without opinion! Cooking is about opinion...the opinion of your senses!
that's true, but there are also plenty of facts in cooking. We try to use less subjective words to indicate the preference for facts and reasons behind certain decisions.
As I don't cook Asian, I don't know how to handle this close vote. Is there really a limited number of ways to cook ribs Chinese style, or is this a boundless question?
@rumtscho - I think there's a limited number of ways to do ribs Chinese style. I think bubu's answer nails it.
When cooking Chinese ribs, they are usually boiled down... (I am a cook from Hong Kong) We usually cut the ribs bone-attached into small cubes before cooking, quite unlike the western cooking style.
stir-frying: Usually we stir-fry the rib with a sauce of choice; black bean and chili is my favourite. One can also use the sweet-sour (sometimes with the ribs sort of diced with bone attached, fried with a flour dip), and chinese preserved vinegar (This is often an unpleasent flavour for most foreigners who aren't familiar with it IMHO)
steaming: You can marinade the rib, either with black bean and chili or sometimes plum-sauce and a little bit of salt to taste. Then just throw it in there and steam it done. The resultant meat is nicely done and we mix the sauce with the rice to make it great tasting (sort of a good idea when i'm out of money and need to eat more rice, and less meat... The sauce is then quite rich in pork fat though, unhealthy, pardon me...)
braising: this one is often done with five spice, sometimes red preserved-tofu (nam-yu, as we call it in cantonese).
or you can make your own homemade marinade by using different amount of (1) soy-sauce, (2) salt, (3) pepper (white) and (4) sugar. Then stir-fry it, or saute it, then optionally you can add little bit of starch-water to get the 'sauce' thickened, and serve.
Sometimes we use the oyster sauce to marinade the food as well, but mind you that the quality differs, if you want the best, I would suggest 'lee-kam-kee' premium, old-style oyster sauce for this purpose, for best result, add sugar.
Basically you'll want to marinate the ribs in a hoison/soy sauce combo. You can find hoison sauce in most stores in the U.S. Other than that it is just cooking ribs the way you might normally cook them. That caramelization is the sugar from the hoison sauce caramelizing ont he rib's "crust" or outer layer. To get that, just make sure the ribs end their cooking with some direct heat.
If you're going for that bright red look, it's usually accomplished with simple red food dye.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.868857
| 2010-07-10T16:49:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/519",
"authors": [
"Adam Hughes",
"Arlen Beiler",
"Chris",
"JDelage",
"Jerry Browning",
"Kev",
"Mike Sherov",
"Rebecca Chernoff",
"Yossi Farjoun",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99",
"optixx",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
38110
|
Creating a thanksgiving brine for a 7-8 lb Turkey?
How much salt is one need for a typical brine for an average 7-8lb turkey?
Or is it more appropriate to ask what the ratios are of water to salt for a brine ?
I found a SA.SE question regarding brine and salt but it asked about salt content of the turkey: How much salt does brining a turkey add?
Also, there was a link for information about brining on that thread but unfortunately, it's no longer available.
Where do you find a turkey as small as 8 lbs? The brine ratio is the same for pretty much any turkey, regardless of size.
Does this answer your question? http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1442/what-are-the-basics-and-options-of-brining-meat-for-example-chicken
Alton Brown uses 1 cup kosher salt and 1/2 cup sugar for 2 gallons of liquid (1 gallon ice water, 1 gallon vegetable stock).
You can reduce the amount of liquid to whatever you need to immerse the turkey in liquid. So for 1 gallon of liquid you would use 1/2 cup salt and 1/4 cup sugar.
The answers in this question recommend a brine that is 5-10% salt by weight (comparing salt to liquid).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.869124
| 2013-11-02T23:29:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38110",
"authors": [
"Alin Hernandez",
"Cascabel",
"Qurashi",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Stephen",
"Vera Jensen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29511
|
What types of cuts of meats are ideal for (beef) stew?
Possible Duplicate:
What is the best cut of beef to use for stews?
I had a conversation with a cruise passenger on my most recent vacation and he spoke a bit about stew. It inspired me to make stew. I've never really made stew before and I didn't get a chance to ask him this question:
What types of cuts of beef are ideal for cooking stew?
P.S. If you have suggestions besides beef cuts, i'm open to learning about them as well. But for specificity and scope of our discussion i'm primarily set on making a beef stew in the near future.
You want a cut amenable to stewing, which is a low, slow, wet cooking method--its a variant of braising.
These are generally tougher cuts with a lot of connective collagen which will convert to gelatin during the cooking, a part of the animal that works relatively hard in life. These cuts are flavorful and usually (relatively) inexpensive.
One cut that is often used for this purpose is the chuck (for beef) or butt (for pork), which is the shoulder of the animal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.869249
| 2012-12-28T15:50:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29511",
"authors": [
"Antonio Ruiz",
"Bella Gray",
"Gloria Causa Satani",
"Mae Jane Asentista Taneo",
"Ryan",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70027"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
38211
|
Cause for Popovers not Rising in Oven?
Today, I was inspired to make popovers.
I followed this recipe, "Foolproof Popovers" but substituted the white flour with whole wheat white flour.
As for the rest of the directions, I carefully followed all the details: melting the butter, brushing it and preheating the the muffin pan, and heating the milk up, etc.
What would cause popovers to not rise in the oven? Would it be because of the whole wheat white flour. Is it just not possible to use whole white wheat flour?
I did try doing a search and reviewed this answer: What causes popovers to rise so much?
This one explains why they rise but don't give much into troubleshooting the issue.
It is very nice to see a recipe troubleshooting question that includes the recipe, the symptoms, and signs of basic research.
I realize that I glossed over the whole wheat aspect -- it doesn't tend to rise as well, as it develops less gluten, and the bran can cut the gluten that does develop.
Did you check the texture of the batter or adjust liquids after the substitution? Wheat flour, even (to a lesser extent) white wheat flour, usually needs a bit more water than white flour for dough or batter of similar texture. It may not be the whole reason (the answers look plausible), but it might not help if the batter is thicker and heavier because the liquid is a little less.
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/2582/67
I agree with the "fast rise" requirement. An additional suggestion: it might have been not the oven, but your muffin tin.
A hot oven is not enough for pop overs, you need well preheated containers. Originally, you would use iron ones, not just a muffin tin. If you do have to go with the tin, choose a metal one, the ones with silicone cups just don't hold enough thermal energy to give to the dough.
Be generous with the fat. It is not only the tin which makes them rise well; being dropped in sizzling hot fat does them good. The pastry brush suggestion doesn't sound too well; it might work, but you are on the safe side if you melt a bit of lard in each cup. It is even better to get it heated on the stove, it gets hotter than in the oven.
And a different suggestion: The temperature of the batter is important too. They tell you to use warm ingredients, and that is good. Too cold and you won't get the popovers to steam internally quickly enough. But be aware that you shouldn't make it too hot. If your milk and/or butter is hot enough to cook the eggs while mixing, the batter won't rise. Best to use all warm ingredients in the 40-50 degrees celsius (100-120 fahrenheit) range.
I would disagree that silicone won't work. I make dutch babies in silicone baking pans all the time and they puff up just fine.
I got pretty good at other types of popovers that are cooked in larger pans (yorkshire pudding and pfannkuchen) ... and had lots of failures in the process.
I actually found that the recommendation of going into a massively hot oven for the fast oven spring did not give me the best rise. I actually got a better rise from starting in a moderate (I think it was 300°F) oven, then cranking it up once the batter was in (to 450-500°F).
This actually gives you the characteristic look of the types of popovers that I was doing, where the puffing up comes more from the sides than the center.
I know this goes against most recommendations for popovers, and the only explanation that I can come up with for it is that I'm warming the batter to closer to the boiling point before giving it the really high heat. Unfortunately, it's been well over a year since I had my pancake obsession, and I've since come to suspect that I have a gluten intollerance, so I haven't cooked most pancake-like items in quite some time.
That's interesting, Joe. I was planning on making popovers today and will test out your idea while keeping all other aspects of how I make them the same. I'll post the results later.
There are two major possible causes that seem likely:
The oven was not hot enough. Popovers require a fast rise, so that they can expand from the steam before the outside sets.
The whole wheat flour may have interrupted the gluten strands (the bran acts like a barrier physically interrupting the gluten strands, and under agitation can be sharp enough to cut them), making for a weaker overall structure, perhaps causing either failure to rise or collapse.
I would suggest validating your oven temperature with an oven thermometer (if you have made traditional pop-overs, you are already validated in that sense).
If it is not the oven temperature, try the recipe with the called for flour. If that works, you will know that it is the whole wheat flour.
Baking Bites suggests using white whole wheat flour and a ratio of 3 to 1 all purpose to white whole wheat; I would suggest trying a combination of 3/4 bread flour (higher gluten levels than all purpose) and 1/4 whole wheat, and seeing how that works.
I preheat my 6-compartment popover pan to 450 degrees along with the oven before placing a dab of butter (tablespoon divided 6 ways) in each cup. It should sizzle a bit as butter goes in, then pour batter in each cup over the butter. I bake mine at 450 degrees for 20 minutes, then 350 degrees for 10 minutes (don't open the oven, just reduce the temp). The shape of cups in a popover pan and muffin tin are drastically different.
I think my popovers did not pop
up because I opened the oven after five minutes to put in another smaller pan and the closing of the door was extra hard… Ooops.... only the last pan I put in did the pop-up thing sort of
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.869387
| 2013-11-07T00:32:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38211",
"authors": [
"JRO",
"Jamie Flournoy",
"Jayne Milligan",
"Jo Jensen",
"Joe",
"Jude",
"Megha",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Salome",
"Spike",
"The Harmonic Rainbow",
"haakon.io",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90015",
"suchethaaahh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18062
|
How can I use persimmons in a cooked dish?
I've recently had my first taste of a persimmon, having no idea how it tastes or how it should be eaten, I cut it into slices and ate it like an apple.
It is a very interesting sweet taste, and would like to know how I can incorporate it into a cooked meal or dish?
I usually just eat it raw after it's ripened. That's the only time i've had a persimmon.
Raw
Personally, growing up I've usually just eat it raw after it's ripened. That's the only form that i've a experienced a persimmon.
Nonethless, a quick google reveals use as a sauce:
This morning, I cooked the last of the mushy persimmons into a second
batch of persimmon sauce. The first, served over bread pudding on a
whim one evening, was so popular that it was deemed worthy of the last
persimmons. It’s simple and delicious, primarily because, as I
discovered, a generous serving of nutmeg and a bit of meyer lemon is
the best way to season persimmon anything!
Source: Oakland Garden Kitchen
In this article, Oakland Garden Kitchen blogger, also lists a recipes for persimmon bread published by David Lebovitz. Lebovitz has a very comprehensive blog article about persimmons.
Persimmon in Bread
In this blog, he provides an adaptation of James Beard's, "Beard on Bread", Persimmon Bread recipe. If you don't like this version of the recipe. Epicurean has another version.
Persimmon as an Entree
Wine Press NW also once published a recipe of use of persimmon as a glaze for salmon.
I have an aunt who occasionally brings us TONS of persimmons. While we do prefer them raw, I've tried them in several baked dishes in an effort to use them up. My favorite was apple-persimmon pie. I made a classic apple pie, and replaced 1/2 of the fruit with slices of persimmons (fairly crispy, fuyu variety persimmons, not the squishy type). It was very good. I have also added about 1/2 a cup of minced persimmon to a classic banana bread recipe for a nice flavorful fruity addition.
That sounds delicious, I will definitely have to try it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.869854
| 2011-09-28T21:08:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18062",
"authors": [
"chrisjlee",
"fluf",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7556"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18114
|
Possible to over-knead dough?
It will be my first attempt to bake with yeast this weekend and I'm interested to know how you know when you have kneaded dough enough. Is it possible to over-knead dough?
If it makes a difference I'll be making croissants.
Thank you :)
Cookbooks describe the state as "smooth and elastic" I think this is a reasonable description.
When the dough is first mixed it is very wet and sticky. As it is mixed you can see a lot of clumps and heterogeneous textures.
As the proteins in the flour mix with water they form gluten and the kneading folds the elastic gluten over itself again and again making sheets. The dough becomes less sticky and wet and more springy. The texture becomes completely homogeneous.
Kneading by hand it is impossible to over knead this type of dough. I have read that it is possible to over knead in a machine. In this case, supposedly, the protein sheets eventually rip up enough that you lost what you created and the dough reverts. I have kneaded in a machine for a long time and never personally seen this effect.
This matches my experience well too. There always the window pane test too. http://www.thekitchn.com/thekitchn/tips-techniques/bakers-techniques-how-to-do-the-windowpane-test-when-kneading-bread-070784
Very good @rfusca. I forgot about the window pane test.
I think over kneading can happen in a commercial mixer...or maybe in a stand mixer after like 30 minutes or something silly. But like @Sobachatina, I've never had it happen in years and years of baking. Its probably 10 million times more likely to be that you underknead than overknead.
@rfusca: I've pulled it off in a stand mixer before (by mistake, got distracted). But its definitely not something you'd ever accomplish by hand.
@derobert how long was it that it took to over knead? In attempts to make more elastic pizza dough I've kneaded in a stand mixer for up to 20 minutes, but I'm always a bit concerned about over kneading. Just curious how much longer you'd have to go.
@wbyoung not sure, it was a while ago. And like I said, it was from being distracted. BTW, you may find that giving your dough a few minute knead, then 5–10 minute rest, then more kneading helps.
Is this unconditionally true for alternative flours like spelt, who have a reputation to be easy to overknead?
You can definitely over mix any dough. The dough will become very shiny, very soft, and there will be very long, noticeable gluten strands. They are incredibly delicate, and will not hold any co2 for leavening purposes. I have seen this happen on many occassions. It is, however, difficult to do by hand. You will be tired if you try to do this by hand.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.870046
| 2011-09-30T13:08:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18114",
"authors": [
"LostNomad311",
"Ormoz",
"RicardoMazeto",
"Sobachatina",
"Thalita D.",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7629",
"louiebh",
"rackandboneman",
"rfusca",
"wbyoung"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19845
|
How long in fridge for sushi steaks?
I ordered some sushi grade steaks online. They came frozen, as they were shipped with dry ice to keep them nice and cold. Frozen, I cut them into pieces and put them back in the freezer, taking out one chunk at a time and thawing in the fridge.
Sushi grade steaks do not need to be cooked, since they are kept frozen at temperatures where parasites cannot survive so there is no concern of the meats contaminating anything.
Once thawed, how long do I have to keep them in the fridge until they pose a health risk?
Since this might depend on the type of fish, I will leave the question open to all fish types. However FYI I ordered yellow fin tuna (Ahi), yellowtail tuna (Hamachi), and salmon (Sake). Also Capelin roe (Masago), and salmon roe (Ikura).
I have always made sure that I only defrost enough to meet the needs of the moment for sushi. If you cut the blocks into 4 to 8 rolls worth, they should defrost under running water in just fifteen to twenty minutes, just about the time it takes me to do a batch of sushi rice. That said, fish once defrosted will start to lose flavor immediately but will remain edible for 2 days. Once it starts to smell, get rid of it immediately, and I would play it very safe on that "starts to smell" the faintest whiff should be enough to send it to the bin.
Thanks for the answer! Could you elaborate a bit on the health risks that the 'smelly' fish could pose to anyone eating it? Are there parasitical or just bacterial issues with the steaks at that point?
The freezing killed the parasites if it was done properly, that's why fish meant to be eaten raw is frozen for the lengths of time that it is. Fish itself breaks down into some fairly unhealthy stuff during the rotting process which is what causes that bad smell. Your digestive track will not thank you for eating it and neither will your taste buds.
Just to clarify on one point, one should only use cold running water when thawing fish this way.
Some, but not all. Freezing may kill some of the present forms of bacteria. But for the most part, bacteria may simply freeze the growth state and then continue to grow once food has been thawed. A perfect and well known example of bacteria that cannot be killed through freezing is Salmonella.
The bacteria in your food belong to two criteria -
a) the "wanted" bacteria
b) the "unwanted" bacteria
However they both are bacteria - so the effect of the freezing will be proportionally same on both types. For the bacterial population (in your food) the freezing is a natural catastrophe ! A lot of them may get annihilated because of the severe shear pressures generated by water crystal formation.(Remember ice floats and therefore has more volume than water - for the same mass).
Some bacteria ( unwanted as well as wanted) will survive. That is because their "population" inside is quite huge to begin with. But they will find the going really tough - until the food is thawed ! But once thawed they will multiply quickly to recover populations. In fact this new generation ( according to Charles Darwin) will have more "freeze-hardy" bacteria among them !
Bacteria have been known to grow in extremely hostile conditions elsewhere on earth. Your frozen food hardly nears the "extreme" conditions they are known to survive in.
There is a big difference between the Professional Freezers used in Sushiya and domestic freezers and the temperatures they work at. Professional freezers are designed to preserve freshness, minimize ice crystal damage and kill parasites and other unwanted agents. So what they do and what you do is another. defrosting and refreezing will degrade your fish particularly at domestic freeze rates and temp but will not make it inedible. I would never "thaw" frozen fish in running water. It is like soaking a raw beef steak in water before you cook it. I would agree 2 days is a max in fridge, keep fridge just above freezing (I have mine on 33-34) and pack it so air does not get at it (inhibits most bacteria and delays spoiling. You will see Saran Wrap is a favorite in Sushiya. Seems not to affect flavor which ziploc bags etc can do. Happy eating
Long time after OP but you should not assume what Sushiya do is what you can do with freezers and putting Sushi or Sashimi grade fish in running water to thaw is a waste.
There's no indication that the fish ever thawed. Also, thawing under cold water is standard... the fish is wrapped, not in direct contact with the water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.870401
| 2011-12-21T02:39:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19845",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Ghanima",
"Koshinae",
"Leonardo Castro",
"OmniaFaciat",
"Rich",
"Sbusiso Reggy",
"Siva",
"Tyler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7817",
"sarge_smith",
"user124009"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19106
|
Fresh pearl onions vs frozen
Our recipe called for frozen pearl onions & I only found fresh. What do I need to do to the fresh ones?
Can you post the recipe? Do they get cooked substantially?
Fresh ones will require peeling, and probably slightly longer cooking, as the freezing process tends to break down some of the cell membranes. The frozen ones are typically pre-peeled.
The easiest way I've found to peel pearl onions is to score them accross the top in an X pattern with a paring knife, dip them in a pot of boiling water for 15 seconds or so, shock in an ice bath. Then, one by one, grab them by the stem-end, and squeeze gently -- the onions will typically pop right out of the peels!
Again, depending on the dish, you may have to cook them a little bit longer. If it's a fast saute or stir fry, you may want to leave them in the boiling water for another 30-60 seconds when you're peeling them to soften them up more. If it's a long braised or stewed dish, I wouldn't bother.
Peel them and you are ready to go!
Onions tend to soften when they un freeze, so if you only get fresh ones you can always rinse them for 15 minutes in boiling water or if you have a couple of days, put them in the freezer :-) there you go, frozen pearl onions for you!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.870786
| 2011-11-24T00:55:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19106",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Michael",
"Palashx",
"Schewerle",
"dreamnart",
"fazi.shaik",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41828"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19419
|
Can I freeze all cookie dough? How far in advance can I make it?
I want to make about 15 varieties of cookies for an upcoming gift exchange. I have a number of recipes together. I already made a few that were listed as freeze, slice and bake dough.
Can I freeze all cookie dough?
What ingredients will be a tell tale sign that I can't freeze it?
Whipped egg whites maybe? A lot of butter?
If I can't freeze the dough, how far in advance can I make it and store it in the refrigerator?
Here is the list of recipes I've collected FYI. http://pinterest.com/superjac/holiday-cookies/
All baking dough does well in the freezer for a few days. But I'd suggest not thinking of meringue cookie mixture as cookie dough... it's an entirely different animal. I think of dough as anything with lots of flour and a decent amount of fat and moisture in it. You can't freeze anything with whipped egg whites and expect it to survive. You can't even leave whipped egg whites to settle on the counter for very long before they start to loose the air bubbles you've worked so hard to incorporate.
In addition to what hobs says, cookies which are supposed to be light and fluffy (like snickerdoodles) or fragile and delicate (like tea cakes) aren't a great idea to freeze; the dough texture can change too much during freezing and thawing. Cookies which are supposed to be hard or chewey (like oatmeal cookies or chocolate chip cookies) should do fine though.
However, consider taking an alternative route. First, almost all baked cookies freeze very well, so consider baking the cookies ahead of time and freezing the made cookies instead of the dough. Or, there are many varieties of Ice Box Cookies, which must be refrigerated or frozen before they are made ... and have the virtue of making a really large quantity.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.870940
| 2011-12-05T23:57:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19419",
"authors": [
"MattPutnam",
"alkuzad",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42566",
"jlipstate"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19510
|
How long can vegetable-based foods be stored at room temperature?
New York City health department forces restaurants to sell prepared food such as babaghanoush on a bed of ice in freezing temperatures. I thought that this was not necessary and I posted a question here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3326872 but someone replied that it was necessary.
Would vegetable based food such as babaghanoush or humus or pasta salad spoil in 3 or 4 hours and become dangerous to eat if sold in room temperature?
It's bad enough that there are people who think the food safety guidelines somehow don't apply to them at home; it's downright terrifying to think that there are actual restaurant owners who would even consider breaking the rules. I guess this proves that federal health inspection is tax money well-spent...
This is not an argument you can win. Say your prepared food item is a raw carrot. Clearly carrots are safe at room temperature for weeks and months. They might get rubbery and unpleasant, but they aren't going to make you sick. You can probably even prove this. Now consider a bowl of chicken stock. Rich in both nutrients and water, bacteria are going to love growing in it and even an hour or two at room temperature might be dicy. And between those two things you have items like baba ganoush which, yeah, is probably ok for a few hours. But that's not the point.
Inspectors and rules can't do "spectrum" and they can't do "read the ingredient list" or "read the ingredient list and cooking instructions" (since raw beaten eggs would poison you way faster than a hardboiled egg would.) They need a simple rule that inspectors and vendors alike can understand and enforce. The actual facts of how that particular dish spoils do not and cannot come into it. Customers, vendors, and inspectors need to see at a glance "yes, this place is following the rules" not "well, that might be ok but I'll need to see whether or not they have icing sugar in this version".
It's not about what would be safe at home. It's not about the science of bacteria growth. It's about overall consistency and overall safety. A beautifully-optimized set of rules with 10 or 20 or 50 categories might feel fairer, but would confuse entry-level employees, require tons of signs, labels, written procedures etc, and a vendor would never be completely confident that an inspector wouldn't say "this isnt A-1B dip, it's clearly A-2B dip and I'm writing you up!"
This makes sense and answers my question exactly. Thanks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.871107
| 2011-12-08T15:22:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19510",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Holly",
"Paula",
"Vici",
"You Qi",
"Zeynel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8249"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19856
|
Why did my fresh pasta come out pasty and lumpy?
I just got a pasta machine, and had my first try at making fresh pasta yesterday. I used the recipe in the booklet that came with the machine which called for 2 cups Semolina flour, 2 large eggs, and a bit of water and olive oil. Making the dough, rolling it out, and cutting the pasta went well, but I ran into a couple issues.
Actually cooking it. I know how to tell when boxed pasta is done, but I'm not sure what the texture of fresh pasta should actually be like. Should it be similar to that of "Al dente" boxed pasta? Mine was weirdly soft and I'm not sure if it was under or over-cooked.
The cooked pasta had a very rough, lumpy texture rather than the smooth texture I would expect. Is this due to the semolina flour, or did I maybe just not knead the dough enough?
Did you use durum semolina or soft wheat semolina? And what size semolina? (You want 150-300 µm for pasta, that's finer than the semolina for porridge and nockerl). Also, what amount is this "2c"?
Water and oil are unnecessary. Flour and eggs are the only ingredients you need, really.
I would have said flour and water are the only ingredients you need. But the fact is, oil, water, eggs in different combinations make different pasta; not necessarily better or worse.
I did't realize there were different types of Semolina. I think I may have used one that wasn't fine enough. I'll try it with a finer grain Semolina next time.
Fresh pasta cooks in just a few minutes, so taste it early. It should be al-dente just like properly cooked dried pasta. Let your fresh pasta dry (I hang mine over the back of a chair) for half an hour or longer before you cook it, so that there's some crunch for the al-dente feel.
Most recipes advise "type 00" flour, which is milled extra fine. You should be able to tell when you've kneaded enough - it just needs to feel perfectly smooth in your hands. You don't need to knead for ages like bread dough, but you do need to have mixed the liquid and the flour completely thoroughly.
I find a quick zip with a cuisinart is enough to mix it thoroughly.
Sounds over cooked. Fresh pasta and noodles don't take so long to cook as dried noodles of the same size.
Might be the flour. If in doubt, try a different brand. Though semolina is the traditional flour for Italian pasta, just about any flour will make a pasta or noodle of some kind, though with varying textures and flavours. You can pay around with flour mixes and find one that suits you.
You've already good answers about the second part of your question (lumpy texture), but I don't think that people thoroughly answered the first part:
I know how to tell when boxed pasta is done, but I'm not sure what the texture of fresh pasta should actually be like. Should it be similar to that of "Al dente" boxed pasta? Mine was weirdly soft and I'm not sure if it was under or over-cooked.
No, it should not be similar to "al dente" dried pasta. It's always going to be "weirdly soft", even when it's cooked correctly, if you're comparing it to properly cooked dried pasta. It has a silkier, softer texture.
Fresh and dried pasta are basically two different ingredients, sort of how fresh and sun-dried tomatoes, or fresh and dried herbs don't cook up the same way.
Usually it only needs a minute or two in rapidly boiling water (do not try to start it in cold water), with thicker or semi-dried pastas (made earlier in the day) taking a little bit longer than stuff you just rolled out.
I would recommend that you ask around, and see if any of your friends (or their parents or grandparents) make fresh pasta, and see if you can watch them, or at least sample their finished product, so you know what it's supposed to end up like.
You could also try checking to see if any restaurants near you serve fresh pasta, and try it there. (although if you're currently under a lockdown / takeout only situation, I would wait, as the texture is going to suffer). And it doesn't need to be an Italian restaurant -- there are plenty of fresh asian noodles, or even pick apart a dumpling made with fresh pasta so you can get a sense of just the wrapper texture.
And if even that's not an option, you can try looking through the refrigerated or freezer section of your grocery store to see if they have prepared fresh noodles, so you can compare that to your attempt. If you don't see any, ask -- I've seen it tucked away in the cheese case before.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.871331
| 2011-12-21T13:36:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19856",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"Doug",
"Hank Friedman",
"James",
"Jaqueezy",
"Matt Dusek",
"Nicole",
"Soup",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8410",
"nico",
"riccardo",
"rumtscho",
"slim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6975
|
Is it possible to have sushi pizza?
I've found very few places that dare to combine those two in one dish. None of them succeeded, in my opinion.
At first I thought it was due to mixing rice and wheat, then thought it was due to the different temperatures. Whatever the reason, I still want to make something that combines both, something that could be considered pizza and that could also be considered sushi. Is it possible?
I've seen it advertised in brasil but was way too scared to order it
A few restaurants in Brazil serve a variant that is basically a sushi roll but filled with the stuff you usually have as pizza toppings - cheese, pepperoni, olives, etc. It is surprisingly tasty.
Circular bed of sticky sushi rice, topped with a drizzle of spicy mayo as the sauce and chunks of sashimi. cut into pizza slices.
It doesn't really have any pizza ingredients, does it? It might be worth trying, though, but I wonder if the rice alone can be sticky enough to hold the toppings...
@Julio: This isn't just a random a recipe, this is what sushi pizza actually is. It's served in many sushi restaurants across North America.
Do you eat it like a slice of pizza? Knife and fork? Chopsticks? Seems like the rice would fall apart if the piece was too big.
The wikipedia article cited below indicated the sushi rice is fried into a patty, so that would hold together better.
You guys can ding me for this, but I just thought of it when I read the question. I wouldn't want any "real" pizza ingredients with my raw fish. Crust: no. Tomato sauce: no. Cheese: Hells no!
@awshepard: Michael explained why it holds together; as for eating it, I've only had it once (I haven't ever seen it in Texas, but was up near Montreal recently) and the whole thing was only maybe 12cm across, and it was cut into six "slices", so they were quite possible to pick up with chopsticks, though the shape is a little more awkward to grab than normal sushi or sushi rolls.
Only in America would you find something like this. I did have Enchilada Dumplings in Shinjuku Okubo Tokyo, so I suppose anything is possible. But why on Earth would you want to ruin perfectly good sushi is beyond me.
I know that at Morimoto's in New York he has a pizza dish that is essentially sushi ingredients on pizza dough. This is quoted from a NY Times article :
a 'tuna pizza' with raw bluefin tuna,
jalapeño, red onion, olives and an
anchovy aioli atop a crisp, thin
tortilla. I also liked silky slices of
"lamb carpaccio," dressed with
Japanese green onions, grated ginger
and garlic oil.
I frequent the Vancouver sushi scene and can't say I see this very often if ever. It seems it does exist though, primarily on the east coast.
Wikipedia even has an article, which is proof that it does, in fact, exist. :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.871671
| 2010-09-08T13:05:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6975",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Carol",
"Cascabel",
"D3vtr0n",
"Dave",
"Julio",
"Michael Natkin",
"T. Sar",
"Willbill",
"awshepard",
"computercolin",
"draconian",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53",
"samseva",
"user1575"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4685
|
Is there a difference between 'Saucisson Sec' and 'Salami'?
Is there difference between Saucisson Sec and Salami?
Just to get the obvious answer out of the way, one is a French cured sausage and the other is an Italian.
It will be interesting to hear if anyone knows of traditional differences in preparation and ingredients between the two.
There's a difference between the title (is a sausiccon a type of salami), and the body (is there a difference).
The first is a question of classification, and no, a saucisson is type of cured sausage, but you'd want "saucisson sec" (dry sausage) for a dried, cured sausage with good storage characteristics like salami. So the relation is the other way around -- a salami is a type of saucisson.
"Differences" when you're dealing with general classifications such as this tend to be a question of if there are items that might fit into one category, but not the other. It's pretty obvious that salami is a narrower term than sausiccon, but I'm not sure if salami and sausiccon sec are just different names for the same concept, or if there might be items in one class that wouldn't fall into the other.
update : would sweet bologna be considered a saucisson sec ? It's only semi-dried, so I wouldn't classify it as a salami due to storage characteristics.
I admit, I'm not French (and only part Basque), so I don't hear the term "saucisson" used; we might need a French person to weigh in on how the term is used; it might be like "chorizo" in that there's many different regional variations of it but a few defining characteristics that might not suffice with a simple translation.
Saucisson sec might be used to call all the dried sausages. Salami is a dried sausage so it might be a saucisson sec. However, it is generally used to designate different recipes.
The difference can come from the size of the grounded meat, the seasoning or even the casing. As an example, Rhulman and Polcyn are providing a recipe for salami (heavily seasoned) and saucisson sec (lightly seasoned).
Also, salami or pepperoni are usually made of fine grounded meat which gives an homogeneous look to the stuffing while other dried sausages like rosette de Lyon or saucisson de ménage are more heterogenous looking. Salami is generally associated with bigger casings than saucissons secs. The size of the casing might not only affect the look but also the taste as a bigger casing necessitate longer drying.
Nice thorough answer.
Saucisse is any little sausage, fresh or dried. Saucisse seche is the term used when it's dried. Saucisson is any sausage that's air dried and cured -Salami is cured sausage, fermented and air-dried meat. So is it a Salami, semantics probable because the French don't want to call it a Salami.
I do not think Saucisson need necessarily be of pork. I have eaten donkey and horse sausages which were refered to as "saucisson de cheval" (horse) and "saucisson de ane" (donkey).
As saucisson is defined as "a large, cured French sausage of ground pork flavored with garlic", then a saucisson is not a salami; salami is not usually flavored with garlic, and it's not only made with ground pork.
Salami and saucissons secs are referred to a grinded mixture of meat and fat stuffed into a casing that undergoes a fermentation drying and curing process. Salami can also be smoked.
Both terms and technologies are equivalent.
The same applies to the Spanish embutidos as for example the chorizo. Many countries all over the world have similar products using the same basic process
Saucisson sec and salami are dry cured sausages. Salamis tend to have gone through a incubation period which gives the sausage an acidic taste, which also protects the meat from spoiling. Saucisson sec has no incubation period. Both sausages should be further protected by Nitrates and Nitrites to inhibit Botulism.
Do not mislead. Dried and cured are two different things. Dried when you leave meat to dry naturally and meat losing water in time. When you cure you involve smoke. There are two different type of curing - cold and hot. All three technology give different taste.
Salami is cured not dried, saucisson sec is dried.
Virtually all dry sausages involve both curing and drying. And “curing” does not necessarily involve smoke.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.871949
| 2010-08-09T20:54:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4685",
"authors": [
"Ben Rubin",
"Chris",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight",
"Gail B",
"Hannele",
"Jessica",
"Joe",
"Natalia",
"Sneftel",
"Tim Visher",
"chef oscar lippe",
"eion",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95895"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17760
|
How to grill potatoes?
I'm having a barbecue and I'm cooking steaks and asparagus. I still have some uncooked potatoes left in the pantry. Is it possible to grill a potato?
Welcome to the site. I've removed the recipe request from your question since that is not an appropriate question to have answered here.
A baking sheet with holes in the bottom where smoke can come through works great for me.
I have a "Grill Wok" that I received as a gift that looks like this:
It is great for grilling potatoes.
Peel and cube to about 1" pieces.
Par boiling or microwaving works equally well for blanching the
cubes.
Toss in a large bowl with olive oil and melted butter
Add seasoning: salt, pepper, chili powder, oregano, etc. (to taste)
Allow Grill Wok to preheat on the grill, when hot add potatoes.
Cook till golden brown
(I believe mine was obtained at Bass Pro Shop, but they are available elsewhere)
Yes. I par-boil them first for 15 mins, then toss in oil and seasoning, thread on skewers and barbecue for 7-8 mins, turning often. Lovely.
How should the potato be cut before skewering?
There are lots of ways to go about grilling potatoes. One simple approach that I've been using lately is to clean up the potatoes; cut them into half-inch disks; toss with oil, salt, and pepper; and grill over medium-high heat for until browned on the first side. Flip and brown the other side.
One more way to cook potatoes on the grill (but isn't grilling) ...
Cube up the potatoes, drizzle with oil, salt, and whatever other seasonings you like
Lay out a large piece of heavy duty aluminum foil.
Place the potatoes on one side of the foil, fold it closed, and crimp the edges shut.
Toss on the grill while you're pre-heating it, then move it to a cooler location while you're cooking everything else. (my grill has a top shelf, so I put it up there).
Exact cooking time depends on how hot of a place you set it on the grill ... anywhere from 30 to 60 minutes is typical. You'll want to turn the whole thing over at least once ... you may need to use a wide spatula to life it safely, depending on how large your packet is. You'll get some char, but it's really more a steam than a grill.
If you want them to dry out some, you can break open the top of the packet after about 30 minutes, and let some of the steam escape, but this also makes it more difficult to remove from the grill.
...
You can also just do baked potatoes on the grill, if you have time ... I just start the grill early, on medium (might be low for other grills), and add whole potatoes that have been scrubbed, rubbed in oil, and salted, and cook over low or indirect heat for about an hour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.872554
| 2011-09-15T12:31:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17760",
"authors": [
"Kaushik",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7477"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9243
|
Amount of food to prepare for bagel & lox brunch
I'm putting on a bagel & lunch brunch this weekend for 40 people.
I figure 2 bagels per person. How much lox should I need? How much cream cheese?
i'm planning to get about 7 pounds of Lox. I'll let you know how it goes.
Don't forget to provide alternatives for those (like my sister) who can't stand lox.
If you have leftovers, don't throw them out. Lox freezes pretty well, as do bagels. Defrost the bagel in the microwave, let a frozen slice of lox thaw on the counter (don't microwave!), then toast the bagel. Almost as good as new (depending on how long it's been in the freezer).
How large are the people? I'd plan differently if I was serving a football team than if I was serving a bunch of skinny models.
Aren't questions like this off topic on this site?
Well Joel, with all respect, this is kinda off-topic, and as much as I hate to close a question from Our Lord And Savior, it's basically been answered and we ought to be setting the right example here, so... closed it is.
I edited this to change "order" to "prepare", making it an appropriate topic. Waiting for other reopen votes before I cast mine. Relevant meta topic.
@hobodave - cast mine.
@bikeboy389 was the closest!
I ended up ordering way too much food. When all was said and done, for 40 people, here's what people ate:
About 1 bagel each
Seems low, huh? Some people had already eaten, I guess.
About 2 ounces of lox each
There is a metric ton of leftover lox in my fridge. And Taco even snatched a couple of ounces off of somebody's bagel.
Picture of Taco:
Three big tubs of cream cheese
Three tomatoes and one red onion, sliced
4 lemons, sliced
2 gallons orange juice
1.5 gallons Apple Juice
6 bottles San Pellegrino
About 30 small (6-oz) cups of coffee
About a pint of tuna salad
Negligible amount of peanut butter
Assorted fruit and cheese platter
Three pies (one blueberry, one cherry, one pumpkin).
Mmmm, pie... there's your error. Why would I have lox if there's pie? :)
Lox freezes quite well, which would probably be the best option for dealing with the lots of leftovers. Freeze in amounts you'd eat in one meal -- and remember you can make some YUMMY scrambled eggs with lox and onions.
Given that the lox and cream cheese make it a more filling meal, I would think 1 bagel (2 halves) per person would be about right.
I'd estimate maybe 3-4 tablespoons of cream cheese per person, and enough lox to cover each bagel half in a single generous layer (not sure about the weight, maybe 4oz per person?). EDIT -- Based on the comments, I think 2-3oz might be a much more appropriate amount of lox.
Or, do an experiment. Make one bagel with lox and cream cheese and see how much you use. Then triple it, just in case.
4 oz of lox per person would be quite a lot. That's a piece of lox about the size of a deck of cards. I'd expect people to want more like 2 oz or so. I might also put bagels at 3 halves per person. But I think you're well on with the cream cheese estimate per half-bagel.
4 oz would be a quarter pound, so if you think of a quarter pound burger from your favorite burger joint, it would be a healthy portion of Lox. Guess it would depend on how thinly it's slices, how roughly it's placed on the bagel and how much people like their Lox.
You can reduce the amount of lox you're ordering by providing other options, such as tuna salad, whitefish salad, egg salad, cheese, butter, and even PB&J. Many people aren't huge fans of lox, so would rather have some other options.
And if you're worried about the cost of the lox (which is an issue, of course) you can make some homemade lox spread by mixing chunks of lox with whipped cream cheese.
Definitely put out sliced tomatoes and sweet onions, along with lettuce, cucumber, olives, and capers. Plus salt and pepper!
Where's your -16 votes for suggesting something else other than Lox?
@TFD: there's a world of difference between "some people don't like lox, you should provide alternatives for them" and "OMG, lox and cream cheese are so bad for you, you should never serve such crap to your guests". But you probably know that.
@Marti is was said in jest, I am never that seriously toned? At least I had workable quantities. Lox for lunch for a week sounds pretty bad!
It is going to be how stingy or generous you want to be with your ingredients. Two Bagels per person seems a lot when you are piling on the cream cheese and Lox. But, per bagel this is what I would suggest:
1 Bagel (2 halves)
3-6 Tbsp Cream Cheese
2.5-4 oz Lox
(Optional)
Tomatoes
Onions
Capers
So for 40 people (giving 1 bagel per person)
40 Bagels
60-120 oz Cream Cheese
100-160 oz Lox
Of course if you want to go with 2 per person, double it. I probably wouldn't go more than 1.5 bagles per person.
you forgot freshly ground black pepper and Maldon's salt on your ingredients list :).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.872893
| 2010-11-19T00:31:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9243",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"FoodTasted",
"Jarede",
"Joe",
"Joel Spolsky",
"Jonathan",
"Martha F.",
"Marti",
"Sam Holder",
"Sausage King",
"TFD",
"Zach",
"bikeboy389",
"fongkong",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jason",
"job",
"justkt",
"kael",
"user19065"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4383
|
Types of vinegars used for salads
I was told by someone that rice vinegar was not suitable to be used in a salad dressing.
Can only certain types of vinegars be used for salads?
Rice vinegar is less acidic than other vinegars; as such, you need to adjust your oil-to-vinegar ratio or it'll might seem overly oily.
Rather than the 3:1 oil-to-vinegar ratio, or rice wine vinegar I'll go with a 1:1 mix. If it's a seasoned rice wine, I'll sometimes leave the oil out entirely, but I seem to like sour flavors more than other people.
You can use most any vinegar or even acid from citrus fruits for salad dressings, although I don't know that I'd use white vinegar.
Ignore someone.
One of my favorite dressings is made with a base of rice vinegar, sesame oil, and ginger. There is nothing besides your personal taste to rule out what vinegar should be used for salads.
That said, I'd personally avoid malt vinegar.
Malt vinegar is great in tuna, potato or chicken salad. I don't know that I've ever tried it in a green salad, but I'd think it'd work well with darker greens ... okay, going to have to try it when I get home.
@Joe: Interesting. I've only ever put it on fries. I've never had it in those dishes. I was also thinking green salad when I made that statement.
For me, nothing beats balsamic vinegar. The 12 years aged one is still affordable enough to be put on the salad, but I don't recommend it unless you don't like acidity. If you are an sour lover like me, the normal non-aged balsamic vinegar is a good choice.
As a very rare alternative for salad dressing, I recommend honey from the Strawberry tree. It is very rare to find, because it blooms in December and it's too cold for bees, but the taste is very bitter and it goes perfectly on salad.
Yeah, that's nonsensical advice from your friend. Match the vinegar to the ingredients, season, and other components of your meal. E.g. rice vinegar can be lovely in an Asian context, and it is also prety neutrally flavored so it can have more general use. I generally avoid flavored vinegars (I can add my own flavors), but there are some great varietal wine vinegars out there - search "Katz" vinegars for one example. Or try lemon or lime juice for an altogether different alternative.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.873281
| 2010-08-05T22:03:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4383",
"authors": [
"Chili sauce lover",
"Joe",
"Juan",
"MSlimmer",
"Rosie",
"Shirley",
"Zeynel",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8327",
"jim_carson",
"pna"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3954
|
How do I cook radicchio to make it taste less bitter?
Although I like the basic taste of radicchio a lot, I frequently get heads that are so bitter as to be basically inedible. Can you suggest some cooking techniques that are particularly effective at reducing the bitterness without masking the other flavors too much?
Roasting and grilling seem to help. You can also lessen the harshness by using ingredients with a sweet flavor profile in conjunction with it.
Years ago I tried a Radicchio appetizer (basically a radicchio bruschetta...but this was mid to late 80's and bruschetta wasn't something that was as common then!) I believe it came from Sunset Magazine or Better Homes & Gardens:
Dice up the radicchio and place into a baking dish. Infuse some olive oil with garlic and dry herbs of choice (I think it had thyme, pepper, and oregano). Drizzle the oil over the diced radicchio and roast until radicchio is tender. Then crumble goat cheese over the top and bake until cheese is softened. Serve the roasted radicchio and goat cheese piled onto crostini.
Soaking for a while in cold water beforehand also helps tame the bitterness.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.873484
| 2010-08-01T19:42:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3954",
"authors": [
"Cole",
"Matt",
"Mikael Östberg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7403",
"peirix"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
372
|
Soup is too salty!
I made a mistake with my lastest batch of chicken soup, and it's too salty to eat. Is there any way to save it?
The old rule with salt is: Always err on the low side.. you can put in more later, but you cannot take it out :)
possible duplicate of How to fix food that got extra salty?
Peter Martin at Chef Talk suggests adding sugar or cider vinegar. He also mentions the old potato trick but says it's not effective for him unless it's only slightly too salty.
Interesting! What is the cider vinegar supposed to do?
cider vinegar is acidic, salt is a base. Maybe the chemical reaction is supposed to bind some of the salt and therefore neutralize its taste?
I'm not sure. I can find lots of references to using it this way but no explanation as to why.
@Elizabeth -- it's a matter of balance; something that's both salty and sour (or salty and sweet) doesn't seem as overly salty. I've had reasonable luck with the potato trick, though. I used slices of a waxy potato to lots of surface area, but that I could still fish out.
@txwikinger: actually salt is not a base, salt is a salt. Salts are what are formed when an acid reacts with a base.
Make a second batch of Soup and under salt it, then mix them.
A trick that works sometimes is to put a potato in it and cook it a bit. It'll tend to absorb some salt and not give flavor out.
Do you mean boiled or raw potatoes for this?
Add water and/or unsalted chicken or vegetable stock...though depending upon how over-salted your soup is, you may not be able to rescue it without a significant amount of added liquid.
Yes, or just build on it. For a chicken soup you could add almost anything: slices of (unsalted) chicken, canned tomatoes, cream, some vegetables you like, etc.
Strain soup and set solids aside. Put salty stock in a lg, by at least half, pot. Add handful of parsley, couple quartered onions, celery butt (end) and heart with leaves, 2 or 3 chopped carrots, 2 med. Peeled potatoes, quartered and small chicken that you cleaned. Bring to a boil, reduce and summer a couple hours. DON'T SEASON. when meat is falling off bones, strain. Pick meat off and mix in. Freeze half th is in qt containers. Add your solid from the early salty soup. Now taste for seasoning. Should be fine now.
Perhaps just more water, more chicken stock?
chicken stock is usually salty, so probably just water.
Canned chicken stock is usually salty.
Make another batch with no salt added to it, then mix the two batches together. It's the only way to save soup that's too salted. Nothing else works.
If you need to thicken it up after mixing, use smash powder packet, and add accordingly.
Smash powder? I'm not familiar with that. Can you give some information on what that is or provide a link?
Do you mean Smash potato powder? That's the only thing I can find a reference to online, and it would definitely help thicken soup.
I find it is easiest to: remove about 1/2 of the solids with a slotted spoon (meat, vegetables, noodles, beans etc.) place them in a strainer or colander and give them a quick rinse under warm or hot water, next remove 1/4 of the broth and replace it with water (You can save this broth if you want to use in future soups but please label it to not use alone nor with additional salt), add an additional 1/4 of the original amount of other seasonings (except no more salt, this includes no garlic salt or onion salt) add the rinsed meat and vegetables back into the pot and simmer for 20 to 30 minutes to give the flavors a chance to blend.
Adding a bunch of parsley to the soup and cooking it for another hour or so will usually work. Parsley tends to soak up the salt somehow, at least flavour wise.
I'm not sure how it works, but it works for me.
Especially if I've been using fake chicken stock powder (it's we use instead of chicken stock in my vegetarian household).
Anyway, a proper Jewish chicken soup should have parsley in it, so why not add more? That's what my granny taught me.
I made the mistake of using all the drippings from baked ham in making soup and it was much too salty. I followed the advice from DebraMN and spooned out all the meat and vegetables from the pot, rinsed them well with warm water and drained them in a colander. I poured out half the broth and added back plain water. In tasting the vegetables before adding them to the pot I found that the rutabagas I'd used were very salty so I fished out as much rutabaga as I could and then added the meat and veggies back to the pot. I added around 2 tsp. sugar and 2 Tbsp. Cider vinegar to what was approx. 2 qts. soup. I did add two quartered raw potatoes and simmered for about an hour and that helped some but the rutabagas really seemed to have absorbed the salt and the soup did turn out tasting pretty darn good.
Since so many people using the potato technique can't get the potatoes to absorb much salt, sounds like maybe they ought to use rutabagas instead.
Slice up a potato, nice thick rounds, and boil in broth. It will soak up the salt. Taste broth till it's the right saltiness for you. Fish out the potato (which is great mashed for a treat...nice broth flavor). Potato boiling will add starch to broth, so it will not be clear anymore. Adding more new, less salty broth works, but "WORK". Easier to just add small amounts of water to taste or a low salt bullion cube if it gets too weak. Potato has always worked for me, sometimes have to let it boil for a while if really salty.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.873643
| 2010-07-10T01:48:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/372",
"authors": [
"Automatic Barriers LTD",
"Bryant",
"DanielWainfleet",
"Earlz",
"Elizabeth Schechter",
"George Edison",
"GrantorShadow",
"Ilya Haykinson",
"Jay",
"Joe",
"Joel in Gö",
"Kiesa",
"Kjartan Þór Kjartansson",
"Kosta",
"Laura",
"Lorel C.",
"Marcin",
"Mennyg",
"Michael Todd",
"Mien",
"Mugen",
"Nev Stokes",
"Richard Hoskins",
"Trevor Clutterbuck",
"brian rayment",
"citizen",
"dill",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"pixel",
"txwikinger",
"user698"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3120
|
Buttermilk substitute?
I've got a recipe that calls for some buttermilk, but none on-hand. Is there some way I could use some common ingredient(s) as a substitute?
There are a few possibilities:
1 cup milk plus 1 Tbsp lemon juice or white vinegar, let stand for 10 minutes
1 cup milk plus 2 tsp cream of tartar, let stand for 10 minutes
2 parts plain yogurt to 1 part milk
Plain, low-fat yogurt
Sour cream
Molasses (if batter requires baking soda)
I have used the first two with success.
Source: Cook's Thesaurus
I have good success with using the yogurt/milk combo. I usually do 1/2 and 1/2 but it probably depends on how thick your yogurt is.
I've also done a mix of yogurt and water (about 3:2), but it was for a yeast dough, not chemically leavened, so I don't know if I managed to get the acid balance correct or not, but it came out fine.
I know that baking can demand a bit more precision. Has anyone experimented with the different methods and ratios? Looking at making a cake using one of these substitutions.
You can use the aforementioned substitutions for buttermilk but keep in mind that they will produce a slightly different flavor due to the types of acids and their flavor profiles:
-Buttermilk = lactic acid
-Lemon juice = citric acid
-Vinegar = acetic acid
Chemically they will work the same however.
Sour cream or yogurt thinned with milk to the consistency of buttermilk will probably give you the closest substitution in flavor.
I've seen both milk + white vinegar or milk + lemon juice mentioned as substitutes. I've only tried the former, and that worked great. I've used a ratio of 1 cup milk to 1 tablespoon of vinegar.
I'll attempt to clarify a few issues that have come up in previous answers and comments:
I can think of three primary functions for buttermilk in most recipes:
flavor
a texture agent (to get a certain thickness or viscosity)
leavening (when combined with other chemical agents)
The best substitute will depend on which of these factors is/are necessary or primary in a particular recipe. I'll consider each below. However, I will first note that the substitutions that balance all three the best for most recipes are probably kefir or acidified milk (curdled with lemon, vinegar, or some other acid).
(1) Flavor: As pointed out in Darin Sehnert's answer, the particular type of acid will impact the flavor. Buttermilk and other fermented dairy products (kefir, yogurt, sour cream, crème fraîche, etc.) will all have lactic acid as a primary flavor. Different fermented dairy products also use various blends of bacteria and ferment at different temperatures, which will create subtle differences in taste as well. Buttermilk is fermented at room temperature or slightly warmer, as is kefir, while yogurt is also fermented from regular milk but at higher temperatures (with different bacteria).
If the main flavor components are "dairy" and "fermented dairy," then obviously a naturally fermented dairy product would likely be the best substitute, even if the thickness or acidity isn't quite right. (This would generally be true of uncooked recipes containing a lot of buttermilk, like salad dressings or smoothies.)
If a "dairy" flavor and "sour" flavor are desired, but the specific buttermilk flavor is subtle or would be drowned out by other prominent flavors, then simply acidifying the milk using vinegar or lemon juice would be a reasonable option.
A final concern about flavor is whether the substitute actually resembles buttermilk in terms of other chemical components. Buttermilk, yogurt, kefir, and milk acidified by lemon or vinegar will all have very roughly the same fat content and sugar content, as well as acidity. Things like sour cream/crème fraîche or molasses may be able to substitute for other characteristics below, but they will introduce significant differences in flavor (much more fat or sugar, respectively), which could require modification to other ingredients in a recipe.
(2) Texture/thickness: Buttermilk is more viscous (thicker) than milk, but not significantly so. Acidified milk (with lemon or vinegar) should have a roughly similar texture.
Other fermented milk products may vary: yogurt or sour cream will likely be thicker and may require dilution with milk, water, or more liquid in the recipe in general. This will be particularly important when the substitute is to be mixed into a fluid or semi-solid mixture, such as pancake batter or cake batter. Batters that are too thick or too thin may not cook evenly or may influence the rising characteristics. Kefir often has a similar viscosity to buttermilk, and store-bought kefir is often an ideal replacement for buttermilk if on-hand. But homemade kefir will often have significant amounts of kefiran, which tends to make it more "sticky" and could be a problem when combined with wet or sticky doughs.
(3) Leavening: When combined with baking soda and/or baking powder, buttermilk is often used to leaven baked goods. Thinning out yogurt or sour cream to achieve an appropriate texture may be reasonable for uncooked products, and it may be necessary to achieve the correct batter consistency. But this type of substitution can have an impact on leavening.
Most of the fermented dairy products have pH values of around 4.5, whether cultured buttermilk or yogurt or kefir or sour cream. Thus, when undiluted, they will react with the same amount of baking soda/powder in similar ways. When highly diluted (say, a tablespoon or two of thick yogurt or sour cream per cup of milk), the resulting thickness may be like buttermilk, but the acidity will be lessened enough that there may not be enough acid to react with all of the baking soda/powder. (This may be exacerbated further with sour cream or crème fraîche, which may have similar pH but less water content because of the fat concentration, which means less overall acid to react.) The result may be insufficient rising of the batter/dough, or a "chemical" aftertaste from leftover baking soda that didn't react, or both.
That said, most recipes tend to allow for the fact that fermented dairy products vary somewhat in their acidity, and a little leftover acidity is often a good flavor note, while leftover baking soda/powder generally tastes terrible. So most recipes err on the side of a smaller amount of leavening. (Also, too much leavening can often introduce large bubbles which may simply bubble out of the top of the batter, rather than remaining inside and creating a lighter texture.) Moreover, it should be noted that pH is logarithmic, so if you combine a fermented dairy product that has pH of 4.0-4.5 with some milk or water with a pH around 7, the resulting mixture will still be much closer to the original 4.5 pH range than to the neutral 7 pH.
Bottom line is that a mixture of 1/2 yogurt and 1/2 milk or 2:1 or 3:2 or whatever will likely still have enough acidity to leaven most recipes. But I've seen other online resources which recommend a much greater dilution of yogurt or sour cream (like 1:8 or even 1:16), which could potentially interfere with leavening and/or leave a "chemical" aftertaste in some recipes.
Unless you want to spend a lot of time doing chemical calculations to determine the necessary amount of acidity, I might suggest combining approaches to balance flavor and leavening needs in baked goods. For example, using some yogurt/sour cream mixed with some acidified milk (with lemon or vinegar) to reduce thickness could give some of the fermented milk flavor and definitely maintain adequate acidity. The other possibility if you are into experimentation is to try mixing a small amount of the batter and taste the result: if you taste baking soda, you know you can fix the next batch by including a little lemon juice or vinegar. (You might be able to fix the flavor of the current batch by adding some, but the additional mixing will likely negatively affect the leavening in some recipes.)
As a final point, I would note the listing of molasses as a potential substitute in some sources. To me, this seems rather bizarre, given the vastly different flavor notes and significant amount of sugar that molasses would add. (Also, it's not as acidic as fermented dairy, often having a pH above 5.) If you're willing to change flavors radically and introduce huge amounts of sugar, you might also seriously consider everything acidic from fruit juice to Coca-Cola. (I'm not really serious about the latter, but it would leaven your batter and some people might like it.) This list, for example, has the pH ranges of many common foods. I like the taste of molasses, but before I personally would use it as a substitute for buttermilk leavening, I'd consider some other options like fruit juices or purees, or something else whose flavor might blend well with the baked goods. Molasses will also generally have a significantly lower water content than the other proposed substitutes, which could alter the viscosity of the batter -- some other substitutes with sufficient acidity could contain enough water to balance both texture and leavening while adding a complementary flavor.
A vegan alternative that can work for some recipes is to add lemon juice to almond milk.
This worked very good for me to make soda bread, in which the acidic quality of buttermilk reacts with baking soda, making the bread rise. The acidity of lemon juice can achieve the same thing.
For a recipe calling for 1 cup of buttermilk: Use 1 tablespoon of freshly-squeezed lemon juice, and add almond milk to make 1 cup.
I imagine you could use soy or other non-dairy milk instead of almond milk, though I can't say whether it would taste as good. This was a very simple recipe with just flour, baking soda, salt, and "buttermilk". Substituting almond milk plus lemon juice made a very tasty bread, with no odd overtones or aftertastes.
Firstly, true buttermilk would have been the waste product from making butter. Depending on the place it was made, the cream would in many cases have been fermented using lactic acid bacteria.
This 1928 book discusses the process including the fact that the cream would have been fermented
https://books.google.com/books?id=IAho6KsIPd4C&pg=PA7&dq=buttermilk+fermented&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi2_OzCi8vtAhXFQ30KHaXzAtwQ6AEwAnoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=buttermilk%20fermented&f=false
An important (and obvious) consideration there is that buttermilk resembles skimmed milk, being just 0.5% fat.
A separate buttermilk process is noted for directly making buttermilk by fermenting milk with similar bacteria, without making butter.
Commercial buttermilks today such as this one are made from skimmed milk powder https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/gol-ui/product/cream-custard/sainsburys-buttermilk-300ml
The specific buttermilk flavour is achieved from diacetyl
which is a 'buttery' flavour. Artificial butter flavouring would use diacetyl as a compound.
The exact flavour of commercial buttermilk depends on temperature and starter culture, and can vary. It is not the same as yogurt because buttermilk uses different LAB, which may be selected for their diacetyl production.
In terms of pH, buttermilk, yogurt, and milk + acid can all be the same, but the flavour of each will differ. In addition, while acid will curdle the caseins in milk, curdled milk is not the same as yogurt or buttermilk in texture.
Low-fat yogurt seems like it would be the closest. Normal yogurt would work fine in many cases. If you are already using butter, then you will have all the butter flavour you need, but in some cases it might be that substituting some of the oil in a recipe for butter and then using low-fat yogurt would come very close.
Ultimately nothing is the same, in that if milk with lemon juice is not the same taste as yogurt, it's rather foolish to imagine that you could get the same flavour from that as compared to buttermilk, which is fermented skimmed milk.
Given that buttermilk is almost fat-free, it doesn't seem like sour cream would be a great substitute, in that sour cream is 17% fat and buttermilk is almost fat-free (you could substitute it if you left fat out elsewhere). Specific yogurts will have a greater or lesser diacetyl content, so this could help approximate a buttermilk flavour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.874119
| 2010-07-24T19:05:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3120",
"authors": [
"Charlotte Farley",
"Ian Dolman",
"Jenny Woodroffe",
"Joe",
"Justin Nathanael Waters",
"Kiesa",
"Move More Comments Link To Top",
"Willie Wong",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"pkoch",
"rajaganesh87",
"rasqual"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6499
|
How much juice can you get from an orange?
I wanted to make fresh orange juice using a squeezer and wanted to know how many oranges it takes to make an 8oz glass of juice?
you know better than I do, it depends on the orange and type of orange. My mom, an executive chef, used to say that you'd allow 1-2 lb of oranges for 1 drinkable cup of orange juice.
I really think, that it's highly dependent on the type of orange. I know naval and blood oranges are the juiciest compared to other varieties.
The amount of juice you get from an orange will depend on a number or things:
Size of the orange
Juice content of the orange
Whether you use the pulp or remove all the bits
May be you should be asking what oranges are best for producing the most amount of juice and how do I get the most juice from them?
The easiest way to find out how many oranges you need is to buy a bag of them and then start squeezing till you have a glass full :)
A medium sized orange will have roughly 2 oz of juice.
Which is just a tad shy of a 0,6 dl.
One way to get more juice from citrus is to juice it when warm. Cold fruit doesn't release as much juice. I put a skewer hole in my citrus (for safety issues) and then microwave the fruit for 20=30 seconds before cutting and juicing.
I'm also partial to Valencia oranges for juice.
i also microwave citrus for 15-30 seconds (depending on size) before squeezing, especially if i'm using my hands instead of a juicer.
With a masticating juicer, I've averaged 56% juice from unpeeled oranges (navel).
This will depend upon various factors and some of them I will list here:
The freshness of the orange
The size of the orange
The type of the orange
The type of the juicer
When it comes to freshness the main problem here is that oranges lose a certain percentage of their juices if they stay for too long. Basically, they dry like everything else.. No brainer really..
The size of the orange is the obvious one.
Now when it comes to the juicer type there are really many if them out there but you should be looking for the citrus juicer. Citrus juicers are designed to extract the most out of citrus fruit such as oranges. Usually most of them will do the work but I recommend the one I linked. You can also take a look at masticating juicers because they are known for their ability to extract the juice with no loss in quality. Besides masticating juicer can squeeze every drop out of the orange, but you will have to peel it. Still this can be profitable because if you buy 5 oranges you will want to drink as much juice as possible and leave little to none to waste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.874989
| 2010-09-01T16:52:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6499",
"authors": [
"Jari Keinänen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3166",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
476
|
Can I use any sort of pumpkin for pumpkin pie?
When I'm making a pumpkin pie, does it matter what sort of pumpkin I use? Are the specific varieties that are more suited to pies or can I just use any pumpkin?
I use acorn squashes. Makes for a tastier pie. Hubbard is good too.You never know if those small pumpkins were grown for cooking, or just came from the wrong end of a row in a pumpkin patch.
You may use all sorts of pumpkins and squashes (a Cucurbita moschata or Cucurbita pepo may be called either, depending on variety) to make a pie. The Halloween types may not be the best choice: they tend to be stringy, not very sweet, and sometimes over treated with pesticides. Instead look for the small varieties (around 5 lbs.) called Sugar, Long Pie, or Trickster.
When making the pumpkin purée for a pie from scratch it is important to deal with the water content of the pumpkin. After you bake, cool, and purée the pumpkin, you may need to use a cheesecloth to wring the purée.
I second the advice to steer clear of the jack-o-lantern style pumpkins and go for the smaller "pie" pumpkins.
And you will definitely want to let the pumpkin purée sit in a colander or strainer for a few hours before using.
I let the puree set in a colander for 2 days to drain.
Baking really is the way to go to cook the pumpkin
The advice is to stay clear of the ones specifically tuned for halloween. To a first approximation, if you find it in the grocery, it's good.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.875204
| 2010-07-10T13:14:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/476",
"authors": [
"Aristos",
"DrFalk3n",
"Henrik Opel",
"John Dyer",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"ddeimeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/995",
"itsadok",
"kevins",
"kls"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
337
|
Substitution for Suet in Christmas Pudding
I'm interested in making a traditional Christmas pudding but I've never seen suet available in the stores around here. Assuming I can't find any, what would be a good substitution?
Step 1: acquire a piglet. (seriously, what's your geography?)
Any butcher should have suet, they won't have it on display (not these health conscious days). I'd be surprised if they can't produce some on request. I use it once or twice a year (a very small peice in with roast veg gives them an incredible flavour), and my butcher never charges me for it.
@Binary You will find it's quite country dependant. In some countries it's just not possible to obtain suet.
For Christmas pudding, there really is no substitute. In some recipes it's possible to use finely grated, very hard, unsalted butter, or a vegetable shortening, but the results are just not the same.
Use beef fat or lard if your butcher can't supply.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.875373
| 2010-07-10T00:08:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/337",
"authors": [
"Binary Worrier",
"Jer",
"Michael Stum",
"Pulse",
"Tracy Mues",
"Treblekicker",
"bmargulies",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92",
"pkaeding"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
848
|
How to chill beer quickly?
We all know the situation.
The party is about to begin, it's really hot outside and we forget to put the beer (or similar drink) into the fridge...
What is your way to chill beer really fast?
Sanity-check folks: it doesn't have to be beer. Or a drink. There are countless reasons why you might want to cool something edible quickly, so think of one you feel is appropriate and mentally substitute that for "beer" when reading this.
Thanks for all the knowledge in this question's replies; it helped me get a 1/6th keg of sam adams down to frosty in no time for my wedding reception! Much obliged all!
When in doubt, there's always liquid nitrogen!
Use a salted ice-water bath. The water increases the contact and heat dissipation, and adding salt allows the temperature to go below freezing.
Adding salt to an ice bath won't do much if the ice is only at freezing, will it?
@ceejayoz: Adding salt lowers the freezing point of the water, so it actually allows the liquid temperature to drop below the freezing point. It's the same reason you put salt in the ice around an ice cream maker.
+1 The Mythbusters confirmed this method too, in episode 29! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2005_season)#Episode_29_.E2.80.93_.22Cooling_a_Six_pack.22)
@ceejayoz: Actually, the ice is at the temperature of your freezer, which is well below freezing. The salt allows for the ice to melt at a lower temperature, giving the heat-transfer advantages of liquid water at or near the temperature of your freezer.
Righto, +1 from me then. :-)
Some agitation in the water will help too.
Yes, this helps for all of the reasons mentioned above. Think about the effects of putting salt on icy steps in the winter. Unless it's violently cold, the ice will melt because the salt lowers the freezing point -- the temperature of the water/ice hasn't changed, just the freezing point.
Be careful with this method if too much salt is added and the rim of the bottle/can falls below the surface make sure you rinse it before drinking, otherwise your beer will taste salty. Also be aware that the beer can get too cold and form ice, and could possibly break bottles.
I would also add a tip I learned at Georgia Tech..lay the beer horizontal in the submersion. If you have too much beer for this then standing immersion works well enough.
To really speed things up, when making beer and cooling a big batch of wort quickly, I use one of those bathtub whirlpool contraptions in a big tub of salted ice water. This would cool down a big batch of room temperature beer in a minute or two.
Using a paper towel, wrap it around the bottle 2 or 3 times
Gently wet the paper towel. You want it to be damp, but not soaking. Enough so that the paper sticks to the bottle, but not dripping.
Place in the freezer for 5 - 7 mins.
I've used this for chilling wine and long necks.
The mythbusters actually did this one once, and their conclusion was that the best and easiest way was indeed to simply add some salt to the water.
actually as I recall the fastest way was to use a fire extinguisher, but it's expensive. Seriously!
What about liquid nitrogen?
@nicorellius: the goal was to quickly bring it to a good drinking temperature, liquid nitrogen would just turn it into a solid block of beer.
@ManiacZX But who doesn't love beer popsicles?
RE: nitrogen - It would turn it into a solid block if you left it in too long. I dare to say if you dipped it quick enough it would work well... The thing I would be concerned with is breaking the glass because of the temp change...
This works for cans of beer.
Make a pile of crushed ice
Lay the beer can on the ice on its side
Press the can into the ice so about 1/2 of the can is under the ice
Start spinning the can, it should spin freely on the ice
Continue spinning until the can is sufficiently cold
Using this method I can cool a beer that's been sitting out in the sun in under two minutes.
What happens when you open the can of cold agitated beer?
Since you're rotating it around its long axis the beer doesn't actually get agitated, the rotation provides just enough internal movement that the cold temperature is quickly spread throughout the liquid; similar to the way that a thin layer of water will freeze more quickly than a deep pool.
You should go to DefCon (the hacker conference) and use this method in competition.
is there a beer chilling contest? I think a DefCon entry would probably need to have a usb powered spinner.
I agree with Kevin's salted ice-water bath, but I find chucking a few tinnies in the freezer works as well. Just remember to remove them on time or you're going to have a bit of a clean-up job.
I did this once and it did .. not .. end well
@jeff - I know, I only do it early in the evening when there's some semblance of sobriety. But then I do have a cleaning lady who is paid well enough not to mind the mess.
I did this (quite recently actually) with a glass beer bottle. :(
It was quite impressive though - the liquid was evidently supercooled, so it flash-froze in a froth, embedded with glass shards. Looked like a freeze-frame of an explosion :)
Here comes the science!
The Goal: Transfer heat from the warm object to the surrounding environment, as quickly as possible.
Theoretical concepts:
Heat is transferred via the surface area (which is fixed in a beer
can) But, we want as much of our heat sink in contact with the
surface as possible. This suggests that a liquid is better than a
solid. (as solids, such as crushed ice contains voids, which are insulators.) Keep in mind the square-cube ratio -- Volume varies as the cube, Surface area varies as the square. This means that small beers have a better SA:V ratio than large beers, and will cool faster.
The rate of Heat transfer is related to the difference in temperature between the heat source and the heat sink. (Which is changing, as the source cools and the sink warms up).
Phase change (Latent Heat of Fusion) allows a sink to absorb heat while staying at the same temperature.
Discussing point 3, the corollary is that when ice melts at 0 degrees C, it takes a whole lot of heat to break the crystal lattice and convert to liquid. This means that melting ice will "grab" heat out of the beer faster than solid ice warming up, or liquid water warming up.
So at this stage, what we want is ice mixed with water, just below the melting point. Add beer cans, and the beer will "suck the cold" out of the ice as it melts, bringing the entire system near to freezing fairly quickly. (in a matter of 10 -15 minutes).
Still not fast enough? Then we need to go to a different universe where the melting point of water is colder. (Or add salt to the water, which will lower the melting point, causing the whole reaction to occur at a lower temperature, giving us a speed boost as to Bullet #2.)
Still not fast enough? -- Well, if you've got liquid nitrogen on hand, you're over prepared for your unpreparedness. You could have just stuck the beers in the fridge.
Wrap the beers in wet paper towels or wet rags and put in the freezer. Its really is quite effective and doesn't need salt or ice. This video shows what a difference it can make: http://youtu.be/Nf8rKvZWQrY
I throw my brew right into the ice cube reservoir in the ice-maker in my freezer. This way it sits in ice as well as is in the freezer at zero degrees. I apply this to champagne as well, and it actually works well.
A bit un-exciting but.
I usually put a bottle/can in the freezer and put a timer on 15 minutes.
Or, if it is really urgent, pour into a glass and add 3-4 ice cubes. Heresy, I know, but it creates something cool to drink fast.
/L
You know what happens when you put a bunch of bottles in the freezer: inevitably one or two get forgotten and around three hours later someone finally remembers...
I throw white wine in the deep freeze all the time. I then immediately set the timer on the stove as a reminder.
Water bath is best as suggested (I am not going to write that out again), but if you want to do it even faster then get the water moving around too.
A small pump that just pumps the water back in at an angle will do (I am thinking large fish tank one OR water fountain). A good whirl pool effect is fine if it is white wine but not so much as to fizz up the beer mind!
You should be abel to cool a whole case in just a few minutes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.875533
| 2010-07-13T15:32:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/848",
"authors": [
"Bilgin Kılıç",
"BobMcGee",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Chris Lercher",
"DavRob60",
"Davorak",
"Dinah",
"Filip Ekberg",
"Fojtasek",
"GalacticCowboy",
"Greg Saladino",
"IanH",
"It Grunt",
"JYelton",
"Jedidja",
"Jeff Atwood",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Joakim Backman",
"Joel in Gö",
"Kev",
"ManiacZX",
"Manish",
"Mike Polen",
"Reimer Eva",
"Satanicpuppy",
"SeanJA",
"Shog9",
"Tester101",
"Ven'Tatsu",
"ceejayoz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95508",
"jessecurry",
"julie",
"kevins",
"mfg",
"nicorellius",
"setatakahashi",
"shipmaster",
"splicer",
"tawfekov",
"user1556",
"user95421",
"waiwai933"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20837
|
Selecting [corn] for Pozole?
I have between 7pm tonight and 5pm tomorrow to make a pozole. Specifically, it will be a red pozole styled chili, using a rubbed and smoked seitan 'meat' to sub for pork. The dish will be vegan.
What are the distinctions between different approaches I can take, and what will result in a better red pozole?
How should I select corn for the chili?
Do I have time to do an alkaline-soak and stew until popping the corn?
Is it just as well that I use hominy?
Pozole is traditionally made with nixtamalized corn, also known as nixtamal or hominy. So yes, of course you can use hominy - that's what you're supposed to use! Canned hominy/nixtamal is common. I believe that in some areas you can find dried whole nixtamal and possibly even fresh nixtamal - but I'm not sure I ever saw that in Texas, so I'm not sure how much luck you'll have.
As with everything, people say that fresher is better; I can't personally support that, though, not having managed to find it where I live. I have, however, made some pozole that I found to be quite good using canned hominy. Since you're planning on pozole rojo, you'll have a lot of other flavor, which I expect would make the difference between canned and fresh less noticeable.
I suppose if you want to try to nixtamalize your own corn for the sake of having the optimal pozole, you could, and you would have time. I've never tried it myself. From what I've read, cooking/soaking times vary depending on what you're going to do with the nixtamal. For pozole, you don't have to cook and soak the corn as long since it's going to be further cooked in the stew. I've seen varying instructions online. For example, this site says to cook for 15 minutes, soak for another 5-10, while this one says to cook for 40-50 minutes. After that you rinse it thoroughly to remove the lime and hulls (softened by the lime), before cooking it in your pozole. I imagine either of those cooking times would produce something satisfactory; with it of course being more tender with the longer time. Note also that the corn won't get that nice puffed shape if you don't remove the tip cap (one of those pages calls it a pedicel - not sure that's the right term).
So with a lot of effort and adventurousness, you could indeed make your own nixtamal (hominy), and it might well be better, but you can also make something extremely good with already-made hominy and not take a risk on something I suspect you're feeding to others.
I have had good luck cooking the dried posole kernels in a slow-cooker all day on low, much like cooking dried beans with a slow cooker. I have found that this works much better than soaking overnight and trying to cook it for 2 or 3 hours. I've never made Posole with canned Hominy, but I know a lot of people use that. It would probably be considerably faster with it than with dried.
I have ordered dry posole online from a couple of different places, and even found it in a Latino Market near Nashville, TN, so it may be available in your area.
Remember that Posole is made with a different kind of corn from what you eat from a cob or get in the frozen food section of your grocery, so you'd need a source for that corn before you could successfully nixtamalize it.
I think given your time constraints, canned Hominy will probably be the way to go.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.876290
| 2012-01-27T16:46:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20837",
"authors": [
"ChefEZ",
"Fergus Brogan",
"ShaggyMarrs",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71919",
"kennethscruggs",
"mikew0w"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3960
|
Why is a copper bowl recommended for whipping cream and egg whites?
They say you can get the whipped cream or egg whites "higher" or "stiffer" if you use a copper bowl. Why is that?
Yes, as mentioned previously it is beneficial to whip egg whites in copper bowls BUT it is important to note that the impact on the egg whites from the copper is primarily beneficial for applications where the final product is going to be baked. You will generally not notice any increased volume in the whipped egg whites themselves, compared to what you'd get without a copper bowl.
As the whites are whipped the copper bonds to create a copper salt that increases the temperature at which the proteins will coagulate. The copper salt makes them more pliable and able to better expand without rupturing. Under "usual" conditions (glass, stainless steel, ceramic) they will coagulate at around 160F degrees. When whipped in a copper bowl they have to reach 170F degrees before they coagulate. This means that they will have a 10 degree increase in temperature to continue to expand and increase in volume.
This also means that if you're talking about whipping egg whites for meringues, dried for cookies or other desserts, the expense of a copper bowl will not be worthwhile as you're not looking for expansion properties in these items. If you're doing a lot of cakes and souffles then a copper bowl would certainly produce better results.
Wouldn't the copper added to the food also add toxicity? I remember that the old practice of boiling a copper penny with cabbage was discouraged for that reason.
@KevinKeane - I'm not sure myself, but it might be a question of quantity. I would intuitively expect less copper leaches out of copper in a cold mixing scenario then in an active boiling, even if the bowl does have more copper than a penny. The amount leached into a serving of egg whites may not be enough to be dangerous, or the frequency of making whipped egg whites and amount consumed over time may be assumed to be less than boiling cabbage (which can be a staple food). Copper is needed in trace amounts, I think it is only unsafe if people are getting a lot.
Also, acidity seems to play a role in whether you get the really toxic copper salts (IIRC copper acetate is real bad news). Another reason might be that copper has interesting thermal properties (can stay chilled due to being heavy, and is very good at making everything else cold that contacts it).
@rackandboneman you might be on to something. One, admittedly very vague, article (https://bon-vivant.com/chemistry-copper/) claims that egg whites do not get toxic from copper - and they go on to say that you should not use an unlined copper bowl for any other kitchen purpose.
According to wikipedia, the copper bonds to the sulfur in the egg whites, which has the effect of stabilizing the foam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_white#Copper_bowl
Cookwise by Shirley Corriher says the same thing.
If it is about sulfur, the whipping cream should be unaffected.
I recently bought a copper bowl and whipped ONE egg white in it ending up with enough fluff to fill three ramekins for apricot shuffle.
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. While interesting, this doesn't answer the original question.
I'd convert this to a comment on that answer, but... it seems like you're just misunderstanding the answer. It's not saying they don't increase in volume when whipped, it's saying there's not an increase in the resulting whipped volume when using a copper bowl compared to what you get without a copper bowl. So I edited the answer to clarify that, and I think we're all sorted.
As for your actual statement about whipping in a copper bowl, I think you're saying that's more fluff than you'd get without the copper bowl? but it's not totally clear.
For whipped cream it helps to have a metal bowl if you cool the cream while you whip by dipping the bottom of the bowl in ice water. You might need to do this if, for example, the cream is warm to begin with.
I couldn't say though if a copper bowl would work better than any other metal bowl.
This works for whipping cream because as the cream is whipped, it's the fat globules that bond with one another, trapping air in the process. A chilled bowl, especially metal, helps the fat to firm up and bond together more easily.
The opposite is true for egg whites. Many people confuse the fact that since they both get whipped and end up white, light and fluffy that the same is true for both. Not the case. Egg whites should be room temp. or even slightly warmed to encourage the proteins to unwind and link together to trap the air.
Copper only has an affect on the egg whites.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.876570
| 2010-08-01T20:42:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3960",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Hoff",
"Kevin Keane",
"Megha",
"MrBretticus",
"Roni Yaniv",
"davetron5000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9310",
"leora",
"rackandboneman",
"samack",
"tentonipete"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3415
|
Alternatives to serve with a tomato salad
This weekend we are making a Tomato and Chorizo salad. The recipie suggests serving it with goats cheese and ham, but we don't really fancy that. We are trying to think of alternatives to serve it with and we just can't think past Mozzerella. Does anyone have any good ideas of what we can serve with it?
halloumi or feta for cheese substitutes, especially if you can get the mint halloumi cheese.
as for ham substitute, I'd recommend toasted pita (served on top of the salad where you let the eater crush the bread themselves) or smoked salmon
+1 halloumi would be great here. Slice it up and fry (or grill) it and fall in love with the cheesy squeak. Not sure about the smoked salmon myself, but...
@Sam Holder - with the smoked salmon i was thinking a max of 1 or 2 super duper thin slices of smoked salmon put on top of the salad. Can be eaten with or without the salad. My goal with recommending the salmon was to include meat protein
It looks like it'd be nice served on some crushed potatoes (Anya would be my choice, as they taste great and I have loads from the allotment, but any new waxy style would be good).
Just boil 'em till they're just done, squash each one with the back of a fork once, put on the plate and spoon the salad on top. The potatoes will soak up the juices and make the salad a bit more substantial.
you could also try warming a small soft cheese (like this, or this) in the oven (maybe rub it in garlic first?) until its all gooey and slap that down in the middle of the salad, then eat the whole thing with some crusty french bread, no cutlery allowed, with maybe a little saucer of balsamic vinegar on the side to dip the bready gatherings in.
This sounds distinctly English.
the recipe suggestion or the language used to suggest it?
The recipe. My US brain would never connect a salad to potatoes. BTW I didn't mean anything negative by it.
haha, no problem, nothing negative inferred. Strange I imagined potato salad to be an American thing.
I like the crushed potato idea. Other possibilities:
cubes of blue cheese (eg gorgonzola)
grilled chicken breasts
fresh steamed asparagus / peas / green beans
leafy green salad (rocket, spinach, maybe add some pine nuts)
roasted / grilled portobello mushrooms
bruschetta or pitta bread
Now that I think about it, even a rice, pasta or cous cous base would go nicely with this, too.
This is making me hungry!!
I make a tomato salad with blue cheese and candied pecans. The sweetness of the pecans might go well with the spiciness of the chorizo.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.876989
| 2010-07-27T10:16:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3415",
"authors": [
"Anindya Chatterjee",
"DocMax",
"Jon Ericson",
"Michelle",
"Niveditha",
"Sam Holder",
"SamAlterman",
"Susan ",
"Wesley Rice",
"aL3891",
"dassouki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"mtone",
"user6192"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2321
|
Cup measurements: shake or scrape?
When you are measuring out your flour, sugar, etc with the measuring cups, is it better to
scoop and then shake the cup to get a leveled cup, or
scoop and then use a knife to scrape off the excess.
I have been using the first method but will it make a difference?
don't you mean scrape?
The real answer is that it depends on the measurement methodology used by the person who wrote the recipe. I have one book that actually calls for measuring by scooping with the measuring cup and scraping it with the side of the bag, which is how the average person tends to measure flour, and results in about 30% more flour by weight per cup.
King Arthur flour (and most other recipe sources) use the "sprinkle the flour into the measuring cup with a spoon and then level with a knife" which most closely simulates measuring sifted flour. This method will generally be appropriate when using professional recipes, unless the cookbook calls for another method. These recipes generally do not want compacted flour. If you are compacting your flour you are almost certain to be using too much.
Many instructional style cookbooks will lay out their measuring methodology at the beginning of the baking section (or the beginning of the book if it is a baking book). But since every methodology and every individual's use of that methodology comes out with a different weight per cup, working by weight really is your best bet.
I suggest to measure by weight as you'll never go wrong.
Otherwise, I use your second method which is to scoop then use a knifed to rid of excess flour.
Flour is so fluffy and needs to be compacted (somewhat) to get a true cup, therefore measuring by weight always guarantees the same amount of flour.
Problem is you might not be able to use your favorite recipe. But I agree (coming from a country where measuring with cups is not very common): by weight is more accurate.
+1 for weighing. Somewhere I've read that a "cup" of flour by volume can weigh between 4 to 6 ounces. Weighing gives consistency and definitely improved my bread making.
Weight is the preferred measurement method for baking as the ratios have to be rather precise and volume is affected by settling, humidity, and storage methods.
Michael Ruhlman's Ratio is a good reference for how the proportions should work.
Ratio is one of the top references in my kitchen!
For bread recipes, measuring by weight is the only way to go. (And yes that means that almost all bread recipes printed need to be converted by guesswork, because you have no 100% certain way to know what the author really experienced.)
"Pro" bread bakers express recipes with formulas using percentages based on the weight of the flour. The flour weight is always 100% implicitly, and then other ingredients are smaller percentages of that (like 0.8% instant yeast, 1.5% salt, 60% water).
I was taught to sift then measure, and to scrape the excess off with a knife.
Frankly, I'll measure then sift.
The only exception is Brown Sugar, which is usually lightly compacted.
+1 for mentioning the Brown Sugar exception! Although I'm in the camp with that recommend "weighing".
As others have said, you're essentially screwed if you're using volume to measure flour.
For reference: a cup of flour is between four and five oz (up to a 25% swing, depending on measurement and flour type).
A sifted cup of flour is usually quite close to 4 oz; this is the major reason that you are told to sift flour when baking -- for precision. Of course, weight is also not perfect, since humidity can affect the weight. But, it's FAR more consistent than volume measurements.
I usually trial convert a recipe at something like 4.5 oz per cup and adjust from there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.877357
| 2010-07-20T12:50:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2321",
"authors": [
"Ann",
"DIGITAL801",
"David Silva Smith",
"Hannes",
"Iszi",
"Pretzel",
"Rickstar",
"SBerg413",
"calico-cat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8521",
"jimjim",
"mario",
"maz3tt",
"shsteimer",
"tobiw",
"volni",
"wdypdx22"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3922
|
Can UHT milk be used to make yogurt?
So I know you can't use UHT milk to make cheese, because of the way the proteins get denatured at that temperature. But can you use it to make yogurt?
UHT (Ultra High Temperature) processing kills all the pathogens in the milk, so it can be conserved for a long time. However to make yogurt you add bacteria (lactobacillus), so if there aren't other microorganism it should be even better.
Right, except that UHT also denatures the proteins in the milk and prevents them from clumping in the same way as natural milk. This is what prevents UHT milk from making cheese.
Are you sure it is the UHT that does that? I thought it was the homogenization. But anyway, yes you can use UHT milk to make yogurt.
In yogurt the proteins don't need to form long chains and precipitate out of solution in the way they do for cheese. If it's true that UHT can't be used for cheese (I don't know either way) I imagine it's because the denaturing prevent the proteins from binding together, which does not matter for yogurt.
Wikipedia: "To produce yogurt, milk is first heated ... to denature the milk proteins so that they do not form curds.".
If @DanielBingham is right (UHT milk has denaturated proteins) it would be ideal to make yogurt.
UHT milk makes excellent yogurt. I have had it on several occasions and the texture was fantastic.
Even if you don't use UHT milk it is necessary to heat the milk to denature the albumin- otherwise it stays water soluble and washes out in the whey.
Can you explain in what way it was "fantastic"? Some folks like thick yogurt, others like it a bit thinner. So what X finds fantastic, Y might find lacking. It would help to have a more specific description.
@verbose Good texture is smooth, homogeneous, and creamy verses bad texture which is grainy, stratified, or a fragile gel. It's really not a matter of thickness which is more affected by fermentation time rather than technique.
I just tried making yogurt with UHT Lactose-free milk (my kids and I are lactose-intolerant and there are few yogurt options where I live). It worked for me, but as mentioned in a couple of the answers here, I added powdered milk. (1 cup milk + 2 tbsp milk powder + 1 tbsp plain yogurt with live culture)
To test whether I need to heat the milk or not, I experimented and did one jar with heated UHT milk, and one jar with room temperature UHT milk. The heated batch was definitely thicker and creamier, but I suspect it has to do with some moisture loss during the heating process itself. I measured 1 cup of the milk into the saucepan, and one cup straight into the jar. After heating, the volume of the milk was (expectedly) smaller, so that's one hint right there as to why it's thicker and creamier.
The other things I did which, I believe, helped with the successful outcome were: (1) to keep the jar immersed in water that was at 100F, instead of 115F (the usual recommended temp) and did so for 8 hours; (2) I took the extra step of straining the yogurt for 2 hours.
So yeah, I was able to make thick, creamy Greek-style yogurt with UHT milk.
I have used UHT milk to make my yogurt for over five years now! Without adding milk power I have had a rich thick yogurt, Start it before bed in a yogurt maker and it's ready next morning
I always use UHT milk. I've tried all brands in Australia and all work well. I use a thermophillus + bulgaricus culture at 44c. 12 hours works for me.
I agree with Jackie - just add a little powdered milk. I've been using unheated UHT milk to make yoghurt for years, with fab results. I've also made cheese quite a few times with it. I've made yoghurt with pasteurized milk as well and the results were the same, just less convenient than UHT if you live in the boonies like me.
If you want to know how yoghurt and cheese are made, I suggest you get a book (yes, libraries still exist) and ignore the massive amount of 'evidence' on the internet.
And just 2 more points:
1) Greek yogurt is made by straining the whey from regular yoghurt. Even in Greece (I lived there).
2) making yoghurt is a bit of trial and error. never assume you don't like something after trying it only once. you'll need to tweak lots of things until you get it right (kind of like making the perfect loaf of bread).
I use UHT milk for yogurt all the time. If you want a thicker texture try adding some powdered milk.
yes you can, I do it all the time now. I have tried many different UHT types, the following are my experiences. I only used the full cream UHT type, I don't boil the milk, I just add some farmers union greek yoghurt to it and give it a shake, then start incubating.
Woolworthes UHT milk makes the thickest yoghurt.
Devondale UHT milk makes ok yoghurt.
foodland/coles UHT milk makes less thick yoghurt
Pauls UHT milk makes very runny yoghurt
I have been making yoghurt from full fat Devondale UHT for 4 years. The results are usually excellent, though I recommend allowing the cycle to run a bit longer for thicker results. I use an instant pot to boil and then ferment the milk for a bit more than 8 hours. I often start the process a little bit hot, as I can't be bothered to wait for the boiled milk to reach room temperature.
I believe that the starter culture makes a big difference. I have used a cheap Chinese culture (probably targeted at making yoghurt drinks) and two Danisco professional cultures (Yo-Mix 495 LYO 250 DCU and 883 LYO 50 DCU).
The 495 seems to be targeted at making Greek and does indeed produce a thicker, creamier, slightly less sour yoghurt.
I normally reuse some of the existing yoghurt to make the next batch, so buying good culture is worth it.
The ultimate thickness of the Greek yoghurt I make depends more on the straining process (I often leave it until all the weigh is separated as I like yoghurt cheese and the weigh is good in smoothies).
I haven't tried making the yoghurt without boiling; this is something that I intend to try since it would reduce the process time by about 4 hours (I make 5L batches).
I believe the same issue would apply since yogurt is essentially a step on the path toward cheese. One recipe I looked at did say not to use UHT.
No, it didn't. I've now seen recipes and comments where people say that their yogurt makers recommend UHT milk and that they typically do. Best thing to do, as with so many cooking ideas/questions....give it a shot and see how it works! Sounds like it must.
I have made excellent thick yoghurt with uht semi skimmed milk, for every 3 cups milk add 1 cup of skimmed milk powder and a couple of tablespoons of live yoghurt from fridge. I use my easiyo to make (I started with one of the packet mixes and used the yoghurt made to supply the 2 tablespoons - then I use the next batch to start a new one) works brilliantly. I use cup cake flavouring and stevia sugar to sweeten. Not fat free but low, thick and delicious and full of good bacteria. Tip - freeze some berries (I chop up grapes, strawberries, raspberries, blueberries and banana and put in single portion bags). When fully frozen tip into bowl and add 3-4 large spoons yoghurt above, stir in. Leave for 2 mins and yoghurt hardens. Just like having chunky icecream - I have daily yum!
I have used UHT skim along with powdered skim in my yogurt for years. Heres why 1. it works 2. it saves sterilizing the milk, I'm a rational male 3. its actually a little cheaper 4. I've read concerns that heat treating whole milk causes oxidation to cholesterol which has health implications, so skim all but eliminated the cholesterol. This may be wrong
Use UHT many years now. To a 2 ltr container I add 1 cup of cream milk powder. I always use fresh culture. The result is Greek strained type thick, rich yogurt that brings me MANY compliments
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. Do you mean "I have been using UHT for many years now"?
My mother used to make yogurt with UHT milk. But as Lorenzo said before, it doesn't have any bacteria. That's the reason why my mother used to add a little quantity of an existing yogurt in the mix of milk and sugar. Afterwards she put it in the yogurt-maker for a few hours and tada! you've got your homemade natural yogurt!
As Gapton says, the resultant yogurt is more watery (texture doesn't anything to do with greek yogurt for example), that is right, but I love it!! it is very natural, it's my childhood yogurt and I am still alive ;)
Hope this helps!
Btw, happy pancake day!!
I have been making home-made yogurt for a month on an every-day basis.
I tried UHT once and it was extremely watery and flaky that I threw it away.
I have since sticked with fresh (skimmed/semi skimmed/whole) milk, which works perfectly.
I do notice that different brand of milk give a different texture too.
Puzzled, I searched on Google trying to find an answer why UHT milk can't be used, and found this. I do not have an answer myself but I thought it is helpful to share my own experience with making yogurt.
This shouldn't be downvoted. It is a differing experience, but an experience nonetheless.
UHT milk is great for making yoghurt. To thicken add a tablespoon of gelatine when the milk is approximately 45ºC then place the container in the yoghurt maker. You will only be able to thicken yoghurt by using an ingredient like gelative or guargum to thicken.
-1. You can make perfectly good, thick yoghurt without gelling agents. Thick enough for a spoon to stand in it without falling. #
I produce yogurt for sale. I use UHT milk but along with milk powder.
Based on all the responses claiming to have done it, you will notice powdered milk is involved.
No, all the responses claiming to have done it do not use powdered milk. It's not required.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.877763
| 2010-08-01T14:07:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3922",
"authors": [
"Adrian Wible",
"Anthm",
"C. C.",
"Daniel Bingham",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Darin Sehnert",
"FishStix",
"Joe",
"Jonathan Garber",
"Karl Katzke",
"Kate_Stoll",
"Kim Adkins",
"Lori Smith",
"Miyamoto Akira",
"Si Stott",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer",
"acorello",
"coergo",
"flywire",
"gmw",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98258",
"kuoytfouy",
"kzh",
"mjkitchen",
"piojo",
"rumtscho",
"theIV",
"user95087",
"user97162",
"verbose",
"wherestheforce"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2891
|
Cups v. weighing scales - is there an historical explanation?
Broadly speaking UK recipes will specify amounts by weight (lbs/ounces or metric), whereas American recipes will specify amounts by volume (cups).
Is there an explanation for how the two different approaches arose in the first place? I'm not talking about whether or not metric is used, but specifically about volume versus weight.
I'm no authority, but I have a hypothesis.
Measuring weight is more complex than measuring volume. Before the invention of the digital scale (recent history), or the spring scale (1770, by a Brit) things were weighed with a balance scale and a set of weights. Materials alone makes this more expensive than a simple cup that would hold a liquid.
Given the timing of the invention of the spring scale, and our subsequent armed revolution, and many years (decades?) of being a flat-out poor country I don't imagine that we had much money to worry about spring scales or balance scales. A cup is cheaper and simpler, and doesn't wear out or break. The durability also likely had a role to play in our journeys westward.
Likely by the time we actually could afford "fancier" methods of measurement the volume thing was just too ingrained in our heads. Plus, we tend to be stubborn (e.g. metric).
The Wikipedia answer to this is that Fannie Farmer in her 1896 very popular cookbook decided to use volume measurements for solids instead of weight measurements. In chapter 2 she explains how precise measurements are essential in following recipes and then goes on to explain how to measure flour by volume. No fanfare. My impression is that she was just codifying what was already common practice then.
So I'm voting against the traditional answer, as it does not quite explain why it became common practice. I've also read the speculation that volume measurements where common until the introduction of the metric system, which never made it to the US.
I did some more digging into this question. The Boston Cooking School helped popularize the use of volume measurements for dry ingredients. Cooking schools were part of a Domestic Science movement that was stronger in the US than in Europe. As Hobodave points out, springs scales were a British invention and it was only in the early 1900s that reliable ones started to be sold in the US. By then cups and spoons were too popular and with the government and other institutions supporting and standardizing the practice it was hard to change.
You realize that what we now know as the "Fannie Farmer Cookbook" was originally the "Boston Cooking School Cookbook", so you can still blame Ms. Farmer for that one, too.
I was hoping Mrs. Lincoln, one of the school's earlier teachers, could get some of the credit too. In the linked post I show how she also tried to be precise about measurements.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.878811
| 2010-07-22T21:57:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2891",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"John",
"JonB",
"MSalters",
"SquidInc.",
"codemac",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8574",
"markh",
"papin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4112
|
Shaking cocktails without bar equipment
Is it possible to make shaken cocktails without bar equipment handy? How do you improvise when a cocktail shaker or strainer isn't available?
I've been able to shake and strain cocktails with two cups pretty easily. Ideally one cup should be slightly smaller than the other, though this isn't absolutely necessary if you're careful.
Put the open ends together and shake as necessary (if they're slightly different sizes as described, you can get a real nice seal and shake vigorously). Now, place one cup on the counter, and the other on top of it upside down, ideally still "inside" the other one.
You want to tilt the top cup about 5-10 degrees to the side, which will "break the seal" between the two cups and leave a very small opening. That's where you'll strain through. Now all you have to do is tilt the entire contraption 90 degrees and pour!
This is more easily explained with images...I will try to find or make one for you ASAP.
edit: Couldn't find a good example, so made one for you with what I found around the office:
You beat me to it. Here's an image: http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/shaker-0607-lg.jpg
Right after I posted the edit I saw your comment, I could have saved myself a couple minutes looking for two differently-sized cups!
Last time I tried to do this, I made a huge mess, FWIW.
@mbyrne215: The best advice I can add is that plastic cups seem to work significantly better than glass, if you don't hold it just right with glass you're likely to get a little slippage which can result in a mess. I always start with an opening as small as in the picture above just to make sure I've got a good seal - I'd rather it take an extra few seconds to pour then have it dump on the counter because I opened it too much.
+1 This is the technique many (ie- most of the good ones) professional bartenders use
There are lots of folks out there willing to sell you a "Boston shaker"... which is just a pair of stainless steel glasses that work exactly how @stephennmcdonald describes.
Actually @Marti, the "Boston shaker" is a nice sturdy pint glass and a steel shell, not two stainless shells. Same idea though, and yes, most professional barkeeps shake and strain mixed drinks this way (much faster and easier to clean than a three-piece with strainer). If you want one, I recommend finding a nearby restaurant supply company; this is where actual foodservice establishments (including bars) get their tools.
There are several comments here recommending glasses or glass jars as shakers. As a bartender I can tell you that that is a very bad idea. Most glasses and glass jars are not tempered. As such, when you shake them violently with ice in them and they chill rapidly, they can and very often will break.
Bartenders you see using Boston Shakers (metal and glass two-part shakers) are using a tempered glass that is resistant to breaking.
If you can't shake your cocktails because you lack a good shaker, then your best bet is to modify your approach and try tossing your drink instead between two tin cups or used soup cans.
Put your ingredients into one can without ice and then pour from one can to the other with as much distance between the cans as possible without spilling. This will create the aeration that you're trying to achieve by shaking (aeration is the actual reason you shake a drink, and is generally only a goal in drinks with citrus or cream - spiritus drinks are generally stirred). Do this serveral times and then add ice and roll the drink back and forth between the cans to chill it.
You want to do that in two steps because with ice in the cans you won't be able to pour far enough to get optimal aeration, but without the ice, your drink won't be cold.
It's really not that hard. The purpose of a shaker is to get the alcohol really cold quickly.
I like martinis a lot, but find them a pain to mix. My solution has been just to keep the Gin in the freezer. Pour a dash of vermouth in the glass, and top with ice cold gin, instant martini.
Otherwise, I would just use a pint glass as a shaker. Cover it with a clean piece of cardboard or a coaster and give it a shake.
Most of the straining can be done with a fork on the edge of a glass.
This is all true, but it overlooks the subtle dilution that happens with shaking. You might need to add a little ice-cold water to your mix to compensate.
I use an empty jar, overall easier to open than a frozen shaker:
and then a small drainer to prevent the ice from getting into the cocktail. It comes to great amusement to the guests as well :)
I use a travel mug! You can shake all you want, and the lid acts as a great strainer.
Because glass can break easily during shaking, I prefer upcycling one-way plastic bottles with a wide neck: filling is easy, even ice cubes can be filled in. Once you're done with shaking, dispose the bottle.
Specifically, I'm talking about these bottles:
There's always one available that is empty or at least almost empty and ready for upcycling!
For straining, simply use your tea strainer.
I use a workout shaker. It is the same one that you use to mix your protein shakes with, they have the little springy ball. It works well for me.
It might be worth expanding your answer and the "lol" makes the answer sound like you're trolling which is probably why someone downvoted. Although after Googling what a workout shaker is it seems like something that while it may work most people wouldn't have readily at hand.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.879099
| 2010-08-03T14:38:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4112",
"authors": [
"Cunners",
"GarouDan",
"Iman",
"JKubecki",
"KeithS",
"Markus",
"Marti",
"Michael Zaporozhets",
"Mike Nedelko",
"Ocaasi",
"Paul Jackson",
"Paul de Vrieze",
"PeterJ",
"SC for reinstatement of Monica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9312",
"mbyrne215",
"nohillside",
"pederOverland",
"squillman",
"stephennmcdonald",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57509
|
Why do store-bought dips have such a limited shelf life?
Why do store-bought dips (guacamole, sour cream and chive, salsa...) typically say "Keep refrigerated and consume within 24 [or 48] hours of opening"?
Before opening they typically have a "use by" date of a few days to a week away from when I buy them.
Is it related to the stuff that ends up being transferred into the dip by the nachos / crudites / whatever is being dipped? In other words, if I transferred part of the dip out into a separate container using a clean spoon, would I get a longer life (more than 24 / 48 hours) out of the remaining pot of dip?
Examples:
24 hours: Guacamole
48 hours: Salsa, Sour cream dip, Cheese and chive dip
Do you generally find that homemade guacamole lasts longer than a day? I don't... they brown and get watery and taste funny... The salsas I buy stay good in the fridge for weeks, so not sure why yours last so little... similarly, I'm pretty sure the sour cream dips from the refrigerated section last for a week or more after opening. I don't have any around the house but that's what I remember. Could you be more specific about the exact products you're discussing?
I've added some examples which are either 24 or 48 hours after opening.
you'll often see this on things that have been pasteurized -- they might be shelf stable for a long time, but once the package has been opened, they'll go off quickly. It's also true of things that have been packed in a low-oxygen environment. (which I suspect that the guacamole was, to prevent it from changing colors).
I would assume that it's for safety reasons.
Not yours only, but the manufacturers' as well.
At the plant the manufacturer can control the environment and make sure that the product leaves in a condition that should last for a certain time under specific conditions ( e.g. when refrigerated). Subtract a bit for safety and you have the manufacturers best-before-date.
Once the consumer opens the sealed package, all bets are off:
There is no way to know what may be introduced into the product. This may be as simple as getting oxygen to food that was sealed with packaging gas, introducing new (and ever-present) bacteria, yeasts or mold spores in a previously pasteurized pack or simply scooping with a not entirely clean spoon. Leaving bread crumbs or double-dipping is simply a very extreme example. In other words, one never knows what might start to grow after opening.
But if the product is refrigerated promtly and consumed within X hours, it may be assumed that even if something risky was introduced, the time/temperature is too short for it to multiply into a critical amount leading to foodbourne illness.
If you work very cleanly, I assume that you could extend this time frame quite a bit, but obviously won't tell you to do so - lest you or some other reader comes back complaining that I told you to and made you sick.
Yep, the manufacturer has to give somewhat of a guarantee so they are incentivised to assume the worst consumer-side-environment possible (aka a moldy fridge and people scooping out the salsa with utensils they've already licked other foods off). The further away from that you are the longer your jar will likely stay safe to eat (use your own judgement every time you reopen the jar). It's just that the manufacturer can't be held liable for your 1 week old salsa jar. I personally found store-bought salsa to last anywhere from 3 days to above 2 weeks after opening.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.879577
| 2015-05-14T21:44:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57509",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Gerard O'Hara",
"Hobbamok",
"Joe",
"Joe Piskel",
"Michael Weltner",
"Sara Norling",
"Sheila Charles",
"Terri Fischer",
"Vicky",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69596",
"kaylyn bennetta"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2673
|
Small black specks on wok food
When I bake vegetables in my wok, I see small black specks appear on the vegetables. Does this mean that the fire is too high, or that my wok is not well enough prepared? How do I find out?
Are you using a non-stick wok?
It is supposed to be a non-stick wok. I once cooked soda inside it because I read that you need to do that to prepare a wok, but that may have been a wrong action, not for non stick woks. The inside ( up to the level where the soda has been) looks darker than the top.
Yeah, you don't want to prepare a non-stick wok. Chances are the burned-on soda is what's coming off. Worst case, some of the non-stick coating is flaking off too.
Non stick is a bad choice for a stove top wok as the temperatures produced can exceed the acceptable temperature range of the coating; if you have one of the electric plug in woks, they don't get hot enough to do a good job. In either case, get a steel wok, you can see if it's clean, and sand it or steel wool it or use abrasives on it if it gets messed up and you can get it red hot without damage.
Really really cheap ones work just as good as the expensive ones, just make sure they come with a burner ring.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.879994
| 2010-07-21T19:48:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2673",
"authors": [
"Anne",
"Jan",
"ceejayoz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4732"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4363
|
How much fresh lovage in soup?
My friend just gave me two lovage leaves and I am planning on making chicken soup (from bouillon crystals) with it. My question is how much lovage should I put in? Also should I leave them whole, chop them or crush them....
Update: I was thinking about throwing it in the soup like I understand you would a bay leaf. How long should it be in the soup. What ratio lovage to broth amount. Should the leaves be whole, chopped, crushed..
Lovage is used like parsley, not like bay leaf. Just season with the fresh leaves, minced or roughly chopped, towards the end of cooking.
As for an amount, I can't give you that much guidance. It is a strong-smelling herb, so use it more sparingly than parsley or mint. You can always add more if you don't find it enough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.880121
| 2010-08-05T18:57:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4363",
"authors": [
"Brian Deragon",
"Keith Lemaster",
"delwin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8212",
"martin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
197
|
Differences/Similarities between cinnamon and nutmeg
I read a while ago that nutmeg and cinnamon are really similar and you can easily substitute one for the other. Yet many recipes call for both cinnamon and nutmeg so it seems like there must be some kind of difference.
What are the specific differences between cinnamon and nutmeg? And are they significant enough to justify buying both cinnamon and nutmeg?
I think this is a valid question; maybe not one I would upvote, but I don't think a downvote is required either. @Kyra: I would perhaps remove your wording "Do you think that" in favor of "Are" just so it is less subjective.
+1 Good to see this question turned around into a useful resource.
They're completely different.
Cinnamon is warm, woody, hot, sweet, spicy, bark. Nutmeg is eggnog. If you want something to taste like Christmas, use it.
They're both delicious, versatile, and can work well together.
By volume, you can use much more cinnamon than nutmeg. Nutmeg is "a dash of" kind of spice, while cinnamon can be mixed with butter or sugar and slathered on basically any pastry. (Equivalent amounts of nutmeg would probably get you stoned, but that's for another forum).
Also, nutmeg shares flavor notes and aroma with allspice and cloves.
Heh, great description of cinnamon. Nutmeg doesn't remind me of Christmas though, sage does. I can't put nutmeg into words.
As ocaasi alluded to, nutmeg is a hallucinogen in large enough quantities: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1699804/ ; In our family, its used in more than eggnog -- bechamel and other cream sauces, banana bread, cookies, etc. (and like hobodave, I can't explain it in words ... it's that 'je ne sais quoi') You also have to remember that there are two major varients of cinnamon (cassia vs. ceylon). What we get in the US tends to be cassia, not 'true' cinnamon.
Don't discount the use of nutmeg in savory foods... Gravies, roasts, and stews can benefit from a bit of the stuff as well (a small bit...)
"Nutmeg is eggnog" is a really unhelpful part of what is otherwise a great answer, for those of us outside North America where eggnog is not traditional at any time of year.
Try to remember where you read that. And then don't read them anymore.
If you find your nutmeg and cinnamon tasting at all similar, they've both turned to dust and should be discarded.
And next time, buy whole nutmeg - it tastes much better freshly-grated, and keeps much longer without turning into vaguely-spicy-bitter dust.
Cinnamon is from the bark of a tree, and nutmeg is a seed. Cinnamon is the "hot" flavor in a lot of candies, e.g. "Hot Tamales", as well as being used in apple pie and cinnamon rolls. Nutmeg is more subtle, often used with other spices, sometimes including cinnamon. Beyond this, let your taste buds decide.
And yes, it's worth it to buy both spices if your recipes call for them.
Well said. It's also worth picking up some mace, which is basically the shell of a nutmeg, if you're into playing with these flavors in detail. Oh, and there are a couple of varieties of cinnamon, and they taste somewhat different, and you get what you pay for!
For once, "substitute one for the other" would imply "in equal amounts" ... which would be an obviously nonsensical and unsafe substitution - if you would sub in an equal amount of ground nutmeg for the amount of cinnamon in a cinnamon-heavy recipe, you would make it a) inedible to most - that would be an insanely intense nutmeg flavor, and b) poisonous if consumed in quantity (a tbsp of ceylon (see below) cinnamon to a dish would be just a tad strong, a tbsp of ground nutmeg would likely make you sick from toxicity.
BTW, If you plan on using cinnamon in large amounts, get something labelled ceylon cinnamon; the commonly sold ground cinnamon is actually ground cassia, which tastes a bit more intense but can, just like nutmeg, become unsafe (has far higher levels of coumarin, a substance that is found in woodruff too and is used to make ... rat poison!) from when using a lot of it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.880240
| 2010-07-09T20:35:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/197",
"authors": [
"Erika Toribio",
"Harlan",
"JYelton",
"Jeffrey Cameron",
"Joe",
"John Dyer",
"Princess Fi",
"Rodrigo",
"Shog9",
"adelarsq",
"dbmag9",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91",
"jeffm"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9553
|
Would these ingredients work for a Gift In a Jar?
I am planning on making a Gift In a Jar for a cake. An example of a Gift In a Jar can be found here. Basically I would be putting the following ingredients in the jar:
Flour
Cocoa
Baking powder
Baking soda
Salt
Cinnamon
White sugar
Brown sugar
Chopped Almonds
The recipe just calls for me to put all the ingredients into a bowl, mix and pour into a pan. No seperation of dry and wet ingredients here. The other ingredients that aren't included in this list is shredded zucchini, orange zest, milk, vanilla, eggs and oil.
Would this work together?? Are there any specific ingredients that I should leave out? How far in advance could I put it all together?
I don't suppose you have a recipe in mind that you could point us to? Sugar usually goes in with the wet ingredients, so this could be a problem, but maybe there are certain types of cakes where you can just dump it all into the mixing bowl...
Sorry don't have the recipe online. Basically you mix all the ingredients together and pour into the pan. Simpliest ever!
All of those ingredients should be fine. The only thing you really have to worry about is shelf life, so make sure to buy fresh ingredients and check your expiration dates, especially on the baking powder and baking soda and the almonds. I would just tell them to use it within a year (or the earliest expiration date).
Oh yeah, and don't put the baking powder and baking soda next to the brown sugar. There isn't a lot of water in it, but it might be enough to cause issue.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.880567
| 2010-11-29T00:14:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9553",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"DIEDZz",
"Jayfang",
"Jorge Rodriguez",
"Kyra",
"diane",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"pooja"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25050
|
Is steam lost in boiling negligible?
If I bring 20 ounces of water (2.5 cups) to boil in a kettle, and promptly remove it from the heat, is the amount of water lost (by volume/mass) a negligible quantity?
To be more precise about my own intent for this knowledge; if a pour over guide for coffee brewing is indicating that there should be twenty ounces of water at 195-205'f, should I go through the steps of weighing out twenty ounces of was-just-boiling water, or will the displacement of water to steam be relatively non-impacting of the coffee extraction and final cup.
What are the various ways in which more steam will be displaced, and how can I conserve mass to minimize variability and improve consistency extraction to extraction?
Some (possibly overly-fussy) cafés near me will actually put the pour-over pot and cone on a scale as they pour to ensure they end up with the correct amount of water (they also time it).
This depends on the time you need to bring it to boil (water evaporates long before it starts boiling), the surface area of the water, and your definition of "negligible". Best test it with your own kettle.
My kettle needed 2.5 minutes for boiling it, and lost 11 g out of 560, not quite half an ounce. It will probably lose some more while cooling. If you use an open kettle, a very wide kettle, or heat the kettle slowly, you will lose more.
I added an explanation to qualify "negligible"; this is for brewing coffee by pour-over, will steam displacement be impacting of extraction
@mfg In rumtscho's measurement they lost about 2% of the volume - I expect based on the many factors involved this may vary from <1% to 5% or so. Even 5% water loss should not be enough to substantially affect the taste of the coffee unless your taste is very sensitive, but you can feel free to add 2% if you want to get a bit closer to the target (so 20.4 oz).
Actually, I lost more than 2%, this was measured the moment the kettle turned itself off - it was still giving off lots of steam. So probably more like 3-4% until cooled.
Well, even at a 10% loss (2 ounces), you would still have three 6 ounce cups of coffee.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.880739
| 2012-07-15T16:44:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25050",
"authors": [
"Alex Robertson",
"AntBee",
"Chiara Coetzee",
"Jeffrey Lane",
"buzzard51",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"jscs",
"korvus",
"mfg",
"rumtscho",
"sassvd"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5956
|
Know if a turkey is done cooking
I am making a turkey in a bag this weekend and I was wondering if there is a sure fire way to know when your turkey is done cooking. I don't have a meat (or any other) thermometer.
Go get a $15 probe thermometer. There is really no point in cooking turkey or any other roast without one.
The actual answer is- there is no good way without measuring the internal temperature.
Any time-based approach will be a guess at best.
The built in thermometer in some turkeys is a spring with some epoxy that melts a specific temperature. They are somewhat unreliable and either way they spring at 180F or so. This is well overdone for white meat but covers the turkey seller's liability.
Really- it's worth it to just get the thermometer and take the guess work out.
+1 for the built in ones are terrible/unreliable. The last one I had (in a Perdue roaster chicken) didn't pop at all, even though I let the chicken go past 180.
I highly recommend getting a cheap probe thermometer as suggested. Once you have one, you'll find yourself using it for a lot more than you expected. Better safe than sorry!
"Once you have one, you'll find yourself using it for a lot more than you expected." - This is an excellent point. I use my probe thermometer with a paper clip as a candy thermometer as well.
Another +1 for getting a thermometer. They are cheap, readily available and the weekend is 2 days away. ;~)
Use a probe thermometer. A turkey is cooked at 165F (according to the USDA), so you should take it out of the oven around 161F. The turkey internal temperature will keep rising after you take it out of the oven, so cover it with foil, let it sit for 15 minutes after you take it out of the oven and you are good to go.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.880940
| 2010-08-25T15:25:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5956",
"authors": [
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"stephennmcdonald",
"wdypdx22"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6604
|
Can you freeze Spring Roll Wraps?
I have some extra bags of spring roll wraps. Am I able to freeze them and if so how? Also would I be able to freeze them once I make spring rolls. The spring rolls would contain :
shrimp
pork
carrots
mushrooms
onions
eggs
vermicelli noodles
Yes, you can freeze either the wrappers or the pre-made rolls and they will work fine. The wrappers I buy are typically frozen.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.881099
| 2010-09-02T18:32:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6604",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10247
|
How to make a sauce using sugared citrus rinds?
I finally separated the citrus rinds (orange and lemon) from the citrus sugar. All the bits of rind are small. With them I was planning on making a citrus sauce to go on top of my brownies and was wanting help on what flavors would go with citrus rind and how much rind to use?
I have lots of blueberries and a few raspberries available as well.
EDIT:
I ended up using raspberries, citrus (orange/lemon) rind, cranberries and sugar. It tasted so good on the brownies!
There are noted resources for flavor pairing, many of which you can find on this site. Check out flavor. You'll find:
Why some flavors work better together than others
A list of books and websites providing information on flavor combinations, including suggestions for
FoodPairing
Khymos
The Flavor Thesaurus
cuuks (here's a start for your combo)
The Flavor Bible
How to determine if two ingredients will go well together
For your specific question of what goes well with citrus rind, you already know chocolate is a good match and that you are putting the sauce on brownies. Nuts in your brownies will be a good match too, especially pecans. Caraway, thyme, cardamom, or black pepper might add an unexpected note with orange. Rosemary is a very nice match for lemon. I recently made cookies using orange zest and black pepper that came out quite well.
If you want the citrus flavor to dominate I would leave out the berries. Otherwise I'd definitely use the raspberries, which go well with citrus. The bluberries would be fine, but I wouldn't consider them your best choice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.881158
| 2010-12-17T15:15:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10247",
"authors": [
"Angry Goomba",
"Lamia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21295",
"user20921"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13278
|
Do you need to cook a casserole with raw eggs before you freeze it?
I made a casserole yesterday that contains cooked pasta, cooked quinoa, dairy products, spinach and raw eggs. It is assembled and the baked at 350 for 30 minutes.
I am planning on making it again this weekend to freeze. Since the only raw ingredient is the eggs would it be okay to assemble it then freeze and cook the eggs when I am thawing it or should I cook it both now and after I bring it out of the freezer?
Is it served with the eggs raw or just assembled that way and then baked before serving?
sorry it is assembled that way then baked for 30 minutes at 350.
This is absolutely fine, especially if the eggs are pasteurised. I've seen plenty of recipes that have raw egg in them that say it;s fine to freeze them. You can even freeze eggs (that have been mixed up a little) for up to three months. So yes, I'd say freeze it as soon as possible. Also, if you were concerned about freezing the quinoa that will fine as well (a lot of people don't know you can store grains in the freezer).
Enjoy!
I'd say it's probably fine as long as you don't delay putting it in the freezer. To be on the safe side, you might want to let the cooked ingredients cool, before you mix in the egg.
Since you can freeze raw eggs, I see no reason you couldn't freeze a casserole that contains them. Make sure all your ingredients are cold before putting in the freezer, or adding the eggs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.881305
| 2011-03-18T18:22:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13278",
"authors": [
"Joyce Matthews",
"Kyra",
"Michael Thompson",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27580",
"user27546",
"user27580"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21023
|
How long can coconut milk last in the fridge?
I opened up a can of coconut milk the other day and was unable to use it all. I placed the remainder of the coconut milk into a sealed container in the fridge. I was wondering how long this would be good for?
StillTasty is a good resource for questions like this. In thise case: http://stilltasty.com/fooditems/index/16916 . If you're not going to use it in the next few days, freeze it in ice cube trays, then transfer the milk-cubes to a freezer bag.
Thanks. If you post that as the answer I will mark it. :)
@Kyra: I'm avoiding posting it as an answer because I think we should do so in a more general manner. See my meta question @ http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1336/should-we-have-a-general-reference-shelf-life-question
@derobert Sounds good.
possible duplicate: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18254/how-do-i-make-coconut-milk-at-home. The subject line is different, but the question is essentially the same.
There are 2 ways of looking at it; how long it will be safe to eat (ie from food poisoning) and how long it will still be appetizing and taste alright (ie not gone rancid).
As you've taken it from the tin it won't get that tinny flavour but as time goes on may absorb other flavours from the fridge so make sure you keep it away from anything that is strongly smelling. Also as around 87% of the coconut milk is fats it will soon go rancid, so keep that in mind, (you'll know when it does by giving it a quick sniff).
In terms of food safety, if it's UHT which most are, then it could probably last for a long time (as long as UHT milk) so about 2 1/2 weeks I'd say. Otherwise if it's not UHT then not as long. I would say about the same time as fresh milk so around a week as it contains sugars and fats and so is a very compelling proposition for any bacteria.
Other sites discussing this: http://community.cookinglight.com/showthread.php?t=14563, http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/291163 and http://forums.lowcarber.org/archive/index.php/t-418419.html.
Hope this helps!
I have no idea how long it's safe to eat, but every time I store coconut milk in my fridge (leftovers from the can, saved in food-safe containers) it goes bad overnight. I would freeze it regardless of how soon you intend to use it. Coconut milk defrosts fairly quickly, just set it by the warm stove and it should be ready to go in short order.
Strange, it has never gone bad for me so soon. It separates in two phases, but this is a normal physical process and can be reversed with heating+stirring.
I've eaten canned coconut milk after its been left out of the fridge for a day and smells a bit sour...and I was fine! I made it into an avocado smoothie and it tasted just like proper yoghurt...the type my mum used to make with yeast cultures! NB. I'd left it in a shady spot in the kitchen in a sealed cup.
I would never recommend eating it if it's been left in the can either in or out of the fridge because once it's opened the lining of the can oxidises and can penetrate the food that's in the can. That goes for any canned food.
Keep enjoying your coconut milk...manna from heaven!
I've left coconut milk opened in the (cardboard) container with the screwcap on for weeks and possibly months in the fridge and never had any issues...smells and tastes the same as when it was first opened... even though it says to consume within 5 days of opening...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.881462
| 2012-02-02T19:47:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21023",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"Kyra",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84598
|
do szechuan peppercorns get stale?
I've got some Szechuan/Sichuan peppercorns that don't make my lips numb or tingly, even when I just chew on several of them for 10 seconds or so. I would expect that they would. The jar smells good. Are they old? Low quality? (Or am I immune to the chemical?)
the numbing power of szechuan pepper varies vastly, in my experience. I have had some that rendered a whole dish inedible after adding only half a teaspoon for a family of 4. Some are much less potent. If the flavour is good then they are probably not stale - it's a matter of preference
I wouldn't say that Sichuan peppercorns (zanthoxyli pericarpium)，hua jiao (花椒）go stale, but they do lose some of their numbing effect/potency the drier they are. Fresh ones are green in color, quite difficult to find in USA, and tend to be the most potent in their numbing power. There are reddish ones which are what we normally see here in the USA, which are pretty potent. There are light brown ones, which are a bit more dry, with less potency.
I would say the drier they are, the less potent they are in their numbing power. But the drier they are, the easier it is to powder/crush them if you just want a bit of the numbness.
You could also lightly crush and heat them in dry pan or you can add them to your dish right away if they are dried out. Of course, add more to increase their potency.
I would suggest a dark/opaque, air tight container in the fridge to help preserve their potency.
Do you know if freezing them helps retaining the effect ? :O
Freezing might, I have never tried, but it might be worth a try. I would say as long as you can keep them from getting freezer burn or getting ice crystals forming inside their container, probably a good experiment.
It's impossible to say for sure as senses are subjective, however there may be nothing wrong with it. Sichuan pepper comes from a completely different plant than black pepper, it's actually in the citrus family, and is more aromatic than spicy. You should get more of a spicy, slightly citrus note rather than it blowing your mouth out with pepperiness. If you aren't tasting much they're most likely old, spices do lose potency over time. Keeping spices sealed well in a cool, dry place helps slow degradation, but eventually the flavor will go.
I believe all spices and dried herbs or seasonings lose potency if stored improperly, I would recommend trying to store them in an airtight container. Also toasting your spices on the stove top in a dry pan over medium low heat until they are frangrant will also help increase the flavor you get from them. Hope this helps.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.881726
| 2017-09-25T00:47:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84598",
"authors": [
"JG sd",
"Sarumanatee",
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1291
|
Is there a substitute for tahini in hummus?
If I don't have tahini is there anything similar to use to make hummus?
We make hummus but not that often. We got tahini for it and don't really use it for anything else. The 1 jar we've bought has lasted a really long time in the refrigerator and has been well worth it.
@Dinah: you can make Tahini salad out of Tahini: mix 1 portion of tahini with one portion of water, add 1 crushed garlic clove, some lemon juice, salt, cumin and chopped parsley.
As a Lebanese person I can tell you that no, there is not. Tahini is necessary. Now, you can use some alternatives, but we have to then debate the label "hummus." While the word "hummus" is commonly used, the real name is "hummus be thini", of "chick-peas in tahini." Hummus can refer to another variety we eat for brunch, as well as chick-peas themselves.
Sort of.
If you have sesame seeds on hand, grind some up. You could also use toasted sesame oil, and even combine it with the ground seeds.
You can also use all-natural peanut butter. Don't use mass market crap with sugar and other additives. The ingredients should list only: peanuts, salt. Obviously, this will taste like peanuts. It will still taste good in a hummus, but it will be a distinctly different hummus than with tahini.
I have some toasted black sesame seeds, I might try them.
I am a little apprehensive about calling it "hummus" when in fact it uses peanut butter. The name "hummus" merely means chick-peas. The full name is "hummus be t'hini", which means "hummum in tahini".
Lacking toasted sesame seeds, toasted sesame seed oil works quite well.
You can make something vaguely approximating hummus just by leaving out the tahini, but it won't have the characteristic tanginess of an authentic hummus and will end up tasting more like a chickpea salad.
Agreed. Tahini is a central ingredient of hummus. Accept no substitute!
Yeah I tried that a few weeks ago and it was definitely missing something.
I agree that without tahini it's more like chickpea-spread but if the tahini is being omitted because of an allergy it'll still be pretty good. Just make sure there's garlic and maybe an herb and yogurt to make it tasty.
I'm confused by the characterization of tahini as "tangy". I would say tahini has a savory, nutty, and slightly bitter flavor. The tangy flavor in hummus is probably due to lemon juice. (Tahini sauce is often prepared with lemon juice; but here we're talking about the nut butter itself, right?)
Making tahini is quite a simple process, it's simply a combination of sesame seeds and olive oil. To make toast a quantity of sesame in the oven, on a moderate heat, for 5 to 10 minutes, but don't let them burn. Allow the to cool then, combine them in a food processor with olive oil. Add enough oil to reach the consistency you desire.
Tahini is traditionally made with a neutrally flavored oil.
That really depends. As you travel around the Middle East you will find that it's very often made with Olive oil.
I loved hummus but then found out that I am allergic to sesame seeds. To substitute, I have used sunflower seed butter, almond butter or cashew butter. I have also tried combining a few of the nut butters for a more complex taste with good results. I have heard peanut butter works, but I am also allergic to peanuts so I cannot say much about it. Whatever you use as a substitute, make sure it does not contain a lot of ingredients, like sugar. My best substitute is to take raw, unsalted cashews and either soak them overnight or simmer them in water for about 20 minutes. The cashews will get really soft. Drain, then add 1:1 cashews and fresh water. Blend. The consistency will be very creamy like tahini. I know that what I make is not authentic hummus, but I still enjoy it.
You could try peanut butter (or any other nut butter, especially one with a light flavor and no salt or sugar added). Another option is sesame oil, but only add a little bit at a time, checking the flavor and consistency of your hummus as you go.
Sunbutter or sunflower seeds might work too. Their flavor is a little different but definitely not unpleasant, and not as strong as most nut butters.
I'm allergic to sesame (it sucks), so I use sunflower seed butter. I really like it, but I don't really know what I'm missing.
I've used lentils with good results.
My kid is allergic to sesame, so I've tried different things and the best results where with some plain lentils.
It doesn't have the same tanginess but it definitely changes the flavor from chickpeas to hummus. Most of people don't seem to notice the difference, but I haven't tried with people that had been raised on hummus.
I cooked them with a bit of salt and them add 3 tablespoons, but I hold a bit on the water of the original recipe to correct for it and add a bit more olive oil.
I'm sensitive to sesame seeds and usually use hemp hearts instead. They're several times the price, though.
Neat thoughts on just using a nut butter, y'all. I can't have peanuts, but I can have other nuts… I was about to make some cashew butter anyway, so that works!
Tahini is sesame seed butter, so you could reasonably substitute any nut butter. It won't taste the same, but it'll be edible! Some people don't like tahini in their hummus and use olive oil and ground cumin in its place.
I mix one part flax seeds and one part Olive Oil. It's pretty good, and you get more fiber. ;)
Not all hummus needs tahini. For example at a tunsian restaurant down the street they are tahini free.
Do they add something else instead, or just leave out the tahini?
They just leave it out
When I couldn't get tahini for hummus I made a very successful substitute by using roasted garlic (in addition to the garlic normally in the recipe).
I put a whole bulb in the oven, drizzled with olive oil, in a small bowl. When roasted and soft I squeezed out the cloves and added it all. My batch was probably about 1kg in total, but I didn't measure or note the quantities.
I also added toasted sesame oil, but even though that's a fairly strong flavour it couldn't make up for the lack of tahini on its own, at least not with the amount of oil I use.
This is a good time to experiment with extra flavours, as there's a danger of it being too bland.
I take unsalted unroasted peanuts. Toast in skillet, process warm with chickpeas,garlic,lemon,salt.
Turns out great
What about using pine nuts, as used in Pesto?
How would you prepare the pine nuts for use in a hummus recipe?
I think that pine nut butter could actually work, if the OP finds the taste change and price acceptable, so I am not deleting this despite flags. Still, expanding it to a real answer would have been much better.
To help reduce the fat content, I have used the concentrated flavor of roasted sesame oil. It tastes pretty good. Use about one tbs. of oil to a can of processed chick peas. I also have flavored with garlic, harrisa, diced tomato (meat only, no juice) or concentrated tomato paste, parsley.
Ground white poppy seed -khus- with a tiny amount of toasted sesame oil should work; hummus bi khus khus? Not identical, but the texture is similar and taste is closer than nut butters.
Peanut butter can be used. While it makes a tasty hummus, the flavor of tahini is definitely more authentic.
You can cover that lack of authenticity with a tablespoon or two of toasted sesame oil, available at most asian groceries. The oil keeps well, and is also very tasty in homemade coleslaw.
Oddly enough I am just making some Humus. chickpeas, olive oil, lime, salt and pepper and garlic, whizz up in the blender, NO TAHINI...
why was this marked down, when I sit here eating humus made without tahini, made 10 mins ago...
Perhaps it's because while it's possible to make hummus without tahini, it's not the same as hummus made with tahini, so it's not really a substitute, just a similar dish that's also good. Sure, you can still call it hummus, but it's not what the OP wanted.
Or maybe it's because there's already an answer from six years ago suggesting leaving out the tahini but with a more realistic assessment (it won't be the same at all), so you're not really adding much new here.
Hello, @Hoooray. You seem to be committed to contributing here, which is great, but you might want to spend a little time browsing the tour and help center to get a better idea of how best to work with this community. Looking forward to seeing your contributions!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.882129
| 2010-07-17T02:50:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1291",
"authors": [
"Ben Butler-Cole",
"Benjamin Kuykendall",
"Carol",
"Cascabel",
"Connie Smith",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Dinah",
"Electric Monk",
"Eric Goodwin",
"Erica",
"Eugene Lazutkin",
"GalacticCowboy",
"Gary",
"Hoooray",
"I am a spammer",
"Jeef",
"Kelly Phipps",
"Lakeland Furniture spam",
"Michael Petrotta",
"Mike Sherov",
"Mohamad",
"Pulse",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Timothy S. Van Haren",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Zhihui Heng",
"czchen",
"fryguybob",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99897",
"jitm",
"msinge2",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2881
|
The difference between green, red and yellow bell peppers
Is there any difference between green, red and yellow bell peppers, barring the color?
Normally when I buy a pack of 3 I always leave the yellow till last. It's normally due the coloring looking less appealing in the dish.
Appeal-wise, if I did a tomato and lettuce salad and wanted to use peppers with it, I'd go for the yellow one first :)
Visual appeal-wise I'd use all three, because such mix of strong colors looks awesome!
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodtip&dbid=68
Same plant species, different cultivar, different maturity, different tastes, different nutritional value. To summarize from the link, green are harvested earliest and contain the least vitamins, yellows are next and contain more vitamin C and less vitamin A and beta carotene, reds are harvest last and contain the most each vitamin types. Yellow and red are both sweeter and more fruity than green.
I grow my own peppers. I'll have to disagree with this. It depends on the pepper variety. Some start green and ripen to red. Some start green and ripen to orange. Some start green and ripen to yellow. Other more exotic type start purple or white and ripen to red/orange/yellow. I agree totally with the flavor summary.
Agreed with @rschuler - when I go to the greenhouse, they sell different colour peppers - red, green, yellow, various unusual heirlooms. A green pepper won't turn red, but a red pepper does go through a non-ripe green phase.
Edited for clarity on same plant vs cultivated variety.
As a greenhouse operator, I can tell you that the first answer was the correct answer. Green peppers are really peppers that are picked before they are completely ripe. All green peppers, if left on the vine will transition through yellow and end up red. This is why a green pepper is more bitter than yellow, orange or red. Yellow and Orange peppers are loaded with Vitamin A and C while Greens have none or very little. Green peppers are generally cheaper to buy than the others because they don't have to stay on the plant as long.
Seed developers have found a way to make pepper plants ripen to either yellow, orange, chocolate, purple or red depending on which variety you have.
I am currently growing some peppers that claim to be green bell peppers. As they ripen will these too eventually change color? Damn marketers!
Red peppers are sweeter than green, and yellow and orange are sweeter than red. I usually find that red peppers get softer faster than the others.
I'd always understood the difference to purely be different ripenesses (and therefore sweetness). They are all the same variety though.
I have to disagree. When I go to the greenhouse, they sell different colour variants. The peppers sold as "green peppers" don't turn red. The "red" / "yellow" / "orange" peppers I've bought go through a green phase but aren't ripe until they turn the colour on the tag.
@ceejayoz: I've never known a bell pepper that wouldn't turn colors and ripen eventually, though some take their sweet time at it.
@ceejayoz You'd better correct Wikipedia as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_pepper "Cultivars of the plant produce fruits in different colors, including red, yellow and orange. The fruit is also frequently consumed in its unripe form, when the fruit is still green"
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.882887
| 2010-07-22T21:19:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2881",
"authors": [
"Frodik",
"Jeromy Anglim",
"Jonathan",
"Preston",
"Richa",
"Rodney Schuler",
"Rowland Shaw",
"SF.",
"Sanjeev",
"Shog9",
"Spammer",
"Tim Gilbert",
"ceejayoz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8688",
"mkoryak",
"mpez0",
"takrl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
98994
|
As it relates to the Hospitality Industry what is a par level of product?
What does this mean in the Hospitality industry?
As in the Hospitality Department will establish par levels of products
Is this kind of like when your boss in IT tells you that there should always be 2 spare toner cartridges and that should should attempt to keep them at this level?
Can it also be based on the past history of the usage of a product for a particular month?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-definition-of-par-level
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it doesn't seem to be related to cooking.
@GdD : so you don't make sure that you always have certain items on-hand, and restock your pantry even if you're not planning on making a recipe that specifically calls for it? (eg, there are a lot of things that I try to always keep an unopened container of, because things like a box of salt are hard to look in the cabinet and notice that there's hardly any left in the open container)
It's the same thing as in any other industry ... a minimum stock level.
As for what it should be for your particular place, yes, it will be based on how quickly you tend to go through things.
These might be commonly used ingredients, but can also be other consumables like paper towels, aluminum foil, wooden skewers, takeout containers, etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.883214
| 2019-05-14T15:10:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98994",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"UnhandledExcepSean",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.