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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
23907
|
Refrigerate Cod After Cooking
Possible Duplicate:
Resources for reheatable meals, specifically fish?
How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer?
Is it okay to refrigerate Cod (and other kinds of fish) once cooked and eat the next day?
If so, can you reheat it before eating?
I disagree it is a duplicate. I'm interested in refridgeration of fish after being cooked and its shelf life, also whether it is safe to reheat. The duplicate question makes no mention of how to store once cooked and the length of time it can be stored in that way. It instead looks at what recipies reheat in the microwave well, which i'm not intrested in.
Isn't it clear that it's safe to reheat from that question, and that it must last at least a day in the fridge? (And what cooked foods aren't safe to reheat but can be eaten cold?)
Can I make the suggestion you alter the second question, so it comes up when you search for terms like fish refrigerate etc... If I could have found the question by search I wouldn't have had to ask. Cheers for the down votes though.
Chris, we can't directly control search results. I can see if there's anything obvious keeping it from ranking, but stackexchange search isn't amazing. This is why we have the duplicate mechanism - to point people to what they didn't or couldn't find by searching.
Yes, it's fine to refrigerate cooked fish. Many types of fish are excellent (better, even) served cold -- shrimp and salmon are good examples. If you can eat it cold, it's hard to see how reheating would pose any additional risk.
There are some other considerations, though. It's easy to overcook fish, which leaves it dry and less than tender, and that goes double if you're reheating. Use low heat (or low power in a microwave) and be careful not to cook too long. Some sauce will help keep the fish reheat, but avoid storing the fish in a strongly acidic sauce (like lemon juice) as acid will change the fish over time even in the fridge. And avoid reheating fishy things in the microwave at work if you value your relationship with your coworkers -- the smell often lingers.
Shrimp is fish? Lol
@Jay Zoologically speaking, no. Gastronomically speaking, close enough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.954820
| 2012-05-22T07:33:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23907",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Diver",
"Code Roadie",
"Jay",
"John Nguyen",
"Mycah",
"Nick",
"R Losie",
"Zarepheth",
"choffman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"hyde",
"jill"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25214
|
Is it true that good pistachio nuts should have yellowish shell, purplish skin and greenish flesh?
In China, where I live, most pistachio nuts sold on the market have very white shell, and yellowish skin and flesh, like this:
Today I read some articles claiming that these pistachio nuts were so white because they had been bleached using hydrogen peroxide, and good pistachio nuts should have yellowish shell, purplish skin and greenish flesh, like this:
So, my question is: have white pistachios been bleached? What colour do pistachio nuts in your country have?
Looks like the usual name for the process is bleaching (using hydrogen peroxide). I found some things online searching for that; hopefully someone will be able to provide a full answer.
@Jefromi, Thanks for the tip on the name of the process, but I'll keep the "bad for health" part because that is part of the claim. :)
@betty we do not tackle nutrition/healthy eating here, mostly because for each question, there are 3 reputable studies claiming one answer, 3 claiming the opposite, and 30 quacks who put up websites with pretty pictures. We allow food safety questions, but we only tell you if a government authority has approved a certain process, not if something is "unhealthy". See the [faq] for topics we don't allow on the site.
Okay, I edited it again to more explicitly ask about food safety, rather than possibly making an implication about health. Hydrogen peroxide is commonly recognized as safe (e.g. by the FDA) when used in certain ways in food preparation, and I want to try to avoid any unfounded health claims.
There may be safe ways to use hydrogen peroxide, but the articles I read surely suggest it is used in unsafe ways with pistachios in China (e.g., overuse, polluted by other stuff, etc). Anyway, I'm not very concerned about the safety aspect (I've already lost faith in food safety in China). I mainly want to know the true colour of pistachios. I bet you guys have seen pistachios. Why don't you enlighten me? :)
Those are definitely bleached. Not only are they impossibly white (whiter than Macadamia nuts!) but there is no colour variation of any kind. Natural foods are never that uniform unless/until they've been processed somehow.
The natural colors for pistacio meats are green, yellow-green, purple and/or red. Shells are beige. The Kerman variety, which account for 90% of the pistachios grown in California, are yellow-green to deep green. Pistacios from Iran tend to be more in the red-purple spectrum, and are alleged by their partisans to be superior to California pistacios. Personally, I like both the Kerman and the Iranian ones I've been able to sample.
Looking at the picture, I'd say that those nuts were clearly bleached, due to the excessive whiteness of the shells. This seems to be a common practice in China, enough to cause the government to debate a ban on bleaching. Per that article and others, there is no health risk associated with peroxide bleaching, but there is thought to be a significant loss of vitamins due to bleaching.
Thanks. When you say "meats", do you include the skin (the thin and fragile layer wrapping the flesh)? Because for some pistachios skin and flesh have different colours.
This statement, "I like both the Kerman and the Iranian ones", sounds funny, given that Kerman is the name of a city in Iran, and the region where pistachios are primarily grown. But oddly enough, Kerman pistachios were developed in California, and are probably not grown in Kerman, or elsewhere in Iran (Pistachio Cultivars)
I can't tell you for sure if white pistachios are bleached or if they are another type of pistachio.
The pistachios in Belgium are like the one in your second picture, thus a bit of purple skin, with a green outside and light green/yellow on the inside. I'm not sure how to name the colour of the shell. The ingredient list is just pistachio nuts and salt.
The nuts I have now are actually from the brand Trader Joe's (which is American, I think), but the address is from Germany while the package states 'California nuts'. I will put a picture here if I open this package.
The package is done :-( I forgot, sorry. But they really were purple & green.
LOL. It's alright. :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.955057
| 2012-07-23T13:54:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25214",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Altha Addison",
"Axel Winsa",
"Betty",
"Cascabel",
"Chipp Walters",
"Juhasz",
"Liran Funaro",
"Louis",
"Mien",
"Rae A. Huebner",
"Rob",
"Rodolfo Maurino",
"Samuil Petrov",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70120",
"rumtscho",
"user57650"
],
"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
}
|
89
|
What can I do to help my avocados ripen?
I bought some avocados recently, and one of them was rock hard when I tried to cut it. I left it out for a couple days hoping it would ripen, but it didn't help.
What can I do to help my avocados ripen?
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18917/will-avocado-stay-fresh-longer-if-stored-in-the-refrigerator
The California Avocado Commission suggestions:
To ripen a California Avocado, place the fruit in a plain brown paper bag and store at room temperature 65-75° until ready to eat (usually two to five days).
Including an apple or banana in the bag accelerates the process because these fruits give off ethylene gas, a ripening reagent.
Soft ripe fruit can be refrigerated until it is eaten, but not for more than two or three days.
The California Avocado Commission does not recommend using a microwave to accelerate the ripening process.
+1 thanks! (I'm dumbfounded that there's a California Avocado Commission...)
Does a plastic bag work as well? @DaveDeLong There is also a Mexican avocado commission: http://www.avocadosfrommexico.com/about-afm/
Like almost every food in existence it's commissions like the California Avocado Commission that made avocado a world wide thing. Without them pushing avocados the world over it's unlikely avocados would be so common. Particular foods getting popular the world over seems like it happens organically. Some person visits another country, tries something, brings it back to their home country and it spreads. But, that's rarely what actually happens. Instead producers form an organization to promote their food in any and every way possible.
You can ripen an avocado in one day by double wrapping in foil and placing in low (250°) oven for +/- 30 minutes. Check by pressing lightly until avocado is starting to soften. Check every 15 minutes. Remove from oven and let sit on counter still wrapped in foil for an hour. Remove foil and let cool completely before using. I have used this method successfully for years.
Hadn't heard that one before.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.955450
| 2010-07-09T19:38:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chloe",
"Dave DeLong",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"gman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"leiflundgren"
],
"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
}
|
564
|
Why is sugar a wet ingredient?
The last time I checked, most sugar is really dry (unless it's something like brown sugar). So why is it categorized as "wet"?
Sugar is not really a wet ingredient, it's just treated as one in certain types of baking (i.e. cakes).
When making a cake or other "fluffy" baked good, you want a fairly small amount of gluten to be produced, otherwise you'll get a chewy texture instead, and you definitely don't want a cake to be chewy like bread.
Dissolving sugar in the water inhibits the gluten-forming proteins. It's a method (actually, the method) of adding more liquid to the mix without getting a tough, chewy cake. It is for this reason that sugar is considered a "wet ingredient" - because the process only works properly if you add it with the water, not with the other dry ingredients.
It's even possible for sugar to be a dry and wet ingredient in the same recipe; you might add just enough sugar to the water to get the right texture, and add more to the dry ingredients for further sweetening.
This is very interesting. Do you know the ratio of sugar / water needed to inhibit gluten formation?
@Max: There isn't one. It's not all or nothing; more sugar means less gluten. There will still be gluten, even with a lot of sugar - just less of it than with no sugar.
Gluten prevention makes perfect sense, but then I find it odd pancake recipes always consider sugar to be a dry ingredient. You generally want to minimize gluten in pancakes, so wouldn't it make more sense to consider it a wet ingredient?
Aaronut's answer explains role of sugar well, but here one more explanation about the ontology side of the question. No, it's not new, but when said in different words, it can make more sense.
Just stop thinking of "wet" and "dry" ingredients. What we have is a method of making cakes which requires two separate intermediate mixtures to be mixed in one final step. Home cooks are not process engineers, so they did not describe it as "intermediate product A" and "intermediate product B" or whatever you have. They also didn't feel like saying "This goes into the bowl which will hold a liquid when it's ready for the final mix" and "This goes into the bowl which will hold a powder when it's ready for the final mix". They just used a shortcut and called it "wet" and "dry" ingredients, because each of them is part of the final wet intermediate ingredient or the final dry intermediate ingredient.
Of course this is totally confusing for a novice baker. But domain specific terms are created by experts, not novices, and to them, it is more important to have a short way of labeling the ingredients than to have a nomenclature understandable for non-experts. You just have to get accustomed to the usage.
Thank you @rumtscho. My spectrum mind really craves ontological consistency. This answer gives me that.
I'm not sure what the context is, but I dug up this article that mentions sugar being a wet ingredient when baking certain items such as cake. A quick summary from the article:
"...the general idea is that Sugar and Water are Best Friends Forever, and they swear that nothing will ever separate them."
I'm guessing basically sugar is used with water (as opposed to being kept undissolved as a solid) so much that this is why it is considered 'wet,' at least in the context the article talks about.
Hope this helps!
In baking, you need to keep a proper ratio of wet/dry ingredients. When heated, sugar returns to its original liquid form.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.955769
| 2010-07-10T23:43:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/564",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Hasanat Taiwo",
"Max",
"Nils",
"Roisin 1989",
"Scott",
"Todd",
"Will Harris",
"edburns",
"erikcw",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99594",
"user2011"
],
"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
}
|
9292
|
Does putting salt in coffee really remove bitterness?
I have seen people claim that putting salt in coffee enhances the flavour or removes bitterness. Example.
Does this really work? If it does, how does it work? Is there something chemical going on, or is it just a trick of the taste-buds?
I have also heard that a pinch of baking soda can remove the "bitterness" or acidity from tea that has steeped for too long...it softens the tannis.
You can also look at this question for more options. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7511/refreshing-ground-coffee-with-cinnamon
In a Good eats episode from the 13th season (The Ballad of Salty and Sweet), Alton Brown explains how salt (specifically the sodium) blocks your tongue's taste buds from sensing bitterness. Sweetness however is not blocked. It also is known to enhance other flavours. Salt on chocolate is awesome for example. Salt also has the ability to still taste salty while doing all the rest.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.956070
| 2010-11-19T22:25:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9292",
"authors": [
"Jenn",
"Martha F.",
"Matt S",
"Maurizio In denmark",
"Rosemary",
"SchautDollar",
"Shrey Patel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83469",
"kon psych",
"mor"
],
"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
}
|
10080
|
Will roasting ginger root give it a milder flavor?
I just had a thought - garlic is very strongly flavoured, but turns nice and mild when roasted.
Can the same be done with ginger root? I can't find any recipes with a cursory search of google.
Is roasted ginger root a good idea?
I think we need a new "is this a thing?" tag.
This is a really interesting idea. I might try it this evening and get back to you.
I actually have to pick up ginger for something else tonight, I will also give it a shot. Great idea!
The reason that roasted garlic tastes so much milder than raw garlic is that it contains a sulfur compound called allicin, which roasting breaks down. Allicin is primarily what gives garlic its pungency. Technically, raw garlic mostly contains a compound called allin, which reacts with the allinase enzyme to produce the allicin, and this reaction is greatly accelerated when garlic is "distressed", i.e. crushed or cut.
Ginger contains no allicin, so you're certainly not going to get an identical reaction. What ginger does contain are two types of oil called gingerols and shogaols, which are primarily what gives ginger its pungency. Cooking converts these into another compound called zingerone, which is far less pungent (it's described as "spicy-sweet"). It's actually slightly more complicated; the gingerols also convert into shogaols through cooking, and the shogaols are actually more pungent (160,000 SHU vs. 60,000), but on the whole, the ginger does become milder.
It will not become perfectly sweet as garlic does, just less pungent and more aromatic. In fact, cooked (roasted) ginger tastes much like dried ginger; many of the same reactions happen during drying as during cooking.
So yes, you can try roasting ginger if you want it to be milder, but don't expect to be able to eat the whole root by itself if you don't already love the taste of ginger. It doesn't do exactly the same thing that garlic does, it's just a little similar.
It's hard to find good references online, although you can find a lot of this in McGee. For more information you can try:
Wikipedia: Ginger
Chemicalland21: Gingerol
Wikipedia: Shogaol
The All I Need: Raw Garlic
Slicing peeled ginger thin on the bias (with the grain) and roasting it until the slices are gently browned (I do this under a broiler) will result in a pleasant caramelization that is not present in raw ginger. Don't let it go too long, experiment a bit to see how you like it.
Ginger is traditionally roasted for pho, the Vietnamese noodle soup. It does in fact give the ginger a milder flavor and deeper aroma.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.956454
| 2010-12-13T20:33:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10080",
"authors": [
"Bob",
"Jack Woodman",
"Maggie",
"Spammer",
"Tevo D",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96931",
"impossible245",
"justkt",
"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
}
|
8598
|
In a recipe, how much is "to taste"?
A lot of recipes I've been preparing lately often list salt and black pepper as "to taste" in terms of quantity. I get that the general idea is to make the food taste good, but I'm not sure that I regularly notice salt or pepper unless there is TOO MUCH of either.
When a recipe calls for adding something "to taste", what am I trying to note when I taste it? If it's a brand new recipe, how do I know if something is supposed to be bland, seasoned or salty/peppery?
it is what tastes good to you
To taste is one of those awesome cooking terms that trips people up all the time. To taste does not mean to what tastes good to you, although you can use that as a determination and your dish should still come out fine for most people. To taste means that you add salt (or whatever) while tasting the dish and you slowly add until the seasoning tastes perfect. To properly do this you are going to have to train your palate, but luckily it's not that hard to do. As a matter of fact, we have a pretty good way to learn it right here. The end result you are trying to achieve is the point where food tastes the most like itself without adding to much, this the small increments.
The important part to remember is that "to taste" is where your food lives. It's the thing that is unique to you and a part of what makes every dish you make an expression.
"To taste" just means to add as much as needed to make it taste good to you. There's no real right or wrong answer, unless you're cooking for other people. If you don't know what the correct amount of seasoning is for a dish, it's best to leave it on the bland side. Then everyone can season their own dishes "to taste" for themselves.
Depends on what spice it is, some are hard to add after cooking is done. However "to taste" usually refers to salt.
The general rule to amount of salt that should be added to a dish is-
0.5% of the total mass of the dish.
This means that if the dish that one is cooking is 1kg then the amount of salt to be added should be 0.5% of it, i.e., 5 grams.
A little quantity or salt can be here-and-there according to individual preference, but the aforementioned rule is quite standard.
This should help you in never getting confused in future.
Welcome! That sounds like an interesting statement. Do you have a source for that percentage?
It would be difficult to apply this "rule" when using ingredients that contain salt of their own, no?
The question linked in the accepted answer above contains this exact answer, but with a source.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.956703
| 2010-10-28T01:05:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8598",
"authors": [
"AlessMascherpa",
"Esther",
"Kevin M",
"Marlon Andrade",
"Stephie",
"Viktor Mellgren",
"ava",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93453",
"moscafj"
],
"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
}
|
1664
|
What ingredients can be added to pasta to give a different color?
I've experimented with fresh pasta, using the following ingredients to color it:
Beetroot puree
Carrot puree
Cocoa powder
The first two were successful, the cocoa poweder resulted in a very visually appealing but rather disgusting pasta.
Any other suggestions for stuff you can put in the dough, other than the banal versions using spinach or dried tomatoes, to make for interesting colors?
Note that it should be tasty :)
I've never made chocolate pasta, but my mom would occasionally get it from the italian grocery near where she worked. You have to treat it as a desert -- serve with berries and whipped cream. If I were to make it myself, I'd make sure to use Dutch Process cocoa, as it's not as harsh.
We use spinach to color and flavour fresh pasta.
+1 for spinach, makes an earthy green pasta and very nutritious.
Some things I've tried (separately):
tomato, in paste form;
fresh broccoli / spinach, finely chopped;
lemon, juiced and zested; and
if you're feeling fancy, saffron.
As for cocoa, I'd probably add sugar to offset the taste of the unsweetened cocoa powder.
Also, since roux suggested turmeric, I'm thinking it might be interesting to add curry powder, which already contains turmeric.
Try Matcha tea, buy the culinary matcha as it is less expensive.
Amaranth greens will get you pink pasta. Potentially VERY pink pasta.
Have you tried blueberry, cranberry and currant?
P.S. I have no clue if it will be eatable :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.956948
| 2010-07-18T07:17:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1664",
"authors": [
"Bindu Patel",
"Bob Kaufman",
"Celeste",
"Electric Monk",
"Iiridayn",
"Joe",
"Melanie",
"Rex M",
"Ryan",
"Sobachatina",
"Wok",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/706",
"single_digit",
"user15204",
"user15206"
],
"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
}
|
2564
|
How to look after non-stick cookware so it lasts?
Over the course of the last 4 years I think I seem to have been working my way through non-stick pans at a ridiculous rate, I think I'm on my 3rd frying pan and 4th wok - or something of that nature.
Admittedly the first couple I had were very cheap, and I've been steadly buying what appear to be better quality. However, for the coating to become damaged so quickly I must be doing something wrong.
I'm not using sharp or metallic objects when cooking with them, nor to I stick them in the sink with said sharp objects when clearning.
I've recently learnt that "over-heating" them can damage the coating, but is this true?
But, what other advice can you offer to help extend the life of my non-stick cookware?
Heat will definitely destroy teflon. Teflon is basically a plastic coating. Have you considered cast iron?
I'm still happily using a non-stick frying pan that I've had for almost 4 years.
I only use Teflon utensils.
I never use harsh abrasives.
After cooking, I fill it with boiling water, let it soak for a while and then wipe out with paper towels. Most of the time I just give it a quick rinse and it's ready for the next time.
And buy quality - "Quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten".
I'm getting the hang of the quality statement, but unfortunatly it took me several years of cheap equipment to make me start realising the difference it can make.
How can you tell if something is "quality" with respect to its non-stick coating?
One thing that was drilled into me was that you never pre-heat an empty non-stick pan -- the issue being that there's nothing in there to regulate the temperature or to warn you when it's overheating.
I always toss a litle oil in the pan before pre-heating it. If nothing else, I have a warning when I hit the smoke point of the oil, but I've typically tossed in whatever I'm cooking well before it gets that hot.
As said I'd only recently heard that overheating was a problem. From the answers here so far that does seem to be correct. I'm much more cautious than I used to be in this respect, but I reckon it probably contributed to the death of at least one of my previous woks...
@DMA57361: Well-seasoned cast iron (or I imagine steel) is relatively nonstick and almost completely immune to overheating. Consider replacing your wok with one that isn't teflon coated.
@derobert - what do you define as "well seasonsed" cast iron?
@DMA57361: Something like the recommendations in http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/641/whats-the-best-way-to-season-a-cast-iron-skillet should produce well-seasoned cast iron.
I've switched to a cast-iron (they call it Chinese style here, but don't know whether that's true) myself a few year back, and it helped a lot. Season it well, for sure, and change your cooking technique to match. Additional advantage is that you don't need as large a (or custom) gas flame underneath your work if you pre-heat it well. Don't overfill either, but that's more about cooking result than damage.
The main secret is to buy high quality non stick cookware in the first place and then not abuse it. Teflon coatings come in three varieties. Two layer coatings which are found on cheap cookware sold to low end buyers (essentially every thing you see at wal-mart/target), three layer coatings found in mid range to upper end cookware, and reinforced / highly reinforced coatings which are found in good quality consumer non stick and and pretty much all commercial nonstick.
The key word to look for is "metal utensil safe". Only reinforced coatings are metal utensil safe because the reinforcements in the coating protect the coating from abrasion, and cause any damage to be localized.
Whitford worldwide (a major Supplier of nonstick coatings has plenty of information about the science of all this on their website).
The best material for a nonstick pan is straight anodized or pressure cast aluminum. Only copper conducts heat better and nothing else is as light or cheap. Clad stainless is wasted in nonstick cookware, because you aren't cooking on stainless steel, you are cooking on Teflon. You are paying for durability you don't need and can't use.
As for taking care of the coating.
Metal untensil safe doesn't mean you should use metal utensils. They will scratch the surface which is aesthetically displeasing, and create openings for corrosion under the surface. Use soft utensils and don't be stupid. Protect the pans surface with a towel before puting other things on it in storage.
Dishwasher safe, doesn't mean put it in the dishwasher. Nonstick coatings are not impermiable, and so the alkalinity in the dishwasher detergent will eventually corrode the metal and resins under the Teflon rich layers.
The best way to clean nonstick, is to put water and soap in the pan while it is hot and let it sit for a while. Wash and rinse twice, let the soap and water do the work for you. Don't scrub.
If you don't clean the surface well, then over time you can build up a layer of brown cruddy varnish on the surface which is sticky. Nonstick cook cooking sprays contribute to this as well. Your wash water should be nice and foamy, indicative that soap no longer has any grease to work with.
Use low heat/medium heat. High heat will scorch your food, The temperatures that can damage nonstick are well above the smoke point of fats found in food and oils.
The best place to buy nonstick is at a gourmet retailer like Williams Sonoma, or a restaurant supply store. In commercial pans Vollrath is nice and made in the USA. Scanpan and Swiss diamond are nice european brands,as is the good Calphalon that you find at gourmet retailers rather than bad Calphalon you find at middle market and low end retailers. Analon/circulon from Meyer is good value for money, But again metal utensil safe is the key mark of quality.
This will depend on the type of non-stick surface. In my experience, anodised cookware will last a lot better than teflon coated cookware.
There are some sensible tips to prolonging the life of all non-stick cookware though; such as waiting until the pan is at room temperature (or at least no hotter than the washing water). I've also found the hard way that you should not ever heat a pan that isn't perfectly clean, as any thin films of oil can burn and affect the surface - if frying, oil the meat, and not the pan.
And with 'isn't perfectly clean' - that goes for the outside as well.
I had the same problem. I switched to stainless steel pans. I make a non-stick layer by heating some oil in it and cleaning it with salt and paper. Then the pan is ready for use. One advantage is that I can use any ustensils without risk. Some people only clean this kind of pan with salt and paper, so that the non stick layer gets stronger after every use.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.957141
| 2010-07-21T07:51:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2564",
"authors": [
"DMA57361",
"Dan Atkinson",
"Divya",
"Lucy Sullivan",
"Maksim",
"Max",
"Melara",
"Michael",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8812",
"intuited",
"salmonlamp",
"wilhil"
],
"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
}
|
7830
|
Why is some metal safe to use in a microwave, but others not?
This might be a more scientific question, but it relates to cooking and I thought it was interesting.
I just made my lunch which was a microwavable bowl of chunky soup.
The directions said:
Remove metal lid, remaining metal rim is microwavable.
How can this be?
Metal on its own doesn't necessarily cause electric discharge in a microwave.
What causes the sparking that you see when you put a fork in a microwave is due to the "sharp" edges of the fork. These edges concentrate the voltage at their tips which will cause a spark when it exceeds the dielectric breakdown of air.
Things like sheet pans (with rounded edges), or rounded metal racks are used frequently in microwaves with no ill effect. The absence of any pointed edges allows this. The rim of your bowl fits this requirement.
Wow very interesting!
I would caution readers not to assume that any metal without sharp edges is safe to microwave. My parents have dinner plates with frilly gold plating and I once put one in the microwave without thinking - it was quite a light show.
The foil and gold leaf does have a sharp boundary. Because it is the bounds of the conductor that counts.
@dmckee: Indeed, this wasn't gold leaf though; it was just a little bit off from a circular rim. As roux points out, you could get the same effect with a big sheet or tiny piece of tin foil. Maybe there's some "edgy" stuff happening at the molecular level but I'm just cautioning readers not to trust their eyes.
For more on this see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven#Hazards
So, these are actually not fake? http://www.bonitaindia.com/product-details/105/21/paradise-microwavable-freeze-bowls-(set-of-3-pcs)
I once used a sheet pan with rounded edges and I saw my microwave almost catch fire. DO NOT DO THIS!
I think it also has to do with arcing. If the metal is close enough to other metal that electricity can leap the gap, it'll spark. I once stuck a metal bowl--very round on the bottom--into a microwave with a metal turn-table. The bowl got arc-welded to the turn table.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.957697
| 2010-10-04T17:20:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7830",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"JD Isaacks",
"Jared Updike",
"Noldor130884",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"haridsv",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/866"
],
"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
}
|
405
|
Making (or substitute for) ricotta cheese?
Some of my favorite dishes call for ricotta cheese, be it anything from a lasagna to cannoli. Arguably, this is a very easy thing to find in the States (and presumably elsewhere), so I'd never thought about it. But, living in Japan, I have yet to find it anywhere - supermarkets, import shops, or cheese shops. (Mind you, cheese is a pretty rare thing here, and a delicacy at that.)
So, being unable to buy it anywhere, what are my options? Is there a substitution I can try, or is it something I can make at home?
Joe mentioned tofu as a ricotta substitute when making cannoli; I recommend it for lasagna as well.
I love my mom's lasagna, and I only found out as an adult that she uses soft tofu instead of ricotta. Now, I do the same.
Pulse posted a recipe, and while I've made ricotta using the yogurt/vinegar combo before, I find you get better tasting ricotta with this simple recipe:
1 liter whole fat milk
1/4 liter sour milk/buttermilk (2%+ fat)
Large pinch of salt
Bring the milk, buttermilk and salt to a simmer, stirring occasionally. Simmer for a few minutes, until the milk curdles. Pour the curds and whey through a cheesecloth-lined strainer, and hang the cheesecloth for 15-30 minutes. The longer you wait, more solid your ricotta will become. One liter of milk will make about 150-200 grams of solid ricotta.
I like this recipe because of its simplicity. You get better results by using better quality dairy, and you can substitute sheep/goat milk if available. It also scales extremely well, and often I quadruple the recipe without a hitch.
You can also use yogurt instead of buttermilk.
Sheep / goat ricotta will be progressively more strong in flavor, and might be too strong for delicate desserts (cheesecake, cannoli); still great for many uses
Loved sheeps milk ricotta cannoli when I had it though, so YMMV.
You can make ricotta at home and it's not that difficult. You don't need anything that may be hard to find. Here's a really simple recipe:
http://simplyrecipes.com/recipes/homemade_ricotta_cheese/
As a substitute, you have a few options. One would be cottage cheese. The problem is it tends to be a bit watery, so dump a pot or two into some fine cheesecloth, place it in a strainer for an while and it will be a little better.
Another option would be Paneer. it's really simple to make and you can have it ready within the hour. here's a recipe:
How to Make Paneer
Whilst both of these options work, they will not be ricotta...
See some of the other suggestions for trying to actually make cheese ...
... but for lasagna, you don't necessarily need ricotta -- there are a number of very good recipes that use a bechamel (white sauce) and only a little bit of a grating cheese (parmesean, pecorino romano, etc.) on top.
For the cannoli, you might try experimenting with sweetening some silken tofu, and putting it through a blender to make it creamy. I'd try using powdered sugar, if it's available, both because it won't leave a gritty quality, and it contains cornstarch which might help to keep it from getting too watery. A quick internet search found a few hits on 'tofu cannoli' and 'soy cannoli' if you want to see what other people have done.
My mother doesn't like ricotta cheese, so all of the lasagna I had growing up was with cottage cheese plus some extra Parmesan cheese in place of ricotta. My family enjoyed that recipe many years. (Note: I'm not saying this makes a similar flavor -- it doesn't. She did this specifically because she doesn't like the flavor of ricotta.)
You might want to try fresh Ricotta still. My mom would skip the Ricotta or use a very small amount in her Lasagna for the same reason of disliking the flavor, but that was store bought. When I made the Ricotta using the method in my answer, it was so good we increased the amount from the original recipe (so say orig was 1 cup, she was doing 0-1/4 cup, with fresh we went with 1.5 cups). It is now one of the primary flavors in my Lasagna.
True ricotta is a whey cheese. It is relatively easy to make provided you have access to a decent volume of whey and the ability to heat and strain it. I'd say you'd probably want around 10L of whey to make the effort worth your while.
Because of the low yield associated with traditional ricotta recipes, some home cheese-makers choose to augment the recipe by cutting the whey with a quantity of milk. This will dramatically increase the yield, but may affect the flavour and texture of the cheese.
As others have suggested, if cottage cheese is available where you are it may provide a suitable substitute. Especially if you blend it a little first to make it smoother. Paneer is very easy to make at home, but has a much firmer texture than ricotta. I have never experimented with tofu as a ricotta substitute myself, but it seems that a soft tofu might be suitable.
It is also very easy to make a simple soft fresh cheese by culturing a few L of milk with a tablespoon or so of buttermilk.
Ricotta
Heat 10L of whey (from a rennet cheese NOT direct acidified) to 60C in a covered pot.
Add 30mL of vinegar (and 60mL of salt if desired).
Slowly increase heat to 80-90C, checking periodically for the formation of curds. (I find it usually takes about 40-50 minutes.)
Ideally three "eyes" should form on the surface of the curds, although this does not always happen.
The curds should look somewhat dry on the surface when they are done.
Strain through cheesecloth and allow whey to completely drain from curds.
In my experience, this recipe makes about 100g of ricotta per L of whey used. However, I use sheep milk and whey. I would expect the yield to be roughly halved when using cow's milk/whey.
Quark
Warm 2L of cream (10-20% butterfat content; preferably pasteurized at low temperatures, UHT milk will NOT work) to 32C.
Add 15mL buttermilk.
Leave to culture for at least four hours. The cream should thicken (into sour cream). You may also see a small amount of whey separating out from the cream.
Strain through butter muslin or a double layer or cheesecloth.
This should produce a fresh, light, slightly tangy spreadable cheese. The flavour and texture are different than that of ricotta, but you may find it a palatable substitute nonetheless. And it may be easier for you to make than true ricotta.
Granted whey ricotta does exist and is probably the normal way of producing ricotta in Italy Full milk could be an easier alternative.
We always just used mozzarella cheese in lasagna and loved it. But it in layers and on top of the lasagna.
Sometimes the simplest solutions are best. Welcome to Seasoned Advice Cheryl!
Tofu will work if you get the thick type, season it, and add egg white. Costco Japan and Seibu has ricotta, with Costco being far cheaper.
What sort of seasoning (just salt?), and do you just crush up the tofu?
I've used this recipe http://www.101cookbooks.com/archives/000282.html for making fresh ricotta.
Also, depending on what you are putting it into, the acid from a small amount of lemon juice will also help start the curdling and carries a nice taste into the cheese.
As for finding the cheesecloth, my best source has been the hardware store (Home Depot and Lowes here), the paint section carries cheesecloth for straining paint.
I strongly recommend making your own, the first time I made a batch for my mom when she was making Lasagna, it took the dish to a whole new level.
Hurrah! Another use for the citric acid that I bought last month to make elderflower cordial.
Ricotta (or better a substitute) can easily make with whole milk, fresh one is more tasty, just heating milk at 85 C and adding a spoon of white winegar and a pinch of salt for any liter of milk used.
It requires no more than 15 minutes.
If you don't have White wine vinegar you can use lemon juice but it remains a very little aftertaste of citrus... Up to you, easy, clean and fast.
I'd go for sauce béchamel for lasagna and cannelloni if you have to find a quick solution.
Though probably something an Italian would consider culinary blasphemy you could very easily just substitute the ricotta with an easier to make fresh cheese like Paneer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.957944
| 2010-07-10T04:55:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/405",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"Art",
"Bryan Matthews",
"Elizabeth",
"Erica",
"FordBuchanan",
"Geoff Maddock",
"Jackson",
"Jan",
"JasonTrue",
"Julien Nephtali",
"ManiacZX",
"Marplesoft",
"Neil Meyer",
"Paul Bessman",
"Preston",
"Rachel Hart",
"Recep",
"Sharon mack",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87771",
"pbowin",
"user5561"
],
"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
}
|
584
|
How do you decide what temperature to bake at?
What is the logic behind the choice of temperature for baking?
Obviously if you're following a recipe it will say what temperature to use, but I'd like to understand the reasoning behind it.
Is it a matter of density (thicker foods need to be cooked lower to reach the inside without burning the outside), or are there other factors in play?
If we had a magical (or 4d) oven that could heat up the inside of the food all at once and uniformly, the baking rule would be simple:
bake batters and doughs at 100°C / 212°F until dough expands and dries, and
then increase to 150°C / 302°F to brown.
Any recipe that followed it would take way longer (several hours) than regular recipes, but the timings would be forgiving. The rule works because baking consists of growing the dough bubbles with water vapor and after that browning for flavor. Without a magical 4d oven and without hours to bake a dish, recipe authors have to experiment.
In ovens at higher temperatures the water near the surface of the dough or batter will first evaporate, keeping that region at 100°C. Once the surface dries its temperature starts to rise and eventually browns. While it browns, the region below goes into bubble growing mode and the process repeats. To get the whole dish cooked and browned at the same time requires an impossible balancing act because of how the bubble region moves depends on the dough's shape, its water content, its initial temperature, air flows in the oven ... There are many solutions to the balancing act and therefore many possible baking temperatures.
The exact details of all this are still the subject of research, as a recent paper exemplifies.
papin, do you have any info on how temperature affects chewiness or crust formation?
@Joe, I've read Crust formation and its role during bread baking
let's use steak as an example.
first decide what temperature you want in the middle of the food - if you want it more "done" than "rare", the internal temperature would need to be higher.
then, decide how quickly the surface temperature would be conducted into the food, it is a matter of physical concept, it depends on (1) thickness, (2) conductivity of heat of material
then, decide how you want the outside temperature. it would need to be higher if you want it browned. you want it to be higher if you want to release the aroma of herbs, but lower if you want the outside more tender.
fast cooking with high temperature leads to a crusted outside and a relatively rare inside
slow cooking with medium temperature leads to a tender outside and a relatively evenly cooked inside
very slow cooking leads to dehydration
Very slow cooking, if done right, doesn't lead to dehydration. Southern (US) BBQ, for example, cooks slowly over low heat for long periods, sometimes in excess of a day. Baking something in a dutch oven doesn't, either. If done right, very slow cooking leads to extremely tender meat.
but if we are just baking, usually very slow baking does dehydrate.
Looks to me like the OP wants to hear about cupcakes, not fillet.
+0: A good answer, but not related to baking, unfortunately.
The concept is definitely the right idea and it's a great answer. I would still love to hear any responses about baking since I'm much more familiar with cooking meats than breads, cakes, etc.
Another factor that will affect baking -- the material of the cooking vessel. As glass will pass radiant heat, and darker pans will absorb the radiant heat, you should typically reduce the temperature slightly (about 25F, um ... 15C ?) from whatever a recipe says, unless it calls specifically for cooking in glass or a dark pan.
When making a layer cake, you actually want less rise to get a denser cake, and so you don't have a dome because the sides set before it's finished rising, so you'll want to use a light colored metal pan and reduce the temperature. If you're dealing with larger cakes (above 10"), you can get "baking strips" which you wet down, and attach around the pan to keep the outer edge cooler longer.
Things in muffin pans when you don't have enough batter to fill all of the cups can cause problems, too, as the empty cup will heat up causing uneven baking for the items next to it -- my mom would add a little water to the empty cups to counter this problem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.958719
| 2010-07-11T01:54:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/584",
"authors": [
"Alex Moore",
"Artiom Chilaru",
"Dested",
"Gabriel Hurley",
"Ian",
"JYelton",
"Joe",
"bmargulies",
"bubu",
"dbp",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91",
"midas06",
"papin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22426
|
Can I use oil spray as a salad dressing?
I have been using organic, all natural no-stick cooking spray (organic canola oil) for cooking recently. I know it is good for frying but I'd like to know if I can extend the usage of it. Can I use it as a salad dressing?
It won't have much flavor: unlike Olive, Canola Oil is rather bland, which makes it good for frying and lubricating when you don't want to add to the taste. You'll probably just end up with oily salad.
Because it is a neutral medium, canola is not ideal for flavoring a salad with the oil in and of itself. However, neutral oils can be used as carriers for other flavors.
The spray application (assuming you are referring to a pre-packaged non-stick spray) will effectively nullify your ability to infuse flavors. Also, if you are using something like Pam canola cooking spray, there will be corn alcohol that won't cook off as it would in a baking/frying application (unless you saute your lettuce, of course), which may contribute a non-trivial flavor or effect.
Perhaps you find spray oil convenient, and canola preferable to other more flavorful oils. In this case you can use canola oil to add flavor. If you are using a pump-spray type mister you could infuse the oil with other flavors (herbs, other oils, spices, or garlic).
Well, it won't kill you.
It probably is going to just taste like oily salad. Additionally, spray oil is rather expensive in terms of oil - if you're looking for oil on salad at least go for olive or another flavorful oil in normal liquid form.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.959079
| 2012-03-20T15:54:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22426",
"authors": [
"Sielu",
"Tate MasterT8 Boger",
"Tom",
"emagar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50444",
"user3362057",
"user5445302"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23661
|
Cooking messy foods in a bamboo steamer without a cleaning nightmare
For example, chicken.
I have tried:
chicken directly in steamer: chicken gunk goes everywhere, including between the woven bamboo slats.
chicken in a colander in the basket: gunk still goes everywhere.
chicken on a dinner plate in the basket: gunk controlled but chicken gets cooked in a bath of accumulated chicken juices and condensed steam.
chicken on an upside down plate: gunk gets everywhere.
wrapped in banana leaves: good but don't have easy access to banana leaves and is this really steaming if they're wrapped up? Even on plates I feel I'm missing the rising steam and relying on the overall humidity in the basket.
sitting on banana leaves: again banana leaves are hard to come by, gunk problem still a bit of an issue.
using a new steamer basket each time: they're cheap but it's a bit wasteful...
Is there a solution here?
If the baskets are really cheap, just put them through the dishwasher. Yes, I know that you shouldn't put wood through the DW, but I put my cheapest wood through it with the plan to replace it when it gets unusable. It warps a bit and gets ugly, but for now, it hasn't stopped fulfilling its functions.
My mom uses pieces of lettuce, cabbage, spinach or some other large, leafy green as a bottom for her steaming uses. I can't explain why this works, but for dumplings and Shanghai-style dumplings, this prevents the pool-of-water below as you describe. Perhaps it has something to do with the varied height with the leaves...offering the water pools a place to collect without staying in contact with the food.
This may or may not catch the chicken gunk you're referring to, but I think it's worth a shot.
paksoi works fine too
Place a pie tin or deep dish in the bottom of the steamer - this will catch the drips and reduce any clean up of the bamboo steamer.
Arrange 3-4 bamboo chopsticks in a diamond or cross hatch shape (#) over the dish
Place meat/fish on the chopsticks. Add more chopsticks for added support as necessary.
Raising the meat will increase exposure to the steam, improving cooking: keeps the meat out of the accumulating juices or condensation thereby avoid "boiling": and the dish will catch the drips.
So... the solution is to build a second makeshift steamer within the steamer?
Just imagine what Chinese restaurant bamboo steamers actually look like... anyway here are some options:
wrap pieces in baking or prachment paper that has been perforated
change recipe to have a steamer-friendly coating such as rice flour (turns to noodle consistency)
steam less vigorously; still some mess but less so, gunk drips below but not splattering everywhere.
Wow, I've used my new steamer about six or seven times now, and have encountered NO 'gunk' from the chicken. The best method I've found is to line the bottom of the rack with Chinese cabbage before laying down the flavor base. I've also had good results with putting the veggies UNDER the rack with the chicken after the chicken has steamed for about ten to twelve minutes and that way the good juices drip onto the veggies, giving them more flavor. We love the new steamer and hope to find several more recipes for it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.959241
| 2012-05-09T10:31:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23661",
"authors": [
"BBird",
"Mary Bailey Chapman",
"Moof",
"Nikki O",
"Quilt ",
"Raquel Cortez",
"Sharon",
"heretomurimudamura",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72251",
"jwenting",
"rumtscho",
"user53738"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8448
|
Why did my oil-only seitan fail?
I tried to make seitan last night using oil and gluten, and after it was done it had a grainy consistency and didn't hold together at all. Is there some sort of magic done by the water? How much water do I need?
I've never made seitan, but just like when making bread, gluten needs water to activate. I don't know the precise amount. Oil, if anything, has the opposite effect, coating the gluten molecules and keeping them from linking up, which is why we use fat in pastries to keep them from getting tough.
There are four major types of proteins in Wheat: gliadin, glutenin, albumin, and globulin.
What we think of gluten doesn't actually exist in wheat; it develops in flour when it is hydrated with water and gliadin and glutenin proteins bond together to make what we call gluten. So that is the magic. Oil is chemically very different so that is why it was weird.
source: Peter Reinhart's Whole Grain Breads
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.959535
| 2010-10-23T18:37:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8448",
"authors": [
"CHRISTINE",
"Piping Hot",
"Stacey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17372",
"jeff"
],
"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
}
|
8806
|
What is the technique for Vacuum Flask Cooking?
I read an article about Asian cooking involving a Vacuum Flask so I was looking for some techniques involved in cooking with it.
I may know the answer, but I want to ask you the type and size of the flask. When you say flask, does it mean it's something like this http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00kvEaqwizqfrY/Vacuum-Flask-BC-001S-.jpg. OR It's more like a POT
Yes, please clarify what type of flask. I was thinking it was a thermal pot like this: http://www.amazon.com/TIGER-NFAB800-COOKER-LITER-THERMAL/dp/B00061O5KY
It is a Flask size that I was thinking about, like the ones in your url - Foodrules
So it's NOT about using vacuum to intentionally lower rolling boil temperature (reverse pressure cooker)? :( Which would be very interesting!
I've had excellent results using my vacuum flask cooker to do slow-cooked eggs. Also known as 63° eggs because they're usually sous vide cooked to 63° C. These eggs are a feature at fancy restaurants all over New York. Here's a picture of a dish from Eleven Madison Park:
from my favorite English-language Japanese cooking blog, justhungry.com
Provided you have the equipment (vacuum cooker, thermometer) and your tap water is hot enough, these eggs could not be easier. You do them without even turning on the stove.
Put four or more eggs in a bowl.
Run your tap water on hot until it won't get any hotter. Take a temperature reading and make sure your hot water is hotter than 64° C (147° F). Don't worry if it's much hotter than this. That's actually good.
Cover the eggs with hot tap water. Fill the vacuum flask cooker a quarter of the way with hot tap water and close. Go do something else for 10 minutes. (Boil the pasta?)
Run the tap again to get hot, dump the water from both bowl and cooker.
Fill cooker 2/3 way with hot tap water. Put eggs in the cooker. (I use a steamer basket to keep them suspended in the middle of the water, but I'm not sure it's totally necessary.)
Take a temperature reading and adjust the water to 64° C (147° F) by adding cool water, if necessary.
After 30 minutes, take the eggs out with a slotted spoon and crack them over whatever you want to make more delicious.
That looks delicious!! Great Answer!
It's a slow-cooking technique involving a thermal cooker, or vacuum flask, The pot/flask and contents are heated to cooking temperature, and then sealed in the flask. The flask more or less eliminates heat loss, so the food remains at cooking temperature for a long time, and slow-cooks without continued heating.
See this Wikipedia article for more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_flask_cooking
Agreed with gkrogers.
The good way of using Vacuum pot/flask include the following:
Make any type of Stock
Cook Stew
Make Curries
If you want to use it as a real Chinese, you must try this dish
Cantonese Braised Beef Brisket with Daikon (White) Radish
Ingredients:
650g Beef Brisket chopped into chunks
450g Daikon Radish - peeled and chopped into chunks 1/4 cup
Shaoxing Wine [ or any rice wine]
5 slices Ginger
3 cloves Garlic - crushed 1
1/2 tbs Chu Hou Sauce
1 Star Anise
1 Cinnamon Stick
1 small piece of Rock Sugar [ Or Brown Sugar]
Light Soy Sauce Cornstarch Slurry
Directions:
Brown beef in a large pot with a little bit of oil then remove from pot.
In the same pot, add ginger and garlic, saute until fragrant.
Deglaze with Shaoxing wine.
Add beef brisket.
Mix in Chu Hou sauce.
Add star anise, cinnamon stick, rock sugar and enough water to cover all ingredients.
Add radish, bring liquid to boil, lower heat and cover to simmer until meat is tender (at least 1 1/2 hours).
Stir the ingredients around half way through.
Add light soy sauce to taste.
Thicken with corn starch slurry.
http://www.pigpigscorner.com/2009/05/cantonese-braised-beef-brisket-with.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.959662
| 2010-11-03T13:07:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8806",
"authors": [
"AttilaNYC",
"Foodrules ",
"JRazzo",
"James Mertz",
"Peter",
"Ward - Trying Codidact",
"devshorts",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"irene Nystrom",
"rackandboneman"
],
"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
}
|
7152
|
I would like to make my own food coloring with natural vegetables, what is the technique?
I read that you can use Beets to make a natural Red food coloring, how would I go about doing this?
Anything that's hard to get off of your counter can make a good food coloring. Regarding natural sources, remember that you run the risk of also adding additional flavors so take that into consideration. Among other companies, Annie's makes all natural foods including colorful fruit snacks. What they use for the coloring in these snacks are: turmeric, black carrot juice concentrate, and annatto. (I've cooked with turmeric and annatto before and they DEFINITELY stain.) Aside from Google searches, you could probably find practical natural food dyes by looking in the ingredient list from other all-natural foods.
Back to your specific question about beets, this is from eHow:
1 Put your fresh beets in a glass or enamel pan with just enough water to fully cover them. Bring to a boil and turn the heat down a bit to simmer for 30 minutes. Make sure the water doesn't boil out. Take them off when the beets are not quite done - When a knife goes into them but they're not as soft as you'd like for eating. Remove them from heat.
2 Strain the beets, reserving the beet juice. Peel, slice and chop up your beets. Return them to the beet juice. Soak for four hours.
3 Strain the liquid out and take out 3/4 cup. Add your 2 teaspoons vinegar to this. This is your red dye.
4 Use canned beets and you can skip half of the work. Drain the can reserving 3/4 cup liquid. Add 2 teaspoon of vinegar to this and you're done. You can still eat the beets, too. The fresh ones aren't terribly appealing after this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.959982
| 2010-09-11T23:50:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7152",
"authors": [
"Duncan",
"Judee",
"balanced mama",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14583"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4570
|
What does it mean when dough is referred to as "short"?
I saw this term pop up in a quiche recipe concerning the crust - How can you tell if the problem is too little/too much shortening, or too little/too much liquid? If it's out of proportion, can it be "fixed" without creating an inedible cardboard thing?
From the online etymology dictionary on shortening (wish I could block quote in comments) "'butter or other fat used in baking,' 1796, from shorten 'make crumbly' (1733), from short in the secondary sense of 'easily crumbled' (early 15c.), which perhaps arose via the notion of 'having short fibers.' This is also the sense behind shortbread (1801) and shortcake (1590s)."
@Jefromi That could be an answer, not a comment. Either way it was helpful.
"Shortness" in dough refers to its tenderness, which is influenced by the amount of fat as well as sugar. If your quiche recipe calls for a short dough, it would be referring to a higher ratio of fat to flour since pastry for quiche typically doesn't include sugar.
Both fat and sugar minimize and break down gluten development which results in "short" protein strands and thus a more tender result. As the fat is rubbed into the flour, glutenin (providing strength) and gliadin (providing elasticity) are coated with the fat which acts as a lubricant to keep the two from being able to link together forming gluten when liquid is added to the mix.
The higher the amount of fat in a dough the more tender it will be. If you want a dough to be flaky then you'd leave the fat in larger particles which will blister to form flakes. If you want a dough that will be moisture resistant to fillings (such as a quiche) then work that fat in finely so that it will be less likely to absorb moisture during and after baking.
Quiche crusts (and crusts for other custard based pies... pumpkin, sweet potato, custard, etc) should first be blind-baked for the crispest crust in the finished result.
As for "fixing" a pastry dough...it's usually easiest and best to simply start over. Water is added a little at a time to avoid adding too much. If too much water is used then more flour needs to be added but with the excessive flour and water then comes additional gluten. If you get a pastry dough too wet, I would be inclined to rub some additional fat into flour and then add that to the first dough rather than just flour alone. Too little shortening will really only be noticed after baking and that's going to be determined through how tough or tender the dough is.
Keep in mind that toughness also depends on the amount you've handled it. Short doughs typically can't be handled too much because the higher amount of fat means that they will warm and get sticky. It is best to refrigerate to firm up the fat rather than add flour as the flour simply dries it out. The tender nature of the dough from sugar means that in some cases they can be impossible to roll out and transfer to a pan. In this case they are usually put into the bottom of the pan and then patted out across the bottom and up the side.
The Oxford English Dictionary has this to say:
IV. Not tenacious in substance, friable, brittle. [Probably connected
with branch I through the notion ‘having little length of fibre’: cf.
sense A. 3. (= short dung, manure, muck: manure containing short straw
and in an advanced state of fermentation.) ]
Of edible substances: Friable, easily crumbled.
a. of crust, pastry, etc. Cf. short-bread n., short-cake n., short
crust n.
c1430 Two Cookery Bks. 52 Þan take warme Berme, & putte al þes
to-gederys, & bete hem togederys with þin hond tyl it be schort &
þikke y-now. 1594 Good Huswifes Handmaide 17 b To make short
paste in Lent. 1700 W. Congreve Way of World iii. i. 46 You may
be as short as a Shrewsbury Cake, if you please. 1888 B. Edmondston
& J. M. E. Saxby Home of Naturalist 99 A thick cake, which may be
made of either flour or oatmeal, and may be rendered ‘short’ by the
use of fat.
b. of fruit, meat, etc. to eat short: to break up or crumble in the
mouth.
1648 T. Gage Eng.-Amer. 143 This is the Venison of
America, whereof I have sometimes eaten, and found it white and short.
1655 T. Moffett & C. Bennet Healths Improvem. xix. 186 Salmons
are of a fatty, tender, short, and sweet flesh. 1699 J. Evelyn
Acetaria 57 The bigger Roots..should..eat short and quick. 1706 G. London & H. Wise Retir'd Gard'ner I. i. vii. 35 Its Pulp eats
short, and its Juice is sugar'd. 1856 Orr's Circle of Sci., Pract.
Chem. 337 Vinegar makes the meat short, short meat being easy of
digestion.
[Note: friable means "easily crumbled"]
If used in an example for a simple pastry, then i think it would be referred to as flakey and melting in the mouth. Pastry’s should be ‘short’ as they have a crumbly texture, flakes in your mouth, and is very soft. Hope this helps!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.960138
| 2010-08-08T14:47:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4570",
"authors": [
"CDK",
"Cascabel",
"Darren Cook",
"MovieBall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8725",
"liseetsa",
"sing"
],
"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
}
|
4196
|
What is the difference between grits and polenta?
I've eaten both and except for the fact that sometimes polenta is a little bit more firm, they taste the same...Any southerners out there that can help?
We made polenta this past weekend with hominy grits and it was fabulous. So, from a simple taste perspective I would answer your question with a "not much".
The difference is simple: one costs three times as much as the other in a restaurant!
I do not know about grits, but in Northern Italy there are many many different traditional ways to prepare polenta, ranging from quite liquid to very firm (grilled). It can include cheese, mushrooms, meat, tomato sauce, butter, milk and many other variations.
Some people say it's just preparation and the base is the same ground corn / corn meal, some people say for grits you need (more coarsely) ground hominy (which is corn that has been soaked in lye or lime).
Polenta can be found loose and really solid: grits are generally loose.
Corn type may also differ, as may the dish's 'typical cultural trappings' (fat cheddar and bacon vs. leaner stuff)
I can confirm this; polenta can be so loose that it is almost liquid, or solid like a brick.
True southern grits are made with ground hominy whereas polenta is simply ground cornmeal. The proper name for them is actually hominy grits. You can make "grits" out of untreated corn, but these are corn grits and not really found in southern US cuisine. Grits are typically a much coarser grind than polenta.
Hominy is corn that has been nixtamalized, which means soaked and cooked in an alkali solution, typically lye or limewater. This process converts the niacin present in corn into a form more soluble in the human body. Early European importers of corn from the USA dismissed this process as unnecessary, and as corn became a subsequent staple a pretty nasty disease called pellagra took hold caused by niacin deficiency.
Reading the definition of grits ("a dish of coarsely ground corn kernels boiled with water or milk"), the only difference I see with polenta (living in an Italian region where it's largely used) is that polenta is not made with milk.
Other differences could be:
The coarse grade of the ground corn kernels.
The type of corn kernels used; we use also buckwheat to make polenta.
The other ingredients used to make grits; In Lombardy, there is a polenta called taragna that is made using buckwheat flour, and adding cheese.
I make polenta with milk. The difference to me is the lye used to treat the corn for grits.
Where I live, we add milk just to make the polenta more soft, in the case it is getting harder than one wants; instead of milk, we can use olive oil, which is added almost at the end.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.960637
| 2010-08-04T12:26:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4196",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Joe Casadonte",
"Jon White",
"Kate Gregory",
"Mary Lou",
"Matt S",
"Michal Tenenberg",
"Natan Yellin",
"Raeder",
"avpaderno",
"bakingnotwriting",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7965",
"jackrabb1t",
"nico"
],
"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
}
|
18145
|
Looking for some advice on why brown bits burned
I was cooking this sausage and peppers recipe. I warmed up some EVO, browned the sausage on both sides, about 3 minutes on each side. They left some brown bits behind. I drained the pan of EVO and fat. There was still a slick of oil and brown bits. I then cooked the onions and peppers on the same heat (6 / medium). The brown bits seemed to dry up and eventually collected and burned.
What did I do wrong and what could I have done to prevent them brown bits from burning?
Also, how much oil are you supposed to put in the pan to brown the meat? Just enough to coat the entire bottom of the pan? More or less?
I don't think I've ever cooked (pork) sausage in any oil... Typically they're so fatty that they quickly provide their own grease.
Stirring and scraping would prevent burned bits. The onions and peppers release water as they cook the mechanical action of stirring and scraping pulls up the brown bits before they burn and incorporates them into the peppers and onions.
I really don't know which answer to choose. This one or the one about lowering the heat. I'm choosing this one because it has more votes, but it was answered sooner. Comments are appreciated.
Using less heat will help ensure that fond doesn't become charcoal. Even with a decent amount of oil still in the pan the fond can and will burn if later ingredients are cooked too aggressively before the pan is deglazed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.960888
| 2011-10-03T00:36:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18145",
"authors": [
"Bradford",
"Donna Clevenger",
"Doug L",
"DroidDev",
"PerroVerd",
"Rikon",
"SaddiesMom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6791",
"yO yO HaDii"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20606
|
Can you store oil in a container that is not airtight?
I've have seen that several chefs and home cooks (e.g. my mom) store oils like canola and olive in ceramic or glass bottles with pour spouts that are not sealed. An example of this can be found on Serious Eats
My girlfriend asserted that oils should only be stored in air tight containers as leaving them open to the air (even through a small pour spot opening) leads to oxygen getting into the container and affecting the oil.
Is it true that (1) oxygen can affect the quality of the oil, and that (2) an airtight container can prevent this in a noticeable way relative to the storage mentioned above? If it is, are most of the people using non-airtight containers going through their oil so quickly that it doesn't matter?
Oil and vinegar bottles with spouts are called 'Cruets.'
Yes, oxygen (and sunlight) can affect the quality of oil. The oil turns rancid after some time. And storing the oil in a really airtight container (like a can from which air has been evacuated before sealing) should prevent or at least slow the process.
However, the problem is that you can't practically store your oil in an airless container and still use it. Yes, you can seal a bottle of oil. But there will still be air between the oil surface and the stopper, and the oxygen from this air will react with the oil molecules on the surface. And if you use a non-sealed bottle, the exactly same thing will happen. Unlike other cases (soda in a sealed vs. open bottle), the reaction of oil and oxygen isn't quick and aggressive enough to quickly exhaust the small amount of oxygen in a sealed bottle and stop. It will go on regardless of whether there is free air flow from the atmosphere or not.
So what can you do? You can still minimize the rate of rancidification. But it isn't the openness of the bottle that matters, it is the contact area size, because this is where the reaction takes place. Which means, store your oil in a (preferably tall and slim) bottle, as opposed to something like a jug. Protect it from light, because light is definitely damaging for oil. Also, buy it in small sizes, so you can go through it in a reasonably short time. And after all, don't worry too much about it. The reactions are slow, and the oils you use several times per week will not last long enough in your kitchen to deteriorate too much. It can become a problem if you collect special oils which are used seldom and contribute a significant part of the taste in a dish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.961059
| 2012-01-19T13:35:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20606",
"authors": [
"Don't Panic",
"Jacob G",
"Mark Agbuya",
"Mort Neff",
"Owen",
"Steve Sims",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8499"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10735
|
What would convert this chili recipe into a Russian chili?
Not sure exactly how to ask this. I was looking for a Russian Chili Recipe, and being from Siberia myself I never really encountered it before. Therefore I took a traditional recipe and modified it a little to make it more like a Russian dish. Here is my recipe that I cooked for my company's chili cook-off. I want to hear some suggestions and opinions on this recipe.
My question is:
Has anyone ever heard of a Russian Chili Recipe, and if so could this recipe qualify as Russian?
Ingredients
2 pounds ground beef
½ pound of ground chicken
½ pound of ground pork
3 tablespoons vegetable oil
2 cups beef broth
½ cup of 2% milk
1 15 oz can red pinto beans (drain)
1 15 oz can black beans (drain)
3 fresh tomatoes (cut to small chunks)
1 15 oz can tomato sauce
1 6 oz can tomato paste
1 tablespoon cider vinegar
2 large onions, diced finely
1 large green bell pepper, diced finely
6 cloves garlic, minced
1 tablespoon sugar
1 tablespoons cumin, ground
1 teaspoon dried thyme
1 teaspoon dried oregano
1 teaspoon black pepper, ground
4 Habanero peppers, seeded diced finely
4 chipotle peppers, seeded diced finely
Directions
In a large pot, heat the brown the ground beef, pork and chicken, making sure to continuously break up large pieces with a spoon or spatula. Once browned drain fat off of ground meat. Return the ground meat to the pot.
Add onions and green bell pepper to the ground meat and cook over medium heat with stirring until the onions are soft and translucent.
Add the garlic, cumin, sugar, thyme, cayenne powder, oregano, and black pepper. Heat over medium heat with stirring for 12 minutes.
Pour in the beef broth, milk. Add pinto beans, black beans, cream cheese, diced tomatoes, tomato sauce, tomato paste, cider vinegar, chipotle, chili and habanero peppers. Stir to mix well.
Reduce heat to low and simmer for at least 2 hours before serving or refrigerating.
Footnotes
Crack Pot Alternative: After step 4 you can pour chili in crock pot and cook it on medium for 6 hours.
Notes
It is best to have all ingredients ready to go before starting the process. Do not wait to dice onions or peppers. Get everything ready to go and then start the process. In addition, cutting chili peppers by hand can result in hands "catching on fire." It is best to use a grinder or something other than hands. If you do use your hands, please make sure to scrub your hands and wash with soap before you touch anything (like your mouth or your eyes). Even though this recipe calls for Chili and Habanero peppers in the end it becomes about medium spicy but with strong pepper flavor.
Please Note: Directions are taken from a traditional beef chili recipe and modified to accommodate custom ingredients.
Is it the milk that makes it a Russian Chili instead of regular Chili?
Well milk, and the mix of different meats. Most of the time when you have ground meat in russian recipe you have beef, pork and chicken it mixed together. It used to be for simple reason that one would be cheaper than other.
I personally wouldn't describe this as Russian at all. Admittedly my experience is narrow but: I never saw Russian cuisine with so many peppers, and although I did see beans for sale on the market I never saw them used by Russians for anything- only foreigners.
You may want to rephrase your question, as recipe requests are, generally, closed quickly. This will give you an idea, if, say you are looking for what would make chili Russian... http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/728/what-types-of-recipe-questions-are-allowed
Russian cuisine does have extensive use of pepers. We never used chili pepers, usually there is red hot peppers that we use. We have dish that is stuffed green pepers with ground meat and rice.
Beans are used a lot. If talking about green beans there is a dish with nothing but green beans. As far as brown and black beans we usually stay with brown beans. We have beans in Borsch (almost like a soup) with beats.
Not sure about Russian, but my grandmother is Polish. Many of her traditional dishes use animal blood. I'm not sure where you'd get it, but it would make for some interesting chili. Something else that would be fun to try is putting a beet or two in your chili: borscht-ili!
Beet would be a good russian style addition. I will try that
Please come back and update if you do use beet. I'd be very interested to hear how it turns out. With that many habaneros and chipotle it's likely to be zesty. The sugar in the beets may help cut the fire a bit. The recipe doesn't specify, but I'd recommend using the canned chipotle packed in adobo rather than dried, unless you're going to grind the chipotles almost to powder. Good luck!
@SaUce- Russia is a big place. My experience is po Volge and borsch never had beans in it.
@Sobachatina My Russian side of the family often (but not always) use kidney beans in borsch.
My suggestion isn't strictly "Russian", but if you wanted to make your Chili more "Soviet Bloc" you could try using adjika instead of the peppers, garlic, and spices.
I want to thank everyone for ideas and help with refining my "Sibirian" Chili recipe.
I think you've got a wide berth of possibilities but what's above seems pretty restricted. What you are listing above sounds like a pretty straight-forward Midwestern American chili. It has the features of the standard chili spices, beans and tomatoes, with a nice variety of meats.
To try to engineer a Russian chili I would expect more indigenous foods.
As @Cold suggests, beets would be great to add for their sugar content. However, there are quite a few American recipes that utilize potatoes, so you might seek those out. Are there other vegetables to substitute that you recall as more native? Other beans maybe? How about caraway, dill, chervil, tarragon?
Vodka would seem like an easy route to go to appease the indigenous aspect, but I don't think it would yield much results in terms of impacting the flavor; especially in the context of the extant chili recipe. Unfortunately, I can't see the benefit of buffeting vodka against the flavors of cumin, coriander, clove, let alone hot peppers. On the other hand, Russians produce some amazing beers (I am a big fan of Baltika), and I would recommend looking into switching to a lager flavor or Imperial Stout as I mentioned above.
But for real, my spin would be to approach this from a Solyanka point of view (which would definitely give you ceiling room to try incorporating Medovukha); or really any of the other amazing cold Russian soups. Or perhaps try to incorporate mini dumplings like Pelmani, mini Kotlety, or use Shashlyk-style prepared meats for the chili. I would also consider trying to get some lamb in the recipe, in particular at the expense of the chicken.
But don't forget, chili is all about what you want to put into it (<-- self-promotional plug); not what the standard template lists.
The romantic version of the American myth about chili (in particular, Texas Red chili) frequently revolves around Cowboys planting peppers and onions on their most traveled roads. They would be carrying dried meats and, at night under starry skies, use kettles to cook the stew that became known as chili.
What kind of story of Russian kindred spirit do you want to weave with your chili?
that a great article that you found. They do very good job at describing Sibirian dishes.
i guess i have to try different things with my chili recipe to make it more authentic. For starters i definitely want to add beets and vodka. Also for the meat to do Pork, Beef and Lamb like a combination in pelemeni(russian potstikers for the lack of better term).
@SaUce I'm not convinced the flavor of the vodka would shine through, but like @Cold said in the comments, let us know if you cook something that kind of rings the bell! Feel free to add an answer of your own to your own question if you've thought of some additional ways to make the chili. Good Luck!
I'm going to go ahead and phrase my comment in the form of an answer (just so there's something to accept or up/down moderate). My vote is for some form of beet. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea and think I'll try it myself when I get a chance. (I actually feel a little chagrin at claiming the idea since @SaUce mentioned borsch first. And who really owns an idea anyway. Well, except for Paul Allen and Nathan Myhrvold.)
Anywho, lots of chili recipes use a little chocolate or even coffee in small amounts to add an earthiness and complexity to chili. I think the beet could do the same. Personally, I wouldn't leave it in big chunks. If I was using fresh beets, I'd dice or even shred them possibly. Or, another alternative would be to use beet powder, which would contribute sweetness and some beet flavor while acting as a mild thickening agent at the same time.
This could even inspire a new Russo-Latin fusion cuisine movement. Maybe I'll patent it after all. ;)
Well i could always soak beets in Vodka before doing chili. Would that qualify as Russian?
Actually, using a little vodka isn't a bad idea either. There are certain flavor compounds in tomatoes and chiles that are alcohol soluble (this is one of the reasons vodka is used in vodka cream pasta sauces). If you wanted to use vodka, I'd recommend adding the tomatoes, tomato paste, and peppers just before you add the beef broth, beans, and dairy ingredients. Then add a little vodka (like 2 Tbls to a quarter cup at most), let that boil up for just a minute while you give it a stir, then continue with the other ingredients. The alcohol will boil off entirely during the remaining cook time.
Cook's Illustrated did a study on alcohol and cooking a while back. The exact amount varies, but their general conclusion was that only about 60% of alcohol cooks off unless you do a flambe.
@SaU actually, forego the vodka since its a thick sauce and hit it up with an Imperial Stout when youre done blooming the spices and as your finishin carmelizing onions
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.961285
| 2011-01-04T21:49:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10735",
"authors": [
"Claudia McN",
"CodyP",
"Cold Oatmeal",
"DarkCoder",
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"ESultanik",
"Echo says Reinstate Monica",
"Noam Atias",
"Ray Tsai",
"Slizzered",
"Sobachatina",
"Vladimir Oselsky",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/814",
"justkt",
"mfg",
"smarthall",
"user21994",
"user22003"
],
"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
}
|
4401
|
How can I control the heat when cooking on a campfire?
In a few weeks a group of us will be camping and rafting. My wife and I have been assigned dinner responsibility. I've done the hamburger/hot-dog thing on campfires, but I was looking for something more. We are thinking about Carne Asada, and Beef/Chicken Kabobs, but I'm concerned about controlling the heat so the kabobs don't burn. Any suggestions?
The key is mostly to cook over coals rather than open flame if you want decent control. This is a principle you find all over slow smoking/BBQ. You start the fire with plenty of wood and let it burn down to a pile of red coals, which you then can cook over with nice control.
Personally, when I want to cook over an open fire, I treat the fire pit as 2 zones: fire and coals. I use the "fire" side for anything where I want an open flame, like roasting marshmallows or hot dogs. As a chunk of wood on that side of the pit burns down to coals, I move it over to the other side, for more controlled cooking.
Another way to handle the variability in campfires is to cook with things with a lot of thermal mass to even the heat out. In practical terms, that boils down to cast iron and clay/ceramics. Whether it's a dutch oven or a little "cave" of fire bricks, these materials spread the heat out so nicely you can often just bury them in the coals and "bake" or "roast" a lot of options that you might not have considered as "camping foods".
The same is true of other cast iron pans and much of the stoneware from places like Pampered Chef, meaning you can pan fry, saute, and do many of the other more typical "kitchen" tasks over a campfire.
One word of warning regarding this principle though is that it might seem like collecting rocks from a nearby stream to use as the thermal mass is a good idea. It is not. Rocks that have spent long periods under water can crack and/or explode when suddenly heated up.
Good point about river rocks, I could see myself collecting rocks for mass...
There are so many variables here, I can't address them all. Whether are not you are hiking or driving to the camping spot, whether you can bring frozen/refrigerated ingredients in a cooler, whether you have permission to modify the camp fire area, etc.
If you are hiking a fair distance, you will need to stick to safe-at-room-temperature ingredients, use light cooking implements (no cast iron pots).
If you're driving right to the camping spot, you can bring more and heavier cookware, a steel rod to put across the fire to hang a pot from, a grate for BBQ and frying pans, a cooler for frozen things.
If you have permission to set up/change the campfire area, an ideal shape is like an old fashioned keyhole, surrounded with stones. Point the slot towards where the wind is coming from, and put flat rocks of equal height on either side of it. The slot is also where you will rake the coals to, and put the grate on top of for any frying pan/sauce pan cooking. Food wrapped in aluminum foil can go into the coals underneath. Coffee pots and dutch ovens can hang from a steel rod put directly across the fire.
It's important to remember that you're going to need to be cleaning dishes, likely without running water. After you scrub food out, you can sterilize pots by reheating them after the meal.
Take local wildlife into consideration. Avoid too many leftovers to temp raccoons. If you're in an area with a lot of bears, reconsider that rotisserie chicken idea. ;-)
Other than that, imagination is the limit. You really can cook almost anything over a good campfire.
Foil cooking directly on the coals is tasty. You can even get the cheap foil baking pans. This last hunting season, we filled a small foil bread pan with ground beef, peppers, onions, carrots, celery, potatoes, and a bit of butter and seasoned salt. Made for a tasty meal after stomping around the woods all day in the rain.
Not sure how much equipment you're hauling, but my advice is to employ aluminum-foil generously. Once you get a nice sear on your meat or kebobs, cooking over direct flame will only dry-out the meat. Wrapping food in foil helps evenly distribute heat, and it keeps moisture and juices inside the pouch. I particularly like sausage , onions and peppers done this way. Just make sure to double-wrap the foil, in case you get a tear.
In addition to what everyone else has said:
Roast root vegetables are a really good idea. Squash, parsnip and sweet potatoes are usually nice. Wrap them in a layer of tinfoil and put them in some hot coals and leave for an hour or two. If you cut them open first you can put in things like butter, honey, dried fruit and so on, but they will sometime start leaking!
Flatbread is always good as a side or for desert. If you mix the dry ingredients (flour, baking powder, salt) before the trip, you can take it with you and just add water and oil the evening you're cooking. You can cook in a pan or on a flat rock, or you can wrap it around the end of a stick and roast it like a marshmallow! (recipie here, though I can't vouch for the quantities)
Another great idea I've done before when portaging (i.e., in the situation where you want to travel very light) is aluminum foil envelopes filled with a fish fillet and veggies (sugarsnap peas come to mind). Bring the fish fillets deep frozen, then they should stay frozen during the first day if you insulate them well enough from the sun (e.g. wrap them in multiple layers of the the aluminum foil you need to bring anyway) and you can prepare this stuff the first evening. To make the envelopes, just fold a sheet or two of (extra strength) aluminum foil in two, then double fold a 1cm strip on two opposite open sides. You now have a pouch that you can fill with goodies. Double fold the remaining open side and you should be good to go.
In a non toting-the-hardware-on-your-own-poor-back context, you can't beat cast iron. Dutch oven, skillet, and griddle. This will even allow you to cheat a little (but only a little!) on the coals not flames advice.
With these tool you can do some serious cooking, limited only by your prep-space and ingredients on hand: you can even bake by putting a second vessel in the dutch oven (use pebble or such to prevent direct contact with the hot iron.
One option to consider it to make "dirty steak". The basic idea is to burn the fire down to a bed of hot coals and then just put the steak right onto the burning coals. I have done this with a London Broil and it works out very nice. It sounds crazy but the steak really doesn't get dirty nor does it burn up like you might think. The lack of oxygen a small bit of juice from the steak seems to make a nice interface between the steak and the coals. There are a lot of interesting articles on the web:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=dirty+steak&btnG=Google+Search
It's great, you can hike with a frozen steak and have it thaw during your walk. There is no pans or other stuff to clean and it's super easy.
You can do just about anything on a campfire -- even some baking if you're willing to carry a dutch oven.
The important rules to cooking over a grill or campfire it so be prepared to move whatever you're cooking to a lower heat part of the fire (this might require bringing fireplace gloves with you), and to not turn your back on it for too long unless it's over low coals.
I've done curries (onion, chicken, coconut milk, green apple), stew, pasta, chilli ... you can do most anything.
For the kebabs, I'd recommend turning them regularly, and not mixing the skewers -- make them all meat, or all a given type of vegetable, and mix afterwards. You don't want a bunch of singed vegetables next to under cooked meat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.962037
| 2010-08-05T23:25:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4401",
"authors": [
"Annie G",
"BillN",
"Chad Evans",
"JSM",
"Juan Pablo Peña-Rosas",
"Kabie",
"PSF",
"Rich",
"Samuel Neff",
"Shaik Md N Rasool",
"chinto",
"hkBattousai",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8452",
"nobody",
"rfsk2010",
"tolos",
"user50025",
"user620597"
],
"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
}
|
50245
|
cinnamon in bread dough
Is there a reason, besides the beautiful appearance, that cinnamon is added as a swirl instead of added directly to the dough? I heard once that it inhibited the yeast but I can't find confirmation of that.
Interesting question. When it is swirled in it's always mixed with sugar, and often with butter. Maybe the quantity of sugar necessary to balance the cinnamon would over-feed a yeast dough?
Cinnamon increases yeast activity until a certain amount
I think there is no reason except tradition. Cinnamon rolled buns just happen to be a common food in Central Europe, and they were exported to the USA.
While I have no source to back this, I have frequently made breads where the cinnamon is kneaded into the dough. One common example is Peter Reinhart's Greek recipe from the book Bread Baker's Apprentice. The bread is enriched with honey, olive oil and a good amount of cinnamon, and it rises and bakes just like any other bread with similar hydration.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.963085
| 2014-12-01T19:48:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50245",
"authors": [
"Angie Moong",
"Ching Chong",
"Jolenealaska",
"Robin Dalholt",
"Shaun Preble",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"linda hutchinson",
"linda marschall"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53894
|
What is the conversion ratio from whole potatoes to potato flakes?
I have a recipe for butternut squash soup that calls for 2 potatoes which will be pureed in the end. I only have potato flakes. How much of the flakes do I use to equal the 2 potatoes?
What kind of potatoes? What kind of recipe?
The recipe is a butternut squash soup and only calls for 2 potatoes. They did not specify which kind of potato, I assume its just a Russet.
I would aim for the amount of flakes that would make 2 cups of finished mash. Add 1/2 to 2/3 of it and see where you are in terms of thickness of the soup. If the soup is still thin add more.
This also depends on what potato the flakes are made from, any additives to the flakes, etc.
Usually when a recipe is not specific with an agricultural product I assume I have a lot of margin for error. Cooking requires a lot of experimenting, but using the flakes may actually make your life quite a bit easier here as you can add as much or as little as you want "to taste."
Thank you! I actually did exactly that before reading your comment and it turned out great!
Looking at the directions for a random brand of potato flakes, two portions of mash comes to 1 cup. To make this you need 1 cup of liquid (water and milk) and 2/3 cup flakes. Obviously the measurements in these directions are extremely rough since this must come to more than 1 cup. No matter; I'm sure you are not expecting anything more than a ball-park figure.
A six ounce potato makes roughly 1/2 cup of mash. So that's about 2 tbsp (~30ml) of flakes for every ounce of potato (again these are rough figures).
Potatoes come in all sizes, but a six ounce potato is about average for medium sized potatoes. If you have no other information you could just say that one portion of mash made from flakes is equal to one potato. In that case you need about 2/3 cups of flakes.
As another answer says, the potato will act as a thickener, so you may just as well add mash until you get the consistency you want.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.963218
| 2015-01-22T19:43:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53894",
"authors": [
"Anmar Chalabi",
"Anton Hathaway",
"Christina Snow",
"Donnie Krout",
"Hannah Alhadad",
"Jennifer Walker",
"Melba Sallee",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32970",
"supermombond",
"user32970"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25427
|
What cost-effective things can I do to help my knives stay sharp longer?
I'm a poor college student that doesn't know much about his knives, pots, and pans. Specifically is there anything that I can do to make my knives stay sharp longer and maintain them without spending too much money?
That's a very broad question, too broad to answer in one response. Could you please split it into several questions, or make it more specific? Otherwise it will probably be closed.
Agree -- too general.
I think he's asking about the most cost effective way to maintain reasonable sharpness on his knives. So I assume for example, buying better knives and paying someone to sharpen it regularly is out of the question. @And0r4k, if this is the case make an edit and take out your "etc".
Here are a few rules I follow with my own knives.
Don't put your knives in the dishwasher. Hand wash and dry immediately after use.
Store knives where they won't be banging up against other hard things: my favorite is in a wooden knife block.
If you must store your knives in a drawer, protect the edge. You can use a commercial solution like this guy, or cardboard and tape if you're on a shoestring budget.
Don't cut on a glass cutting board. They look nice, but will dull your edge.
Get a steel and use it. A steel is not for sharpening, but for maintaining a sharp edge. Honing with a steel before each use will help keep the edge straight and sharp.
Don't use dull knives. Either learn to sharpen yourself, or have them professionally sharpened.
Slightly off topic, but if you're a starving college student who wants to have a high-quality knife or two at a very reasonable price, take a look at Forschner/Victorinox. Yes, the Swiss Army Knife people. I was turned on to them by professional chefs, and have found them every bit as high-quality as my much-more-expensive Henckels and Wustof-Trident knives.
I'll also add that bamboo cutting boards seem to increase wear-and-tear on knife edges, so probably worth sticking to regular hardwood or soft plastic. +1 on the Victrinox knives.
I'll second the Forshner chef's knife -- I've had one for a few years and it's fantastic (only had to get it sharpened once). Don't buy those cheap knife sets they sell at warehouse stores -- they'll go horribly dull in months, if not weeks.
+1 for hitting all the good 'points' (hahaha). I can say from experience that Victorinox knives rock. I was given a Chef knife and a pairing knife in 1991 when I was just starting out in the kitchen. Still have them and still use them on a regular basis. Ya, they're not as thick as Trident/Henckels but once sharpened were like a razor. Also, buy yourself a sharpening stone and learn to use it. Saves you lots of money i the long run. PLus its very Zen.
I hate wooden knife blocks because they are a microbe store. I don't like cardboard because it harbours mould spores. If you want to protect the edge on a knife, use the plastic edging they sell in DIY stores, or the "slide binders" sold in stationery places for holding papers together - both are a lot easier to sanitize than any alternatives.
+1, glass cutting boards dull any edge in no time and so do ceramic boards
Timber boards and learn to soak in boiling water and soap in the sink.
Or get some "decent" plastic ones
Unless cutting meat. wash KNIVES with cold water. By hand. then dry and store in prev protections to suit.
Sharpening.
Buy a reasonable WETSTONE $20 will find a usable Basic Fine\Coarse one.
Soak in a dish of water for 15min's b4 use. I sit it between the two sinks in kitchen at home and run cold tap on it while using.
When knife to your edge. dry it. Then start with a decent Diamond Steel.
I just bought a reasonable quality one from Mitchel Manufacturing. (They make Butchers tools for the meatworks trade.)
600 grit. Works well after you rubbed the spare dust off. And they're CHEAP.
Then I use either an old SMOOTH diamond steel or a smooth Steel Steel. Followed by a strop.
Mine is a Mules saddle strap from army disposals. around 5 ft long. 3in wide. Thick with big brass buckle.
It made two nice strops.
Depending on the knife. you'll need to stone every several months. Steel regularly but not too much. and I strop every time b4 use.
if you want good quality. fairly cheap that will last your lifetime. Get some Mundial
I bought missus a 15mm Cooks and a 15mm Utility. Both nice Well balanced and HOLD a good edge.
I have Wusthof (40 yrs) and recently bought a new Utility, after 40 odd yrs I'd worn\stoned the blade down to it's thickness. Sharp but you have to work at it.
I splashed out on a Torijo DP3 Utility, Laminated. (spoiled myself a little)
It's my favourite general knife and LOOKS "lovely.Plus"
A pleasure to use.
But you'll never NEED to go past the Mundial for general cooks work.
They as good as most others, Apart from Japanese..
Those skinny pressed blades can be sharp. but for a nice feeling knife that you LIKE to use go a bit better. You only buy it once. and DOES become an extension
Buy a 15\20cm Cooks. Mundial? that'll do 90%of your work. ANY Paring knife from supermarket. Then a Utility. Mundial?.
Unless cutting seriously I use those two blades for everything.
Bread Knife. I have 2 in the drawer.
I prefer a 13in meatworks butchers knife For Pumpkin Cabbage etc. Long enuff to control at both ends while using. (Safer) And a 6in Curved Boner from same place (Swibo. HARD steel)
Pricks to sharpen but hold it when you get there.
Meatworks knives will cover all you want. Crude but good steel. Cheap as. and do a good job.
They designed to do a ten hr shift, continuously. Just Another way to go when your pocket light.
king of knives sell them and are closing down.
Although I learned to use a whetstone decades ago, I'm surprised you're recommending it 'every several months' for someone who's a college student. Professionals might need to sharpen more often, but a home chef can probably get a year or two between sharpenings if they treat their knifes right. (and a bad sharpening will ruin your knives)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.963438
| 2012-08-02T03:47:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25427",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Chef Flambe",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jaclyn Robinson",
"Joe",
"Lemon19999",
"Marco",
"Mohan Prashanth",
"Sahil ",
"Smokehouse Cedar Planks",
"deedle2038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88032",
"jalbee",
"jnnnnn",
"klypos",
"olive_tree",
"sharptooth",
"stitcher",
"talon8",
"user58207"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46619
|
How do I properly use a ceramic honing steel?
I have a set of Global knives and I went ahead and ordered their G-45 ceramic honing steel as well.
I cannot find a good picture of it, but the rubber piece on this steel has a flat edge. I want to make sure I am not honing my knife improperly. If I were to rest my knife against this flat edge and then press lightly and move downwards, would that ensure that I am honing at the proper angle?
An example, although you have to set the angle. http://www.dick.de/en/objectfiles/405/paragraph_104.gif
Your link has directions for use: "To properly hone the knife, hold it at a 20-degree angle and draw the blade across the steel. Never stroke the same side of blade more than once in succession."
In general, ceramic rods are more forgiving than the grooved steel ones -- which, in my opinion, should be avoided on good knives. (But that's another discussion.)
The primary purpose of a honing rod (of whatever composition) is to straighten the edge, not "sharpen" it. Polished smooth steel rods are useful for that purpose, but many people have found that ceramic rods have enough abrasiveness to smooth the edge very slightly while also straightening it. (They are also useful for deburring after sharpening with a stone.)
Generally speaking, you'll want to use your ceramic rod at a slightly wider angle than the edge of the knife. Global knives probably have a steeper angle on their edges than, say, traditional German knives: they're probably something like 15 degrees, so the recommended 20 degrees in your link instructions is probably about right, though slightly wide. If you don't know how big 20 degrees is, look at a protractor. With a honing ceramic, you're not going to ruin your edge with a few light strokes, so try your best to maintain that 20-ish degree angle in just a few long strokes alternating sides. (Do NOT do like the chefs do on TV with a grooved steel and rapidly stroke the blade dozens of times -- it's probably better to do a touch-up with a ceramic rod with just a few slow even light strokes on each side periodically as needed. You should be able to feel the difference in the edge.)
If you know what you're doing and are sharpening your knives yourself, you may find on Globals that a slightly steeper angle (e.g., 15-18 degrees) for honing gives better results in terms of maintaining the edge longer between sharpenings by keeping a more consistent bevel. But it really depends on your maintenance schedule, angle you use to sharpen, and how hard you use your knives.
If you are inexperienced with honing knives in general, though, I'd highly recommend just talking to someone who knows what they are doing. It's nearly impossible to describe good technique briefly in writing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.963941
| 2014-08-24T03:49:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46619",
"authors": [
"Alexander Albright",
"Colin Meeson",
"JPR GRILLED STEAK HOUSE JPR",
"Janice Solvold",
"Keith Nichols",
"Optionparty",
"Paula Sullivan",
"Timothy Redick",
"Tracy Morey",
"abdul kazi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63797
|
Can I bake bread in a cast iron Dutch oven with the lid on, or should I use tin foil instead?
I have a Cuisinart cast iron enamelware dutch oven that I purchased recently to bake bread in the oven. I am supposed to bake at 450 degrees. The pot states it can be baked up to 500 degrees, however does that include the lid. The lid is cast iron but has a knob on it that I am unsure of. Please send me info as my bread is rising and needs to be baked. Should I just cover it with foil? I don't think I will get the same results.
When baking I use either my seasoned bare iron ditch over, OR I use my le cruesset without the lid.
Do you have another lid that would roughly fit the pot and is oven safe? If not, foil is probably okay. (Many people have done this.) The main reason to bake bread in a covered pot is to keep the steam in, which improves crust. As long as you keep most of the steam in, the effect should be similar. You don't really need a "tight seal."
Do you know which model/line your dutch oven is?
Is it one of these? http://www.cuisinart.com/products/cookware/castlite_nonstick_cast_iron/cil4525-26bb.html That's the only cast iron dutch oven I found on their site.
Based on putting things w/ plastic handles in the oven in the past ... if they can't take the heat, you'll know it both because of the smell, and the surface of the handle will change. (it went from shiny to dull ... it looks like there are lots of tiny pock marks in the surface). I suspect that most cast iron knobs could be changed out w/ all metal drawer-pulls, but then it'll be less comfortable to use stove-top (as it'd be heat conducting).
@Jefromi, there is also this thing: http://www.cuisinart.com/products/cookware/EnameledCastIron/ci670-30cr.html And though, their website doesn't list other products, google does: https://www.google.ca/search?q=cuisinart+dutch+oven&tbm=isch&imgil=zIMZB6ywK8hT_M%253A%253BOx-VZbmusAym2M%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fgreedymonster.wordpress.com%25252F2011%25252F09%25252F03%25252Fle-creuset-or-cuisinart%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=zIMZB6ywK8hT_M%253A%252COx-VZbmusAym2M%252C_&biw=2122&bih=1187&dpr=0.9&usg=__yI6anAt4vUdCT1jDbPsGSXnYjN0%3D#imgrc=isV2i-zlj06e5M%3A&usg=__yI6anAt4vUdCT1jDbPsGSXnYjN0%3D
Presuming the Cuisinart knob is made of the same material as the Le Creuset one (Phenolic), the given maximum temperature is 375°F.
However, many people (including this thorough article) recommend covering it with foil to protect it at higher temperatures. Also, I would suspect that giving 375°F as the limit means that it's OK to go higher, just not too often, and also they won't guarantee it above that temperature.
Le Creuset has more than one kind of knob: "The black phenolic lid knobs on our Signature range of enameled cast iron are heat-resistant to 480°F / 250°C. The black phenolic lid knobs on our Classic range of enameled cast iron are heat-resistant to 375°F / 190°C. Products with integral cast iron handles or stainless steel knobs can be used at any oven temperature. Pans with wooden handles or knobs must not be placed in the oven." (http://www.lecreuset.com/care-and-use/#ci-oven)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.964201
| 2015-11-24T16:20:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63797",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Cascabel",
"Christina Waldner",
"Escoce",
"Georgene Tenaglio",
"Helen Lanning",
"Honey Hardy",
"Joe",
"Mary C Murphy",
"Richard Choate",
"albertteng62yahooca",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25463
|
How do I learn to cut/chop ingredients?
Possible Duplicate:
What are some good resources for learning Knife Skills?
I'm about to join some cooking classes but I'm totally green at this sort of thing.
So I can preserve some of my humility and not look totally incompetent - how can I learn to cut quickly and efficiently without lopping some fingers and limbs off in the process?
cooking is not about working like a chef! Chefs learn to peel, chop and cook quickly because they have to work against time limits. A customer walks in the restaurant, sits down and orders some food that he wants to eat before he officially becomes a senior citizen. The chef's aim is to provide food in a short timescale.
You want to learn to cook, you need to learn how to cut things into "small dice", medium dice", strips, whatever - doing it fast like a pro doesn't make you a better cook.
Get a good knife, like Elendil suggested, in any case. That's a good idea. Then when you step into the cookery class, "check your ego at the door", as the notice said on the studio entrance when they made the BandAid singles. This is not a competition, this is learning to cook, personal skills - or is it?
Let me tell you that if you're hoping to hit it off with your classmates, you stand just as much chance of success in that sphere if you need their help ...
There are almost as many ways to cut up ingredients as there are ingredients to cut up, but the basics of chopping vegetables and meat are fairly straightforward. As with any task, if you practice slowly, speed will come in time - do not try and speed-chop like you see on TV straight away; you'll just cut yourself, and there will be no prizes for finishing first in any case.
A good, sharp knife is a must. Somewhat counter-intuitively, a sharp knife is usually safer than a semi-blunt one because it is less likely to slip off whatever you're chopping and bury itself in your hand or finger.
Invest in a decent knife early and you will get better results and enjoy the process of preparing ingredients so much more. You don't have to spend a fortune and a decent knife from the likes of Global or Wusthof for $150 (Australian) will last you for many years more than a cheap, quickly blunted $30 knife from the supermarket.
You need perhaps 3 knives at the most. Knife manufacturers have a knife for every occasion, but you only really need a good size chef's knife (which will do everything from jointing a chicken to mincing garlic), a small paring knife for very delicate work, and a serrated knife for bread etc. To start with, the chef's knife is all you need.
Finally, an excellent source of chopping how-tos is YouTube. Simply search for 'how to cut vegetables' (or search for how to chop a specific item) and watch away. Buy yourself a bag of cheap onions, carrots, and/or peppers and practice away - you can always portion and freeze the veg ready for use later.
Good luck, have fun, and remember we are here to answer all your cooking questions.
A 28cm or 32cm chefs knife should not cost more than 30€. Look for vanadium steel knifes. Look here for more info.
Sure, you can pay as little or as much as you like. I'd rather pay a little extra and get a quality product that will last me longer. Steel composition isn't the only factor. You buy cheap, you buy twice.
An 28cm or 32cm chef knife is an unmitigated nightmare unless you have an appropriate sized board and space to set it up.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.964476
| 2012-08-04T09:38:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25463",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Bruce Francis Simpson",
"CA Tarni Agarwal",
"Christophe Gwynne",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Euclides",
"Jeff Uy",
"Joanna in Alaska",
"Marisa",
"Shivangi",
"Ted Daly",
"ablackhat",
"brosefzai",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"rackandboneman",
"user222452"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128894
|
Substitute for saltpetre
I was reading a recipe for Okra Soup with Goat Meat and was surprised to find "saltpetre" on the ingredient list, with no quantity listed. Having never seen this as an ingredient in anything other than gunpowder, I did a little research to try and figure out what was going on.
According to Wikipedia, it is:
widely used as a thickening agent in soups and stews such as okra soup and isi ewu. It is also used to soften food and reduce cooking time when boiling beans and tough meat.
This makes sense to me because the recipe I'm looking at is West African (Ghanaian), though the author of the recipe talks about using it to make the okra more "slimy", which I'm less sure about.
What concerned me is that the sites selling spices which had this available were plastered with warning that this needs to be carefully measured to the gram, and care must be taken to consume only safe amounts. (Example: "This ingredient must be measured with a gram scale and used with extreme caution.")
So now that I've succeeded in scaring myself out of using this ingredient – what can I substitute for the saltpetre in a Ghanaian-style okra stew? Will salt plus a thickener, such as a roux or cornstarch, achieve the same effect? And should it be added later than the saltpetre was, which was with the okra in the initial boil?
(And if anyone can shed light on what effect it might have on the okra's "sliminess", I would appreciate that – I've never heard of people trying to make boiled okra more slimy as this recipe implies!)
Nitrates cause a drop in blood pressure due to vasodilation. If you are already on vasodilators or have low blood pressure, the additional nitrate can cause some problems. They are also converted to nitrites in the gut and this can cause problems with oxygen absorption due to conversion of hemoglobin to methemoglobin, which can't take up oxygen.
Not sure if you noticed, but although there’s no quantity given in the ingredient list, the instructions say to add “about 3 groundnut sized saltpetre pieces”, which does at least have a sort-of quantity. Though I have to admit I’d need a fair amount of Googling to know how much a ‘groundnut-size saltpetre piece’ is, too.
Yeah, and there's a video which shows the cook adding what looks like 3 grey pebbles -- roughly peanut sized, but on the smaller side -- into the pot. But given that the sites selling potassium nitrate indicated you needed to work by weight and be cautious about not consuming too much, and I have no idea how much those pebbles weighed, it didn't help all that much in the long run. But as it turns out I was looking at the wrong ingredient entirely, per the answers, so it's probably a good thing I didn't attempt it!
ah, and so 3 peanuts would be about 39mm which is about .143 bananas. ( http://bananaforscale.info/#!/convert/length/39/millimeters/bananas )
The short answer for your substitution question is -- add some baking soda, i.e., sodium bicarbonate.
How much? I don't know, as the recipe doesn't even give a hint. Start out with a little -- maybe a half-teaspoon? You can always add more, but it can give an unpleasant aftertaste. With a little bit of baking soda, producing an alkaline solution, the okra will get a bit more green and the meat may be slightly tenderized. As you increase the concentration of baking soda, the okra will likely get mushy and "slimy." Baking soda often is described as giving a "soapy" consistency to food when used in excess.
As to the bit about "saltpetre," it's almost certainly a mistranslation (apparently a very common one in West Africa).
This was quite an interesting business to sort out. I'm no expert in the cuisine of Ghana or West Africa, so if anything I will say here looks wrong to someone with first-hand knowledge, please correct me.
If you care about the logic and sources I'm using to justify all of this, details are below.
My guess is that the confusion came out of the fact that these West African salts are often known in English as "potash." Another traditional name for "saltpetre" is "nitrate of potash," which would be the old name for potassium nitrate (itself often a component of "potash" when used as fertilizer). While these salts are very common in West Africa and are known in English as either "potash" or "saltpetre," the largest composition is generally sodium (bi)carbonate and/or potassium (bi)carbonate. There's no potassium nitrate involved at all. As you rightly identified, potassium nitrate is a curing salt, which needs to be used in precise quantities, generally to preserve meat.
Potassium nitrate, however, is NOT generally known for making vegetables "slimy," nor (as the Wikipedia page claims) for reducing bean cooking time or to soften tough meat. I was suspicious of the Wikipedia claim and tracked it back to its first appearance in the article in 2012, and it's never really been properly sourced. A quick search of Google Books demonstrates that most of these claims similar to Wikipedia only appear in books and sources since 2012, probably imitating the Wikipedia article.
(I'm sure I've gone on about this before, but never believe anything on Wikipedia unless you've followed the sources and verified. It's a great resource, but information must be verified and properly sourced, as anyone can edit it.)
Furthermore, an alkaline tenderizing agent like sodium (and/or potassium) carbonate or bicarbonate immediately occurred to me as better fitting the culinary description from Wikipedia. For example, baking soda is well-known to speed the cooking of beans.
Anyhow, what we're really talking about here is a "salt" that is used in West Africa, which is not sodium chloride. It goes under a lot of different regional names: kanwe, kanwa, akanwu, kuan, natron, trona, nikkih, kilbu, sel gemme, and limestone are a few, in addition to potash and (quite inaccurately) saltpetre. Traditionally, it is often a harvested "salt" from regional lake deposits, but there are a variety of other preparations and methods for making it, depending on the country/region.
So, how do I know the Wikipedia article is wrong and what is requested in this recipe? Well, first let's begin with a study done in Ghana itself by USAID, which mentions this specific dish on page 38:
Fresh okro soup: Prepared similar to light soup but with added chopped
boiled okro with kanwe (saltpeter).
Here we have confirmation that the local name for this salt is "kanwe," but it is also referenced as "saltpeter."
Later in this study (p. 167), we are told that "saltpeter" is "kanwa" and that it speeds up the cooking of beans (just as the Wikipedia article tells us).
Beans are an important part of the IYC diet and mothers use
sal[t]petre (kanwa) to speed the cooking process. It is not known
whether saltpeter has any adverse health effects and this needs to be
investigated.
So, we're looking for kanwa/kanwe. And aside from Wikipedia and a few sources that seem to mimic that source since 2012, I haven't found any sources that connect this to potassium nitrate. Most commonly, despite the misnomer of "saltpetre," academia studies that have analyzed such salts have found they contain "potash" instead, or potassium (bi)carbonate.
(Technical note: the carbonates of sodium and potassium have similar chemical properties to the bicarbonates but are stronger, i.e., have a more alkaline effect. They'll also do similar things to food.)
For confirmation of what "kanwa" is, we can look to this article:
Sariem et al., “Acute toxicity studies and characterisation of local dietary salts in Nigeria” (2016)
Local dietary salts in various forms are used in Nigeria as food
seasoning and food additives. Potash is commonly consumed in Nigeria
especially in the northern parts where two forms are commonly
available: kanwa and shem. Kanwa, also known as natron, a
sesquicarbonate or hydrated carbonate of sodium (Alawa et al., 2012).
Kanwa is also known scientifically as trona (Omajali et al., 2010).
Okehie-Offoha in 1996 however described kanwa as a potassium salt in
combination with other salts. Kanwa is a base with a pH of 8.9. It
contains 10% sodium as bicarbonates, 70% potassium, 0.33% calcium and
8% phosphorous (Yakasai et al., 2004).
[…]
Kanwa is used to soften food and reduce cooking time when boiling
beans and tough meat. Kanwa is also an essential ingredient in making
special porridges such as kunun kanwa literally translated from the
Hausa language as 'saltpetre porridge' (Okehie-Offoha, 1996).
I'm just going to note this last bit is very similar to the sentence following the quotation from the Wikipedia article given in the question, which states:
It is also used to soften food and reduce cooking time when boiling beans and tough meat. Saltpetre is also an essential ingredient in making special porridges,
such as kunun kanwa literally translated from the Hausa language as
"saltpetre porridge".
Both of these cite the same source. I'd like to believe Sariem et al. actually went and found this source and verified what it said. But it unfortunately looks like they may have simply plagiarized a couple sentences from Wikipedia here, as this passage has been on Wikipedia since 2012, and their article didn't appear until 4 years later.
(Again, a warning about the dangers of Wikipedia. Even scholars overuse it without checking.)
Yet, as we know from the USAID report above, "kanwa" is apparently sometimes known as "saltpeter," even though as discussed in the Sariem et al. quotation above, we also know it's more correctly a form of potash, i.e., a potassium bicarbonate salt, along with sodium bicarbonate and some other minor components. ("Sesquicarbonate" and "hydrated carbonated" are synonyms for "bicarbonate.")
Sariem et al. is useful for summarizing a bit of the literature on the composition of kanwa. One final source I'll bring into the mix points out the regional variability of these salts:
Ngoualem et al., “Variability and Functionalities of Salts Used in Traditional African Food Preparations“ (2019)
Common edible salt, a natural evaporite which can be obtained from
sea, underground ore or natural brine, and containing at least 97% of
sodium chloride (NaCl), is the main salt used in food preparations,
with the only objective to improve the taste of foods. Out of that,
other specific salts which have been reported to be used in food
preparations are Lakes’ deposits, plant-based ashes, their filtrates
and evaporites of these filtrates. Their chemical composition shows
that they are mixture of salts and thus, made of cations and anions,
major cation being generally sodium or potassium whereas major anions are generally carbonates, bicarbonates, sulfates and
chlorides. Their usages have mostly been reported in African
countries (Nigeria, Niger, Chad, Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Burkina
Faso, Uganda, Tanzania, Sudan, Central and East African countries)
[…].
In Africa, they have been reported to be used to reduce the cooking
time of legumes, vegetables and cereals, to improve the green color of
vegetables as well as to increase the viscosity of sticky ones, as
emulsifier, and as flavor enhancers. These functionalities have been
attributed to the alkalinity of their aqueous solutions. Since the
solutions of Traditional Salts are alkaline, they can also be named
Traditional Alkaline Salts (TAS).
To summarize the important bits from this last quotation:
We might have various mixtures in these salts of sodium and potassium compounds, namely carbonates, bicarbonates, sulfates, and chlorides. Note, however, the conspicuous absence of nitrates. There's no potassium nitrate here.
These salts are found in Ghana (as well as many other places).
They are used to have the effects both listed in Wikipedia (incorrectly attributed to saltpeter/potassium nitrate) and in the recipe. They reduce cooking time of legumes, and they increase the viscosity of sticky ones (hence, I suppose, the "slime").
The main aspect that makes these salts useful in cooking is their alkalinity in solution.
Hence, I finally arrive again at my initial recommendation: you need an alkaline solution. The most common item found in kitchens that will give you an approximation for this recipe is sodium bicarbonate, i.e., baking soda.
Lastly, I will note that the composition of these salts appears to vary significantly by region in Africa, but potassium (bi)carbonate seems to often be the most prominent ingredient, hence the alternative English name of "potash" for these salts. If you wanted a more authentic option, you could do an internet search for "kanwa" and find all sorts of interesting crystals people are selling. Or (if you're less adventurous) you could perhaps buy some pure potassium bicarbonate, then mix in a smaller proportion of baking soda, and you'll be most of the way there to something similar to the traditional West African culinary salts.
That said, I don't really think the important part here is the flavor from the salt, other than maybe some trace minerals (which likely vary significantly by source/region). Thus, baking soda will probably do in a pinch, and hopefully give you some nice slimy okra.
Had to join the community just to upvote this. Genuinely fantastic answer, I appreciate the research and context.
So now someone just needs to add a reference to one of those books written after fact was added to the Wikipedia article and we have a perfect example of Citogenesis (please don't…)
It should be noted that Pottasche (potash, K_2CO_3) is commonly used in German Lebkuchen (gingerbread). If you are e.g. in the UK, it is available in speciality shops (example, no affiliation or recommendation: https://germandeli.co.uk/mueller-pottasche-potash.html)
I am convinced you are correct. Bicarbonates, other alkaline substances, including ash are used in many dishes around the world to soften foods.
@Marianne013: Yes, potassium carbonate does exist for culinary use. Thanks for adding that. Potassium bicarbonate is somewhat more common (still not that common) in the U.S. for those trying to lower sodium intake and needing an alternative to sodium bicarbonate. Any of these should probably have the intended effect for the purpose of the recipe.
@Minos: I came upon several articles and books, as well as online information pages about uses of potassium nitrate that basically paraphrase or copy directly from the Wikipedia article. To be clear, I think the original editor who added that information to Wikipedia had good intentions: they seem to have edited a number of articles on food of Ghana. They probably looked up "saltpetre" (which is one traditional name for this culinary salt), Wikipedia redirected them to potassium nitrate, and they likely just assumed that was the appropriate place to add info.
The solubilities of carbonates and bicarbonates differ as well. You need twice as much bicarbonate for the same alkaline effect (bicarbonate is literally "double carbonate" historically) but in the case of potassium salts of the two ions, potassium carbonate is not only twice as effective, it is five times more soluble than potassium bicarbonate.
Did you correct the wikipedia article? Or at least put a few ?disputed? warnings in suitable places?
@quarague, for better or worse, the Wiki article has some citations that need to be addressed. This is a little tricky, because the best thing to do is remove the section totally, leaving nowhere for Athansius's excellent refutation to go. (there are other Wiki pages where it could go though!) One of the citations is especially anoying; it's a book that I can't fine online. So I'll refrain from making edits until I'm able to get it physically delivered from a library.
I found Okehie-Offoha 1996 citation on archive.org, if that helps. I borrowed it and couldn't find anything to back up either claim Sariem et al. used it for.
It did discuss kunun kanwa but only to say that it was a spiced gruel containing potash.
You seem to have two issues here.
The first is the lack of an exact measurement for the ‘saltpetre’. This is actually common for ingredients that are supposed to modify the texture of the final dish when looking at old recipes, because the goal is a specific consistency and historically the ingredients would have varied significantly in composition, so you would need to add the ingredient slowly, a bit at a time, until you got the right texture/consistency. If it’s your first time making this recipe and you have never had it before yourself, the best you can do is look up descriptions online and try to get as close as possible to what they describe, and then in future attempts adjust based on personal taste.
The second seems to be a mistranslation, compounded by misinformation on Wikipedia (the answer from Athanasius covers this with an excellent degree of research and explanation, so I won’t repeat it here).
Nitrate/nitrite salts are actually used in cooking, but they’re preservatives used for salt-curing meat (the classic pinkish-brown of a number of processed meat products, such as American hot-dogs, Bologna sausage, or some kinds of salami, is a result of these salts reacting with the myoglobin in the meat), and even that usage is falling out of favor due to related health risks. They definitely don’t react with okra or other vegetables in the way the recipe seems to describe.
What you actually need to achieve the described effect is to ensure the pH never gets too low. Okra seed pods work as a thickener because they contain a soluble form of fiber in the ‘slime’ inside the pods. Acids, even mild ones, will break this down rather effectively, and the most common method of ‘desliming’ okra seed pods is to cook them with acidic foods like tomatoes. By raising the pH, the ‘slime’ will thicken, which seems to be what the recipe is talking about. Thus, your best option here is probably either sodium bicarbonate (baking soda), or possibly potassium bicarbonate (sometimes called potash, though not always easily available as a food-grade ingredient).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.964808
| 2024-07-30T02:05:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128894",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Eric Deloak",
"Janus Bahs Jacquet",
"Jason Patterson",
"Jay McEh",
"Marianne013",
"Minos",
"Numeri",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"ShapeOfMatter",
"Yorik",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87868",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4199
|
Is there a simple way to make refried beans?
This is a dish that I always eat when dining at Spanish style restaurants, but never seem to be able to replicate at home using black beans and olive oil. The main problem is that the beans seem to cook down to a soup consistency to quickly - any tips?
Why don't you add what you're doing and what seems to be going wrong, otherwise this question just looks like a recipe request.
Black beans and olive oil aren't really the traditional base of refried beans, which could be a contributing factor.
The heightened flavor of refried beans (over regular beans) comes from two components: the extra fat, and the Maillard (browning) reactions caused by the cooked beans shallow-frying in hot fat. Effectively, a crust forms where the mashed beans contact the fat. This crust breaks up later when the dish is stirred together.
If you can get them, try pinto beans rather than black.
Standard Refried Beans (from a can)
Drain and rinse the canned beans.
Heat your fat of choice (olive oil, lard, shortening) in a heavy pan.
Mash 1/3 of the beans coarsely in a bowl, using the back of a fork and a little water, if necessary. You want the consistency of the mash to be somewhere between pancake batter and cookie dough.
Add this mash to the fat in blobs of 1-2 tablespoons. The idea is to get as much surface area exposed to the fat as possible, because this is where the yumminess comes from, so, not a big blob in the middle of the pan. Preferably, many smaller ones.
After a time, start stirring the bean mash and fat together, then mix in the reserved whole beans. Thin with water or broth.
Bonus:Roasted Garlic Refried Beans (from a can)
Peel a couple of whole garlic cloves. Leave them whole.
Put these in the fat as it heats. If the fat doesn't cover the cloves completely, you can either stir from time to time, or, better, tilt the pan so that the fat and garlic pool on one side.
When the garlic cloves are the color of milk chocolate, remove them and add the mashed beans as above.
Mash the cloves with the back of a fork and add them with the whole beans at the end.
The standard unit of measurement of 'blob' is sorely lacking over at the ISO (as are glob, dollop, and smack); however according to chacha they cost $3,850.
http://allrecipes.com/recipe/refried-beans-without-the-refry/detail.aspx
These are SO delicious, it makes a ton and they actually tend to be better (thicker and the flavor has settled in more) after refrigerating overnight. I have served these to a lot of people (I often make them for parties) and people are always impressed with the result and it is so simple!
I use this recipe as well and it is great. Excellent taste, easy to make, and freezes very well.
I just use Rick Steins method and fry a little garlic or other flavouring in some oil and then add a can of beans with some of the juice and then mash and heat through. It doesn't work too badly and is very easy to do.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.966120
| 2010-08-04T12:30:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4199",
"authors": [
"Andrey",
"Chris B",
"Jody417",
"Kamal",
"Michelle Shilts",
"Mustafa Salih ASLIM",
"Ryan Elkins",
"SourDoh",
"Swati",
"Tiff",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89093",
"katie77",
"mfg",
"smith1511",
"user8023"
],
"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
}
|
3843
|
What are some alternative sources of calcium (to milk) for the lactose-intolerant?
Are there any food products that can be used for cooking/baking that have high calcium as an alternative for milk - not necessarily liquid alternatives...
This isn't really a substitution question, since you don't specify what's being substituted (milk? cheese? cream? yogurt? mayonnaise?) It's actually a diet question, and as much as I think it's a good and important question, it doesn't really allow for any answers directly related to cooking or preparing meals. I am voting off-topic and will shortly be removing the "substitution" verbiage (unless you'd like to be more specific about what you need substituted and why).
Agree with Aarnout, this question has the problem that you are asking for a generic alternative and even not necessarily liquid. An in topic question would be "how can I substitute milk with a lactose-free ingredient in [name of the dish]". The generic version is actually a medical advice request.
Oh, I see. I thought the question was about substituting something for milk in a recipe. I added the substitution tag, but I'll pull it off.
Green vegetables are a good source of calcium, in particular, artichokes, broccoli, and greens (like turnip greens). Other sources of dietary calcium include sardines, canned salmon, raisins, almonds, sesame seeds, and soy beans.
ETA: The daily recommended intake of calcium for an adult is 500-1000 mg. If you're curious about how much calcium a particular foodstuff has, you can look it up on the USDA National Nutrient Database.
Dairy products, apparently actually take calcium from your body.
I don't remember the precise chemistry of it, but you end up with less useful (bioavailable) calcium after the milk than before it.
Hence, green leafy stuff is your best bet.
@Carmi It would be interesting to see some support for your claim about dairy products. Have you any links?
This is just what I found now. I actually heard it in a lecture my wife dragged me to. http://www.nutritionecology.org/panel5/intro.html
http://www.freedomyou.com/nutrition_book/Milk%20and20Cookies.htm
I'll try to find proper academic source later.
The NEIC link gives me a good place to start; thanks for that.
Little fishies with soft, edible bones (think sardines) are a good source of calcium as well as omega 3 fats.
Also often high in vitamin D, handy in the winter months.
Sesame has not been mentioned yet, it's a rich source of calcium (the USDA Nutritient database linked to from luls' post states 975 mg Ca for 100g sesame, and 113 mg for the same amount of milk) and a great ingredient in its own right, especially for many vegetable and Asian dishes.
The hull apparently contains a large share of the minerals, so peeled sesame might not be as rich. I don't know about sesame oil, but I like to use mushed sesame (Tahini, they call it) in cooking.
Japanese 'Gomasio' is used instead of salt in macrobiotic cooking, it's just sesame seeds with salt (6-10 parts of sesame for one part of salt).
There's also a great Turkish / Greek / North African dessert made with honey and sesame (it's called Halva in countries with Arabic influence, I don't know what the Greek call it).
One problem is bioavailability, that they may be bound by compounds in the plants. I don't have a really good answer for you about that, but fermentation probably helps (you get more from the cabbage in real sauerkraut or kimchi that you would eating it raw).
Calcium containing products:
| Food | Milligrams (mg) per serving | Percent DV* |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------:|------------:|
| Yogurt, plain, low fat, 8 ounces | 415 | 32 |
| Orange juice, calcium fortified, 1 cup | 349 | 27 |
| Mozzarella, part skim, 1.5 ounces | 333 | 26 |
| Sardines, canned in oil, with bones, 3 ounces | 325 | 25 |
| Cheddar cheese, 1.5 ounces | 307 | 24 |
| Milk, nonfat, 1 cup** | 299 | 23 |
| Soymilk, calcium fortified, 1 cup | 299 | 23 |
| Milk, reduced fat (2% milk fat), 1 cup | 293 | 23 |
| Milk, buttermilk, lowfat, 1 cup | 284 | 22 |
| Milk, whole (3.25% milk fat), 1 cup | 276 | 21 |
| Yogurt, fruit, low fat, 6 ounces | 258 | 20 |
| Tofu, firm, made with calcium sulfate, ½ cup*** | 253 | 19 |
| Salmon, pink, canned, solids with bone, 3 ounces | 181 | 14 |
| Cottage cheese, 1% milk fat, 1 cup | 138 | 11 |
| Tofu, soft, made with calcium sulfate, ½ cup*** | 138 | 11 |
| Breakfast cereals, fortified with 10% of the DV for calcium, 1 seving | 130 | 10 |
| Frozen yogurt, vanilla, soft serve, ½ cup | 103 | 8 |
| Turnip greens, fresh, boiled, ½ cup | 99 | 8 |
| Kale, fresh, cooked, 1 cup | 94 | 7 |
| Ice cream, vanilla, ½ cup | 84 | 6 |
| Chia seeds, 1 tablespoon | 76 | 6 |
| Chinese cabbage (bok choi), raw, shredded, 1 cup | 74 | 6 |
| Bread, white, 1 slice | 73 | 6 |
| Tortilla, corn, one, 6” diameter | 46 | 4 |
| Tortilla, flour, one, 6” diameter | 32 | 2 |
| Sour cream, reduced fat, 2 tablespoons | 31 | 2 |
| Bread, whole-wheat, 1 slice | 30 | 2 |
| Kale, raw, chopped, 1 cup | 24 | 2 |
| Broccoli, raw, ½ cup | 21 | 2 |
| Cream cheese, regular, 1 tablespoon | 14 | 1 |
Apart from these, there are several Calcium Supliments in the market.
Source.
Lots of them.
First, is Lactaid milk, which has the lactose-digesting enzyme lactase added to it. I believe you can purchase lactase separately and that it can be taken with lactose foods to aid in digestion.
Second is yogurt or kefir, a fermented dairy drink that has much lower lactose content due to the active bacteria. But you should check, since they're not lactose free.
The harder the cheese, the less lactase it has, so you might be okay with hard aged cheddars, parmesans, goudas, etc. over younger, creamier types.
Almond milk has calcium. As do almonds. Soymilk is well fortified.
Then there's broccoli, spinach, and other dark greens. A good spring mix salad is surprisingly high.
There are obviously plenty of calcium supplements you can purchase if you're concerned. Anecdotally (meaning I read it somewhere), look out for too much phosphoric acid, a common acidic ingredient in soda, because it's been accused of interfering with calcium absorption.
Just for curiosity, my friend growing up cured his lactose intolerance by drinking small amounts of milk every day until he "graduated" to a full glass. He didn't have a problem after that.
I use a nutritional aid, Food File, and it sits on my computer ready for me to use. There is amaranth, a grain from the Incas and a product, soy isolate, both very high in calcium. I do understand the issues with soy isolate but perhaps a related source such as okara may also have new information about nutrient values available in this food. I hope this helps luls. Sorry I put in the wrong name.
Bone stalk is one way to get calcium. I don't have a specific recipee handy, but the general idea is to simmer bones (of chicken, beef, or whatever) in water (possibly with vegetables or other flavorings), then use the resulting liquid as a base for soups or other dishes. It's especially helpful to break the bones before this process, so the nutrients inside are exposed and can be absorbed into the stock.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.966442
| 2010-07-31T00:46:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3843",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adam Nelson",
"Anders Öhrt",
"BBB",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Captain Mingo",
"Carmi",
"Davz",
"FAtBalloon",
"Iuls",
"JOHN",
"Judy",
"Nels Beckman",
"Ocaasi",
"Rob Bajorek",
"Rob Kent",
"Roland Tepp",
"Sally Charette",
"Sandeep",
"Wizard79",
"armandomiani",
"chrcoe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7643",
"jamesj",
"lindelof",
"piepi",
"sjohnston",
"twoflower",
"user18931",
"zefciu"
],
"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
}
|
3147
|
What are the herbs that "dry" the best?
Some fresh herbs seem to retain their flavor better than others when dried; for example, dried parsley has very little flavor, but dried tarragon tastes reasonably close to fresh tarragon.
Which other herbs can be dried successfully without losing too much flavor?
What do you mean by "best"?
I'd imagine he means that they retain their flavour.
Thank you CeeJayoz: I do mean retain their flavour (essence)!!
Tarragon, basil, oregano, thyme, savory, and sage are the ones that I'm most inclined to use in their dried form. Generally the more resinous and strongly scented they are fresh, the better they'll be in dry form.
Rosemary will hold its flavor dry but unless you're going to grind the dry product it's like eating pine needles. I prefer fresh rosemary instead.
From my experience, basil is one of the worst. I prefer to keep it in the freezer or cook it as pesto.
Grinding rosemary isn't that big a deal, I just pour some into the palm of one hand and then rub it with the other palm.
Lemongrass is a terrific-yielding herb that grows in abundance and doesn't take up much room when drying. Basically chop at the stock, wrap with rope and hang upside down in your basement (as long as it's dry down there). It's dried uses are mostly for broths unless you ground it.
I have had success with drying Sage, by hanging it by picking from the stem, hanging upside down for a month or so in a warm dry place and then picking the leaves and putting in a jar.
It seemed to dry well (without mould) and retain a lot of flavour when used.
I prefer to use dried oregano and bay leaves, almost everything else is nicer fresh.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.967122
| 2010-07-25T01:47:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3147",
"authors": [
"AttilaNYC",
"Benjol",
"Lily Ballard",
"Pops",
"ceejayoz",
"dxb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5967",
"masarah",
"mouviciel",
"pro",
"user15127",
"wm_eddie"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3745
|
Is there a good, clean way to pit black olives?
I wanted to pit a black olive, like a Kalamata, and retain the shape - is there a good clean way to take the pit out?
Two Options which work for both olives and cherries:
Use a drinking straw and push through one end until you hit the pit and keep pushing until the pit comes out.
Use a large paper clip partially opened so that the end can be used for inserting and pushing the pit through.
i've heard that cherry pitters work. (like this one: http://tinyurl.com/37rzuab)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.967406
| 2010-07-30T02:05:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3745",
"authors": [
"MitHof",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6878",
"jledbetter",
"user179700"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14847
|
What can I do with paprika jelly?
I've made paprika jelly before (combined with raspberry flavour), and I quite like the novel flavour. It kind of reminds me of chili chocolate, but more water based - in a sorbet over ice cream kind of way. I don't think I would eat it by itself though, as it didn't feel like it could hold up on its own. My question is if anyone has any ideas for how to combine it, or use it in a dish/complete meal?
Some ideas I have are:
An inbetween dish to clear the palate - I found that the spiciness of the paprika and the watery-ness of the jelly was good in clearing the palate of meaty tastes
Some savoury jelly, like on the top of pate
I don't know the specific characteristics of this particular jelly, but I've had a number of hot pepper jellies that go very well on sandwiches (fried eggs, ham, etc.) I've also seen recommendations to mix them with cream cheese as a dip or spread.
You could try a gourmet grilled cheese sandwich! If it's very sweet, you could combine it with a more savory cheese and perhaps a fruit like fig. It reminds me of something the patron saint of grilled cheese would use on her blog: http://www.grilledcheesesocial.com/.
This would probably be good as an ingredient in a barbecue sauce, assuming the jelly will mix into the other components.
I should like to try that with Lamb Chops.
It sounds like a good layer in a terrine or mousse to me, or you could make a cold pie and pour in the jelly as in a British Pork Pie.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.967496
| 2011-05-16T20:25:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14847",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Joseph Keller",
"VirtualJMills",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user31299"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10020
|
How to stop cupcakes from collapsing?
I made two kinds of cupcakes recently from Who You Callin' Cupcake? and both of them collapsed in the center.
The cupcake that collapsed the most was the Devil's Food Cupcake. This contained:
all-purpose flour
sugar
cocoa powder
baking soda
salt
canola oil
vinegar
vanilla
hot coffee
I baked them in a dark cupcake pan with white paper liners. Why did this collapse and how can I stop this?
Did it seem done in the center? Collapsing and done vs. collapsing and wet have different reasons.
One strong possibility is that the recipe is overleavened, which will cause it to blow up fast and then collapse. BakeWise (by Shirley Corriher) recommends 1 teaspoon baking powder or 1/4 teaspoon baking soda per cup of flour as a guideline. If your recipe is much beyond that, suspect that is the issue.
This can be especially true depending on your altitude. Most recipes are written from sea level, but as the altitude increases, the atmospheric pressure decreases, so less leavening is needed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.967659
| 2010-12-12T03:00:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10020",
"authors": [
"Annie Wojtyla",
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"FoodTasted",
"Woopdaritis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50263",
"kamera sistemleri",
"sandeep arron",
"stevemarvell"
],
"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
}
|
63793
|
I didn't put the lid on my slow cooker(crockpot) for first hour of beef stew. Will it still be safe to eat?
I didn't put the lid on the slow cooker (crockpot) properly for first hour of beef stew. It's on high now with the lid on, will it still be safe to eat?
You can always use a meat thermometer to ensure the beef is fully cooked if you have any concerns.
It'll probably be fine. An hour isn't very long and I am willing to bet your food was getting hot anyway even if it wasn't getting as hot as quickly for the first hour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.967808
| 2015-11-24T14:32:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63793",
"authors": [
"Andrew Friedberg",
"Chloe Verity",
"Glenn",
"Keratin Treatment NYC",
"Michael McGriff",
"Mohammad Ashwak",
"RengadeRevenge TheBest",
"Richard O'Brien",
"brittney farrell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29401",
"splinter 1959"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63813
|
Whoops- put turkey chili in the crockpot on warm all day. Is it safe once cooked?
I just called home & hubby said the chili was still raw when he got home . He turned it up to high and is making something else for tonights dinner. He did not put in thermometer before turning it up.
Is this safe to eat once cooked through? So mad at myself to toss it but don't want to risk getting us sick. Thanks for advice!
Sorry, but no. Raw meat at near room temp all day is a high risk of food poisoning -- even if you kill any bacteria, there's still the toxins that would have been generated in that time.
Also, this is a duplicate question. I would check out the following:http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19232/used-warm-setting-by-accident
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28809/put-pork-in-crock-pot-and-accidentally-set-to-warm/28817#28817
and more importantly:
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/tags/food-safety/info
Unless you can find out what "warm" exactly means, in degrees F/C and with a comparable amount of liquid, assume NOT safe.
In short, as you can't guarantee that the slowcooker brought the food to 140F quick enough and kept it above that, it's a dangerous gamble. 2 total cumulative hours between 40F and 140F is what is considered safe.
Turkey should be 165 degrees F.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.967904
| 2015-11-24T23:51:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63813",
"authors": [
"Ali Brady",
"Joe",
"No Name",
"Rachelle Eberle",
"Richard Vyborny",
"Spidey Bri",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mbowles",
"rackandboneman",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74409
|
How to make adjust a recipe for red velvet cake when increasing the quantity?
If I'm quadrupling the recipe for a red velvet cake do I still add four times the baking soda and powder?
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/54693/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/11362/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/10387/67
Are you making one giant cake or are you making something smaller? Essentially, is there a reason you can't just make four separate batches?
I know some disagree, but I always have learned that recipes can start breaking down if more than doubling or halving. Ratios can start changing and need adjusted, and then there is the cooking time components. If I have a recipe I am happy with, and I want to greatly increase it, I normally will instead make multiple instances of the base recipe. If I want to make a cake recipe times 4 or times 6 for a large event for instance, I would instead make 4 or 6 instances and build the larger cake from them rather than risk disaster making a single large cake that did not come out right. If I had a bread recipe I like, but wanted to use it for an event, I would not try to make a loaf 6 times as large, I would make 6 loafs, and so on.
Here is a discussion that gets into some of the issues of what can go wrong when trying to scale recipes and why for instance someone making a wedding cake does not make one giant cake, they make a bunch of smaller ones and build that cake. http://kitchenscience.sci-toys.com/scaling
Agreed -- although it's easier for decorating to make a really tall (3" high) layer and tort it ... it's way easier to bake thinner layers (as they won't take 2 hrs to set, or risk burning w/ a liquid center)
Yes you would multiple each ingredient by 4
Cook time you don't just multiply by 4
In only one pan it will need to cook longer - maybe 20% ??
You will need to monitor for when it is done
If you are splitting in 4 pans then you can use the recipe cook time
4x the recipe and 20% longer? That's very "wing it" IMHO.
@Stephie Yes it is a wing it.
The question doesn't ask anything about baking time.
@Catija I know. Based the the question figured the OP need help there also.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.968044
| 2016-09-30T15:45:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74409",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50247
|
Is a smoked pork shoulder a suitable substitute for ham hocks?
In reference to a recipe for ham hocks and beans, can I use smoked pork shoulder instead of ham hocks and still get a good result? What will be the difference in end product, if any?
Um... one is from the leg/feet and the other is from the shoulder. Are you asking if they can be used interchangeably?
Yes. I saw a recipe for ham hocks and beans I'd like to make.
I modified the question to be a little clearer with what I think you're asking, feel free to edit it again if it doesn't match.
Ham hocks are used to add a variety of properties to beans as well as other vegetable dishes like greens and stews. Ham hocks predominantly add smoky flavor and salt. In dishes where the ham is cooked for a prolonged period with water you also get an improved mouth-feel from gelatin that dissolves into the stew. Aged hams also add the distinct flavors that accumulate from the curing salts and the aging process.
Using a smoked shoulder will provide the smoky flavor as well as some gelatin (provided you use a prolonged cooking method) but you may need to increase the amount of salt you use and you will be missing some of the "ham-y" flavor that you get from using a real aged ham hock.
Other options include bacon (especially dry-cured), ham base, or bouillon. I have gotten a few free prosciutto hocks from the local deli (they were just going to throw it away) that added great ham flavor but no smokiness.
Yes, you can, and you should get pretty good results.
You won't get as much gelatin effect from collagen (read that unctuousness), but you'll get some. The flavor will be fine. Bacon is a very common substitution as well, but with that you'd get no collagen.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.968232
| 2014-12-01T21:18:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50247",
"authors": [
"Beverly Durham",
"Danielle Deady",
"Dawn Sweeney",
"Herb",
"John Kelly",
"Luba Bauer",
"Ryan Lekan",
"SuperViewy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29683",
"odii michael",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47326
|
When to add vanilla beans to a sauce?
I would like to make a simple vanilla sauce for my cake.
So far, my idea is to cook a sweet cream pudding (using a pudding mix from a bag), and then enrich it with ground vanilla beans.
At what stage should I add the vanilla so that it releases the most flavour?
When the milk is hot, but before adding the pudding powder mix?
Once the pudding is prepared, but still hot?
Once the pudding cools down?
In general, under which conditions do vanilla beans release most of their taste? When cooked, when put in a hot liquid, or when put in a cold environment?
Traditionally, for almost all of my recipes, the vanilla is added as soon as you remove the pot from the heat. You definitely want the heat to meld the vanilla flavor with the fats, but you don't want to cook it.
I would highly recommend splitting the bean lengthwise and either adding them that way to allow milk access to the flavorful seeds, or simply add the seeds alone. I'd opt for the former, and fish out the husks after the sauce/pudding has cooled.
Or, as you say, use ground vanilla bean as-is and you're all set.
If using vanilla pods, add the empty pods straight away to the milk, then the vanilla seeds when removing from heat.
Slice bean in half. Use knife blade to scrape seeds out of bean. Scrape seeds from blade into milk as you are heating. Added bonus: toss scraped vanilla pods into a bowl of sugar to create vanilla sugar. Best flavor release of vanilla into a fat-based mixture is achieved during heating.
That means I will be cooking the beans at some stage.. is that okay?
@Netismine My comment means that you will add the seeds of the vanilla pod to the liquid as it is heating. You could also toss in the bean, but be sure to remove it before your next step.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.968404
| 2014-09-22T13:35:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47326",
"authors": [
"Brian H",
"Charles Windebank",
"Ivy Garbowitz",
"Kristi McGregor",
"Lena A-M",
"Marie Burman",
"algiogia",
"avinger avinger",
"charles hanrahan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27277",
"moscafj",
"srgb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40453
|
Why will my dense, concentrated stock not solidify to jelly?
I boiled all the bones from a roe deer for stock and got about four litres all of which was solid when refrigerated. I took half of it and left it in a pan in the bottom over of an Aga for two days to gently evaporate and become more dense. The result turns out to be a great colour and smell, but will it doesn't solidify. Why? The remainder, though less concentrated will not come out of the jug even if tipped upside down.
I think prolonged heating can break down gelatin based gels, but I was unable to find any credible references...
An Aga: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGA_cooker
Sounds like the temp of the Aga was a bit low. From the GMIA Gelatin Manual (page 11):
As a dry powder, gelatin is very stable, and can be stored in air tight containers for years with no loss in quality. Gelatin in solution, or soaking in water, should be left in this state only if kept very cold, or hot enough to destroy or inhibit bacterial growth.
The nature of the organisms which grow in gelatin solutions and gels depends upon a number of factors. The pH has a most important influence. At pH values less than 4, bacterial growth is suppressed, while yeasts and molds grow abundantly. Above pH 5, proteolytic bacteria can become active.
There are two things I can suggest: 1) Try breaking the bones up a bit, likely with a tenderizer or a hammer, and 2) the cartilage is where most of the gelatin comes from when making stock.
Hope this helps.
I think it was the salt content of the reduction? I guess salt interferes with gelatinisation of starch. I googled it and this is the best I can do:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11754347
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.968827
| 2013-12-21T12:28:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40453",
"authors": [
"Bhuneshwar mahto",
"Francis Ondiek",
"Jozef DiMaio-Zaffino",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SpoonMeiser",
"Steve Zodiac",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94078",
"jackielyn paje",
"joe finn",
"spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16255
|
Would ground "popcorn meal" differ from regular corn meal?
Purely a theoretical question I'm afraid - I haven't experimented (yet). If you take popped popcorn and grind it to a flour, would the result be similar to cornmeal? One difference, I imagine, is that it is in principle ready to eat, as opposed to regular cornmeal which still needs to be cooked to denature the proteins.
Are there things you could achieve with this "popcorn meal" that don't work with regular cornmeal? For example, what would you get if you used this for making polenta? Could you make a "raw polenta" that doesn't require much cooking?
Can't saw what the difference would be, but popcorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popcorn) is a different plant (subspecies) from sweet corn.
Do you mean drying and grinding popped pop corn or grinding raw kernels. Assuming the former: You could probably effectively create the same thing by grinding corn flakes into a powder.
@Tremmors : edited the post to clarify that it is indeed popped popcorn that I'm talking about.
Interesting question. so I pulled out a hot air popper (you wouldn't want to use a oil popper to try this.) and put some popped dry corn into a food process and let-her-rip. I wouldn't call the results "masa" but it might be usable for an ingredient in a breading.
I call your attention to the book "POPCORN". It has a nice collection of recipes which include popcorn, and in no case does the author suggest reducing popcorn to corn meal, so I suspect the answer is, "Yes, ground popcorn meal would differ from ground corn."
If you took popped corn, dried it out and ground it up; I have a feeling you would end up with something very close to masa de maiz. You'd probably end up with some random kernel hulls thrown in there giving you a really odd texture. Masa is a flour/meal produced by drying out and grinding nixtamalized corn. Basically the raw corn is cooked in an alkalai solution until it splits and gelatinizes. That is either made directly into a dough (for any number of things) or is dried and ground into a shelf stable corn meal like substance (Masa de maiz). Masa can be re-hydrated back into dough months later.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.968998
| 2011-07-18T18:57:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16255",
"authors": [
"Anonymous",
"Erik P.",
"Konstantinos",
"Mag",
"Maritza",
"Ray",
"RoflcoptrException",
"Tremmors",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6563"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14980
|
Sticky corn starch croquette
I'm having a coeliac over for dinner and I've made croquettes from corn starch. I have a recipe with 100gr corn starch and 700ml liquid. That works fine. But when forming the croquette, the batter will stick to my hands... a lot.
Is there a way to prevent this from happening?
Nice edit Erik... :)
It's the water in your skin more so than anything else that makes it stick to your hands; generally the most effective way to prevent any kind of water-based dough or batter from sticking to your hands is by greasing them. Some of the fat might get into the dough, but not really enough to make a difference.
Any kind of fat will do. Vegetable oil is the economical choice but margarine or shortening will coat the hands much more effectively.
If you've got gloves then it's even easier, just spray them generously with cooking spray before you put them on and start to work the dough.
I would normally suggest covering your hands in a bit of flour, but that sort of defeats the purpose of cooking gluten-free. Maybe you can get the same effect by covering your hands with a bit of corn starch.
If you're going to then be dipping it in an egg wash, and then breadcrumbs (well, maybe not bread crumbs) before frying, I'd go with this method over using oil or grease. The powder will bind to any free moisture in your hands. If you're using a disher to size the croquettes, you could also scoop and then drop it in cornstarch to get extra starch on the outside.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.969202
| 2011-05-22T20:57:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14980",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32584
|
How do I roast eggplants without a gas stove?
There is an Indian dish that requires roasting eggplants on high heat directly on a gas stove until charred, like this:
Here's a recipe for the dish. Everything else is fine but I do not have a flame top stove, instead I have one with an electrical top. I would really appreciate any ideas to help me with roasting the eggplant. I have an oven but not a grill/barbecue.
You have several options:
Use the the broiler (or grill, as they say in the UK).
Use a wok ring or similar to suspend the eggplant above your electric element. Set the element to its highest setting, cooking the eggplant by infrared. It just may take longer than the gas element would have. If you don't have a wok ring, you can use aluminum foil crushed to improvise an eggplant stand.
Buy a small hibachi and use it—the original recipe is designed for a grill (in the US sense, barbecue in the UK parlance).
Thanks for your help. I used a pan instead of a grill and it worked the same. However, I used low setting instead of high.
You can use the same technique for roasting other veggies too. Bell peppers, tomatoes, chilies, etc.
you can also roast it on cast iron shallow pan, will give the best results. But firstly at low settings then to medium settings.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.969347
| 2013-03-10T23:59:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32584",
"authors": [
"Divi",
"Preston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34974
|
Stick wafer sticks to mudcake
How can I stick chocolate wafer sticks like this:
on a mudcake to get this result:
Coat the outside of the cake with a moderate layer of icing to bind the stick cookies. This is analogous to the mortar behind facade bricks in building a wall.
You could also put a drop of icing underneath the bottom, but that probably is not necessary.
Update: I just noticed in the photo you can actually see some of the icing between the cookies, showing this is exactly how the show case cake in the photo was done.
Just to clarify do you mean royal icing or butter cream?
Either would work. Royal icing will stand up for longer. Buttercream (depending on which variety you use) should work fine for at least the first showing, assuming you keep the cake reasonably cool. Of course, buttercream will taste far better.
Thanks, would icing work on fondant too? I just finished fondanting the cake with green
I imagine you could spread icing as a layer on top of the fondant, just to bind the cookies, yes. To be neater, you might spackle each cookie, and stick it on, then, instead of trying to spread a binding layer on top of the fondant. This is probably a job for royal icing if you don't have a better icing already made.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.969474
| 2013-06-27T11:34:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34974",
"authors": [
"Alexander Geneva Tembo",
"Divi",
"Kennan",
"LilyLady",
"Lisa Anthony",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"UltraInfinityUser",
"Valerie Dixon",
"breversa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89787"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25598
|
How to make chocolate cups with swirls?
Can someone please help me with tips to make chocolate cups with swirly designs. Something like this. I've tried painting the inside of a cup with white chocolate first and letting it set. Once set, I tried painting it with dark chocolate. But somehow, they end up getting mixed and it just comes up as a normal dark chocolate cup.
I am very surprised to see that you rolled back an edit. It didn't change the meaning of your question, but including the picture in the body made it more likely that somebody will help you, and removing the unnecessary last sentence is standard practice across the network. Did you have any pressing reason to reject the change?
Sorry, I didn't mean to do it. I went into edit and somehow it ended up rolling it back. I'll fix it soon-ish. But thanks a lot for that. It was a very good suggestion.
Divi, what have you tried so far?
I've tried painting the inside of a cup with white chocolate first and letting it set. Once set, I tried painting it with dark chocolate. But somehow, they end up getting mixed and it just comes up as a normal dark chocolate cup.
I really hope whoever down voted me would tell me what's wrong with my question, so I don't do it again. Its unfair to be down voted and not know the reason for it.
It probably got voted down because you didn't explain what you'd tried, especially because you can find general instructions online, so, as the text says when you hover over the downvote button, your question didn't show research effort, and was a bit unclear.
I wasn't the one who voted down, but thanks for editing. It's always best to edit things into the question when people ask for clarification in the comments.
Thanks anyways. It helps me to form good questions from now on :)
You can try to make chocolate cups in general by "painting" a small dish/cup with chocolate, and letting it set in the fridge. If you want tempered chocolate, there are techniques for that.
But in any case, you've got to consider that different chocolates have different heating/cooling rates, so mixing chocolates with different fat contents (like milk vs dark), or from different manufacturers will (pardon the pun) fudge your calculations a bit as far as how hot/cool the chocolate needs to be. And white chocolate is an entirely different beast, so it has its own melting/setting points to consider as well.
That's exactly what I tried to do but it failed.
+1 thanks for the tip. Will google some more about that.
Your problem is probably the temperature of the chocolate. As you stated, the chocolates get mixed. That wouldn't happen if the temperature of the chocolate was lower.
Try tempering the chocolate, as MandisaW suggests, before mixing the white chocolate in.
Have you tried making the cups of dark chocolate, then painting the white chocolate stripes on the outside after? (you might need to paint several layers depending on how thick it is)
If the chocolate is mixing, then the second layer is remelting the first layer - this might be because of relative melting points, so the temperature needed to keep the second layer liquid is just too much higher than the melting point of the first, or it might be because of volume - adding a thick layer over a thinner is much more likely to melt because a thicker layer just has more heat.
So you can switch the order (first the cup, then the stripes) or the layer (paint the cup with the dark and the second layer is white, or the reverse of what you tried) to try and fix the problem mechanically.
Other things you might try include making the whole cup much colder between layers so that the second coat cools faster and doesn't have as much extra heat to melt the first, or just painting on many very thin layers (each layer would then have less heat to waste, cool faster, and give you more control over the design and thickness). This would be more work, though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.969734
| 2012-08-11T02:38:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25598",
"authors": [
"Back Off",
"Brooks Yeager",
"Carol",
"Cascabel",
"Divi",
"Eve Eisenstein Cohen",
"Katie",
"KatieK",
"Kevin Wright",
"ManRow",
"Natalie",
"Pally Roofing spam",
"SDMark",
"Todd Hancock",
"carly9523",
"davina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58686",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40627
|
How to prolong the life of chillies in a refrigerator?
Last week I bought a packet of green chilli from an Asian store, the really hot ones. I only used 5 of those and had about 20-25 still left in the little plastic bag (with holes). I just kept it refrigerated but within 4 days, there was mold growing on the stem of the chillies. So, I took the stem off and froze the rest. But then I read that the chilli goes mushy in the freezer.
What can I do to prolong the shelf life of chilli so they stay fresh for longer in the refrigerator (but not frozen)?
I don't understand the distinction you are making between "chili" and "chillies." Is this something other than capsicum chili peppers of some sort?
@SAJ14SAJ: Sorry, maybe I didn't explain myself correctly. But its not the cooked chili, which I think is Mexican or South American. Its just the fresh green chillies that the question is referring to.
I asked the grocer at the Asian store and she gave me a great tip. She said that its the stem that is the main problem and removing it before refrigerating would help keep the chillis fresh for longer. So, she asked me to:
Wash the chillies and let them air dry or pat dry with a paper towel.
Gently pull out the stem from the chillies but not to use a knife. A gentle pull should be enough to pluck out the entire stem.
Discard any spoiled looking chillies so that they don't affect the rest of the chillies.
Store them in an air tight bag or container in the refrigerator.
Per Still Tasty, the shelf life of chili peppers is only going to be about a week. You were probably simply unlucky in having them turn more quickly than that.
In general, this type of chili is not eaten raw, and featured for its texture, so freezing should in fact be a very good option, despite slight degradation in texture that may occur.
Depending on your planned use, you may also consider making refrigerator pickles which will allow them to last several weeks or more refrigerated, but will give them of course and acidic and pickled flavor.
+1 Chili peppers, especially vere hot ones, are nearly always used finely minced, so freezing them is perfect - keeps them fresh, they're easy to chop while frozen, and yes, their texture changes, but it doesn't matter because they are minced and the texture is undetectable in the final product.
I've had good luck wrapping them in a paper towel, then putting the towel in an open plastic bag.
They'll end up drying out slightly with time, but it'll reduce the liklihood of them molding.
If you're going to be using them whole, where you drop a few into a dish but don't actually chop them up, this works very well.
If you're going to be chopping them up, the freezing works well, too. (my neighbor just tosses 'em in the freezer in a zip-top bag, and pulls them out as he needs them ... generally just takes scissors to 'em while they're still frozen for the smaller ones like thai bird peppers)
We normally remove the stems from the chillies before storing them in the refrigerator. This certainly helps prolonging the shelf life.
As these kind of chillies are essentially for the flavouring/spicing and not for eating as a "vegetable", it is also a common habit to grind them into a paste (preferably with a little salt) and storing this paste in the fridge - this practically lasts forever...and also occupies a lot lesser space... ! !
I just keep my chillies and peppers and capsicum loose in the crisper, but not in freezer bags or any bags at all for they sweat in the bags. Just leave them loose and they last several weeks in the fridge even on a shelf.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.970083
| 2013-12-27T22:41:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40627",
"authors": [
"Divi",
"JNB",
"John the Ripper",
"Karla Sorg",
"Kyle",
"Norma J F Harrison",
"Ron",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shivam Garg",
"StillLearning",
"SweetsByVal",
"Tara",
"Y-B Cause",
"bridgemnc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94681",
"kaixokkiten",
"user94567"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42713
|
How to cook chicken legs more evenly?
I have had a look at lots of recipes for yoghurt and spice based marinated chicken legs. They are almost all similar with little variations. I skin, slit and marinate the chicken overnight and cook it in a fan forced oven at 180 degrees and turn and baste with the marinade every 15-20 minutes.
The problem that I am facing is that the chicken legs take more than an hour to cook and even then there is a little bit on the inside that looks uncooked. If I cook it any longer, the outside is very dry.
I had a look at How long and at what temperature do the various parts of a chicken need to be cooked?, but it doesn't help.
Can someone provide any usefull tips?
Can you describe "looks undercooked" in more detail? After an hour at those temperatures, especially with convection, it is highly unlikely that the legs truly are undercooked. Your best bet, of course, would be to check them with an instant read thermometer if you can, although that is tricky with legs since it is hard to get a center temperature without hitting the bone.
It looks pink and the texture of the meat looks a bit undercooked, like its still raw
Are you starting it from frozen? Have you tested your oven temperature with an oven thermometer?
No, they're not frozen, just refrigerated. No I don't have an oven thermometer.
I suggest checking your oven calibration, then/
Was that 180 degrees FAHRENHEIT?!!
I think opening the oven door every 15-20 minutes is causing the oven to loose a lot of heat very frequently, therefore the process becomes even more prolonged. Try these steps:
1) Make minimum of 3 slits diagonally.
2) Cover the chickens with foil in the first 15-20 minutes of its cooking time to creat and retain steam inside the meat and then uncover and continue with your process.
3) Baste less frequently to maintain the oven heat.
Are you able to provide a diagram to show where the 3 slots would be?
It sounds like you are running the oven at 180°F AND trying to make the chicken legs reach the same temperature (per the link guide). This will indeed take a very long time.
Either Way, try these modifications:
Run the oven at a higher temperature (250°F or higher)
Basting tends to cool down the meat. If you are using a Yogurt based marinade, then try letting the Yogurt do the gentle buffering of the heat.
Finally, a good digital in-oven thermometer for measuring the internal temperature can give you great feedback before the meal is botched.
180 is probably a reference to 180C not F. 15-20 minutes at 180F would barely warm chicken.
@waxeagle OP says baste every 15-20 and after 1hr it's still undercooked. That's consistent with 180°f somewhat near boiling temperatures. Though it's possible that at 180°C (~350°F) chicken pieces would take longer than 1hr.
Its definitely not fahrenheit. Could it be to do with the size of the chicken legs? Or am I not slitting it enough?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.970429
| 2014-03-13T00:20:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42713",
"authors": [
"Co spam",
"Divi",
"Lili S",
"MandoMando",
"MyDaftQuestions",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sienbay",
"Spammer",
"Tristan",
"commie trivial",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99878",
"wax eagle"
],
"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
}
|
3797
|
Whipped cream without a mixer?
Is it possible to make whipped cream without a power mixer? How? Can it be made with a stick blender?
I once tried with a power drill and a fork. Predictable results ensued - none of them being whipped cream...
Whipped cream was made for centuries before the mixer was invented. :)
You can do it with simply a balloon whisk. Things that may help though:
Very cold cream (not freezing)
Very cold bowl and whisk (put them in the freezer for 20 minutes prior to using)
Copper bowl
The process is simply to start slow until you see bubbles form, then speed up until you see the whisk begin to leave trails in the cream, then go full speed ahead until just before it starts to look soft and billowy. At this point you can add your sugar and continue whipping until thickens and firms up to form soft peaks.
Advice: Buy a hand-mixer at least! :)
Update - Yes you can whip it with a stick blender. I would be careful to avoid over- whipping with this method though. It might be easy to over-do it, and you'll start to make butter.
Agreed, a cheap hand mixer costs around $15 CAD where I live. I think it's a cost that's well worth it, because hand mixing whipped cream is no fun, trust me, my hand almost fell off ;-)
@Nathan Koop: not to mention egg whites.
If you can't whip cream by hand you need to get fit! Seriously, it's not hard. Use a plastic container or jar and shake it for about 30 seconds. Don't try and do too much at once, say 50ml in a 250ml pottle. It has a much smoother texture this way, nicer than using any type of machine or siphon etc
A copper bowl won't help with cream. It helps with egg whites, because copper ions bind to the proteins in egg white. The foam in cream is fat-based, not protein-based, and copper ions don't do anything there.
Put cream in a small plastic bag. Fill with air, twist to close. Shake.
I've never heard this one. How long does it take?
1 minute maybe.
I've made it once by hand, with a whisk. Like others, I had a sore wrist afterwards.
I do it all the time with a cheap stick blender because I'm lazy. I especially like it for making a small amount. I try to use a bowl which is about as wide as it is deep - deep enough to keep the cream from spilling, wide enough to move the stick blender around.
The problem I've found with using the stick blender is that once the cream starts to thicken, you have to be extra-careful to stir the cream around. The blender will happily give you a dollop of whipped cream in the middle of a bowl of mostly runny stuff. So every few seconds I shake off the cream that's stuck to the blender and stir the whole bowl a bit.
I have never had problems by using a whisk. Of course, I use a proper whisk (classic baloon shape, lots of bendy wires) and a half-spherical bowl. "Designer" whisks in strange shapes or stiff whisks with plastic "wires" are next to unusable for whipping.
(responding to the update)
Yes, it can be made with a stick blender, I had a roommate who used to do it all the time.
He had a tall, narrow container, not that that much wider than the paddle on the blender, and he'd just stick the blender in, move it around a bit, and it'd be done pretty quickly.
(it's been 10+ years, so I don't remember the exact time.)
Come to think of it ... I can't remember him using that blender for anything other than whipped cream.
Another option is to put the cream in a well-sealed jar (i.e. a mason jar) and shake it up and down into it reaches the desired consistency. There is a risk of over-shaking and ending up with fresh butter, but if you're paying attention you should be safe. It takes a few minutes and some arm strength, but it's not too bad.
Did it this way a couple weeks ago when I couldn't find a whisk. Surprised how easy it was. With good cream, it goes pretty quick.
It is possible with a whisk or fork, but your arm might fall off before it thickens up :)
Using a cold bowl and utensils (put it in freezer for a little while first) will help.
You can use a pressurized nitrous oxide dispenser. They're a little pricey for casual home use, though.
Do you have a food processor? Whipping cream in my trusty Cuisinart is easy-peasy. Put on the regular blade, pour in some cold heavy cream, turn it on for 20-30 seconds, et voila!
Alternatively, you can use a whip cream siphon.
I saw it done on a program called "New Scandinavian Cooking! The Swedish chef made whipped cream and fresh strawberries on top of a glazier by placing whipping cream and sugar in a zip lock bag blowing air into the bag then sealing it then after shaking and squishing the bag for a few minutes...Voila" whipped cream!!!
Coincidentally, I saw this video a couple weeks ago that altered my world: you can make it in a cocktail shaker, using the spring from a bar strainer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5t3hZfMQiU
I add powdered sugar and vanilla extract to my homemade whipped cream.
The starch within the granulated sugar stiffens the cream to "stand alone" and also the granulated sugar is ok enough to prevent the cream from feeling "grainy".
Some cooks use a small little bit of nonflavoured gelatin to assist the cream hold its form for a extended period. However I do not just like the style it imparts to the cream. I take advantage of one tablespoon of sugar and a couple of teaspoons vanilla per cup of "Heavy Whipping Cream". I use "Extra significant Cream" since it contains more solids and whips up thicker.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.970743
| 2010-07-30T16:52:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3797",
"authors": [
"Anders Rask",
"AndrewStevens",
"BDSC food comp winner",
"Benjol",
"Callithumpian",
"Cascabel",
"DwB",
"Esben Skov Pedersen",
"James Livingston",
"Jessica Brown",
"Jon Hess",
"Lucamug",
"Muaz Khan",
"Nathan Koop",
"SamAlterman",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"cmhughes",
"cooksdelight",
"fred",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79",
"mwd",
"oven",
"rumtscho",
"toing_toing",
"user54268"
],
"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
}
|
23037
|
How long & at what temp do I cook stuffed pork sirloin roast?
I have a supermarket, stuffed pork sirloin roast. I want to make it today. It wieghs 2.80# How long and at what temp do I cook it, and should it be covered or uncovered? I've never made one of these before, and am unfamiliar with how to prepare roasts, so I have to know every little detail.
"Every little detail" is very simple - get a meat thermometer. I am sure other people will be able to give you guesses, but depending on the shape of the meat, the type of your oven, and the type of vessel you are cooking it in, they can be very far off.
Hi Leah, this appears to be more of a recipe request than anything else. I would recommend searching the internet or reading the label of the roast for instructions on how to cook it (most of the prepackaged ones have a label on the side with one). We don't really answer recipe requests since they are not constructive, but if you run into any problems cooking up your roast come back and ask and the community will surely be able to help.
I have a recipe for stuffed pork loin that I have made using anything from a 3 to 6 pound loin. It's been butterflied, pounded flat, stuffing spread on, then rolled tight & tied with twine.
I bake it for 20 minutes at 475 degrees F, then for an additional 30 to 40 minutes at 325 degrees F, whether the roast is 3 pounds or 6 pounds, and then I just check with a meat thermometer to be sure the internal temp is where I want it.
Depends on what the stuffing is: if it's minced meat you'll have to cook it through to 70C; unfortunately that's a temperature that will mean the pork is horribly overcooked. Best way would be to pasteurise it at a lower temperature (57-60C) sous vide and then brown afterwards but obviously that's dependant on you having the right equipment.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.971225
| 2012-04-15T13:16:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23037",
"authors": [
"Barbara Herman",
"David L",
"Jenna Jo",
"Jerryf",
"Matt",
"Methalous",
"Rycochet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57052",
"mfg",
"rumtscho",
"user53748"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24348
|
Why is mixing good whiskey with cola/ginger ale frowned upon?
I ordered a Jameson and ginger ale at a pub the other night and my brother asked me why I wasn't ordering it neat or on the rocks, since it was "pretty good" whiskey. Right now I'm having some good Kentucky bourbon (Willet) with Reed's ginger ale. Is this "wrong"? Does it matter if the ginger ale is good?
I know that this could be considered an opinion question by some but I'm asking if serious whiskey buffs would scoff at this or if they have done so in any specific literature. You know...collectors, bartenders, distillers, etc. What is the reasoning behind the common practice of discouraging mixing good or better whiskeys?
In practice, Reed's is probably too strong a ginger ale to use as mixer as it might easily not only over power, but clash in flavor. That, though, is only speculation; like cos says, if it rates good to you, and you "know what you're missing", that's your right
I have to agree with the close votes and flags on this question; it's loaded with vague/ambiguous/subjective phrases like "good", "wrong", and "serious whiskey buffs". If you can source this advice as a notable claim - as opposed to something that your brother or "whiskey buffs" said - and tighten up some of the wording so that it sounds less like a poll, then the community and/or mods might consider reopening it.
Jameson with ginger ale is promoted by the distillery themselves. At a new pub opening recently, there were marketing offers from the pub backed by distillery on the same. https://www.jamesonwhiskey.com/in/drinks/jameson-ginger-and-lime
It is about the same thing as putting A-1 on prime rib. Mixers, like cola or ginger ale, tend to mask the flavors of the whiskey, something which is understandable for an 'inferior' brand but is thought of as 'taboo' for a 'fine' blend. The drink that results from mixing your fine whiskey with the mixers is (roughly) 'the same' as if you had mixed a cheaper blend, having concealed the subtleties that aging and craftsmanship have worked to create.
That said...if you like it, it is your drink.
I agree that the taste is probably roughly the same and I understand the taboo. Sometimes I'm just in the mood for a whiskey and ginger ale and I would rather drink better quality whiskey than cheaper stuff, which I imagine is more harmful to my health.
When dealing with commercial whiskeys I doubt that there is any real difference in the impact to your health. However, one difference that I have experienced is that the top shelf whiskey does give less of a hangover.
Well, yes, mixing good whiskey with your average soft drink is going to be a waste of good whiskey, since it's likely to destroy any subtlety in the flavor.
With that said, Jameson is not really a "good" whiskey. It's middle-shelf, and I like it, personally - I wouldn't mix it with cola because I'm not a huge fan of mixing whiskey with cola, but it's not a sin like mixing a single malt whisky would be. I often mix it with coffee myself.
So the answer is that yes, serious whiskey buffs would never mix "good" whiskey with anything except a little water (preferably from the same source the distillery gets their water from). But if it costs less than $30 a bottle it's probably fine.
EDIT: as to your second question, it actually might matter if the soda was "good" too, but I think you'd have to ask the individual about that.
If you want to get the best out of your expensive bottles of whisky, drink them without mixers like soda water, cola, or fruit juice. There are plenty of fantastic cocktails (even some inventive ones using young peated malts to imbue smokiness in the drink) out there, but you’re better off using blends or inexpensive malts for this as well. The quality improvement in the cocktail from using expensive whisky is just not going to offset the massive increase in price. You won’t be able to taste the fine nuances of a single-malt, and so you’ll end up “wasting” the money you spent on that nice bottle.
http://scotchnoob.com/2011/03/09/water-ice-or-neat/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.971420
| 2012-06-10T23:48:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24348",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Anshu Prateek",
"Bob H",
"Cos Callis",
"Igor Raush",
"Margaret D",
"Meat Pounder",
"Rockfish",
"Smellycat ",
"dylam",
"f.thorpe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"mfg",
"regularmike",
"user55413",
"user554505"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28744
|
What are the alternatives to fresh apple juice?
My doctor has told me to drink fresh apple juice in the morning.
I am finding it difficult to drink fresh fruit juice daily.
Is there anything available in the market which I can keep in the refrigerator and drink?
The nutritional value should be the same or less but not much less.
I have heard that normal apple juice from the market has no [nutritional?] value to drink.
Strange? Fruit juice is generally not a healthy thing, just a very nice thing. Just eat an apple!
Why do you find difficult drinking fruit juice? Is it difficult to obtain the juice / fruit? Is it difficult for you to swallow it? (maybe because of the taste)
get a new doctor.
No, you cannot substitute fresh apple juice.
Some of the compounds found in apple juice are very volatile. They evaporate a few minutes after the juice is made, or are broken down by still-active enzymes or oxygenation. These processes don't happen in the whole apple, because these compounds don't come into contact with the wrong enzymes or oxygen before juicing. But they start as soon as the juice is made.
As the enzymes would change the juice too much, and as a measure against bacteria, you cannot keep pressed apple juice in the refrigerator for more than a few hours. It would perish too soon to be brought into the market. Thus, apple juice sold in the market is pasteurized, which means heated. The heating destroys further compounds in the juice, which weren't destroyed by the enzymes and oxygen. Many vitamins can be destroyed during the pasteurization, and possibly other "healthy" compounds.
What is left is still rich in nutrients. The fructose and malic acid stay there for certain, as well as lots of aromatic components (but not all of them). Some vitamins will also remain after the pasteurization, but not all.
So, if you really need the fresh stuff, you cannot substitute it. Even juicing it yourself the night before will reduce its quality. But as SAJ14SAJ said, we don't know why the doctor prescribed you fresh juice, maybe all you need is the quickly available fructose. You can ask him if the pasteurized juice from the market will do. Another option is, if pressing juice is logistically too hard for you early in the morning, to ask if you can eat the whole apple. Again, this depends on what you need the juice for, so we cannot answer here, only the doctor can.
Just curious, but if these components only ephemerally available in the fresh apple juice are so volatile and sensitive to enzymatic action or oxidation, are they going to survive being ingested to actually be absorbed by the body? Most nutrients are absorbed in the intestine, after the stomach....
The tongue, the region underneath the tongue as well as the whole oral structure absorb chemicals very readily and differently from digestion. Metabolism and catalysation with saliva is also less destructive.
Do you have a reference for what nutrients are lost/destroyed after pressing or pasteurizing?
If your physician recommended the fresh apple juice specifically (and not, for example, bottled apple juice or eating apples, or just eating more fruit), you should ask him or her what the reasons for that recommendation are, and what reasonable alternatives you can use if you are finding it difficult to comply with the recommendation.
Fresh apple juice is an oddly specific recommendation given that apples are not known for having juice. Cider is traditional (and seasonal), although it tends to come from apples specifically grown for cider. Unless you have a juicing machine, I am not even sure what fresh apple juice would refer to.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.971809
| 2012-11-29T05:05:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28744",
"authors": [
"Amritanshu Prasad",
"Cynthia",
"Drazen Bjelovuk",
"Hire a Boom Lift LTD",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jim",
"Monte Diaz",
"Ms Farkle",
"Nomi",
"Reinstate Monica -- notmaynard",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Scott Hartley",
"TFD",
"ajsharma",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66540",
"phuong pham"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7480
|
Uses for leftover potatoes from a pot-roast
I made a large pot-roast with sweet onion, carrots, green beans, mushrooms and Yukon Gold potatoes (all cooked in the same pot). All the vegetables except for the potatoes got devoured, so now I have a lot of leftover, slightly beefy, potatoes. What would be a good use for them?
So what did you end up making with them?
@Martha: steak fries -- cut into wedges, tossed in olive oil, salt and pepper, sprinkled with paprika and baked -- my (current) favorite way to prepare potatoes. They didn't come out as well as usual because they were already cooked instead of put in the oven raw, but still tasty.
Turn into mashed potatoes for tomorrow night's dinner?
If you have some roast left, too, cut it down into bite-sized bits, add back in some more vegetables, and turn it into a sort of shepard's pie-type meal. (stew-like dish covered with mashed potatoes, then baked)
Great idea; I love shepherd's pie. I don't have enough meat left for it this time though.
Love the idea for shepherd's pie, that would be tasty!
Another great idea after they are mashed is to make potato pancakes, mmm.
Depending on how mushy the potatoes are, you could also chop them up and saute with some onions and meat for a nice hash.
Or just sauteed on their own with some soft cheese melted over them...
I just made burritos out of leftover pot roast, of course I had beef leftover too. Beef, potatoes, a bit of cheese and I happened to have sour cream in the fridge. Instant burrito, with an out of place pot roast taste. The mind expected a barbacoa taste from that texture in a burrito, but got regular pot roast.
More regularly if I hadn't had just that combination to make burritos, I'd probably dice them and add them to a breakfast meal. The meaty taste will fit in just fine with an egg breakfast. Add them to the eggs or just heat them up on the skillet real quick, should be great either way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.972237
| 2010-09-21T00:24:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7480",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"Jenn",
"Martha F.",
"Michael Rosen",
"Niall C.",
"Steffo_TH",
"acheo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"speedplane",
"user15365",
"user15399",
"vkefallinos",
"younjin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17803
|
How can I thicken an already cooked pie filling?
I made a coconut cream filling using 2% milk as that was all I had. Now, more than 6 hours later, it still has not set although it was thick while I was waiting for it to cool before pouring into the prebaked crust. Does it need to stay overnight to set? Can I pour it back into a saucepan and warm it up and add more cornstarch? I hate to waste the ingredients.
What did you substitute the 2% milk for? Dairy cream, or coconut cream? They're very different things. Would help if you posted the recipe or at least the ingredients.
If your filling is similar to a custard, consider adding a lightly whisked egg and baking on medium-low heat for maybe 20 minutes. If you must stove-cook it, stir only enough to combine the ingredients well, as whisking too much will weaken/break the proteins.
Protein is the key to thickening things like custards and other fillings. Coconut milk is lower in protein than cow milk. The heat will allow the proteins to coagulate and form a sort of net that traps the rest of the ingredients, causing a thickening action. Refrigerating it for a short time will also contribute to solidifying the protein network and help set it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.972435
| 2011-09-17T01:47:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17803",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Makyen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39809",
"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
}
|
71833
|
Can you use WD-40 to loosen the blades in a Mixer Grinder?
The blades in 2 out of 4 jars of our Mixer Grinder stuck within two months of its purchase and we put the jars aside as the blades stopped rotating.
I think WD-40 will do a good job (I tried it on one of them and it worked immediately), but my mother worries that it might be harmful.
Could anybody tell me if I was right and suggest the best thing to loosen them? By the way, loosening bolts with the plastic tool the company provided never worked.
Update: I should have used coconut oil or vegetable oil, but I think it attracts dust and worsens the problem if we don't use the jar for sometime.
@Ben Welborn Will WD-40 which I already applied inside one of the jars cause any harm for health or anything as such?
WD-40 contains naphtha, hydrodesulfurized heavy; 1,2,4-trimethyl benzene; 1,3,5-trimethyl benzene; mixed xylene isomers; and surfactant, which are not for food use. WD-40 can harm/dissolve certain plastics and rubbers (perhaps used in your blender). FDA only allows food grade mineral to be used for lubricating food processing equipment. Now, I know that this is not a food facility, but WD-40 isn't food grade. I think the toxicity of WD-40 is relatively minor, but I would definitely opt for mineral oil.
You are going to clean it before using it? WD-40 is only mildly toxic.
Of course, already cleaned with detergent powder and dish wash bars.
I an not a Dr and don't take this as medical advice but I cannot imagine there is enough WD-40 left over to hurt anyone.
@BenWelborn, I'd love to upvote your comment as an answer... and a few thers apparently as well. Welcome to Stack Exchange, btw.!
@Stephie He is a top answerer in the SE's home improvement community, i.e., http://diy.stackexchange.com/ :)
Thanks for your help, @BenWelborn, Paparazzi and Stephie
@IamSJ - Yet Ben is new at Seasoned Advice. I made a mistake and wrote "Stack Exchange" instead. Thanks for the hint. And welcome to Seasoned Advice!
WD-40 contains naphtha, hydrodesulfurized heavy; 1,2,4-trimethyl benzene; 1,3,5-trimethyl benzene; mixed xylene isomers; and surfactant, which are not for food use. WD-40 can harm/dissolve certain plastics and rubbers (perhaps used in your blender).
I think the toxicity of WD-40 is relatively minor, but essentially, WD-40 isn't food grade. Now, I know that this is not a food facility, but I would definitely opt for food grade mineral oil to prevent rancidity and rusting issues. FDA Code of Federal Regulations 178.3570 allows food grade mineral to be used for lubricating food processing equipment, and USP grade mineral oil happens to be the primary lubricant in the industry (I'd guess at least 90% of the lubrication is done with mineral oil).
CFR 178.3570 also allows use of naturally-sourced fatty acids (like capric acid, caprylic acid and caproic acid, which are more for antibacterial applications, and can/will cause corrosion issues), polybutene (maybe for electronic parts), isopropyl oleate (pricey), and castor oil (which is gummy, can become rancid, and induces cramping). The petrolatum that is mentioned is USP grade (CAS Number: 8009-03-8) which is basically vaseline; and it is only for use in "as a protective coating of the surfaces of metal or wood tanks used in fermentation process". The rest of the lubricants that are mentioned in CFR 178.3570 are not actually lubricants (more like, antibiotic soaps and chealating agents) or are simply exotic materials (even for industrial manufacturers).
So, what I'm saying (to be 100% clear) is that USP mineral oil is the only realistic lubricant allowed by FDA. Isopropyl oleate would be my second choice, but the price is going to be about 10 fold higher than mineral oil, and castor oil would be my third choice for reasons mentioned above. The rest of the "lubricants" are basically industrial-use lubricant additives (used in very minor amounts for more specific applications).
Thanks! Could you tell me if caster oil attracts dust just like coconut oil and vegetable oils?
@IamSJ Oils don't really attract dust, but I understand your meaning. Yes. Oils will collect dust. Mineral oil and Castor oil will both become gummy, but mineral oil will take longer to become gummy than castor oil, and certainly longer than other natural oils. Castor oil is actually pretty thick and almost gummy to begin with. It's not a good lubricant.
@IamSJ isopropyl oleate is made via an esterification reaction with essentially isopropanol and oleic acid. The esterified product (isopropyl oleate) has lower viscosity, and can be mixed with castor oil or mineral oil.
WD-40 is a solvent and would remove whatever was causing the blades to grind, but I would clean it out afterwards and use oil as a lubricant.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.972587
| 2016-08-02T14:01:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71833",
"authors": [
"Ben Welborn",
"Netizen",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48481",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8171
|
What is a good website or book to learn kitchen techniques?
For example different cutting techniques such as julienne or brunoise. I'm aware it can never be the same as attending a proper cooking course but still with a good book with pictures or even better online videos you can learn something. Basically I'm looking for a place to get a crash-course in what you'd learn in a proper cooking college.
See also this question, which asks: "What is a substitute for going to culinary school? Is there?" http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7438/what-is-a-substitute-for-going-to-culinary-school-is-there. I would consider this close enough to be a duplicate.
The answer is obvious: This one!
Jacques Pépin's Complete Techniques is an extremely useful guide to every technique you can imagine. Each step of each technique is fully illustrated with photographs.
It looks really good. I'll get it as soon as possible ;-)
I got the book and its great! Thanks for the tip.
I have never been to a proper cooking college but I have taken a few cooking classes at PCC and Whole Foods, so I could not offer my opinion on how it compares, but this website http://jamieshomecookingskills.com/index.php is a great resource for learning a lot of different basic skills and it has everything from recipes to videos and a lot of techniques in between.
I would recommend www.seriouseats.com, especially J. Kenji Lopez's knife skills videos. Also Lifehacker.com has done a few articles on beginner kithen stuff, like how to make a scrambled eggs and how to dice an onion.
Also you can pick up Alton Brown's first cookbook. He does a good job of grounding his recipes in the science involved. Also, the complete good eats series has a lot of great stuff in it.
Gordon Ramsay Cookery Course on youtube. Fast but good (and free!) content from a great chef. I've learned different ways to cook chicken and turkey. Flavors are excellent and really straightforward type of cooking. I.E nothing frilly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.972920
| 2010-10-15T21:35:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8171",
"authors": [
"Erik P.",
"Laurie Best",
"Lorenz",
"Martin Schröder",
"Omar Kohl",
"garethm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/952",
"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
}
|
21566
|
What defines a bread as 'artisan'?
'Artisan' is a term thrown around a lot right now in the bread world. What defines something as an 'artisan' bread? Is it a function of the recipe, the technique, or the person? Note, I'm not talking about just store bought bread here - but books like Artisan Breads Everyday. So clearly it can't be just a grocery marketing term. (It could be more generally a marketing term.)
An extra five dollars per copy of the cookbook plus ten thousand more units sold? It's a buzzword, meant to make the baker feel all authentic and crafty. Even if someone can provide a reasonable definition there is no one who enforces it, so publishers and authors use t for their own devices.
Marketing = Deliberate Confusion
Artisan is one of the most expensive words in the English language.
I think everyone agrees that "artisan" gets tossed around as a marketing term that is largely empty or vapid, referring as much to the "old world" images used on the bag than to the bread itself.
However, I think there is an actual "artisan" quality to food, and that it relates to several qualities or ethics of the producer - which you do find in some actual bakeries:
Develops their own recipes - an artisan baker should be developing recipes that meet their needs. If they don't know enough to do that, then they are just following instructions.
Tweaks recipes carefully over time to maximize the intended qualities of the bread. An "artisan" producer understands the variables that impact the quality of their product and constantly adjust them to keep the bread quality high, despite changing or variable ingredients.
Follows the ethic of "Flavor Rules", and flavor is the first priority. Of course they have to be a business-person as well, but recipe changes and enhancements should primarily be made to improve flavor, not reduce cost, improve packability, etc.
Has a real passion for what they are doing, and holds themselves to the highest standard. Artists are always the most critical of their own work, and are constantly looking for ways to improve.
A home baker may not be an "artist", but when I make "artisan breads" at home (and I think this is what Peter R. is referring to), I do so with an intent to make the bread as good as I possibly can, even if this means baking it tomorrow instead of tonight, or ordering special flours online. I contrast this with my "makin' dinner" baking, where I obviously want it to be good, but am willing to give up some perfection in order to get it done tonight. Neither method is inherently better, but they are undertaken with a different intent and process.
Accepted because it acknowledges that its largely a marketing term but then defines it in a way consistent with what I was trying to ask. I just really don't care that much about the way it refers to grocery store bread.
Artisan is really a marketing word. There seems to be a couple of scenarios in which it is used:
To make the consumer believe they are getting a superior product. Instead of 'white bread' (which is just so 1960's, they tell you it's an 'artisan loaf', and they charge 3 or 4 dollars. I ran bakeries for over ten years, and I know how crazy they are for Gross Profit. Normally, chain grocery stores are pushing for 60% profit. We would sell loaves that cost us in the region of 25 cents to produce for over 2 dollars. And to make the consumer feel like they were getting a 'deal', we would say 'artisan' or any other variety of fancy words to dress up our product.
Cover the fact that most grocery stores do not hire any people with actual baking skills. Most often, bakers are hired off the street, and they are trained to add a certain amount of water, a bag of premixed flour, and a couple of pounds of yeast, then press 'start' on the mixer. No trouble shooting abilities, no real skills. Even more prevelant over the last number of years: go to the freezer, open a box of 'artisan breads', and bake the prebaked loaf for ten minutes.
I don't want to sound negative, but that is absolutely the way it is (at least here in Canada/North America).
Bottom line is that most often, when you are buying a loaf of bread marketed as 'artisan', it isn't. It is either parbaked (industry term for "partially baked" - ie frozen and needing just a few more minutes to finish the bake), or it is being produced by someone with very little know how.
EDIT
Fair enough that you are not just looking for the grocery strore usage. However, I guess you could easily take this in a broader sense. There is no 'artisan' technique. What these book sellers (and grocery stores) are doing is trying to make you think that they are teaching you 'old world principals' in bread making. That's the point. It's simply a buzz word to try to get you to pay more.
Is this a bit too cynical? Obviously there are people slapping "artisan" on everything, but there IS a difference between different bakers and bakeries in how they develop, produce, and treat their products. What words would you use to describe those differences? Artisan is clearly not a "regulated" term, but it isn't entirely devoid of meaning, either.
I expected that there would be folks thinking I was overtly cynical. I agree that there is a difference, but the bulk of people get their baked goods from the types of places I describe. I know full well, as I was involved in it for 15 years. Also, it has been my experience that anyone who creates a product worthy of the label 'artisan' would NEVER use that word. It is such an overused, hyped buzzword they would steer clear. THOSE bakers let their product speak for itself and do not need to use such a word. Call me cynical if you wish...
So...you're suggesting anybody who uses that word must not have good product....think about that...
You would be foolish to use that word now. Once the mass marketing people got hold of it, any potential "real" meaning has been destroyed
@rfusca - The comment above has an almost menacing tone, almost implying that I had not fully thought through what I was saying. However, it is pretty much EXACTLY what I'm saying. Most of the product being sold as 'artisan' is really fairly crappy (pardon the expression). I was fully trained in 'artisinal' methodology (read - proper scratch baking techniques) - and I can 100 per cent garauntee you that modern 'aritisan' products do not tend to approach these methods. The word is simply there to make you think that they do. Sorry to burst your bubble.
@rfusca - apologies if I seem to be coming accross as a dick, I really don't mean to. This is actually just a topic that I consider very near and dear to me, as I spent a good part of my life working with many of these 'artisans'. It drove me crazy for many years. So yes, I realize that I am slightly jaded.
@mrwienerdog - sorry about the menacing tone - you're just implying that some world renowned bakers are crap simply because they chose a particular term.
No, no, that's not what I mean. Originally I was speaking solely to grocers... and they ARE mostly crap because of the choice of that term. I think if you fuse the my answer and the original comment made after you first posted your question (they add the term to charge more for a book), that it's a fair statement. The world renowned bakers are great - they are just a tad 'charlatan'-ish, that's all. In the cookbook world, the term 'artisan' is used to peddle the books to a certain clientel (housewives? - that's what we used to say in school), and in stores, well, I covered my opinion on that.
Weinerdog - I'm reminded of the paraphrased saying, "Those who respect the law and like bread should never watch either being made." - I know what it is like to work in an industry that is idealized by the public, but has a more "complex" underbelly. I do respect your experience in the business. I think the thing the OP was getting at is as much about what the word "should" mean, in contrast to what it often means. And sometimes it still means what it should - Peter Reinhart is a legit baker and writer.
@Sam Ley - thanks for the input, appreciate it. Thank God I'm not involved anymore... New job, new set of mysteries to be debunked.
Also, it 'mr'wienerdog to you... Hahahahaha!!!! Jusk kidding!
The Term Artisan SHOULD (not saying it is) be used as a term for Scratch Cooking or baking in old world technique. Meaning, none of this "Semi Homecooked" Crap. I consider myself to be an "Artisanal Chef" meaning that IF I can make it myself. I will. period. Just about anything can be "Artisan" and it is a beautiful term, to me it brings up images of beautiful loaves of bread with a thick crust, deliciously mouth watering cheeses, smoked meats, and wonderful jams and sauces. But sadly this term has been watered down, to mean anything made to look "old world style" never mind that it has been produced with bagged mix, or frozen products. If it looks old world it is artisan. BS in my opinion. Go to a farmers market, local bakery, local coffee shop, or local butcher...there you will find the real Artisan products.
Sounds like a terribly insufficient definition to me. I connect "artisan" with quality, I could do something terrible from scratch and by your definition call it "artisan".
got my upvote because 'scratch in old world technique' bout sums it up. part that's missing imho is 'by someone trained in old world technique'. Especially if addressed Meister (and die Papiere to show it)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.973122
| 2012-02-21T17:10:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21566",
"authors": [
"Chieron",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Pat Sommer",
"Sam Ley",
"TFD",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9091",
"k1308517",
"miroxlav",
"mrwienerdog",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21357
|
Is it normal that I keep burning my seasoning off my cast iron?
I use cast iron, a lot. But I've got a problem, whenever I do something that requires high heat or really anything over medium (which is somewhere around 450-500F on my stove according to my IR thermometer), the seasoning burns off my pan! There's smoke and all that and then by the end of the cooking, large parts (mostly in the middle outward where its hottest) of the pan don't have any seasoning left and I can see the bare cast iron. Above 600-700F, I definitely expect it but it happens just above/around 500F for me.
Am I doing something wrong? Is this normal? Is there a way to season the pan that keeps this from happening? I've just been using canola oil.
What are you cooking?
I'll turn it up to do tortillas or pizza or such that helps to have really high temps.
No, this isn't normal. A little flaking, perhaps, when you go over 600°F, but 500°F shouldn't do anything. It shouldn't even smoke.
Something is wrong with the seasoning on your pan. From the fact that its smoking, I'd guess its not sufficiently baked on. Alternatively, maybe the pan wasn't clean when you applied it.
If its just not baked on, I'd remove all the flaking bits (with some harsh scrubbing, sand paper even), clean it thoroughly, then bring it to around 300°F (stovetop or oven). This will make sure it is completely dry. Spread a thin layer of high-iodine value oil (flax seed is great, soy is pretty good and cheap and easy to find: look for the bottle that just says vegetable oil and check the ingredients, it's probably soy). Spreading is easy with a paper towel.
Next, toss into a very hot oven, 400–500, smoking is expected. Bake for 90 minutes, then turn the oven off. Allow pan to cool with oven. Once its cool, touch it. If its at all tacky, put it back in the oven, and bake for another hour (once again, allowing to cool with oven). It should be a shiny black at this point, and not at all tacky.
You can repeat the process to add more layers. Two should be reasonably non-stick to start cooking on.
If it still peels off after this, you're probably going to need to strip the seasoning and re-season the pan, after stripping it to bare metal. See What's the best way to season a cast iron skillet? to season it from bare metal.
Hmmm... I'll give a shot. I've already set off the smoke alarm once tonight, so I'll have to wait a few days ;)
@rfusca If you have a grill that you can control the heat on to get it into that 400–500-ish range, you could use that.
Seasoning a pan takes minutes on the high heat setting of your stove top, not hours in the oven. This is totally over the top
@TFD see http://sherylcanter.com/wordpress/2010/01/a-science-based-technique-for-seasoning-cast-iron/ and http://sherylcanter.com/wordpress/2010/02/black-rust-and-cast-iron-seasoning/ ; the long hot oven works better (especially since OP has bare iron showing, also, the quick stovetop seasoning is not working for him, since he has it keep flaking off).
Because we don't know if the problem is in the seasoning itself, or on the interface between seasoning and pan, I would combine multiple cleaning methods, probably even strip the old seasoning completely, before reseasoning. I would go for scrubbing - lye bath - acid - weaker base - lots of (filtered) water - stovetop drying. Lots of work, but should ensure shiny metal to bind with the seasoning.
By the way, its not flaking at all. Its definitely adhered to the pan, I couldn't scrap it off if I wanted. It definitely burning off.
Seasoning is part polymerized oils, as people have said, and part carbonized oils. These are oil molecules that have actually burned and blackened. It's the matrix of polymer (plastic) and char that gives you the blackened, stick-resistant qualities. It's also why the seasoning should be stable well beyond the smoke point of the oil—you had to get it past the smoke point to create the seasoning to begin with.
Flax oil is indeed good, but any oil that's high in polyunsaturated fat will polymerize easily and do a good job. Look for refined, high heat oils. If they list the smoke point, so much the better. To get a quick seasoning, I set the oven 25 to 50 degrees higher than the smoke point, and apply thin layers of oil (usually the safflower oil I keep on hand for sauteeing) with tongs and a paper towel. Yes, there's a lot of smoke.
There is of course a point at which the seasoning will burn off. The self cleaning cycle of an oven is typically around 900°F and will turn your seasoning to ash, leaving shiny virgin cast iron behind. I've seen a grill pan used on a commercial burner at a restaurant that didn't have a hint of seasoning on it ... it spent most of every evening sitting over a 20,000 btu/hr burner.
My home stove puts out barely more than half that power, and is not capable of heating a pan enough to burn off a proper seasoning. I can get pans maybe a little hotter than 500F. Hot enough to form seasoning, but not enough to damage it.
You are using the wrong sort of oil
Use an oil with a strong and dry polymerisation effect, e.g. Flax (Linseed) oil, tung, even soy oil
Canola, olive etc do not form very hard polymers, and often remain tacky
If you have a pan with layers of flaky soft oil, just leave it on the high heat until a metal scraper can easily remove the old layers. Let it cool, and then season like this
Scrub your pan clean, wipe on a decent layer of oil over the cooking surfaces with a paper towel, place pan on stove top on hottest element, and heat until oil just stops smoking, remove from heat
If you keep it on the heat you will break down the oil polymer layer, and have to start again
This should take only a few minutes, not hours
Canola doesn't remain tacky if you bake it long enough. Stovetop, possibly it does.
@derobert it's polymer never goes very hard, hence seasoning is normally done with other oils
agreed, flax seed and soy are better choices. Flax is apparently amazing, Cooks Illustrated tried that procedure I linked to in my other comment (on my answer) and found it survives the dishwasher (!).
@TFD what about grapeseed oil?
Hmm..Normal? well it happens to me regularly as well, but I'm not sure I am good standard for 'normal'. What I always do is after cleaning my cast iron (by de-glazing as discussed here: Can deglazing a cast iron skillet remove the seasoning?) is to rub down the pan with a light coat of olive oil and then return that pan to the now cooling element on the stove. I doubt this is the same as the layers of hydrocarbons that are normally thought of as 'seasoning' but I never have a problem with food sticking to my cast iron.
My problem isn't related to food sticking or how to re-oil the pan after it happens - but really to if I can keep it from happening.
Being OCD and learning and trying every oil fat combo, you can think of and then some. Bacon fat, Crisco, butter, olive oil, flax seed oil, coconut oil, my preference is either bacon fat, butter, or Crisco with bees wax or trademarked crisbee. I can think of over the last two months. I stripped my lodge in my pizza oven at 800 on down, orbital sanded the inside of it with 80 grit and worked my way up to 600 grit. Every morning after use I wipe out if nothing stuck to pan flip pan upside down on stove and bake fat in thin layers after every use. Wife wants to kill me every morning for smoking out the house. In pizza oven or fire i bake in at 650 and wipe in new very thin layer every 5 minutes. The pan in so slick with such good season I can flip eggs with no spatula and a t small pat of butter. What newbies don't realize is its more about heat control. Just after the smoke point is where the season carbonized polymerization and it bakes in to a matte black finish. Go any longer then 5 minutes or higher heat beyond 600 you'll cook the season off. When you wipe out and see black. That's your seasoning. It will smooth out but you have to keep adding thin layers every time. Currently baking a new lodge pan to re-season at 850. Going to angle grind from 40 grit to 600 and re-season. 20 bucks some patience and diligence it will outperform any Griswold or Volrath or Wagner.
For starters, I think this very normal. My pans also start looking like "bare cast iron" in the middle when I heat them up really hot. They will smoke too if I had any oil on them from previous use.
It has never been a problem however. I just do a quick seasoning of oil on that piping hot pan, give it a minute to smoke down & set in & it's ready to go. Not a problem with food sticking or anything... Not even eggs or fish.
I have tried (repeated times) Sheryl Cantor's Flax Seed Oil seasoning method - Fail. The oil is a "dry oil" alright. So dry, it ends up flaking off almost immediately. And, I have tried so, so many methods and different types of fats/oils without any miraculous success. I stopped worrying about it and just heated it up on my stove, seasoned it off for a minute and cooked with it. That has been the best method so far.
I'm beginning to think it is really the heat over time that seasons the pan and not so much the oil.
it's a mix of the oil + heat ... you're baking the oil into a plastic coating on the pan ... but you want build up a thick enough layer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.973847
| 2012-02-15T06:56:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21357",
"authors": [
"Adriana Morado",
"Barb Rosales",
"Bill Hamilton",
"Janie Maher",
"Joe",
"Maryanne Remarchuk",
"Robbie K",
"TFD",
"Tallboy",
"Wendy",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90499",
"rfusca",
"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
}
|
5990
|
How to store garlic?
When I buy garlic, I normally put it in a bowl on the kitchen counter or in the pantry, and then pop off cloves as need. Sometimes, if the garlic has been around for a while, I find what looks like green sprouts inside / popping out of the cloves. What is the best way to keep my garlic fresh?
For a discussion of the green sprouts, see this question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5031/should-one-always-use-the-whole-garlic-clove/5034#5034.
I always store mine in the pantry. I use it frequently enough that sprouting is rarely an issue. If you need it to last longer you can freeze garlic, though I have never needed to.
Shelf Life
An unbroken bulb of garlic can last 3-5 months in a cool (55-60 F) dark place. Once broken, the remaining cloves last only about 7-10 days.
Frozen, you can store garlic 10-12 months.
Source:
http://stilltasty.com/fooditems/index/17237
We do exactly what hobodave does: dark pantry, rarely do we have it so long it gets a chance to go bad. One thing I wanted to add, if you find that your garlic bulbs are getting close to the end of their life and you can't think of a use for them immediately, you can also make roasted garlic and freeze that. Roasting garlic in the oven is incredibly easy and the result is delicious!
This technique works for garlic, as well as fresh ginger root: use a small grater or zester on the garlic and arrange the pulp on a piece of plastic wrap. Roll the garlic in the plastic wrap and twist the ends so it roughly resembles a long tootsie roll and freeze. When you want to use garlic, snap off a piece and add it to your dish.
This would probably also work with minced or sliced garlic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.974692
| 2010-08-25T21:51:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5990",
"authors": [
"Martha F.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6733
|
how long is tofu good for?
I bought some tofu at the store about a month ago (or was it two months?). Anyway, I haven't eaten it all and it's sitting in my fridge in tupperware. How long is it good for?
Throw it out.
Tofu has a very short life. Once opened it can last up to 5 days in the refrigerator, but only if you store it submerged in water, and change it daily.
See also: http://stilltasty.com/fooditems/index/18509
if you're still in doubt, take a whiff of it... then you'll be sure to throw it out!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.974855
| 2010-09-04T07:11:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6733",
"authors": [
"Tara",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4250
|
Naan without tandoor?
I miss Indian food and especially good naan bread. I haven't really tried it, but I wanted to test if it's possible to make naan without a tandoor? Has anyone tried this, do you have some good tips and do you manage to make it just as good as the naan you get in India?
Never having been to India, I've only had naan from Indian restaurants and frozen from the supermarket. That said, I have made it with some success before.
The best method I've used is to grill (American) it. You can do it with a gas grill (barbecue) set to high, or with the hottest of hot charcoal. It doesn't quite approach the 900 F (480 C) typical of a tandoor, but it's close, especially with charcoal. Simply oil the grill and do 2-3 minutes per side.
The next best method I've tried is using a pizza stone in a blazing hot oven. The cook times are similar.
I second the pizza stone idea; it works a treat for me.
What about a pizza stone on the grill?
@chris: I've never tried it. However, I imagine that it would significantly restrict the airflow over the coals and thus result in a significantly lower temperature.
True. It depends on the size of the grill.
In the US, at least, the typical pizza stone would occlude at least 80% of most grills.
Chris, you can't make classic pizza's in a domestic oven due to the limit on the sheer temperature the oven can reach. Due to this lower heat, the pizza base tends to come out 'biscuity' rather than crisp on the outside and chewy on the inside. It's a heat thing, domestic ovens just don't get hot enough.
Here is a link to Kenji Alt's article on making naan at home with a grill: http://www.seriouseats.com/2011/08/the-food-lab-how-to-sort-of-make-naan-at-home.html?ref=obinsite
If it's something you want to eat often, you could make your own tandoor, or use a large terracotta pot over your charcoal grill.
If you do decide to build a tandoor like crazy Alton Brown, do not forget those gloves. Reaching over a 900 degree jet engine is not comfortable at all.
@hobodave - And burning arm hair really stinks.
Although it doesn't simulate a tandoor, I stopped my quest for making the best naan after seeing the result from a Dutch oven on max heat. Fantastic. Lid on keeps the moisture in and stops it from going too crispy or hard, it bubbles up and parts of it get that slight charring.
Use a cheap Dutch oven as the charring marked my expensive one.
Try it, you'll be surprised!
I assume you're making the dough. I had a friend who tried it and said it wasn't that great. Then they were simply reheating those cardboard pre-packaged things.
Note that in some English speaking countries such as the UK/Aus/NZ, a "Dutch oven" is called a "casserole".
Yes, you can make perfectly acceptable naan breads without the need for a tandoori oven.
The keys are very high heat, ie under a domestic grill (watch while they puff up and brown) and yoghurt. You can also make them with baking powder without the need for yeast, which produces surprisingly good results.
I have tried baking with a pizza stone and tiles in the oven, but I get the best results from frying the naan in a cast-iron pan that has been lightly greased with oil on medium-high heat.
I admit that this is very far from a tandoor, but surprisingly naan that was fried turned out way better in terms of texture, air-bubbles, and flavour.
Admittedly I have never grilled it because I only cook one or two loaves at a time (keeping the dough in the fridge until it runs out), so I can't really justify firing up a charcoal grill.
I miss my naan and gave up cooking it at home when I found I couldn't replicate it.
However, I did find roti-chapatis that you can cook in seconds on a skillet and come out very tasty and fresh, despite keeping forever in the fridge.
It's still indian bread, very tasty, and not totally disimilar. I filled my need when cooking curry at home.
I've made naan on a (propane, american) grill with no problems, straight on the grate. (maybe singed a little bit, that's what you want for naan). Well, no problem grilling; I rolled them all out while I was still inside, and had them stacked up with dry waxed paper between them, and the weight of the stack meant that by the time I got maybe 5-6 of 'em done, the whole stack had glued itself together, which slowed me down quite a bit.
I've also done it stovetop in a cast iron pan to get a good sear, and then transfered to the oven to finish cooking while I made up the rest. As I was rolling 'em as I went, I didn't have that sticking problem.
I do pita bread on the grill, and I also use wax paper to carry the bread outside. It helps a lot if you lightly dust each layer of wax paper with flour before slapping the pita on, and the top of the pita before the next layer of wax paper.
We can make naan at home on tawa and get the same look and taste too.
INGREDIENTS:
Wheat flour (Maida), 1 TSP curd, water, pinch of salt, 1 TSP ghee or butter
STEPS:
1. Mix all the ingredients and make a soft dough
2. Cover it with a muslin cloth and rest for 2 hours
3. Take a piece of dough, make it round
4. Roll it like a chapati and grease some butter or ghee and make a triangle
5. Now roll the triangle chapati
6. grease water on one side of naan
7. let the tawa or flat pan become a bit hot
8. place the watered side of naan on the tawa
9. let it be for 30 seconds
10. with help of tongs reverse the side of tawa/flat pan on the flame and try to provide flame to all sides of the naan and it will come out automatically.
11. The watered naan will have the same crust which a tandoor provides.
The best way is :- once you have your rolled out naans, wet one side with water then place the watered side6on a hot cast iro or similar tawra. Wait till you see bubbles appearing then flip the pan over, the naan will stay stuck to the pan, then put the inverted pan including tge bread over the flame. Wait till you get tge desired blistering and it's done. Good luck
If you have a chapati pan and a gas grill then you can have a good go. I think the secret to naan is that both sides have to cook at the same time, so if you get the pan very hot and then put your naan under a preheated grill, that's probably the closest you'll get without a tandoor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.975198
| 2010-08-04T17:59:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4250",
"authors": [
"Billy Kerr",
"Chris Cudmore",
"CrazyPheel",
"Elyenko",
"Iuls",
"Joel B",
"Marcia",
"Miikka",
"Omer van Kloeten",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Tim Gilbert",
"Town",
"Uğur Gümüşhan",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8460",
"joshatjben",
"jxstanford",
"kewlguy",
"robert e",
"ronengi",
"spiceyokooko"
],
"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
}
|
4182
|
Why do my muffin tops lean?
I'm getting close to (my idea of) muffin heaven with this recipe which after trying a few others I've found to work consistently and well.
One small thing I don't understand is why my muffin tops, which are rising nicely to a delicious crust, are "leaning" or I should say pointing in a direction other than straight up.
It's not a problem since the muffins have good texture, taste, and a home-made look I find appealing, but I cannot explain why they lean.
Any ideas?
Are they leaning becasuethe Muffin is rising larger than the tray and then collapsing back into a lean or are they rising in a lopsided manner? Each of these probably has a different source.
Have you tried simply turning your muffins at some point in the baking process?
@Ian I haven't watched the entire rising process but from checking progress every few minutes or so it seems they rise lopsided rather than collapsing.
@hobodave I will try that
Does this answer your question? How can I avoid windswept muffins in a convection oven?
Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but is your oven rack perfectly level? Muffin mix initially has low enough viscosity that it can be influenced by gravity as it gradually rises. Even a small inclination of the tray/rack is likely to cause this.
+1: This is exactly what does it at my house...One day I'll get around to fixing it.
If you are using a convection oven, the air current, blowing consistently in one direction over the tops of your muffins as they bake, could account for the lean.
Try turning down the fan speed, if you can. Otherwise position the muffins in the oven somewhere where they'll be blown on less, use another oven, or put something else in the oven to block the airflow.
This seems like the most likely explanation to me. And kind of humorous to picture.
Unless the fan is particularly strong, I'm not inclined to attribute the leaning to airflow. Interesting suggestion though. Oh, and I say this purely in my capacity as a physicist! (hah)
Gravity (as Noldorin), heat gradient in the oven, air movement, improper mixing of rising agent - all these are possible.
The baking powder is thoroughly mixed into the dry bowl so I would hope it isn't improper mixing that causes it. It's a convection oven so the heat gradient should be limited (yes?), which leaves gravity...
Well, yes, the heat gradient should be limited, but your airflow will be more of a factor than in a radiant oven. And yes, gravity is still a factor.
if your oven leaks more heat out of the door than anywhere else i would theorize that might have something to do with it. Try turning your muffins.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.975759
| 2010-08-04T11:31:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4182",
"authors": [
"Ed Guiness",
"Garrett Rowe",
"I'M YourOnly.One",
"Ian Turner",
"Luciano",
"Ludvig A. Norin",
"Michael Natkin",
"Noldorin",
"Ron",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"e2ma99iah",
"flo x",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457"
],
"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
}
|
14640
|
Reduce hotness of beef Jerky
I made some beef jerky with Maddog 375 hot sauce (generously poured into the marinade). It's ridiculously hot and basically unedible (I can eat it but just slowly).
This kinda sucks because I don't enjoy it, and it seems a waste to throw it out, can I do anything to it to reduce the heat on it? Wash it? Any ideas?
Send it to me? Sounds yummy!
Jerky can be rehydrated.
Soak it in liquid, the way you would mushrooms, until it becomes somewhat plump. It will remain a little chewy and keep a lot of its flavor.
Chop it up and cook it into a stew. It will give a unique flavor and texture and the stew will dilute the spiciness- hopefully to a manageable level.
Look for recipes for "backpacker's stew" for examples.
I'd personally go with Sobachatina's method of using it as an ingredient in something else. (it's also good to chop up some and add to cooked rice or rice & some veg. as a one pot meal)
... but if you really wanted to try to save as jerky, you might be able to tone it down a little by adding some sweetness to it. Unfortunately, this might mean wetting down the surface, and if you're going to do do that, you might be better off soaking it, changing the liquid, and re-drying it.
Your other option might be to try to give it a glaze ... honey would be my first thought (look online for various techniques for honey glazed bacon), maple syrup would be my second. Of course, it'd then be hygroscopic, which is going to reduce your storage lifetime.
Thanks Joe, will honey glazing really help make it less spicy? The sauce I used is 350,000 scoville units I'm not sure if a honey layer is going to do much. Bows and arrows against lightning
@Tom : it might've started at 350k, but you've since diluted it with other things ... if it's mildly uncomfortable, it might work well. You said you can eat it slowly, so it's not completely inedible, so it'll take a little of the edge off. And as the heat isn't in the glaze, it might actually encapsulate the heat to reduce the attack (but likely won't have as much an effect on the sustained heat)
@Joe- diluted it with other things... and then dried of almost ALL the water! I'll bet it's much higher than 350k now.
A recipe I use all the time which is delicious and easy is: -
125g hoisin sauce
75g tomato puree
35g tomato ketchup
2 tbsp honey
2 tbsp sweet chilli sauce
2 tbsp soy sauce
2 tbsp fresh ginger, finely grated (optional)
2 cloves garlic, finely grated
Juice of 2 limes
2 pinches of chilli powder
French parsley to garnish
My suggestion would be to use some of the (non-hot) ingredients above and add them to your sauce. I would definitely leave out the ginger/chilli/garlic ingredients if you were trying this.
Can you format your recipe a little better? It's a bit difficult to read as it is.
I have done the same thing a rather enjoyed it, thats just my opinion. I agree with chopping it up and making a stew or my personal favorite making a Texas chili from it. Either way you cant go wrong.
yes! you boil the jerky in hot water for about 5-10 min. dunp the water out and fill with clean water and simmer for another 10-15min. once that is done, soak the jerky in a "not spicy" marinade. dehydrate and eat. there may still be some kick, cause i dont know the level yours is at now, however this will reduce the hot greatly
I'm not sure this will work - capsaicin doesn't dissolve in water. Have you tried it?
I want to know if a twice-dried jerky would taste different.
Capsaicin does bind to proteins and carbs that dissolve in water. You should get some mellowing with this protocol. You get more solubility in alcohol, so a Jack Daniels rinse could work. Also casein in milk binds the stuff. However, a milk soak seems a horrible thing to do to jerky.
Eat with a large glass of V8. It will still be super hot but I find the acid from the tomatoes helps make it more tolerable if you enjoy actually enjoy hot things.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.976045
| 2011-05-10T11:42:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14640",
"authors": [
"Gail",
"Joe",
"Sobachatina",
"Tom Gullen",
"Uticensis",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"han",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"zanlok"
],
"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
}
|
10168
|
How can I cook my dumplings without a bamboo steamer?
My company is having a potluck. I want to make Chinese dumplings, but the dumplings I make require a bamboo steamer and pot to cook.
I have a steamer that I use at home, but at work, I have no access to a stove top.
What other alternative ways do I have to cook my dumplings?
Should I cook them at home, freeze them and microwave them day of the potluck?
A couple thoughts... I haven't tried this, but I've heard of people doing it.
The microwave works relatively well to steam things. You could try "steaming" the dumplings in the microwave with a bit of water at the bottom of the dish or better yet, cover with a wet paper towel. You'll probably need to do some experimenting unfortunately. Under "ideal" circumstances, I'd probably prefer proper steaming, but this might work in a pinch. I imagine re-heating them would work well, but if cooking them works to your liking... no sense cooking them twice.
If you have a rice cooker, you could easily rig that up to "steam" as well. Just rig it up as if you were using a pot to steam it. Just make sure it isn't dry....
I do have a steamer. Sorry, I may not have added enough detail to my question. I will edit.
Ahh... so the main question is about getting maximum freshness at the office?
Yes, that is my overall goal.
I really like the idea of using the rice cooker. I guess a trial run this weekend is in order.
I tried using the rice cooker, and it worked out great. I will be bringing it along with me for my potluck. Thanks for the great idea!
I'd steam them at home, then refrigerate them and microwave them the day of the potluck. Alternatively, you could make fried dumplings which might hold up better in terms of texture when you microwave them. Here's the way to make fried dumplings:
Heat 2 tablespoons of vegetable oil in a saute pan over medium-high heat
Place the dumplings in a single layer in the saute pan with the hot oil
Let the dumplings fry for 5 minutes. Don't move the dumplings
After 5 minutes, pour 1/4 cup of water into the pan and cover for 5 more minutes
Uncover the pan and cook until all water has evaporated
Let cool, then refrigerate.
We use a vegetable steamer and put lettuce/greens leaves down sometimes so it doesn't stick the the basket.
An electric fry pan will do well for you. If you are doing pot sticker type dumplings, then fry them to brown, then add your liquid to finish the steam and cover.
If they are not pot sticker dumplings, then you can bring liquid to a boil, add the dumplings, and lower the heat to a simmer and steam them.
If you are worried about your dumplings actually sitting in the small amount of liquid on the bottom of your pan, you can add more water and then put your dumplings on a vegetable steamer standing on the bottom of the pot. In that case you will prefer an electric fry pan with a taller lid, but it will still work.
When you are done cooking, turn the heat down to low and the dumplings will stay warm.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.976379
| 2010-12-15T18:23:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10168",
"authors": [
"Andrew Lee",
"Ayden K",
"Debbie",
"Gustave",
"Jacob R",
"John Wells",
"TheMenace",
"William G",
"William Odingle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32",
"talon8",
"user20803"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
873
|
How can I grate soft cheeses?
Sometimes I need to shred a block of a soft cheese such as mozzarella, or cheddar. When I use my grater, the cheese starts to get kind of chunky as I'm grating it. I end up wasting a lot of cheese when I try to grate it.
It never happens when I grate harder cheeses like peccorino.
Is there a way to grate softer cheeses without ending up with big pieces of wasted chunks? Is there a particular grater that works better for softer cheeses?
I currently use a mandolin grater, and not a box grater.
I usually just eat the extra chunks :)
Why does it need to be grated in the first place? There are a couple of types of mozzarella - the firm, processed type will grate from the fridge.
What cheddar are you referring to, most are fairly reasonable for grating?
I usually freeze mozzarella and then grate it (longer the better, unless you are in a hurry, then 20 minutes or so works OK). This works very well. Other soft cheeses, such as those meant to be eaten at room temp, brie, for example, I wouldn't freeze... Of course, I don't think many of us are grating brie anyway.
Yeah, what's probably happening is that the cheese is getting warm from the processing and from being out at room temperature. So the grater ends up stretching it instead of cutting through it. Freezing or deep-chilling it will extend its working life.
Great! I never even thought about doing that. Thanks!
I find that mozzarella (and other soft cheese) is good sliced. I wouldn't want to freeze the cheese unnecessarily, just so I can get to use a grater.
I think it's really only worth grating hard cheese.
Freezing cheese will force out moisture within the cheese, ruining some of its desirable characteristics. This may not matter for cheap cheese, but that $4 ball of today's fresh mozz might give you pause. You could still use the freezer though. Putting a soft cheese in the freezer for several minutes prior to serving will firm it up enough to grate it more cleanly.
Another option is to grate it into larger chunks. Use the coarsest grater for the softest cheeses.
Yah, I agree with this point 100%. There is a fine balance between ruining nice cheese and driving yourself bonkers grating properly ;--) +1 for trying to protect cheese integrity.
Use a box grater instead of a mandolin. Because the mandolin has a larger blade, it's placing stress on a much larger piece of the cheese resulting in large breaks. If you use a box grater, you get more localized pressure on the cheese for shorter periods of time. You'll still get some breaking with mozzarella or cheddar, but not nearly as much. Any breaks in the cheese will also be much closer in size to the final shredded product than with a mandolin grater.
I freeze the cheese then put in in small chunks into the magic bullet with the
flat blade and in no time I have grated two pounds of cheese.
A potato masher works ok in a pinch.
I would tend to tear mozzarella for pizza or as a topping to focaccia.
For other soft cheese, slicing it with a chef's knife works fine; putting the diced cheese into a bowl of water can help it stop sticking back together. For example, when making a salad with ripe brie, I slice the cheese during prep, then drain and add it just before tossing the salad.
There are special graters for this. They have a drum blade within a housing, you put the cheese piece in the housing and turn a handle while pressing the cheese towards the drum. As long as the cheese is not so soft that it's smearable (like cream cheese) you can grate it with this thing perfectly.
(if this is for pizza which it may not be) With Muenster maybe just use a cheese slicer and put thin slices all over the pizza instead of grated Muenster.. Muenster melts nicely ❤️
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.976675
| 2010-07-13T17:27:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/873",
"authors": [
"Andrew M",
"David Hall",
"GalacticCowboy",
"Jacob R",
"Jürgen A. Erhard",
"Louis Valentine",
"ManiacZX",
"Nic Perry",
"Orbling",
"Toshinou Kyouko",
"codeinthehole",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/968",
"jrcs3",
"nicorellius"
],
"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
}
|
7414
|
How do you reduce static in a coffee grinder?
Is there a way to reduce/eliminate the static buildup in a burr grinder? I've tried a few different coffee grinders and inevitably on removing the grinds bin, I get a spray of coffee all over the counter.
I'm not sure if this is off-topic or not. But I figured I'd give it a shot and find out.
I think it is a great question. Drives me batty. I had to go back to a regular blade-type grinder because the static causes such a mess.
Agreed. We have a burr grinder with the same issue.
Just a thought, stop into your local coffee shop and ask them if they experience the same issue.
I also have this problem. The bin on my grinder is plastic...does anyone also have this problem with a metal bin on their grinder?
Is your faucet grounded? A wire from there to the grounds container should help.
My grounds bin has a lid. So while the grounds still collect static, they don't fly all over the place when I remove the bin from the grinder.
Giving the bin few sharp taps on the counter top prior to opening seems to shake off most of what clings to the top and sides. Then I tap out the grounds, wipe out the bin with a napkin, and I'm ready for the next morning.
Beyond that, try switching up your coffee. The cheap "8 O'Clock" stuff I keep on reserve is terribly staticy, while the beans I roast myself don't have nearly the trouble. I tend to enjoy a lighter roast, so keep that in mind - you might benefit from grinding beans with just a bit higher moisture content (of course, if you have a strong preference for dark roasts, this doesn't help much).
Interestingly, I found the freshly roasted beans to be the problem. Maybe if I roasted them myself, the issue would also resolve itself, but that's beyond what I'm able to put into it. And I think our low temperatures and humidity cause an issue with locally roasted coffee.
Well, recently my coffee guy went on holidays for a few weeks, leaving me to go to elsewhere (I gave Kicking Horse Coffee a shot). Interestingly enough, the static issues completely went away. So Knives was definitely on to something in trying different beans. I had tried several different roasts from my local roaster, and they all had the same static issue. I realized that maybe in our dry, cold climate, the freshly roasted beans hadn't had time to reabsorb any moisture from the environment, whereas the beans roasted in a warmer, moist climate would have a decent amount of moisture in the air they are being packed with. So I tried sprinkling about 2 drops of water into the beans bag and shaking it all up. The next day, and for the rest of that 1/2 pound, I've had no static issues at all.
A lot of pople buy a very small spray bottle, this works well with single dosing.
Some beans do this more than others.
Some grinders do this more than others, the best drop the grounds straight into the group/container like an etz-max.
Thee is also something called the weiss distrobution technique, basically buy a tiny whisk and give it a stir.
As a new coffee lover, I recently got a middle of the line burr grinder which had a very clear line of complainers about 'static' in nearly all the reviews. I was not deterred because numerous people had found workarounds.
I have been beating my face on the counter trying to find my own work around, and just got one nailed down, I think. I have been doing the following for a week now...
The coffee ground receptacle is plastic and not very tall, maybe 4 inches. I pull a strip of aluminum foil about .5 inches shorter than the bin and the entire length of the roll. I coil it into a spiral, with plenty of room under where the grounds tumble into the bin. Boom, static gone! I keep the little spiral in there for a few days at a time, replacing it before I notice any problems with static.
And this little jerk (Capresso burr grinder) would detonate coffee grounds all over my counter if I found myself in a hurry and not paying attention in the a.m.
I'd like to give this a try (I have the same grinder and a big static problem), but I'm not quite clear on what you mean by "coil it into a spiral". Are you trying to make something spring-shaped that extends from the bottom of the bin to the top?
Tough problem.
Static won't persist forever, so waiting a few minutes before opening the drawer may help. Especially in a moderately to highly humidity environment (really dry air is a better insulator than moist air). Of course, you probably don't want to grind your coffee in a sauna, so that doesn't help much.
The static charge may be being produced at the grinding surface. If this is the case and one or more of the grinding surfaces is conducting you could try grounding those parts.
The charge could also be produced as the ground coffee rubs against other materials between the grinding surface and the catch box. In that case you're not going to have a lot of luck stopping it. A conductive basin could be grounded which will help some.
/don't own a burr grinder so this is largely speculative.
Unfortunately, we have to fight to keep the interior humidity here to above 30% for 8 months of the year, so static doesn't easily dissipate.
I came up with a solution to the static that builds up inside the plastic chamber (but not in grinders with glass chambers). I took a length of speaker cable (any copper stranded wire would work) and splayed about 2" of the bare wire, then stuck it inside the plastic chamber (it's thin enough if you flatten it). The other end I attached to a water pipe under the sink. The static that used to build up inside the plastic chamber is now grounded by the splayed wire to the metal pipe. It's not pretty or elegant, but it works like a champ.
A dark roasted coffee such as a French Roast has a dryer interior (the inside of the bean) so it is more susceptible to static. It has nothing to do with the quality of the coffee. A lighter roasted coffee is heavier and has a higher moister content.
I own 9 coffee shops and have ground many types of coffee, the only coffee that gives me static problems is my French Roast. Sorry to say I have not solved the problem and it is very messy.
We have the same problem too...I haven't found a total solution, but I have found that spraying the inside of the grinder cup with a fine mist of water before grinding seems to help. I just keep a small spray bottle filled with water near the coffee equipment.
Do you find a corresponding difficulty in clean-up, or stale left-behind coffee grounds? Also, moisture is typically something to be avoided with respect to processing coffee up until the point of extraction as it typically causes the beans to loose "freshness" faster, does exposure to humidity from the time of grind to filter make a difference in your experience?
@mfg I would expect it to be a problem if you grind your beans and let them sit for hours/days. Grinding should be performed within minutes before brewing to maintain freshness, so with that in mind, I don't think the few droplets would affect taste. However, as you said, that may affect the grinder over-time. I guess I'll figure it out myself, since I've been using this technique myself.
Add few drops (2-3) of water into coffee beans right before you start to grind it. Works like magic. Here's a video in case you need to see how to do it. Hope this helps.
Can confirm. I had trouble with my new hand grinder and medium roast beans (light roast was fine), and I just started using a pre-wetted spoon to measure the beans into the grinder. Also waited for a minute (while the water was boiling) to empty the grinder. To my big surprise, the holder completely emptied in one go. Before, a third would come out and the rest would cling :)
I'm not a coffee drinker, however, I have ground and made my wife's morning coffee with a French press for almost 6 years.
I purchased her a Capresso Stainless Steel Burr Grinder a few years ago. Love the grinder although using it produces a crazy amount of static electricity.
A couple of years ago I start experimenting and found that a 12oz bag in our freezer for 20 minutes virtually eliminates the static produced during grinding. A full 2lb bag goes in the freezer for about 45 minutes to produce the same result or you can separate out 12oz in a Ziplock bag for the original 20 minutes. We keep our freezer pretty cold so you may have to adjust the time based on how cold you keep your own freezer.
We don't keep our coffee in the freezer. I just put it in the freezer, set a timer for the appropriate time and grind it as soon as I remove it from the freezer.
This has worked great for me. Hope it helps others.
A length of tin foil that is near the spot where beans shoot into the basket, and enough sticking out to be held by hand will ground the charge.
It's a common solution in woodworking to ground dust collection systems which can start fire due to the dry wood particles otherwise.
You can do it real proper and run a length of bare copper from the middle screws on an outlet to inside the bin.
Images :https://goo.gl/photos/A7pP86u1XQnJGTw47
Grind your beans the night before and let the coffee sit there til morning. No static!
Wouldn't it have as a counterpart that the coffee's oils will get rancid? (and therefore taste worse)
I don't think it'd be any worse than pre-ground coffee, but it might lose some of what you get from fresh ground beans.
As much as this may be a solution to the static, coffee will lose its aroma within minutes after grinding it. Most coffee brewers will tell you to grind right before you brew. Now if you're find with the taste of your over-night grind, I'd just buy pre-ground coffee directly.
This has annoyed me for years, and I knew that is was only a problem with the darker roasts which had been dried out more in the roasting process. Just put a few drops of water into the grinder along with the beans, and that does it. I just put my fingers under cold water for a second, and then drip a few drops in the grinder. Done. So easy, I kick myself for not doing it sooner.
Problem completely and easily solved!
I have the same problem. I have a Capesso Infinity burr grinder with the small plastic drawer that pulls out. Sometimes there is static electricity and sometimes not. I honestly believe it's either the moisture content of the coffee beans I'm grinding, or the local humidity that determines whether or not there is a static electricity effect.
But what solves it for me is placing a coffee filter inside the grounds drawer. A #2 paper cone filter fits nicely with only a small amount of folding.
When I grind coffee, it goes directly into the paper filter which I then remove from the drawer.
Have not had even one flake of flying coffee grounds do to static electricity since I adopted this method.
Good tips here. I tried to find some that suit my own situation, and also looked back at similar threads. Local low humidity is not the issue here in Okinawa, Japan. Until today I had no idea the problem was so common, because I never experienced it until I got my current (blade) grinder a month ago. I'm sure it has to do with the type of plastic that is used. The problem is definitely worse with my preferred dark roasts. I think the simple fix of a couple of drops of water would work, except I had seen someone suggest using metallic tape to line the container with and I had some aluminum tape on hand. It seems to work but it may wear off quickly, in which case I'll try the water cure. Waxing the insides would be worth a try too.
I have a Capresso 650.05 burr coffee grinder and have had a severe static problem. The fix was to line the receptacle with aluminum tape available at any hardware store. The foil tape is placed on the inside and extends over the top edge of the container to contact the outside metal surface of the grinder.
Perfect Every time...
I added a comment almost 4 years ago (Mar 4, '15) ... make my wife's coffee with a French press ... but for almost 10 years now. My previous suggestion worked okay but only some of the time. Because of that, I have continued to pursue a consistent non-static laden grind.
No freezer or special wiring. Here's what I'm doing now.
I measure 12oz of coffee beans into a 6"x8" container with a lid and add a single teaspoon (1 tsp) of water. I cover the container with the lid and shake the beans for 30-45 seconds. I flip the container from right-side up and to upside-down and back several times as I shake it to distribute the water as evenly as possible.
--- Update Aug 10, 2020 ---
Recently found that you can cut the top off a sealed 12oz bag, add the water into the bag, hold the end of the bag shut and shake it to distribute the water. Has worked just as well.
--- Update Aug 10, 2020 ---
Take the lid off, dump the beans into the grinder hopper and start grinding. The coffee dumps out of the bin with no static every time.
Some of the beans will stick to container as I dump them into the hopper. I just scrape them into the bin with my hand.
Some of the beans stick to the side of the hopper as I'm grinding. I pick-up the grinder (just a half-inch or so) and set it down with a little force to free the beans.
The beans may stick stop the coffee from reaching the burrs (You'll be able to tell be the sound of the grinder). Again, I pick-up the grinder (just a half-inch or so) and set it down with a little force to free the beans.
Coffee may collect under the hopper around the silicone parts. I found this happens when I added too much water or didn't shake the beans long enough to evenly disperse the water before I started grinding. I check these parts after I finishing grinding and haven't had any problem since I found the correct combination. When coffee collects on these parts I just take them out, wipe them off with a paper towel and put them back.
I hope this helps.
Pure speculation here: look inside the well where the grounds-catching cup/box goes. If there is any exposed metal in there it might be grounded, so lining the cup with aluminum foil (maybe just partly would work) with a flap that continues outside the cup that could fold down over the outer wall and touch the metal, might have a chance of grounding it out and dissipating the static charge.
The problem here is that if the cup body is a dielectric (wood, plastic, glass...) it can hold a charge on the inside even if you ground the outside. Lining with aluminum foil wight do the trick if you can ground the foil.
I had some success in putting a piece of aluminum foil partially in the basket and have half of it hanging out. After the grind was done, I grounded the foil with the faucet, and most of the grind jumped off the plastic basket surface, but the foil itself continued to attract grinds... which doesn't make sense to me.
You're right @dmckee, if it doesn't ground anywhere it won't help. Even if there is metal in the cup well, if it isn't grounded, no good.
@Eclipse: The phrase you want is "induced charge". The static charge on the grounds in the basket affects the grounded equilibrium of the strip, leading to a residual electro-static force. Now I'm wonder if that could be made into an effective classroom demonstration somehow...
We completely fixed this ANNOYING problem by moving the coffee grinder away from the electrical outlet into which it was plugged when we grind the coffee and empty the well. When not in use, the coffee grinder is against the wall near the outlet. We move it to the front of the counter, away from the wall, before we load it with beans, grind them and empty them into the coffee press or espresso maker, the only 2 methods of brewing coffee in our house. We discovered this by accident and have not had a single encounter with the static problem since.
Are you unplugging it too? Or just moving it while still plugged in?
I use a Black and Decker single cup coffee maker as recommended by the Coffee Geek for having just the right brewing temperature. What comes out is favulous. So...to defeat static, I simply put a #2 Melitta coffee filter into the plastic resevoir of my Capresso burr grinder. Lift out the paper filter with the ground up coffee and Voila, no static issue.
Grinders will always generate an amount of static electricity when there is no path to ground, or efficient dissipation system in place. So, your options are to either dissipate the charge, or earth it out. This seems to be a major design flaw in nearly all grinders.
Dissipation - If you have an electric grinder, lining aluminium foil in places where static is a problem is a good idea - eg. inside and out of the collection bin, and the bean hopper. The more surface area of foil open to air, the faster any static charge will be dissipated.
Earthing - On the other hand, if you have an all-metal design (eg. ROK Grinder), you may find it more worth your while to create yourself an Earth/Ground lead with an alligator clip for the grinder. Attach the clip to the grinder wherever is most convenient for you while using the device.
Go through an electrician if possible. Simply snipping the Active&Neutral prongs off the plug, and soldering an alligator clip to the other end of the Earth wire will be suitable. Clip the alligator clip to your grinder - plug the Earth prong into the wall. Static Electricity will be discharged through the Earth circuit before it manages to build up enough to bother you. If you follow this advice, do not introduce any water into your beans prior to grinding.
LET IT SIT!
I've been having this same static issue since we got the Capresso infinity burr grinder. I read all the complaints. Then one day about two weeks ago I ground the coffee but forgot to put it in the coffee maker. I came back several minutes later (10-15 min?) and to my suprise, virtually all the static was gone.
I tried it again a week and a half ago and intentionally left the grinder alone after grinding the coffee for probably 15 mins. Voila! No grinds all over the place, hardly any on the counter...the static seems to have dissipated all by it self just by sitting for a few minutes. The down side... it's easy to forget you've left the coffee grinder alone in the process of making the coffee. And there's no short way to do this step.
I'd like to know how it works for the rest of you.
Ralph
If your receptacle is plastic and smooth you can try sanding it or scuffing it up with some steel wool.
When you drag your finger across it, if it seems sticky (static friction), then you can sand the insides down. After you've sanded it, wash it with soap and let it dry. Next time you drag your finger across you will notice a big difference.
I am an avid at home coffee grinder, I just periodically wash and then wax my container inside and out [the lid too], let it set for a while and then wipe it shiny clean, it helps tremendously with static, just depends on what type of wax you use on how long it last. And I don't worry about toxic effects, I have been doing this for a long time and I am fine, I just make sure I wipe it really good, just like you would your car!
I noticed this static thing you all are discussing when I started grinding beans in a burr grinder. I found that the best solution for me is to wait a couple minutes after the grind. If I can't wait that long ( a whole two minutes), I simply open the lid of the bin holding the ground coffee and give it a quick stir with a "metal" spoon and the static is gone. No fabricating is necessary. Sometimes I use the same spoon to tamp the coffee into my cone filter of my drip coffee maker and I've noticed richer brews. Of course, YMMV.
This was already covered by a previous answer.
Keep the beans in the fridge, the hopper with just the right amount of beans. Grind them, turn off the electricity, tap the container until the grounds fall down from the sides and load your percolator to brew the coffee.
we just bought a new grinder and have the same static problem when we open the lid of the container. What it worked great for us is wiping outside the container, after ground, with one of those Bounce sheet. (the same we used in our dryer) and the problem was gone.
Did the dryer sheet do anything to the coffee? Off flavors, weird mouthfeel, etc?
Took a fine mist water bottle and sprayed a couple shots into the empty coffee receptacle (mine is plastic from a Braun burr grinder). Grind like normal. NO STATIC ANYMORE. Only method that has ever worked. When I forget to do this, fly-away grinds all over counter.
Before grinding, wipe the hopper and the brush bristles with a dryer anti-static sheet. Wipe the bristles thoroughly.
Uh... is this a serious suggestion? For hair or so, yes. But wouldn’t the sheet leave a scented residue?
What does this add beyond the similar previous answer?
dryer sheets aren't food-safe. "Dryer sheets can contain volatile organic compounds like acetaldehyde and butane, which can cause respiratory irritation. Quats, a fabric softener chemical, is often part of a family of chemicals called quaternary ammonium compounds, many of which are linked to asthma. Acetone, used in dryer sheets, can cause nervous system effects like headaches or dizziness." source: https://www.ecowatch.com/why-you-need-to-ditch-dryer-sheets-1881714654.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.977212
| 2010-09-18T02:16:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7414",
"authors": [
"Adrian McCarthy",
"Audrey Fussell",
"Barbara Robbins",
"Barn Monkey",
"Chris",
"Chris Cantrall",
"Diane Hodgson",
"Eclipse",
"Frances Westmoreland Huston",
"Irene Munoz",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jay",
"Jenn",
"Max",
"Michael Edward Collins",
"Michael Natkin",
"OSE",
"Paul Miller",
"Rachel K",
"Sneftel",
"SourDoh",
"Steph Hill",
"Stephie",
"Vitalique",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"ben",
"cdegroot",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"goboating",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94092",
"jbosch",
"johncip",
"lynn mcintosh",
"mfg",
"odomojuli",
"pleasePassTheCheese",
"user1470324",
"user15223",
"user3320018",
"user67619",
"weaverk"
],
"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
}
|
880
|
What determines the shape-holding ability of cookies?
What things can you vary to make cookies hold their shape better during cooking, and not spread out like a pancake? From my experimenting, the initial temperature of the dough before cooking seems to make a difference - refrigerated dough spreads less than room temperature. What else can I do without making the cookies too dry? (Obviously if I add enough flour, the cookies will hold their shape, but at the cost of ending up with hard, dry bricks).
Does trying different fats like butter/shortening/margarine make a big difference? Is it worth buying heavier pans?
Cookies really only spread out because of their fat content: when it gets warm it flows, and if it flows too much before the glutens start binding to give it structure, you get flat cookie. So, in this case, if the dough is colder at the start the fat stays stable longer, and lets the cookie set up.
You can try experimenting with your fats: maybe butter instead of crisco, or vice versa. Lot of vegan types will roll in some banana to counteract the lack of eggs and animal fats. Or you could maybe add some more egg?
One quick thing to add: The initial shape of the dough also matters. I've had some luck forming my cookie-dough into little towers stood on-end. So long as they don't fall-over, you'll have thicker cookies once baked.
There are actually numerous factors that contribute to cookie spread - not just the fat content.
(1) Sure, too much fat can contribute to spread.
(2) Cookies made with melted butter (or margarine or whatever) tend to spread more than cookies made by creaming fat with sugar first - but most modern cookie recipes seem to be using melted butter these days.
(3) Using too much white granulated sugar contributes to spread.
(4) Using pastry/cake flour (any weak flour) contributes to spread.
(5) A greased cookie sheet contributes to spread.
(6) Refrigerated cookies might spread less, but the spread is more dependent on ingredients rather than temperature of the dough.
You might consider re-posting your question based on the specific recipe or recipes that are giving you a problem. It is difficult to propose a workable solution to a general problem.
Things like the type of flour, gluten content, etc., make a lot of difference, in addition to fat ratios and temperature. If you're interested in the details, I'd suggest getting a copy of Bakewise, which talks a lot about exactly this issue.
It seems to me that whole wheat flour spreads less, but I may be biased. I just don't like white flour.
I am all about freezing my cookie dough! I usually make a double batch & only bake 1-2 trays, ball up the rest in a Tupperware & throw them in the freezer. It's important to put it into balls first, or you'll have to defrost the cookie dough block & that defeats the whole purpose. I learned that the hard way! My cookies come out more plump, with a satisfying chewy (not soft, not crunchy) texture.
My friend's grandma actually ROLLS OUT the dough of her oatmeal-chocolate chip-walnut-whatever else amazing cookies, then balls them up & freezes them. I don't know if the rolling actually does anything (maybe aerates it in a unique way?) but they are the best cookies.
Sometimes I just make 2-4 cookies in the toaster oven (save energy!), then freeze the rest. Then you always have fresh, warm cookies.
Finally, the frozen dough balls are tasty on their own. Sometimes I get through those before I even bake the 2nd batch. It's especially awesome in the summer when you don't want your house to get a single degree warmer.
Definitely don't use melted butter! Softened holds together better. I think this is why freezing the dough helps them maintain their structure.
The proportion of flour and the oven heat are also related to spreading.
When I make cutout cookies, it sometimes happens that the first batch spreads a lot, because the dough was a tad too wet. But since I roll in flour/starch, not on foil, once I have to collect the cutout pieces and reroll, they keep their shape much better.
Also, if your oven is not yet up to temperature, they spread more. You really want them to start setting very quickly after the fat's melting, else they spread.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.978954
| 2010-07-13T18:25:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/880",
"authors": [
"Catalin DICU",
"David Schwartz",
"Jennifer Allen",
"Julien Poulin",
"Paul Lammertsma",
"Rich",
"Tricia Shields",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7208",
"john3103",
"maxhawkins"
],
"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
}
|
315
|
How should I care for my knives?
I've finally put down the money to buy a quality knife and it's sharpness is amazing!
How do I take care of it so that the edge lasts and the knife stays sharp?
Cutting tomatoes with weight alone is an odd test -- they're actually one of the harder things to cut, as you want some irregularities in the knife edge to act as serations to damage the skin as you slice. (that's slice, not chopping, as the downward-only force will result in exactly what you're describing, even with a good knife)
really? I always thought of tomatoes as one of the easier things to cut and that the knife should be able to start cutting through the skin of the tomatoe before the downward force starts pushing the tomatoe skin in.
You can chop a tomato with a really sharp knife, but its a bad judge of the knife and a worse way to try to prepare the food. Tomatoes like bread should be sawed at to cut them without damaging the food.
"really sharp" should slice a tomato in half in one or two motions, no need to literally saw (repeatedly go back and forth).
Technique
Always use a cutting surface made for a knife, particularly a wooden chopping board/block. Avoid contact with hard surfaces such as metal, glass, or stone; these will quickly cause dulling or even chipping of most knives. Also avoid cutting frozen items, for the same reason.
Use the dull end ("top") of the knife for scraping food off surfaces, or use a scraper or spatula instead. Knives are meant to cut straight, along the edge; scraping one sideways across any surface will misalign the edge very quickly.
Do not use more force than necessary. A sharp knife should cut with very little effort. The more pressure you apply, the faster it will dull.
Use a cleaver for bones or other very hard foods. General-purpose chef's knives or smaller knives aren't appropriate for this task, and may chip or even snap.
General Care
Wash or rinse knives promptly after use. The moisture in many foods can be acidic and/or corrosive to the metal (fruits, onions, etc.).
Dry knives immediately with a soft cloth or towel. Stainless steel is resistant to rust and corrosion but not immune. This goes for all metal but especially knives, because even an imperceptible amount of rust along the edge will drastically hinder its ability to cut. Air-drying may also leave you with stains or "spots" due to salts and other trace minerals in the water.
Store knives in a dry, open area, away from other objects, to avoid moisture build-up, impacts, and secondary rust.
Do not put a knife in the dishwasher. A knife in a dishwasher is subject to impacts, corrosion, and warping of the wooden handle/joint. Quality knives should be hand-washed.
Honing
Honing a knife is a good way to restore a slightly dull knife. You will need an honing steel (sometimes misleadingly referred to as a sharpening steel), which can be bought inexpensively. Note that there are differences between steels; the best value tends to be in the $30 (USD) range.
Honing is not the same as sharpening. Honing helps to align the existing edge, which becomes skewed or "curled" after regular use. It will not help to create a new edge if the knife is damaged, e.g. if it is corroded or chipped due to not following the "General Care" advice above.
To hone a knife:
Keep the honing steel vertical.
Hold the knife at a slight angle to the steel.
Stroke downward and towards yourself.
Alternate strokes, and do an equal number of times on both sides.
Here is a video illustrating the technique.
Sharpening
Knife sharpening involves a whetstone (AKA sharpening stone) and is an art unto itself. Some knife manufacturers do explain the process, however, the technique takes a long time to master and most home cooks will prefer to leave this to a professional.
If you find that regular honing is no longer effective at maintaining a knife's edge - and if it's been well-maintained, this should take several weeks or months - then it's time to get the knife sharpened.
An alternative to professional sharpening (or learning to use a whetstone) is to use a good-quality motorized electric sharpener, such as the Chef's Choice. This will obviously not yield the same result as a professional sharpening, but it is very convenient and fast.
Some people believe that all electric sharpeners will damage your knives. This may still be true of the cheaper, single-stage sharpeners, because they do a lot of grinding and generate a lot of heat. However, the more modern, higher-end sharpeners operate very quickly, have precise angle control, and use multiple stages mimicking the manual process (grinding, steeling, stropping).
The "grinding" stage on a multi-stage sharpener should only be used if the knife is already badly damaged, and will actually create a new edge. If your knife is in reasonable shape, then it's fine to use a good sharpener on a semi-regular basis as long as you don't grind too much. (Honing should still be your primary form of maintenance).
Yet another option, if you're on a tight budget, is to use sandpaper. Follow the link for additional information on technique, grit, and tutorials.
Always use a soft cutting surface like a wooden board or a plastic cutting board. Avoid glass cutting boards.
Always clean them after using them.
I agree...glass or ceramic chopping surfaces are the death knell for you knifes. I also find the sound of the metal grinding against these surfaces sets my teeth on edge, but that's a psychological issue more than anything :)
+1 for avoiding glass cutting boards. They are beautiful cutting boards but are murder on your blades!
Also, they are way too slippery, to the point of being dangerous.
Don't ever leave your knives wet, keep a towel handy and dry the blade regularly while working, especially after slicing acid foods such as tomatoe, citrus, etc.
Hand wash your knives and don't set them down until they have been dried.
Purchase a fine (as opposed to coarse) steel and learn how to use it, half dozen licks every once in a while on a well kept knife will keep it extremely sharp.
Don't even think about chopping food on stone cutting blocks, as seen on the telly.
Store them in the open where they can breath, so that and moisture that happens to accumulate will be rapidly dissapated.
Store them where they won't be jostled, where the edges can't contact other hard surfaces inadvertently.
Yes, I LOVE my knives. Only have three plus a parer.
One of the very best investments I've ever made in a kitchen tool is this Chefs Choice knife sharpener. It is motorized and has three levels of wheel - one for grinding out really bad knicks, one for sort of once-a-month resharpening and one for everyday honing that will leave your blade razor sharp. The angle guides make it nearly impossible to use wrong.
Now I've got nothing against learning to use a whetstone or waterstone - I know how from woodworking. And I'm all for you learning how to use a steel. But realistically, most home cooks aren't going to do either of these things. A good, motorized sharpener that produces excellent results in seconds is the perfect solution.
thats a it more then i was hoping to spend. $10-$15 on getting a honing steel seems more reasonable to me. The sharpener cost 3x as much as the knife did :) I'd rather save the $ and learn how to do it myself if that's not unreasonable. I wont rule out your suggestion completely, since it does have very good reviews on amazon. I was just hoping for a less costly solution, especially if it turns out i should replace the knife i linked above. thanks
@merk: Keep in mind that a steel will not make a dull knife sharp. A sharp knife has a fine edge that folds over quickly in use. With a steel you can unfold this edge and restore sharpness a few times. Eventually, though, the knife just gets dull, and the steel won't fix it. So if you want sharp knives cheap you'll have to get a steel and a decent stone. Good stones aren't cheap either, mind you, and take practice to learn. I know how to use a stone, but I mostly use the sharpener above, FWIW.
Also because you seem concerned about it: There's nothing wrong with that knife. Properly sharpened and maintained it should last you for ages. And because I just thought of it: Bear in mind that as you get other good knives (and I bet you will) the cost of the electric sharpener will seem a lot less excessive compared to the amount of time you'd spend sharpening them on a stone.
I knew about the difference between honing and sharpening. So i realize the steel wont help once the blade is dull and needs to be sharpened. I was under the impression though that a good knife properly maintained would only need to be sharpened once every 12-18 months? If so, i thought it would be cheaper to just find some professional place to do it for me. I assumed it would be better to let a professional do it, as opposed to me doing it with something like the device you linked. Or do you think that thing is just as good?
I've had my knives professionally sharpened, I've done them myself on a set of waterstones, and I've used the machine. I got the best results with the stones, but it took a long time (and wouldn't have been as good, if I hadn't already had some practice with woodworking tools). The pro job was about as good, but it cost something like $100 for four knives. The machine isn't as awesome, but it's good. I can do it as often as I feel like with a minimum of fuss, and I only shelled out the money once. I feel like it was well worth it.
@merk : the 12-18 month estimate doesn't take into consideration how much you're using the knife, what surface you're cutting against, etc. I can go years with nothing but honing, but I'm a home cook, so not chopping for hours each day, and I have more than one chef's knife (I hate having to stop to clean the meat-contaminated one), so I probably average less than 5 min of use per knife per day. ... but if I had a glass cutting board, I'd need to sharpen 'em once a month of not sooner.
I don't use it that often. I like to cook but i work so i don't get to cook that often. My average is probably the same as yours, or less. And i use a plastic cutting board. I prefer plastic since it's not that hard, and it's cheap so when it gets too marked up i can just replace it. I found a place that does knife sharpening, seems to have gotten good reviews and their prices seem very reasonable to me - $6 a knife. So i think i am going to give them a try and if they do a good job, then i'll just pick up a decent honing steel. http://www.iamprosharp.com thats the place i found
Get them professionally sharpened regularly, there is no substitute for that.
Hone them every time before you use them, don't cut on a hard surface (such as a marble or the like)
Some knives like the Wusthof knives I have will lose their sharpness quite quickly other's like Global are meant to keep it for a bit longer, so different knives mean different levels of TLC.
Additionally as others said, its important to keep your knives dry and not chuck them in the dish washer.
Alton Brown had a show covering this, I think the tutorial is online.
There's a difference between sharpening and honing your knifes. If your knives need sharpening, you should take it to a professional. After a few years of moderate use, it's probably time. Michael has a good suggestion, but only if you plan on sharpening your knives often enough to make it worth it. For regular maintenance, you want to use a honing steel on your knives, which will straighten out any place where the edge has "rolled". This does not actually "sharpen" the knife, as the sharpening process removes steel to create a new edge.
There is some difference between honing steels. In my own research a little while back, I decided they fell into about 3 basic types:
"Cheap" - These are the $10 steels. They have small metal ridges running down the steel. These ridges are really too rough for honing, could remove steel from the blade, and won't put a very good finish on your edge.
"Regular" - These are the $30-ish steels, and the ones that come with most good knife sets (Wusthof, etc). They do not have ridges, but have a slightly rough finish. Properly used, this is the best choice for most people.
"Combo" - The $50+ honing steels are also sharpeners. They will have some sort of diamond-coat finish which will sharpen your knife as well as honing it. I've heard praise for these, but I prefer to separate the honing and sharpening steps. While a regular honing steel is safe to use on a regular basis, you should only use one of these about every 6 months to a year, or you'll grind down your knives too much.
You can also get a ceramic honing rod, which would add an even finer finish, which you could use in addition to a regular honing steel.
Right now I'm not looking to sharpen the knife myself, just hone it since i'm under the impression honing needs to be done more frequently and is easier to do then sharpen the knife. Although michael above linked an automated sharpener that he says works very well. http://www.amazon.com/Henckels-32576-2309-Inch-Poly-Sharpening-Steel/dp/B00004RFMA/ How about a honing rod like that? It's closer to the cheap range but it's made by henckels. Also, any suggestions as to any chain stores i could take the knife to to get it sharpened? thanks
That one is probably fine. It's hard to tell from the picture, but I don't think it's the "ridges" design.
A kitchen store like Williams-Sonoma or Sur la table will probably do it, or tell you where you can.
Here's a video on how to hone your knife, just as Mike explains it:
http://www.epicurious.com/video/technique-videos/technique-videos-knife-skills/1915458779/knife-skills-how-to-sharpen-a-knife/1915433332
The honing keeps your knife sharp from day-to-day. But over time a dullness still accumulates that can't be fixed with honing. So you should have your knifes professionally sharpened from time to time (maybe once or twice a ear).
If you don't want to learn how to use a whetstone or a waterstone and do want to be able to sharpen your knife at home, you can get a fairly inexpensive sharpener made by Henkels for your knife. Another option is to take it into a local store that does sharpening or ask your butcher where he gets his knives sharpened and have a professional do it.
I actually have something like that already, but it doesn't seem to do much, so i stopped using it.
@merk - it works great on my Wustof, but I have seen it not work well on older knives. I'd suggest a trip to your local place that does knife sharpening, then.
@merk: I think one like that won't do much if your knife is truly dull. It's a hone rather than a sharpener. If you got your knives sharp, then used a sharpener like this on a regular basis, you'd probably have good results.
I have a $40 electric knife sharpener. It has two slots (for two stages of sharpening) with a rotating wheel inside. The slot's edges will guide the knife at the right angle.
It requires very little technique and effort, it's quick to learn and quick to use regularly.
It works marvel with the cheap knife set that I got years ago and I haven't had a need to buy another knife ever since.
Check if that would work on your quality knife (it may not). If it does, I recommend that.
... continuation of above answer... too many images for the text editor.
How do you tell when a knife needs to be sharpened? See if the edge will reflect light. The edge of a sharp knife is narrower than the wavelength of visible light, so it can’t reflect light as a mirror does. This test quickly shows where dull spots and nicks are on the blade.
The key to having a knife last is to sharpen it as few times as possible, which means taking as good care of it as possible. Sharpening means removing metal. There is actually very little hardened edge to a carbon steel knife. Most of the blade is tempered to keep the blade strong and flexible, like wood. Only the edge is hardened to allow it to keep an edge. This makes the edge hard and brittle, like glass.
Above is a newly heat treated blade. Below is a new blade with the edge ground to a primary angle. Note the burr on the edge:
Any time an edge is ground, it produces a burr which must be removed with a hone. Below is a brand new sharpened and honed knife. Notice there is still the primary angle
Each time you hone the knife, some of the primary angle is removed and the secondary (honed) portion gets wider:
Eventually you can’t restore the edge by honing, and the knife needs sharpening to provide another primary angle. This removes hardened metal, getting closer to the tempered (soft) steel.
This loss of hardened steel is why over-sharpened knives end up looking like filleting knives and will no longer hold an edge.
Rust is the major enemy of a sharp anything, knife, razor, chisel. When you watch a sushi chef cut, the 1st action after cutting is wiping the blade off with a clean dry towel. Everytime! Keep your knives clean & dry and don't abuse the cutting edge. Protect them, they aren't can openers, scrapers, spatulas. My knives last 2 to 3 months between sharpening and I can easily cut paper thin slices of tomato if need be, Slicing newsprint is an accepted test of sharpness.
Electric knife sharpeners will literally eat your knife down, they remove a huge amount of material every time you use it. I've taught myself how to sharpen my knives using several grits of a natural water stone. (google how to sharpen with a Japanese water stone) Years ago, I used a sharpening guild and a 500/1000 grit combination manufactured water stone. Now I rarely use 500 unless the knife has been damaged. Mostly I start with 1000, then polish with 2000. It takes me 10 to 15 minutes per knife. When I can use a 4000 grit water stone, I may finally buy a really good Japanese Damascus made knife.
Japanese knives are different from European knives. The amount of carbon contained in the steel will determine how hard it is. Very good Japanese knives have extremely high carbon content. They are the sharpest knives in the world. The technique for sharpening European or Japanese knives also varies. High-quality hand-made Japanese knives made with Damascus layered steel can run thousands! A moderately priced one is 2-300. You can get decent Japanese knives for 100-200. This may seem high, but remember, this is a knife you purchase once in a lifetime. My grandson will get my knives when it's time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.979488
| 2010-07-09T23:14:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/315",
"authors": [
"Aaron Brager",
"Big Dave",
"Bob",
"Dinah",
"Gail Bryant",
"Janey Lee",
"Joe",
"Joshua Aslan Smith",
"JulesLt",
"JustInTheWoods",
"Kev",
"MJeffryes",
"Paul Kroon",
"artsylar",
"bikeboy389",
"heyNow",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/958",
"justkt",
"kitchenzero",
"mercutio",
"merk",
"oneworld",
"piderotrema",
"rackandboneman",
"sadboy",
"seh",
"stantonk",
"ydant"
],
"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
}
|
367
|
How does the way that I cut my garlic affect the taste of my food?
I've seen recipes that called for coarsely chopped garlic and recipes that called for finely chopped or minced garlic. What affect does that cut have on the final taste of my dish? What about crushed garlic?
possible duplicate of Is there any difference between chopped and crushed garlic in cooking?
Not sure I agree on the duplicate. This one is asking about the size, the other one is asking about "cutting" vs "crushing" (at least the way I read it). Probably best to combine them into one, but they're not exact duplicates.
Am I the only person who thought of the Goodfellas prison scene intro when reading this question?
@Adam A is close -- it's not an issue of surface area on potency, it's an issue of damage to the garlic. The 'strong' taste of garlic comes from a reaction as chemicals are released so they can mix (alliin and alliinase)
When you cook the garlic whole (as you would for roasted garlic), you will never get this reaction, as you'll break down the chemicals. Also, the chemicals break down over long cooking, so even if you add a head of crushed garlic at the beginning of a batch of slow-cooked tomato sauce (4+ hrs), it's not going to have as strong a garlic flavor as adding a clove or two at the end.
One other way that the garlic prep can affect the taste is when you're sauteing, stir frying or other cooking over high heat -- larger bits can be cooked longer before they burn ... and burned garlic is bitter, acrid and will ruin any dish. (if you burn garlic, stop immediately, trash everything, clean the pan, and start again -- there is no way to save it that I know)
More surface area means more taste. The more cuts, the more potent the garlic flavor will be.
It also affects texture and homogeneity - if you're coarsely chopping the garlic, you're going to feel it when you bite into it. You also are more likely to get some variety on each bite (which I think can make a dish more interesting).
@Joe said most of the thing I could, but maybe let me add some more information in terms of cold marinades and eh, perhaps, sous-vide cooking.
Cold marinades -
Larger garlic coarsely chopped, provided that it is not cooked, allow for a fresh release of garlic flavor on chewing, this may be a desired or undesired effect. Otherwise one can consider Fine, minced garlic paste for the job, which is usually easier to control.
Sous-Vide cooking -
if you do it, you should be able to know, but just in case, use very small amount of garlic paste or powder if you plan to use garlic, anything more than a slight pinch would result in disaster. I learnt it the hard way.
I've found that recipes that call for coarsely chopped garlic fully intend for you to get a mouthful of garlic to chew down on -- where garlic is a "star player" in the dish, whereas a recipe that calls for a bit of minced garlic is usually looking for garlic to play a more "supporting role" in the dish. There are, of course, exceptions to this, but I'd be willing to bet that 9 times out of 10 this would be the case.
Not exactly as scientific as @Joe's response, but it's an alternative way of thinking about the big pieces of garlic in a dish. They might not flavor the whole pot as much, but if you get that one bite with the whole clove, you're definitely going to taste it!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.980937
| 2010-07-10T01:32:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/367",
"authors": [
"Aaron",
"Adam Arold",
"Gary",
"Jason Merrill",
"Lee",
"Michael Baker",
"Raphaël Slinckx",
"Thomas",
"dfrdmn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/874",
"txwikinger"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87
|
How can I keep delicate food from sticking to the grill?
When I grill fish or chicken, often much of the meat and/or skin ends up sticking to the grill. What's the best way to avoid this?
If you plan to put a steak on the grill I suggest that you give it a nice and decent rub in olive oil, and what ever spices you might want...perhaps a bit of rosemary.
Generally when grilling start the grill then use a vegetable oil spray on the surface just before putting the food on. I agree with the person that said don't flip too soon espec. Any food needs a good sear on it before you flip,especially with burgers.
11 answers? Really? (And not a one of them can claim completeness.) Perhaps this question ought to be protected?
Other people have answered similarly but definitely make sure your cooking surface is VERY HOT before the food hits the surface. Cold food+cold metal=sticking!
In addition to this, you should also make sure you don't start trying to flip too early. Let the food cook and get a good sear on one side before you try to flip. If you do this with a hot surface, you shouldn't have any problems with sticking.
One more thing, it's important that the grill surface is clean, so cleaning your grill religiously after you finish using it each time, and then oiling it lightly before you use it, can be a huge help in this area.
Being particularly lazy, I clean & oil my grill at the beginning of each usage. (if I clean it afterwards, you need to re-oil it unless you've got enamel coated or stainless grates .... otherwise, you risk oxidation while it sits).
I'll start with agreeing with the others -- oil your grill (after first cleaning it), and make sure it's hot. Think of it like seasoning a cast-iron pan, but you have to redo it, because the heat from the grill can bake it off.
Next, don't keep trying to move it. Things like chicken and steak will release from the (well oiled) grill once they've gotten a sear on them.
Fish, however, I go with an alternate, possibly controversial method -- aluminum foil. Use a piece of foil slightly larger than the piece of fish (one for each piece, you want space between each piece for the smoke to come up) and oil it slightly. When set onto a hot grill, you'll even still get grill marks.
In addition to oil, make sure the grill is nice and hot before you start cooking. The same principle applies when pan frying.
I've found that if you brush on some cooking oil either on the chicken or directly on the grill it will help. Also, if you move the meat slightly before it cooks too long it will help it from sticking so much.
Generally the best way to prevent sticking is with fat. One solution is to apply fat (oil) directly to the meat, or to the grill, right before cooking. The other thing is to avoid cleaning the grill too much. While you should keep too much junk from building up on the grill you do want to let it season, much as you would a cast iron pan. As the fats and everything build up on the grill it'll help future meals from sticking.
All the books I've read say that oiling your food is the preferred method.
Having said that, I often oil my grill by using a paper towel with oil on it
I'd been using paper towels to oil the grill, and I just discovered that newspapers work a lot better. Paper towels absorb the oil and then don't release it, and they leave fibers behind on the grill. Newspaper transports the oil but then releases it onto the grill.
I tried this yesterday and after several applications of oil, the grill was terrifically seasoned, to the extent that the food was sliding around a bit too much.
You could season the grill. Oil the grill before you start cooking and then heat up the grill. The heated oil will create a 'non-stick' surface on the grill. The more often you do it, the more non-stick the grill will become.
Something I tried for the first time today: I used oiled green onions to create separation between my fish and the wire basket. My fish came out perfect and the charred green onions improved the presentation and maybe even improved its flavor.
I am really quite surprised no one has mentioned grilling on wood planks yet. It's an extremely useful alternative to keeping the lighter meats/seafood from sticking to the grill surfaces. Typically they aren't too expensive and you get the added bonus of the smoky aroma in your food.
Link to a decent primer on wood plank grilling for those interested: http://backyardprovisions.com/blogs/grilling-101/10784049-wood-plank-grilling
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.981246
| 2010-07-09T19:38:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87",
"authors": [
"Chris Mayer",
"Elliott Frisch",
"Eout",
"Joe",
"Johan Buret",
"Lukas G",
"Marti",
"Mary Okel",
"Matt K",
"Opera",
"Rumen Georgiev",
"Spammer",
"cyberzed",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95443",
"ollifant",
"s_hewitt",
"talon8"
],
"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
}
|
6541
|
Can I preserve fresh potato gnocchi by drying it?
I have a lot of potatoes to use, and I am making a large batch of Gnocchi. I plan to freeze much of it, but I was wondering if it's also possible to dry the fresh Gnocchi and store in a sealed container at room temperature (as is done with other pastas). Has anyone tried this?
If it matters, the Gnocchi dough will not have egg in it.
Not sure enough to make it an answer, but I'd be inclined to think that won't work well. Gnocchi are a lot thicker than other pasta. I'd expect you get some nasty cracking, and also maybe rotting before the inside fully dried
Why do you need to dry it rather than just freezing all of your left overs?
I would think that is not possible to dry gnocchi; if that would be possible, there would be less problems for the food industry to preserve them. Consider that gnocchi are not like other pasta.
I agree with the above comments, but I am experimentally drying some anyway... @yossarian, freezer space is quite limited, while pantry/closets has plenty of room.
Surprisingly, the answer seems to be a qualified yes, however the texture is not the same. The dried gnocchi turned out to be much better if fried after boiling; see below.
Here are the results of my experiment:
I dried a small amount of the fresh Gnocchi by placing them in a 150 degree (Farenheit) oven for about an hour, then turning off the oven and leaving them in all day. It is very dry here, so that did the trick.
I boiled the dried gnocchi after several days of storage. They took about ten times longer to boil than their fresh counterparts. Even after they were fully cooked, they were not as soft as the fresh gnocchi, and they never regained their original size or shape. Overall, they were denser, firmer, and less sticky. Not desirable traits necessarily, but they were quite edible.
I decided to pan-fry a small batch in about a tablespoon of oil, and these turned out wonderfully! I have pan-fried gnocchi before, and it tends to be hard to keep them intact and keep them from sticking. The previously dried gnocchi, however, did not stick and held up to vigorous frying. The result were gnocchi with a crispy exterior and soft (if somewhat dense) interior. The crispy outside and flavor reminded me of samosas. These weren't just edible, they were great. I plan to dry about half of my next batch and use the dried gnocchi exclusively for frying.
I think the fact that I've never seen dried potato gnocchi, only vacuum packed 'fresh' potato gnocchi means that you can't. If you could surely dried potato gnocchi would be in the shops.
It seems that the dried gnocchi is semolina gnocchi, and not potato although there seems to be a patent for a technique for drying potato gnocchi. If you try it let us know how it turns out. If you are still alive after eating it that is :)
I use a regular dehydrator after cooking at 40 degrees Celsius for 7 hrs. I store them dry in a masonry jar. This works fine and doesn't change anything. I also don't use eggs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.982009
| 2010-09-01T21:16:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6541",
"authors": [
"Michael Natkin",
"avpaderno",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"kevins",
"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
}
|
7389
|
What determines total heat when using chilis? Quantity × intensity?
I recently tried a bite of a Bhut/Naga Jolokia pepper, which is rated to be 3-10 times hotter than a "standard" habanero. It was hot, but the total experience was not worse than a habanero, and definitely not worse than Buffalo Wild Wings' "Blazin' Challenge," which is more about the volume of hot wing sauce you can consume.
Granted, my peppers were farmed in California, not India, but they should be well within an order of magnitude of its variety's rating.
Given the wide range of chili varieties and heat levels, I'm wondering how best to harness the heat of each.
What determines the intensity and mouth location of a raw chili pepper experience?
Most of the capsaicin is contained in the pith and seeds, so is it a matter of how well you chew that portion and move it around in your mouth?
Are there other chemical factors at work in each pepper that affect the release/reception of the capsaicin?
When cooked down, is it just a simple equation of pepper volume × Scoville rating?
Is a large fruit likely to contain more capsaicin than a small fruit, or about the same?
Since Thai chilis are around 75,000 SHU, are they 7 times hotter per volume than Serranos at 10,000 SHU?
Would you want to use a tiny bit of a Naga when all you want is heat with little to no pepper flavor?
check out the post http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6620/how-can-you-reduce-the-heat-of-a-chili-pepper for more info
To answer my own question #7... I just purchased some Habanero+Ghost Pepper Jack cheese. The habanero flavor was strong and fruity, but the (small) amount of ghost pepper only added heat, and contributed almost no flavor. The combination brought the cheese up to habanero-like heat levels while retaining the habanero flavor, which was impressive.
Granted, my peppers were farmed in California, not India, but they should be well within an order of magnitude of its variety's rating.
Actually, they shouldn't necessarily. All chiles, are very sensitive to the environment they are grown in. Even trivial changes in temperature, humidity, and soil pH can affect the heat of the chile. The Naga Jolokia in particular can be at least as low as 500,000 Scoville units. The hottest one has been recorded at over 1 million. Many American growers intentionally grow them much milder than those found in India; this makes them much easier to sell.
The Scoville scale is a measure of capsaicin concentration. In other words, quantity of capsaicin per fixed volume. Originally, it was measured by a panel of five tasters who tasted a dilute solution of capsaicin oil which had been extracted from a fixed quantity of dried chile. The degree of dilution at which the capsaicin is undetectable is the Scoville rating.
Modern methods use high performance liquid chromatography to precisely the pungency units of a chile, this is equivalently the parts per million of capsaicin. Multiplying the pungency rating by 15 gives you the equivalent Scoville rating.
What does all this mean? Well, since it's a measure of concentration it's important to realize that by eating one chile or 20 chiles the concentration doesn't change. However, with more chiles you are exposing your mouth to a greater quantity of capsaicin. If this is what you mean by "intensity" then sure, it's more intense with an increase in volume. Personally I think of intensity as concentration instead of volume.
Those paragraphs should answer your question overall, but I'll go through your list just the same:
The intensity is the Scoville rating. Again, intensity to me equates to concentration.
The capsaicin is most concentrated in the seeds, so chewing them will release a greater quantity of it.
Not that I am aware of.
Not sure what you mean by cooked down, but yes both volume and concentration affect the quantity of capsaicin.
A larger fruit of the same Scoville rating (concentration) will contain a larger amount of capsaicin.
Yes, the capsaicin concentration is seven times greater.
Yes that is a reasonable use.
Thanks for explicitly mentioning concentration. I was implicitly thinking of it in terms of concentration per unit volume.
My understanding is that the heat you feel depends a lot on the recipe, i.e. how long it's cooked for and what it's cooked with.
I guess not cooking for very long won't allow the heat to get into the food.
I've found that cooking with 'watery' sauces makes the dish taste hotter, whereas with 'fattier' sauces, such as oil or cream does not release the heat so much when you eat it.
-Frink
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.982279
| 2010-09-17T00:22:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7389",
"authors": [
"Keith Lamont",
"Roberto Bonini",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15183",
"knownasilya",
"mfg",
"mskfisher",
"user15153",
"user15183"
],
"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
}
|
89748
|
Why is there a noise and big flame when starting my gas cooker?
I installed a new gas bottle a few days ago for my stove and trying to find out why the following is happening.
When the gas hasn't been used for a few hours, the moment you turn the gas button on the stove there is what looks like a higher pressure wave that comes with a large flame and a 'wooof' sound when the gas ignites.
The the stove works normally. It takes 3-4 hours of not using it for this to occur again.
It looks like there is a pressure buildup in the gas line when it's not in use.
What could be the reason?
Here is a video: https://i.sstatic.net/gN1fJ.jpg
If you want sound for a full experience: https://we.tl/p9CR4Dihok :)
You might want to post a picture or two, especially of all connections
I've edited the post with a video.
This sounds like delayed ignition where a greater than normal amount of gas is present when the burner gets spark. If you manually initiate the spark independent of turning on the gas you might try starting the spark first and then turning on the gas. Also the spark ignitor may be slightly out of place, moved during cleaning, etc. There are all sorts of stoves. A photo of the controls, burner and ignitor would help. You could also check the manual.
After viewing/hearing the video it seems to me the ignition is rather forceful. This might point to the regulator and too high gas pressure. A technician could test the gas pressure after the regulator.
In the video, the tic-tic-tic sound you can hear is the igniter, it is started several seconds ahead of the gas, so there is spark by the time the gas arrives.
Can you reduce how much the valve on the bottle is open by ? I use LPG and get a similar although not as dramatic effect.
I assume with bottled gas that the regulator is on/near the cylinder rather than built in to the stove. All bottled gas systems I've used are like this. If so you should try replacing the regulator. They're not expensive and they don't last forever. They can also get particles in them when changing cylinders, that degrade their performance.At the same time you should check the hoses are in good condition (some regulators and hoses come as sets, but I've no idea what system you've got). Is the flame noticeably bigger than before? That would be further evidence of a bad regulator.
Another less likely thought: Does it light as quickly as normal when it does this, or does it take a little longer? A mix of gas and air in the line can cause this (it does in my camper van). I say less likely because of your "as soon as".
You mention that it starts sparking well before it ignites (I couldn't load the video with sound when you posted it). I've had this with my stove when the gas distributor crown is partly blocked , so gas doesn't flow towards the ignitor directly. On mine there's an enameled cast iron cap that lifts off, revealing the nozzle, mixing chamber, and crown. Make sure all of that is clean and dry. This is most likely when it's just one burner that's at fault.
I've added a video to demonstrate.
I still think some details of the regulator would be a good idea
I'll take a photo and post here
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.982640
| 2018-05-11T15:05:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89748",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Thomas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59283"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9563
|
What is a French Rolling Pin?
I was recently given a 'French Rolling Pin' as a gift. To me, it just looks like a fancy dowel-rod. What exactly is it, and what is it useful for?
The tone of this question is unfortunate. Perhaps you could step down the undeserved animosity a bit.
The SO---who does the baking in our house---acquired an antique pin in this style for a couple of bucks, and shortly thereafter gave away all out axle-n-handle rolling pins. Good tool.
The French rolling pin is a useful tool in the kitchen for bakers, especially those who like to concoct pastries, roll out sugar cookies, or make shaped breads and rolls. The standard pin is usually 2 inches (5.08 cm) in circumference, and can come in varying lengths; 18 inches (45.72 cm) tends to be the most popular length. What makes it different from other rolling pins is that it has no handles, and is tapered to a smaller circumference at each end. It’s essentially a round, usually wooden, stick of a certain thickness.
From here: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-french-rolling-pin.htm
A French rolling pin is a real thing. It is also a very convenient thing. I find that I have much better control over my rolling using one rather than the foolish little pins with the handles that get filthy and hurt my knuckles.
As for the 'French' part of the name. I don't know, having never lived in France, whether they actually refer to that style of rolling pin as French. However, I find it extremely unlikely. Probably some English speaker coined the phrase to differentiate that style of pin as one commonly used in France. Hopefully there is a French speaker who can provide more insight. (If you didn't insult them with your question.)
As far as I know (I'm French but no chef), they are just called rolling pins with or without handles (rouleau à pâtisserie avec ou sans poignée). At least it's not like French letters or taking French leave…
Exactly. In France they use both types, each has there own job, and personal preference takes place as well. Both are useful tools in the kitchen. The plain wooden pin is obviously cheaper to make, and more common on a global basis
In professional baking circles, the tapered "French Pin" is best used to roll out pie and tart dough so that the center of the crust is slightly thinner than the outer edges. This way the crust is sure to be evenly baked.
As for the French part of it, my French chef friends have never heard of a "French Rolling Pin", nor have they ever heard of a "French Knife", or "French Fries" for that matter. I believe that any culinary item that is slightly more sophisticated it is called "French ...". Probably because the French are reputed to enjoy a higher standard of culinary expertice.
I am not so sure about the "French = sophisticated" theory. Normally, when a product style is predominant in the location, people from there don't call it by their own location, but people from outside do. So French say "rolling pin" to what you call "French rolling pin", Dutch people say "cheese" to what you call "gouda", Americans say "sandwich" to what I call "American style sandwich", etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.982954
| 2010-11-29T13:37:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9563",
"authors": [
"Bill",
"Cheryl",
"Gilles 'SO- stop being evil'",
"Håvard Geithus",
"Livius",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"dhag",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"uncacal",
"vil",
"webtina"
],
"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
}
|
21555
|
What effect do different slash patterns have on bread oven spring?
Slashes in bread loaves are designed to promote oven spring but there are many different patterns. Some running the length of a loaf, some in a checkered pattern. I've been told this is to promote oven spring in different directions.
What patterns lend themselves to spring in what directions? For example, I know a checkered pattern, promotes expansion upward.
Slashing the skin of a loaf creates a weak area. When the oven spring occurs the dough will expand through that weak spot. Expansion will be limited in the stronger, unslashed areas.
Conceptually this is fairly simple. Leave the skin unslashed in the direction you don't want the bread to expand. In the case of a checker slash on the surface of a boule- the edge stays stronger than the entire center so the expansion is forced upwards.
In practice, with different loaves, it may be difficult to predict exactly how the physics will occur. You can start with traditional slash patterns that you see on professionally produced bread.
For example, on long loaves, such as baguettes, the slashes are short, at a slight angle to the length, and overlapping to promote lengthening of the loaf. Whereas on wider, football-shaped loaves the slash may run parallel to the loaf to widen it a little.
As a demonstration I baked two loaves this weekend. They were identically formed as small football-shaped loaves (batards). One I slashed at an angle, the other parallel with the length.
Love the home test in this answer.
I had to think if you shaped them like a footbal ball or like a football ball :-) (before reaching the word bâtard)
Slashes allow the carbon dioxide released from the yeast to escape at specific points in the bread, yielding an even shaped loaf. They are used to stop the spring from tearing the bread randomly, which could create burned areas on the surface where it split or cracked. There is no specific pattern that works better than others, and they all tend to promote expansion upward and outward.
Certain patterns do influence the direction of expansion. Try a boule with a hash mark on the top and then try one with 4 parallel cuts - totally different.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.983242
| 2012-02-21T16:25:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21555",
"authors": [
"Dylan Mackie",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Saquiwej",
"TomRoche",
"d.harvey",
"denizen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48437",
"justkt",
"rfusca",
"shareenalor",
"user3053297"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21675
|
Why stretch and fold vs traditional kneading of bread dough?
Many recent recipes I'm seeing for bread, this one for example, are using a strech and fold technique rather than a traditional knead. Whats the advantage here? It sure seems to work, but I'm not sure why it works well with so much less work.
The purpose of all kneading techniques is the same: as @rumtscho wrote, to stretch and align strands of gluten.
The traditional kneading method is to fold the mass of dough on itself, press it together with the palm of the hand, turn, and repeat.
With very high hydration doughs this is impossible because the dough will hopelessly adhere to the hands. The technique is, therefore, modified to reduce hand contact with the dough as much as possible.
A dough scraper is used to gather and fold the dough which is laid over on itself instead of being pressed. The result is the same as normal kneading but only the fingertips come in contact with the dough. After just a few turns the gluten sheets will align and the dough will still be tender but much less sticky.
As for why it seems more effective I can only conjecture. Gluten forms in the presence of water. Higher hydration doughs allow for faster gluten development. It is not that the folding is more effective but that kneading very wet doughs progresses faster.
with typical kneading, a big stretch can only be achieved working very quickly -not likely for amateurs- stretching is key to getting elastic dough
Cover your hands with olive oil and then flour to prevent sticking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oednglADc0M
First of all, a traditional knead is stretch-and-fold. I don't know what you were taught, but the technique my grandma taught me is:
form your dough into a ball before starting
support the SW corner of the ball with the ball of your left hand
with your right hand, grab the NE corner of the ball
pull the NE corner of the ball with your fingers, stretching the dough
fold the stretched corner on the top of the SW corner
with the ball of your right hand, press the folded corner downward and a bit to the NE, while matching the press with your other hand from below
turn the whole ball 15° counterclockwise
repeat from the second step on.
While this uses less force than the video you linked, and makes smaller folds, it is still folding.
Second, you asked why. This being dough, it is all about gluten.
What you want to achieve is to unfold the proteins forming the gluten and orient them in the same direction, making them parallel to each other and creating lots of end-to-end bonds (as opposed to cross bonds). The nice side effect is that you aerate the dough, trapping miniature air bubbles into it. This results in a fine, even crumb.
There is a beautiful illustration of this in On Food and Cooking. One look at it, and you know why you should stretch and fold.
Ya, the way I was while it could be kind of generalized to be called 'stretch and fold', really more approximates the way a spiral dough hook works.
To be honest, if you gave me those pictures without captions and asked me which of the schematic drawings belonged to which photo, I'd associate the sheet- or net-like gluten orientation with the left photo. The right looks more like tangled up mess. Which actually matches the famous "cable model of polymers": you knead them and what you get is a tangled up mess, maybe some disorderly strands (right photo), surely not anything that resembles the lower right gluten orientation. Anyway, great explanation and thanks for sharing the book page!
Fascinating. That’s not what I think of at all when I think of kneading. What you’re describing sounds more similar to a slap and fold than I’d ever done before I learned how to slap and fold. Thanks for sharing.
Stretch-and-fold often works better with less effort because it is done periodically (as in the recipe linked in the question, where you do a stretch-and-fold every 45 minutes over a few hours).
The molecules that make up gluten strands take a certain period of time to align. By waiting for the gluten to form nice networks of strands, you can then stretch them to their greatest extent, which will add strength to the dough. By waiting a period of time again, you allow even more bonds to form, which you then stretch out and extend to add strength.
Compare this to traditional kneading, where you mix the dough and then pound, stretch, and fold for 5-15 minutes immediately. The gluten has barely been hydrated and it's only beginning to form networks. That's why a lot of recipes recommend an autolyze strategy, where you wait at least 15 minutes after mixing the liquid before kneading. By doing so, you allow the gluten to hydrate more fully, and you generally cut your kneading time in half (or even less).
Periodic stretch-and-folds just act like repeated versions of this autolyze strategy. In most bread recipes, you can generally get away with avoiding kneading altogether -- just mix until all the ingredients are evenly distributed and there's no dry flour. Then, just do 2-4 stretch-and-folds spread out during the first rise. The required number will depend on the type of dough.
Stretch-and-folds actually are a great way to monitor your dough during the first rise too. You can periodically check the texture and make sure it's actually developing enough elasticity -- if not, add in another stretch-and-fold at some point. If the dough is getting too strong (sometimes if the gluten network gets too tight, it can actually hold back the final proof and oven spring), do fewer.
The "stretch then wait" strategy is also similar to the "bench rest" often done before final shaping. Again, many recipes recommend doing a few stretches and preshaping maneuvers after the first rise, then letting your dough rest for 10-20 minutes before doing the final shaping. Essentially, you're doing a stretch-and-fold of the gluten, then letting it "relax," and then stretching it again once even more connections have formed. If you're not doing that before final shaping, you're probably not getting the highest rise you could. Doing it periodically over the first rise will add a huge amount of extra strength to the dough -- generally much more than you'd get even with an extensive initial knead.
One other technical note: initial kneading (and particularly mechanical mixing) introduces oxygen into the dough, which will actually contribute to the destruction of some flavor components in the final bread. It's a relatively minor effect, but substituting stretch-and-fold maneuvers instead of a long knead will introduce less oxygen into the dough initially, which can make a slight flavor improvement on the final loaf.
As other answers have mentioned, with really sticky high-hydration doughs, stretch-and-folds are often the only way to "knead" the dough. But there's really no reason why not to do stretch-and-folds with most bread doughs during the first rise. I frequently do this rather than kneading a lot at the outset (which, frankly, isn't really efficient), particularly with tough heavy doughs like whole-grain or multigrain breads.
One aspect that hasn't been mentioned in the other answers is that traditional kneading would be rather counterproductive when working with whole wheat flour that contains bran flakes. In that case, kneading would actually hinder the development of gluten strings, as:
The bran flakes and germ in whole wheat flour act like tiny little razor blades that shred these strands, inhibiting gluten development. The more whole wheat flour you use the more bran and germ there is in the dough and the more the gluten gets shredded.
http://www.abreaducation.com/wholewheat.php#gluten
Stretch and fold, however, allows the gluten strings to develop "passively" without moving the bran flakes around and cutting the gluten strings.
Difference between mixing in Spiral mixer and S&F is not that the dough is wet and that it can not be mixed. There is technique called double hydration where you first use 50-60% ish of the whole amount of liquid and then you add the remaining amount of water when gluten is developed. Now if we are talking kitchen aid and stuff, that is a different ball game. Kitchen aid sucks at mixing bread dough. So I would go with hand mixing anyway.
In professional mixers have 2 settings, Fast and Slow, You usually mix 5 min on slow and 3-4 min on fast and you do series of folds after that,
Artisanal bakers only mix at 1st speed for 15 min or so to mimic hand mixing.
The real reason is the faster you mix the more oxidized your dough gets and the more flavor you loose.
And the reason why tartine like books talk about S&F is because they know that most people don't have mixers and the ones who has a mixer have kitchen aid type mixer. And it is a pain to develop wet dough in those guys even with the double hydration method.
All this info is for regular 80ish hydro breads. This info is not valid if we talk about rich doughs like brioche or panettone since no one cares about oxidation of rich breads.
The short answer is that it is impossible to knead dough with high hydration such as the 80% for that baguette recipe because it is simply too soft and sticky. It would stick to your hands and everything, and if you added enough flour to make it less sticky, it would not be high hydration dough any more.
With "stretch and fold" you can quickly grab and pull the dough and once you learn the technique, you don't handle it long enough to stick, and can do most of the work with a bench scraper or other implement that the dough won't stick to.
Isn't that the same as Sobachatina's answer?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.983468
| 2012-02-24T04:54:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21675",
"authors": [
"Bill J.",
"Brent Zundel",
"Chaitanya Pai",
"Chloe",
"Christian",
"Kevin Iggens",
"Pat Sommer",
"Preston",
"Sneftel",
"The Ole' Man",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"kev_panda",
"morne",
"rfusca",
"tekno45"
],
"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
}
|
21559
|
What the advantage of a 'bakers couche' for proofing bread and is it safe?
A bakers couch is just floured fabric, whats the advantage to using it? King Arthur's site says that it promotes chewy, crunchy crust - how's that? If I'm just keeping it floured and not washed all the time, isn't there a risk of some kind of bacteria, or should it just be too dry?
Bacteria have a hard time getting established when all there is active yeast growing
Even if some bacteria do get onto the crust of your loaf, your next step will be to put it in a hot oven until it gets to a temperature that's easily hot enough to kill them.
The bakers couche is not just floured fabric, it is usually a hard wearing canvas
It is used to allow the dough to breath, and hold it's shape while your actual bread moulds are being used in the oven. The all over air gap allow the crust to dry slightly. A dry crust makes it easier to handle and bakes slightly more crispy
The flour is there to stop the soft dough from sticking to the canvas, but a with careful handling and a well worn in couche this should not happen
If you keep the couche dry it should not develop mold or mildew. Even if it does, leave it out in the sunshine, so that the UV light can deal to it. I can't imagine that the occasional normal household mold is going to form dangerous toxins that can survive the oven!
After use, give the couche a good brush down with a clean fine bristled brush, and store somewhere dry
If you have plenty of the fine perforated steel moulds, you wont need to use a couche, just use the pans
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.984350
| 2012-02-21T16:44:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21559",
"authors": [
"Crowley",
"Mike Scott",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9607"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7802
|
What are the Standard Terms Used to Describe Liquid Viscosity in Cooking?
When describing the thickness of a sauce or other liquid when cooking, what are the standard terms that should be used?
I've heard things like "gravy-like" or talk of coating metal spoons, but I'd like to know if there's a list of "standard terms" that are known to most chefs/cooks.
mucilaginous ? (used to describe overly okra-thickened items)
I have been very curious about this. The problem is that there are so many non-Newtonian fluids in cooking. Just think of a mucilaginous liquid.
The one I hear most often in professional kitchens is nappe, which is the "coat the back of a spoon" test. That is the general starting point for an average sauce that you can use in a wide variety of dishes; it is thick enough to cling to food without being stodgy.
Beyond that, I'm not familiar with other standard professional terms specifically for viscocity. Usually just thin, thick, stiff and so forth. Sometimes it is useful to talk in terms of percent reduction, as in "add 2 cups of wine and simmer until reduced by half", although in many cases this is done more by eyeball than with precision.
Is there only one term? I was hoping for a list.. :D
I'm not sure what other terms there are, but the "coat the back of a spoon" test is known as nappe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.984519
| 2010-10-04T03:16:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7802",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Levi Hackwith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/819",
"papin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1100
|
How to take care of Silicone cookware
I am starting to collect various piece of Silicone cookware. I would like to find out how others keep their silicone cookware clean or if they try.
I put my Silicone cupcake tray into the dishwasher last night and sure enough its does not clean well and feels greasy still. In the past I just wipe it out and learn to ignore the greasy part. But it still makes me wonder.
Thanks!
We thought silicone cookware would be a Godsend -- we assumed silicone + dishwasher = magic. Then we got some and had a harder time keeping it clean than regular cookware so we got rid of it. Now the only silicone items we use are spatulas/scrapers/icers.
This question is very similar to How do I clean this silicone tray?, which has much better answers.
You're doing all you can. When I first started using Silpats (love them) I noticed the greasy feeling after washing. I googled and googled but all I ever found was that this just seemed to be a fact of life. I personally wash mine in the sink, and I think it turns out better, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's just my imagination.
From what I can tell it does not affect the quality of my food. I'm also pretty sure that it's not "grease" per se, but probably just some feature of washing and using silicone regularly.
It is real grease. For some reason, silicone doesn't get clean in the dishwasher. I suspect that this is connected to the fact that cleaning methods which work for hard surfaces will not always look for soft ones (see e.g. the research on ultrasound washing machines), but this is just speculation on my part.
What I do is to put the silicone cookware through the washing machine. It emerges without any greasy feeling, it is like rubber on touch. I have been doing this for years and it hasn't harmed anything. I normally put it in in together with the kitchen and bathroom towels, using a long, high-tumble, 60 degrees or higher cycle. Obviously, the temperature doesn't do anything (these moulds go into the oven at 200+ degrees Celsius, the washing machine only goes up to 90 and using this temp is the exception), and the tumbling and centrifugation also seems to cause no problems. I don't put them through a dryer afterwards, just shake off any clinging water.
I only wash mats and soft moulds in the washing machine. I wash utensils with hard plastic parts (spatulas, some of my novelty ice cube trays) per hand in the sink, as I avoid putting hard items in the washing machine if I can, and also don't know how the plastic will react to high temperatures.
I was told to wash silicone bakeware with hot water only (no soap) and that it was supposed to stay with a slightly greasy feel in order to remain non-stick! That's what I do and it works perfectly for me.
If it still feels greasy, put a bit of baking soda into and leave it alone for awhile. It will absorb the excess grease and then you can lightly wash it out again rinse it out and put it away.
Microfibre is your answer. Loofahs. Plus detergent by hand.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.984671
| 2010-07-16T14:26:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1100",
"authors": [
"Brian Cline",
"Dinah",
"HenryHey",
"ISE",
"Mark Schultheiss",
"Will Sheppard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7308",
"jessykate",
"scott"
],
"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
}
|
3057
|
How to make large clear ice cubes
I want to make some ice cubes that are large (1" on a side or more), crystal clear, and perfectly cubical. I want them large to make my drinks dilute less slowly, and clear and cubical because I think it looks nice. When I make ice in the freezer, it's always cloudy. Any ideas?
Wired Magazine had a recent guide on how to make crystal clear ice. I'm copying it here since the article says it's under Creative Commons license:
Go Big
Ditch the ice tray and use a large vessel like a thick plastic bowl or, better yet, an insulated cooler. Fill it with water and stow it in the freezer.
Wait
The H2O can take a day or so to solidify. Remove the mini berg when it’s solid on the outside but still has a liquid core.
Drain
With an ice pick, bread knife, or screwdriver, make a hole to release the trapped water.
Segment
Score a grid onto the slab of ice, then pry it apart into cubes - the ice should break cleanly along the seams. Bigger cubes are ideal because they melt more slowly.
Contributed by Camper English
Aha! This is why commercial ice cubes are usually hollow!
The cloudiness is caused primarily by impurities. Use distilled water and boil it twice, letting it cool between each boil. This removes all impurities and will result in clear ice. The second boil may be unnecessary, but it can't hurt. Make sure you keep the pot covered while it cools.
I have tried this and I could not get clear cubes.
You need to make sure there are no other impurities so impurities in the ice cube tray, anything that falls into the ice cube tray whilst it is freezing, including any other ice and andy rough edges on the ice cube tray will allow potentially allow a crystal to form as well.
Water freezes from the outside in. And it expands when it freezes. Put these two ideas together, and you understand that the pressure created by the expanding water inside is what screws up the perfect clear crystals, not impurities.
I see there's a checkmark, but just as a possible option - if you're talking about non-alcoholic drinks, what about making ice cubes of the same liquid - like some people do with lemonade ice cubes? They still might be visible, but you'd certainly have less dilution.
I hooked up a Reverse Osmosis system to my fridge and now the ice is clear except for some air bubbles. If I wanted to make some "party ice" I'd use RO water but I would let it sit out for a while before putting it in the freezer to get rid of the air bubbles.
try breaking the crystals every time they begin to set. once you have the start rebreak the cubes. this will also remove any air bubbles which can cause the cloudiness.
Another way to remove impurities from water is to just let it sit.
Fill a bowl with water and cover it. Come back a day later and ladel the water from the top.
Impurities tend to sink to the bottom, but it takes quite a long time.
I believe the trick that commercial ice makers use to make clear ice is to constantly agitate the ice while it freezes.
I've heard that too, although I saw an episode of Mythbusters where constant agitation failed to produce clear ice. Possibly it needs to be combined with the distilled water/boiling method that hobodave suggested.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.984959
| 2010-07-24T00:30:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3057",
"authors": [
"Alan Christensen",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Dr. Oren Ben-Israel",
"Ian Turner",
"Konrad Garus",
"Matt",
"Philip",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Stanislav Shabalin",
"abhilash",
"drxzcl",
"ervingsb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8662",
"maranas",
"papin",
"ver",
"zompz"
],
"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
}
|
20399
|
How Do I Fix Curdled Mascarpone Cheese?
I made a mascarpone mix for a Jamie Oliver cheesecake and it has curdled.
The ingredients I added to the mixture include:
full cream milk,
vanilla essence,
and icing sugar.
Why would this mixture curdle? There is no acid in any of the ingredients.
And what can I do to fix this curdled mascarpone mixture?
What happens when you whisk it real good?
Mascarpone is very prone to curdling in mixtures like this if any of the ingredients are different temperatures. Generally, you whip the cheese to soften it and it warms up a bit in the process, then if the milk you added is colder than the cheese, the fats in the cheese will solidify again, causing it to appear curdled.
The best way to avoid this is to make sure everything is room temperature, and to add the liquids very slowly. To fix it once it has already curdled, generally you would gently heat it over a double boiler (or microwave it a few seconds at a time) while whipping it until you've whipped the lumps out. Once it's smooth, let it cool back to room temperature, stirring regularly, and rewhip it once it's cool.
So I might have failed at the cooling to room temperature bit, but you saved my cake here. Thanks and +1
I am guessing there is alcohol that denaturated the milk in the vanilla essence.
If the proteins are indeed denaturated, there is not much you can do. Perhaps you can use it in some recipe that hides the weird texture.
Butters and soft cheeses do not just curdle with the addition of an acid, when you add any liquid into a butter or soft cheese and if it is added to quickly (as you are essentially forming an emulsion of liquid and fat) it will split and curdle. This is why in creamed butter cakes you will often see the instruction to 'slowly add the beaten egg as not to curdle the butter' or something similar to that.
In a cake it won't make to much difference, it will just be a bit denser, but in something that's not cooked like a buttercream frosting it will leave an unpleasant, watery, almost gelatinous mouth feel and will separate out. You can salvage it by putting in the fridge (which solidifies the fat and pulls the mixture together), then add some more icing sugar (which absorbs the remaining liquid) and give it a good mix and it should come back together.
Hope this helps!
To uncurdle milk add more milk or to uncurdle cream add more cream .
You basically mixed more than needed and end up with separation into butter and buttermilk. Do not over mix.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! This is really a comment, not an answer. With a bit more rep, you will be able to post comments.
The question does ask "Why would this mixture curdle?" so this does seem to be a partial answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.985294
| 2012-01-12T14:28:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20399",
"authors": [
"B. Hayward",
"Bernardo Sulzbach",
"Cascabel",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Daniel Rosehill",
"Karthik T",
"Pena Pintada",
"Seasoned Advice",
"Wouter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94241",
"kitukwfyer",
"michelle Donaghey"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51987
|
Are sharkfin melon shoots really edible?
I read that the shoots of sharkfin melons (Cucurbita ficifolia) are edible. Isn't that kind of unique for a cucurbit? Is it true that they're edible? Are the mature leaves/vines poisonous?
According to a number of sources, the shoots are indeed edible, however all references I found were to "young" shoots, so I don't know about the mature vine itself.
The Curious Gardener says
It's not just the melon that is edible on this plant; the flowers,
leaves, shoots and seeds are also eaten.
Although the flowers, leaves and shoots are mostly used raw as salad greens,
The Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations adds:
The young stems (called runners), and also the flowers, are eaten
as a cooked vegetable.
This
North Carolina State University Article lists a number of cucurbits with edible shoots, including Chayote, Bitter Melon and a few types of Gourds.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.985569
| 2014-12-26T11:31:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51987",
"authors": [
"Alexandr S",
"Dolly DiDonna",
"Leslie Ng",
"Melody Lema",
"Source Medical Aesthetics",
"The Mule Junk Removal of Champ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123666"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21957
|
Why does food cook differently in a double-boiler?
I understand that food cooks differently in a double-boiler than when cooked "directly" - but don't know why that is.
How does utilizing a double-boiler change how food cooks?
Use of a double boiler limits the maximum temperature the food being cooked can reach. The water in the lower part of the double boiler can only reach 100*C (212*F) before it boils. The food being cooked, therefore, can only reach a maximum temperature of 100*C (212*F). It can't go over that until all the water in the lower pot has boiled off.
The double boiler maintains a steady, even temperature due to being heated by the surrounding liquid. Basicallly, (assuming the two pots don't touch) the heat in the internal pot will never exceed the boiling point of the water surronding it. Further, the liquid surrounding the internal pot has an insulating effect that makes temperature changes more gradual. When exposed to direct flame or heating element, the pot can do so easily, and temperatures may fluctuate more quickly.
The steady heat provides a good environment for tempermental foods/sauces that require a very specific temperature. Chocolate and Hollandaise are good examples of this.
Double boilers ensure slow, even heating and are handy for melting wax or chocolate, or cooking any sauce that is too delicate for direct heat. Double boilers can easily be improvised, if necessary.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.985704
| 2012-03-03T16:57:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21957",
"authors": [
"Splash1199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55334"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8216
|
How to deconstruct a pumpkin
In a fit of pumpkin-bread-craving I bought a pumpkin (labelled "for cooking" instead of "show"), only to realize I have no idea what to do with it. I already plan on scraping the seeds out and roasting them, but how can I convert the vegetable in front of me into something like canned pumpkin for use in bread, pancakes, etc?
Edit: Thanks, everyone! Your suggestions worked wonderfully. I removed the seeds/stringy stuff, roasted it at 400 degrees Fahrenheit for 1hr, then dropped it down to 300 for the last 15 minutes. I then let it cool, peeled the skin, and blended the daylights out of it (I added a little water to help the process, as I like having a working blender). The result was a smooth, flavorful pumpkin mash that I plan on nomming on for awhile :)
+1 for this question had exactly the same problem last week, had no idea how to deal with it and ended up using a peeler (I wouldn't recommend this method). I'll be trying the roasting in it's skin and then scooping out method next time.
Maybe I'm crazy, but this roasting period seems like an ideal time to add some seasonings to the mix.
I considered that, but I'm not entirely sure what I want to do with all of the pumpkin yet, and I don't want to be doing things like adding sweet spices to something I'm making a savory meal out of, etc.
You have to get the skin off and the flesh cooked.
The easiest way is to cut the gourd into chunks and steam it. When cooled the peel can be easily removed.
Roasting takes longer but results in a far more flavorful product. The pumpkin is more concentrated and if it browns it has more depth of flavor as well.
I have sometimes peeled the pumpkin with a peeler before cooking because I didn't want to wait for it to cool (and I'm not a huge fan of handling slimy cooked pumpkin more than I have to.)
After cooking the flesh can be mashed.
Avoid boiling. The flesh will be waterlogged and in order to make it useful for baking it would have to be reduced/settled+drained, etc. Not good eats.
Hmmm. I'm afraid one of my kids' jack-o-lanterns is going to find itself in a pumpkin curry soon.
** Edit **
I should also note that I have never produced cooked pumpkin that was overly similar to canned pumpkin. I haven't tried. The homemade pumpkin is still recognizable as having natural origins. Canned pumpkin has its place, I prefer it in pie for example, but I wouldn't consider canned pumpkin to be the goal.
** Edit part deux **
Derobert has written a beautiful blog post on this subject that puts this answer to shame:
comestible-orange-goo-making-puree-from-fresh-pumpkins
I would suggest cutting the pumpkin into two halves, scooping out the seeds, and putting them (cut face down) into a roasting pan with a cup or so of water. You do not need to get the pumpkin out of its skin at this stage - it's a major hassle. Just cook in the oven at 350F for 90 min. Then remove from the pan. It's now super-easy to scoop the flesh out of the pumpkins, which you can further process in a food processor.
I'll second the suggestion for peeling and roasting - generally what I do is quarter the pumpkin, scoop out the interior (and scrape it a fair bit with a big spoon - the stringy texture of the interior is generally the worst part of homemade pumpkin, IMHO, and you want to get as much of it out as possible), peel the outside, and then dice it into ~1 inch cubes for roasting. It's not especially sensitive to temperature - I usually go about 400 degrees until it's 'done' (soft, dry to the touch, etc.), then let it cool and puree it in the food processor. Unlike Sobachatina, I have to say that I do love fresh pumpkin in pumpkin pie; the taste is distinct (and won't necessarily be what people are used to), but it's so much richer that to my tongue it more than makes up for it.
Just to be clear: I like the flavor in pie. I just like the smoother texture that the canned stuff has.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.985854
| 2010-10-17T14:42:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8216",
"authors": [
"Dorrene",
"Freddie Mesquit",
"MalcL",
"Scivitri",
"Sobachatina",
"cee",
"colethecoder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70779",
"newly ",
"pixelfreak",
"prav33nr",
"twifkak",
"user2101"
],
"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
}
|
12450
|
Ingredients of Root Beer
I want to make root beer, what are the ingredients required to produce that signature flavor?
The primary ingredient in the root beer flavor is traditionally sassafras root. However, modern root beer uses artificial sassafras flavoring because the US FDA banned safrole, the oil from sassafras root. It is considered a weak carcinogen as well as a List I chemical by the DEA (used in the manufacture of illicit substances).
Beyond sassafras the ingredients vary widely and drastically between manufacturers. The most common include vanilla, wintergreen, cherry/spruce bark, licorice, anise, and many more. A more complete list of root beer ingredients can be found on the wikipedia page.
If you're looking to make your own, I suggest finding a recipe and following it. Given the vast array of ingredients present, you'll have to do a ton of experimentation to stumble upon a suitable flavor without a recipe.
In the UK, whenever I have had root beer, sarsaparilla has been the primary flavouring ingredient. I have not encountered the sassafras style due to the health risks most likely, and because the root beer we have I think has a path more directly from the Caribbean, which I believe uses sarsaparilla more.
Ingredients
1/4 cup sassafras root bark
1/4 cup winter green leaf
2 tablespoons sarsaparilla root
1 tablespoon licorice root
1 tablespoon ginger root
1 tablespoon dandelion root
1 tablespoon hops flowers
1 tablespoon birch bark
1 tablespoon wild cherry tree bark
1 teaspoon juniper berries
1 cinnamon stick
1 cup unrefined cane sugar
1/2 cup ginger bug, fresh whey or 1 packet kefir starter culture
Instructions
Bring two and one-half quarts filtered water to a boil and stir in sassafras, sarsaparilla, wintergreen, licorice, ginger, hops, juniper, birch and wild cherry bark. Reduce the heat to a slow simmer and simmer the roots, berries, barks, leaves and flowers for twenty minutes.
After twenty minutes, turn off the heat and strain the infusion through a fine-mesh sieve or a colander lined with cheesecloth into a pitcher. Stir unrefined cane sugar into the hot infusion until it dissolves and allow it to cool until it reaches blood temperature. Once the sweetened infusion has cooled to blood temperature, stir in the ginger bug or fresh whey and pour into individual bottles (preferably flip-top bottles which are easy enough to find online, leaving at least one inch head space in each bottle.
Allow the root beer to ferment for three to four days at room temperature, then transfer to the refrigerator for an additional two days to age. When you're ready to serve the root beer, be careful as it, like any other fermented beverage, is under pressure due to the accumulation of carbon-dioxide, a byproduct of fermentation. Open it over a sink and note that homemade sodas, like this one, have been known to explode under pressure. Serve over ice
From Nourished Kitchen
Under most circumstances**, the policies of the site are against specific recipes ... but as I'm actually really impressed with this one ... and the Nourished Kitchen site in general. ** recreating specific dishes are the exception ... so if someone said that they were specifically trying o re-create Wild Bill's, Frostie or IBC, then we get to the specifics of recipes.
I am not a root beer expert, but to me (and a few others, including root beer homebrewers :)) Russian квас / kvass (a fermented rye beverage) is very similar to (family-made) root beer, so I think you might be interested in it too, as the ingredients for kvass might be easier to find in your vicinity.
Kvass variants run from clear and light to dark and heavy with all sorts of additives (usually fruit) possible. People use different kinds of bread, and some people cook or fry the bread first. Most kvass has a little alcohol in it (depending on its age) -- some has more, but usually not so much as to be dangerous if drunk in normal amounts.
A lot of enthusiasts give different recipes, but the usual ingredients are:
(stale) (dark/black) rye bread
water
active dry yeast
sugar or honey
raisins
Root Beer Extract + sugar + champagne yeast
You can make your own extract, but I certainly wouldn't go there first.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.986216
| 2011-02-21T21:41:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12450",
"authors": [
"Barbara Smiley",
"CharlieHorse",
"Joe",
"John Reese",
"Joseph Dezordi",
"Orbling",
"Ramsay Bell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"labyrinth"
],
"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
}
|
9787
|
What can I do with a failed bread?
So I attempted my first loaf of bread tonight and I blew it. It's flat and way wide (I tried a free pan loaf). It's about 2 inches tall and very spongy. It has roughly the consistency of a corn muffin. It's vaguely edible, but not very breadlike.
So is there anything culinary I can do with this or should I just chuck it on the compost pile?
Bread crumbs, or ducks/squirrels.
I'd say stuffing, but if it doesn't taste good, then your stuffing won't taste good. Bread pudding? Blech. Bread crumbs? Maybe. Croutons? I don't know, probably not.
Just write it off to experience, and see if the birds fancy it.
I was thinking bread pudding, personally. Or fondue.
If it's got a crumbly texture, I'd go for the breadcrumbs, then bake them in a low oven to try them out for storage. Feed the rest to the birds.
slice it very thinly, brush it with olive oil, and bake it in the oven at 250 degrees until very dry. Makes great crackers. Sprinkle the olive oil with garlic salt or other herbs.
Or make croutons -- cube it, heat up a pan of oil with some herbs and garlic, then saute the bread cubes, then spread in a sheet pan to bake in a low oven to dry out. (this works any time you have a lot of extra bread, as drying it out lets you hold it for weeks)
I usually use or eat my failed baking experiments, and chalk it up to experience, trying to pinpoint where I went wrong so I can do better next time. Even if they don't come out picture-perfect, they are always edible!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.986654
| 2010-12-05T01:45:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9787",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Carol Hardie",
"FoodTasted",
"Jean Fulton",
"Joe",
"Oyinbo james",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"nevenc"
],
"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
}
|
11125
|
How do I make bread more firm?
So I have now successfully repeated a bread recipe twice. Both times it came out with a very tight grain and very spongy. The bread itself squishes easily and bounces back. I would like to make it more firm (so that it puts up with things like spreading cream cheese or butter more readily).
The recipe I am using is pretty much flour, water and yeast (and a little salt). It calls for three rising periods with two punch downs in between -- after the initial ten minute knead.
Is there something I can change in the way I knead? Something I can change in the recipe? How do I get less of a spongy texture and more of a chewy or firm one?
I'd probably start with your flour; what is it? Is it bread flour?
Dam you! I have opposite problem. I only knock the bread down the once.. try that.
@Aaronut It is unbleached white flour. http://www.bobsredmill.com/unbleached-white-flour.html That.
The first thing I would change is the final rising period before putting it in the oven. Cut that in half, so it doesn't have as much time to expand, and that should give you a denser loaf. You could also try substituting 25-50% whole wheat flour, which will both make it denser and more nutritious.
Yes, kneading well can yield a much firmer result without being denser.
Learning how is the hard part. Faster and with more stretch and resistance must be taught and practiced. When the dough sits like a pert buttocks on the board (rather than a squishy baby's bottom) you have cracked it.
Increasing the salt content also has a tightening effect, if the recipe will allow.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.986822
| 2011-01-17T04:04:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11125",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Daniel Bingham",
"Gwen",
"Hath",
"Joseph",
"Ra.Shu.",
"William",
"doub1ejack",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/940",
"iamkrillin"
],
"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
}
|
9482
|
Dangers to continuing to cook an unfinished torte?
I made the mistake of assuming a torte would be done when the timer went off. I removed it from the oven and turned off the heat. Forty minutes later I discovered my error. Is it safe to reheat the oven (sans-torte) and continue cooking from where I left off? Are there any risks to doing this generally in baking?
You haven't mentioned exactly what's in the torte, but I am assuming that the only potentially "unsafe" ingredient is eggs. Thus, the only possible danger is that the eggs might be undercooked, posing a very minuscule (considering that most egg yolks/whites aren't contaminated in the first place) risk of salmonella.
But we're talking about a torte here, which isn't going to be finished until the eggs are set, and the setting temperature of eggs isn't that far off from the salmonella-killing temperature (63° C vs. 74° C). Use a thermometer if you're concerned.
Of course, if you're using pasteurized eggs then they should be free of bacteria to begin with and you have nothing to worry about at all.
Most likely, the worst thing you have to worry about is the torte drying out a bit, since you'll be increasing your overall baking time to get it back up to temp.
Edit: With respect to quality of the finished product, I might worry with a regular (flour) cake, because increasing the total baking time gives it more time to develop gluten and dry out, but a torte has little to no starch, so you're not really in much danger there. Just keep an eye on it, make sure it doesn't burn, and you'll be fine.
I wasn't thinking food safety so much as "risk of destroying it". Bad word choice on my part I guess.
@Daniel: Ah, well I think I covered that a little at the end; you're going to end up cooking it for slightly longer because of the heat it's lost, but that's not going to destroy it. Especially with a torte - usually the problem with overbaking is dryness and toughness due to gluten, but that comes from flour/starch and tortes usually don't have much (or any). Just keep an eye on it and make sure it's not overdone.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.986994
| 2010-11-25T22:40:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9482",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Daniel Bingham",
"GurdeepS",
"Jan J",
"Kuchiki Byakuya",
"RosC",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/438",
"m__"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11950
|
Getting Potato and Turnip Patties to hold together... how?
So I just tried this recipe for fried potato and turnip patties and completely blew it. I followed the recipe pretty closely, but the patties didn't hold together at all. The outside burned and the inside remained uncooked. When I tried to flip them, they fell apart. What can I do to get them to hold together? More egg and flour? Higher Potato to Turnip ratio? More or less oil?
How can I fix it? They taste really good -- the parts that aren't burned -- I'd like to get them to hold together.
My guesses:
First, if you're burning the outside before the middle cooks, you need to reduce your heat some. The outside will still brown over time at a lower heat, and the inside will cook better. If you start in and it looks like they're browning real fast, just turn the heat down (and maybe take the pan off the heat) until things get back under control. Then resume cooking at the lower temp. Getting the middle more thoroughly cooked should really help with them staying together, as the egg needs to be cooked to be an effective binder.
Second, make sure you drain the veg thoroughly before mashing. Any excess liquid may make them tend to fall apart. When they're drier they're going to be a little more stick-together-y in the first place, and then the cooking with the egg should bind it.
If neither of these things helps, I'd probably go for more egg rather than more flour. But I bet the other two options will sort you.
"The outside burned and the inside remained uncooked."
There are two places where it needs to cook more, either in the water or in the pan. If you cook it in the water also put the strainer over the hot pot without any heat under the pot to let the water drain for a minute or two. A drier mixture will hold together better. Depending on how far the mixture is boiled, the heat of the oil needs to be adjusted higher or lower so the middle is cooked without browning the outside.
The problem with the timing of the recipe has much to do with the type of stove you are using. The times will be different, for example, if it is a gas stove or an electric stove.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.987190
| 2011-02-09T01:22:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11950",
"authors": [
"Abhishek Anand",
"DialsAdder",
"Jake",
"LeRecycleurLyon",
"ctokelly",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24621",
"user24613"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6846
|
How should swordfish be prepared?
I just purchased one pound of swordfish filet and never cooked swordfish before and have minimal experience cooking fish. Any suggestions on preparation? Also what should I look for while cooking it?
Swordfish is on the red list of fish to avoid due to over fishing. In the old days I would have rubbed with muscovado (raw brown sugar) and some dried oregano and rosemary, gentle BBQ with the lid on
I love swordfish grilled with a little olive oil and Montreal steak spice. All the firm fish are great on the grill.
Firm fish like ahi tuna and swordfish can pretty much be treated like really good steak, just cook them carefully because you want them left on the very-rare side of things.
If you do it in a pan make sure there's hot oil or butter (or both) before you add the fish and don't move it around too much. If you fuss too much with the fish it will fall apart.
As delicious as swordfish is a lot of the fish on the market isn't being sustainably caught. Make sure to ask where its coming from. Most of the US and Canada fisheries are pretty good.
It is from the US and Canada, I forget where specifically. Whole foods had "wild swordfish steaks" on sale for $11.99 lb, so I had to pull the trigger on it
all swordfish is wild. I don't think you would want to try keeping one in any form of enclosure...
Olive oil, salt and pepper and grilled (on a flame broiler or outside Bar-B-Que) to perfection. Then, when done, squeeze some lemon (or, in my case, lime) on top and enjoy... Most fishes, I think, taste best with the simple additions, but others will disagree because it's a matter of taste. One spice mix, therefore, I personally love on any fish, including sword fish is a nice mix I got on Orcas island: chipotle, ancho, cumin, some green herbs (dried) and salt and pepper...
When caught we normally gut them. stuff with lemon grass & pit roast.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.987407
| 2010-09-06T20:28:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6846",
"authors": [
"Elpezmuerto",
"TFD",
"Walter A. Aprile",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4558",
"rand0m1"
],
"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
}
|
4526
|
How should I cook skate wings
I was in the fish section at the local supermarket this morning. There was a pile of fish that looked really delicious. So I asked the attendant what it was. He told me it's skate wings. Having never had it before I asked him for a piece. It was really cheap. Cheaper even than the hake. When I asked him why he said it's that people don't know how to cook it, so they don't like it, so it does not sell well.
Being the first time I cook this fish, I really don't want to mess it up. What's the best way to cook it?
If you've ever had fake scallops, you've had skate.
I cook skate wings on the Barbie so no fish smells in the house. Take a wing, rub in some oil, butter or margarine over each side, wrap in silver foil sealing well. Place over a moderate heat and cook for five mins then turn over for another five mins. Care must be taken to keep all seams closed and the fish will steam fine in all its juices. Remove and put on a plate keeping foil still on, open and check thick end is cooked. I like to add a drop of fresh pepper and eat with a hot bread roll and butter from the Barbie too.
I just coat with flour; for less carbs, you can use whole wheat flour.
To prepare it, heat your pan to medium, use about a quarter inch of extra virgin olive oil to coat the pan. This fish cooks fast; about two minutes per side so keep an eye on it! When done, drain on a paper towel to soak up excess oil. If you like scallops, this resembles scallops and is very tender and flaky; try it and you will be hooked!
I don't know if 1/4" of oil would be called "coating" the pan
Well the classic preparation is to fry them in butter for a 2-3 minutes on each side and then stir some capers through the now browned butter and pour over the fish. Another way is to poach it gently in some court bullion for around 8-10 minutes and make the brown butter sauce separately.
It does not - repeat: does not - cook fast. It takes about twice as long as a finfish the same size. The reason for this is that it is in fact a ray.
Milk bath, then dredge through flour (a few tablespoons will do), pan fry on medium heat or above for 3 or 4 minutes, flip and put in 350° F oven for another 5 or until the meat flakes of the bones and the edges are crisp. Or, if you are a professional, poach, but even the best chefs can have trouble poaching this without experience.
The good news: it's forgiving when pan fried
They are also very delicious when grilled on the barbecue.
I found a good resource over at Beyond Salmon
http://www.beyondsalmon.com/2007/03/mystery-of-skate-wing.html
here's a summary of the main points:
skate turn out best with the cartilage still attached and connective tissue removed
cook using direct heat in a skillet
cook twice as long per side as you would another fish of similar thickness
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.987604
| 2010-08-07T14:21:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4526",
"authors": [
"Cliff M.",
"Colin",
"Eileen Gallagher",
"Katherine Miller",
"Matt Chambers",
"Mindy Goh",
"Nora B",
"Rose DeSilva",
"Sean Hart",
"Zen-Ventzi-Marinov",
"ashams",
"guo cl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8636",
"mfg",
"rockey",
"sprugman",
"ЮРИЙ ПЕТРОВ"
],
"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
}
|
5571
|
Is free-range chicken more flavourful?
Free range chicken is generally a lot more expensive than battery farm chicken, but it's often claimed it is better tasting.
I'm curious if restaurants stick to this mantra and use free-range chicken, or if it's just psychological, and if there any benefits besides ethical ones.
There will be exceptions to the general rule, but - as a general rule - the 'classier' the restaurant, the more attention will be paid to locally sourced (bio)organic ingredients.
Flavor in most meats is generally determined by a few things.
How the animal was raised and if it is of a particular heritage breed.
How it was treated over its lifetime (i.e. diet and environment).
When and how it is slaughtered.
How it is handled from the slaughterhouse to the butcher, was it properly stored, etc.
Also, how fatty the bird is and light to dark meat ratio will also determine flavor of the bird.
I definitely have tried a lot of different types of "free range", "organic", and/or "local" chickens out there and you basically get what you pay for in terms of meat quality and flavor. At my restaurant, we try to source best quality chickens — local, organic and free range, if possible — because it just tastes better and it coincides with our philosophy. Properly cooking and seasoning the chicken will also help.
A study done in July 2008 found that in blind tests (i.e. if the eaters did not know whether they were eating "standard" or free-range chickens) the free-range chickens were actually found to be less preferred in terms of taste.
They compared chickens that had been raised by "standard", maize-fed, free-range and organic production systems.
Taste panel assessments were made using 8-point category scales of texture, juiciness, abnormal flavour, flavour liking and overall flavour.
Fillets from birds reared in the standard system were rated by the taste panel as more tender and juicy. There were no significant differences in chicken flavour. Based on hedonic assessments of flavour liking and overall liking, by a small panel of assessors, meat from birds produced in the standard system was most preferred and that from organic systems the least preferred. Meat from free-range and maize-fed systems was intermediate in preference. This result reveals a trend, but does not infer consumer acceptance.
(emphasis mine)
In the course of tracking down the above study, I found a few people blogging about their own blind tests. Obviously, these don't have the rigor of a scientific study, but they do include control groups and blind testing.
This person cooked four chickens (three free-range and one normal) and concluded there was "no noticeable difference in taste" and family members (who tasted blind) "unanimously said that it all tasted the same".
Two chefs did a side-by-side test of free range vs mass-produced chicken and found "no appreciable difference in flavor". If anything, they noticed that the industrial chicken had "a marginally juicier and tenderer consistency".
So the conclusion seems to be that free range chicken does not taste better and if anything tastes worse.
However, it's worth noting that we don't actually eat things blind. (Well, you might if you were eating at a friend's house and they didn't tell you the type of chicken you were eating - but not in your own kitchen.) We are influenced by brand names, product descriptions and price. If you know you're eating a free-range chicken, it may actually taste better to you. This is completely subjective and unscientific, but... does it matter?
Furthermore, there are plenty of reasons for wanting to eat free-range chickens besides taste - the main one of course being concern for the welfare of the animal. If this is something important to you, it might even contribute to your subjective tasting from the previous paragraph. This is all1 speculative, of course, but I mention it as a caveat to taking the scientific findings as a rule for what chicken to eat, not as justification for an opposing rule about what chicken to eat.
1"all" =final two paragraphs
Plus one for credible citation
@SAJ14SAJ Thanks, I was amazed to find this 3.5-years-old question with a plethora of opinion-based answers and no sources anywhere to be seen.
"Free-Range" chicken - or any animal in an ideal world - is raised with access to the outdoors as well as a balanced diet. It's the same as when you go hunting: wild animal has a more "gamey" taste the older it is, simply from what it eats. What a chicken eats during its lifetime and the exercise it is able to have will affect taste as well as fat content. If you want tasty, ethical, and better-for-you chicken, I would ask around at your local farmers' market and get a healthy farm-raised chicken that is grain fed with access to the outdoors. This way you can also help out the local economy and the planet by buying locally.
On another note, how you cook your chicken and keep the meat moist is just as important as the original quality.
Some good points here. Also worth noting, if you don't believe, try it for yourself and compare.
The definition of "Free-range" is quite loose in the US. If the chickens are "free" enough to go outside and eat bugs as part of a more natural diet, it can improve the flavor (like grass-fed beef). This is not required to call chickens "free range" here, and merely getting a bit of fresh air and sunshine will not really improve the flavor. "Free range" is more about treating the animals well than getting the best flavor.
This is a very important point. There are a number of terms that are regulated, but many more are basically free game for marketers to use at their will. Even the ones that are regulated may not be regulated in a intuitive way. I suggest doing some research about what "free range" actually means according to your local regulations before using that to make a purchasing decision.
Also, breeding will affect the taste of the chicken. Factory farm chickens are designed to have more breast meat and to be ready for slaughter sooner.
Based on my personal experience, free-range chicken does taste better than regular grade commercial chicken. But the call may be biased as there are confounding factors such as air-chilling, grass-diet, etc which are typical for free-range chicken products, and are possibly stronger determinants of what we perceive as better taste.
I've had a few Label Rouge chickens and definitely found them more tasty and richer flavored. You will notice that the bones are harder and in my opinion make a better stock. The meat looks less slimey than some of the typical US supermarket salt water injected fodder. Saying that, if you're just interested in breast meat I think it's a little harder to tell the difference.
Personally, I would say that a free range chicken is more tasty than commercial chicken. I've done several chicken roasting using both free range chicken and commercial ones and I can truly say that the free range chicken is more tasty and meat is tender and juicy.
Even if we assume that your answer was written in good faith and not as spam, a link to a company selling free range chicken is totally unnecessary, so I removed it.
Well, I just wanted to share the brand I'm using as it's really a good one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.987910
| 2010-08-19T19:08:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5571",
"authors": [
"Darren",
"EdL",
"Iwan Kurniawan",
"Jim Marinelli",
"K''",
"Maniax",
"Margaret Ann Duhon",
"Mark Newsom",
"McLaren Equipment",
"Noldorin",
"Preston",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shadow Man",
"Ted",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"chickenorganiclover",
"craig",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"mai amer",
"robert singleton",
"rumtscho",
"starsplusplus",
"tajhamille"
],
"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
}
|
4871
|
Julia Child - Mastering the Art of French Cooking - OK for Kosher?
My fiancee and I love to cook. We love cookbooks, but often find that they are useless in today's internet world where all the recipe sites exist. Mastering the Art of French Cooking is a classic, which is not just a list of recipes (as I have found many other "cookbooks") but something more. I want to buy it for her--but the problem is that we keep a kosher kitchen, i.e. we don't mix meat and milk. Child is notorious for her ubiquitous use of butter and cream. Is this book useful in a kosher kitchen, or is it pointless since all of the recipes will call for mixing milk & meat? I have a sense that for many of the recipes, you can simply cut out the butter, but isn't the point of having a recipe to follow it?
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is about judging whether religious restrictions apply to a specific dish
I think you should take it out from your public library and take a good in depth look at it. This way you don't have to buy it and you can look at all the recipes. If you see enough recipes in there that you don't have to change, or just have to change minimally, then you can justify buying it. If your library doesn't carry it you could either get an interlibrary loan from another library somewhere else or you can always request if from them. Most libraries are really good about buying books (cds, dvds, etc).
Unless you're the type that has to follow a recipe to the letter, then buy the book. We keep a kosher kitchen, and we get ideas from "trayf" cookbooks all the time.
One of the things I like about Mastering the Art of French Cooking is that the recipes go into great detail about how to do things. For example, Julia Child's recipe for roasted chicken does use butter (for which, of course, you can substitute pareve margarine for a slight change in taste), but it is also 3 pages long and includes suggestions for side dishes, wine recommendations, and instructions for how to make a sauce from the pan juices. Just reading the recipe taught me a lot about the whole philosophy about eating in the French style -- it's not a recipe just for chicken, but it's a whole meal thought of as one unit.
It's also fascinating because the vegetable recipes are for the most part cooked for much longer than currently suggested and cooked with lots of butter and cream.
I'll tell you that I don't use the cookbook as often as some of my others. (And I also keep a kosher kitchen.) But I love reading it to get ideas for meals and for preparation. And as Janelle pointed out, you can substitute for a lot of the dishes. In fact, margarine and fake cream (soy or whatever) will serve in the majority of dishes that don't contain pork or shellfish. And the majority of vegetable and fish dishes will do just fine as is for a dairy meal.
I also keep a kosher kitchen and love my copies of "The Joy of Cooking" and "Mastering the Art of French Cooking." There are substitutions for many of the ingredients (Krab instead of Crab, soy meat replacement), the recipes and the techniques are wonderful.
I'm not a Jew and I don't practice kosher. I have a rough knowledge on kosher as "don't cook/eat meat and milk (dairy products) together" or "don't eat pork". I also know that Kosher is a much broader concept, not limited with those two bans. French cuisine, as a whole, is obviously not kosher in any means, even by the most limited definitions of "Kosher" and "French Cuisine". So, Mastering the Art of French Cooking is not a book written for kosher practice. Modifications is up to your beliefs, up to the level you practice kosher, I suppose.
I think it would still be very useful. I'm vegetarian, so you can imagine what a high percentage of Mastering the Art is recipes that I can't directly use. But what I've learned about technique from that book is priceless.
It might be usable, but probably not worth purchasing. My recommendation would be to look at a book index.
In addition to all the butter substitution, which will not work with all recipes, there are also shellfish recipes, such as lobster thermidor which will be useless to you. The dessert recipes are probably all usable, but I'm not sure if its worth it. I guess it depends on your fiancée, I would be frustrated by a bunch of recipes I could never use.
As the above recipe mentioned, I know that there are a lot of good recipes which I won't use, i.e. shellfish. But that doesn't mean that I can't adapt them or adjust them to my needs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.988829
| 2010-08-11T13:33:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4871",
"authors": [
"Andre",
"BeaverProj",
"Ema",
"Erik",
"Jason",
"Jeremy White",
"Reiko",
"Youbei Jin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9729",
"ilian51378",
"javier Lodeiros",
"kayaker243",
"kissgyorgy",
"kittemon",
"lynn",
"opyate",
"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
}
|
7840
|
What qualities should I be looking for when making the best French Toast?
Should it be a thick slice of bread? Should it be made with challah bread? Should it be slightly crispy and brown on the outside but mushy on the inside?
Great french toast starts with the bread. You're looking for two things: thick slices, and staleness. Why stale? Stale bread has enough firmness to stand up to the custard. If you don't have stale bread available, you can set it out the night before in a simple wire rack. At least 8 hours should be enough to stale it up nicely. They will be rather firm to the touch.
The ideal finished product is crispy on the outside and creamy in the middle. This might be what you mean by mushy, but mushy in my mind is kind of negative. The key to accomplishing this is to let your bread soak in the custard only 30 seconds per side, but then move it to a rack to sit for another 2 minutes further. This extra set time allows the custard to penetrate deep inside the bread, and be distributed much more evenly.
The final trick to getting a nice crispy crust, is to cook it twice. First in the pan/griddle as you normally would, but then 5 minutes in a 375 F oven on a rack. This brief oven stint crisps up the exterior nicely.
I highly suggest watching Alton Brown's Good Eats: French Toast episode. That's where I learned the oven trick, and his recipe hasn't done me wrong since.
Regarding challah, I've never had it, but based on the Wikipedia description it sure sounds like a good candidate. Just make sure you slice and stale it overnight.
CooksIllustrated says you can toast the bread a little instead of waiting for it to get stale.
Challah is indeed wonderful for French Toast, as is brioche. The breads are already rich with eggs so that gives them a head start.
A style that I learned about from Molly Wizenberg's book, A Homemade Life, is to cook it the toast in rather more oil than you would normally expect to use. This results in a crispy, almost fried crust and a creamy interior that I think is delicious.
Oh trust me! This is not diet food at all. It is almost deep fried French Toast. Butter won't work for it because you can't heat it high enough to get the crispy exterior.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.989314
| 2010-10-05T03:09:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7840",
"authors": [
"Michael Natkin",
"ceejayoz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50180",
"user162891"
],
"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
}
|
5931
|
Checking food nutrients
How can one check if the food does not have excess levels of pesticides?
The need of the hour is to have some machine/tool that checks what is the composition of the food that we are eating and advices us to stop or go ahead with it. I am not sure if there is anything created like that? To take the examples of the news: Salmonella in eggs
How can we ensure that the food that we eat is not unhealthy?
Practically, you can't. You should clean produce appropriately to remove surface pesticides, and cook food thoroughly to prevent illness from food-borne pathogens.
Checking for levels of pesticides or presence of pathogens would have to occur in a lab, involving microscopes, chemistry techniques, and bacterial cultures. This is impractical to do in the home, plus it would likely destroy the food you were testing.
Pesticides are probably only detectable via mass-spec or gas chromatography. Both machines are expensive, and would only be found in labs.
I wish some technological advancement would produce a machine that would help us test the composition of what we are eating !! :)
http://www.psfk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/heidi_kenney_organic_food_chart_1.jpg
This picture is a quick and dirty cheat sheet that shows which foods generally have the most pesticides used.
As far as meat goes, most of the illnesses are byproducts of factory farming methods. Beef should ideally be grass-fed and pastured. Cows don't naturally eat grains so the corn-fed varieties have a skewed omega-3/omega-6 fat balance. Corn-fed cows also have weakened immune systems which necessitates the antibiotics that many people try to avoid.
www.eatwild.com has a list of farms in your area that support pastured livestock. It will generally be more expensive than store bought products,
but if you are looking for higher quality food, it is the way to go.
Some foods are known for risks of unpleasant germs. These foods (like eggs, fish, meat etc.) should be eaten cooked.
Regarding pesticides and such, there really isn't a good way to get rid of them, and if you're really worried, you need to find a trusted source of organic (unsprayed) vegetables and fruit. This is probably easier than you think, but there is usually a price premium involved.
These days, most commercial pesticides aren't terribly toxic and are probably on the same level as food colouring. Best avoided, but not exactly lethal.
As with most other things, the solution with pesticides is prevention as opposed to treatment. That is, avoid rather than clean off.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.989519
| 2010-08-25T09:03:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5931",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Anna",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8195
|
What is caster/castor sugar?
I've got a Meringue recipe that calls for castor sugar.
Is that different than powdered sugar?
It's "castor sugar", known as superfine or bar sugar in the US.
@hobodave: Thanks! (btw: It is spelled "caster" in my recipe.)
Ah! Apparently it goes both ways. I was just going by prior site precedent.
I decided against closing as duplicate. It seems an annoying hoop to jump through for any future people coming across the question. I'll just answer it and reference the wiki.
Castor (caster) sugar is known as superfine, or bar sugar in the US. It's not the same as powdered sugar which is even finer, has been mechanically pulverized, and is often mixed with starch to prevent clumping.
According to Ochef you can make it with regular granulated sugar in your food processor for two minutes, but let the sugar dust settle before opening.
See Also:
Translating cooking terms between US / UK / AU / CA
Hobodave has answered this well - as an English person I can answer very simply. Caster sugar (UK spelling!) is, as Hobodave says, known as superfine sugar in the US. Powdered sugar is known as icing sugar in the UK.
does 'icing sugar' include cornstarch (US; UK : cornflour) in it ?
@Joe: We use all three terms interchangeably here (we prefer confectioner's sugar) and the answer is yes. See powdered sugar on Wikipedia or this ochef question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.989739
| 2010-10-16T17:45:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8195",
"authors": [
"A.Tamazov",
"Aaronut",
"Adeline",
"Alexandr Tempus",
"David Marshall",
"Jamie Folsom",
"Joe",
"Jon of All Trades",
"Sekkou527",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user16846",
"yhw42"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6769
|
Cooking duck breasts
I've just purchased some locally reared organic duck breasts from a local farmers market and have decided to cook them according to the Five-spiced duck breasts with honey and soy recipe.
My concern is that having not cooked duck breasts before (yes, I know, shameful! =) and having picked the recipe based on the fact that it sounds good and appears to have fairly detailed instructions, my inexperience in handling duck could result in a poor end result. So:
Are there any tips, things to look out for or techniques when cooking duck breast to obtain a great outcome?
Are there any glaring mistakes in the method for cooking duck breast in the recipe detailed?
I would say that recipes technique sounds ok, but when I have cooked duck before I have always cooked skin side down on a medium heat till the fat all runs out and skin is golden but this always takes longer than 3 minutes more in the 10 minute range.
Maybe this is because I use a lower heat. the recipe doesn't say how hot the pan should be. The aim is to render most of the fat out from under the skin of the duck.
I usually baste with the fat whilst it is cooking then finish off under the grill (broiler - not underneath the BBQ :)), but some times finish in the oven too.
A tip from South West of France, where duck is cooked everywhere: keep the fat and use it later for frying. It is actually better for health than many vegetal oils (and its taste is wonderful).
My only suggestion would be not to overcook the breasts if cooked a bit rare and this makes a big difference to the succulence of the meat. The best results for me seem to be at medium rare (slightly pink in the middle).
Edit:
It turns out there is a risk of salmonella with duck as with chicken but I have only ever seen it cooked medium rare even in restaurants. Continue at your own risk.
I googled this information for safe temperature "Duck is done when internal temperatures read a minimum of 165°F (74°C)" but I do not know if the duck is still pink at this temperature.
how do I know how long to cook for rare vs. raw? Is it the same as testing steak, i.e. the meat of the thumb test? I'm guessing not as they're wildly different animals, but a hint would be good =)
A quick search on Google tells me that there is more to this than I first thought. I edited my post with the new information.
I have always cooked duck breasts to 140, ideally in a sous vide to provide some pasturize time. I am cooking wild ducks, so the risk of salmonella may be less, but I do know that the flavor and texture goes down quickly above this temp.
A quick peruse of the recipe doesn't show any red-flag items.
Scoring the skin is indeed important. Another thing that is good to know is that duck fat, as you bake it, can turn really really black but this need not necessarily affect your dish badly - it doesn't look like this recipe will take things this far, though.
Good luck and good eating! :)
I've had some success on the gas grill. The key is to use a hot grill, and keep flipping the active burner. You want the steel or porcelain grills to be hot, but minimal flame underneath (i.e. Conduction cooking, not convection or radiant) . For simplicity, I'll assume a two burner grill, with left and right controls. If you have horizontal burners, then think front and back.
Generally, I score the skin in a diamond pattern, about 1 inch in size. Get the grill as hot as you can. Place duck on the left side, and as soon as it starts to drip, turn the left burner off. If you get flare ups, slide the breast along the grill in such a way to preserve the grill marks while moving it away from the flare.
After a minute or two, check the skin for crispiness. Turn the left grill back on, and the right grill off. Flip the breasts, and move them to the right hand side. Close the lid and let them bake for about 3-4 minutes.
Again, watch for flare ups through the window, and relocate breasts to avoid them. (It might take a couple attempts to get it right on your grill.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.989907
| 2010-09-05T11:36:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6769",
"authors": [
"David",
"Rob",
"Willbill",
"cookingmama",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53",
"mouviciel"
],
"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
}
|
7564
|
Using spaghetti squash for 'pasta'
I've recently gotten into making primal/paleo cooking, i.e. (no grains,legumes,processed foods) and have been meaning to try spaghetti w/meat sauce with spaghetti squash noodles instead of regular pasta. Is there a particular method of cooking the squash that helps form better noodles than others? Any other methods to help the 'pasta' come out more pasta-like?
May I ask why? There's a reason primitive man died at 25.
@chris: I doubt that diet was that reason; among other factors, I'd consider the [lack of] sanitation or medical care to be some of the primary determinants of typical lifespan.
That said, I don't think we need two additional tags for a specific named diet. The "paleo" diet is basically a low-carb diet and I think that will suffice.
Paleo is not just low carb, it's also a pro-organic and anti-processed food diet.
@chris Paleolithic humans had a life expectancy of 33 years at birth; life expectancy went up to 54 years if they made it to age 15. Neolithic man had a life expectancy of 20 years (this was after the agricultural revolution when diets changed). Current life expectancy is 67 years.
@Aaronut Paleolithic or (Paleo) should be a tag, and terming it as a "low-carb diet" is a broad simplification. To quote Wikipedia on the make-up of the diet; "Meat, fish, vegetables, fruit, roots, and nuts make up most of the modern Paleolithic diet. It does not include grains, legumes, dairy products, salt, refined sugar, and processed oils." https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet
@wonea: I'll grant you that was a poor choice of synonym, however, and considering that I follow it, I feel pretty comfortable labeling it as simply low-glycemic. The entire scientific basis of paleo - excluding the parts constituting faddish elitism and amateurish articles written on simplified wikis - is based on insulin response. I'd much rather use that as a tag than "paleo" since low-glycemic foods are common in many other diets (most notably/popularly the South Beach diet).
Split the squash in half lengthwise, drizzle with olive oil, and place face-down on a foil-covered baking sheet. I usually roast for 45 min to an hour, depending on the size of the squash. The inside 'noodles' can then be scooped out with a fork for an awesome pasta substitution. Enjoy!
Yep, that's generally how I've done this as well. I don't really think of it as a pasta replacement though, just some stringy stuff that tastes pretty good. Like all winter squash, it enjoys brown butter as well.
You can also make it in the microwave. Either split first, remove the seeds and stringy goop, and place face-down on a microwave-safe plate or just prick it with a fork and cook it. Time will depend on size, but cook it until it's nice and soft. Then just use a fork to scrape out the flesh. The flesh will automatically come out in strings.
You can also bake it whole -- which means that you'll have to scrape out the seeds after it's cooked. Again, make sure to prick it so that it doesn't split on its own.
One warning, though -- it will have a crispier texture than noodles. No matter how long you cook it, it still won't be as soft as pasta. But that texture is actually one of the attractions, for me. It's got a bit of a crunch, which is nice.
This is what I do, microwave 1/2 a squash for 10 minutes. The taste and texture really is halfway between spagetti and squash.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.990269
| 2010-09-23T19:08:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7564",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Error 454",
"Hikmat Javanshirli",
"Manako",
"Michael Natkin",
"Oded",
"Pascal Belloncle",
"Steve",
"Zachary Wright",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64",
"jessecurry",
"user15532",
"wonea"
],
"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
}
|
68
|
Recommendations for spice organization strategies
Spices have always been the hardest thing for me to keep track of in the kitchen. I'm interested in specific recommendations for
hardware (containers, labeling, shelving, etc.) and
organization schemes (alphabetical? categories?)
in order to make it easier to find the spices I'm looking for.
This is more a getting-to-know you type question.
This is a great question - it is one of the biggest practical problems I have in cooking, since I don't have a good system.
autobiographically, so if I want chives, I need to know that my mom introduced them to me after salt & pepper, but before cumin (which is after oregano). Tumeric is much further down the list for me.
This question is much more suited to chat than to the main site. (I also see that it's nearly a year old.) Perhaps it should be closed? (Yes, I am indeed Allergic to Fun (tm).) :)
@Neil - Don't agree, I think this is a practical issue that lots of people run into, and could use ideas on, rather than a "fun" getting-to-know-you question.
This is definitely a practical issue; it's unfortunate that it was originally worded as a very obvious poll. I see hardly any answers here actually explaining why a particular option is worthwhile. A good answer would discuss a variety of options and actually get into specifics about concerns like limited space, ease of access, measurability, spatial memory, preservation, etc. The answers are not at that level of detail, nor is the question soliciting it. I hope you understand that I'm not taking issue with the topic itself; it's a great topic, but both the Q and A need serious cleanup.
I've reworded the Q as a request for specific recommendations, and added detail on my own experience to my A.
Here's what I finally came up with - I'm very pleased with this solution.
The jars are from Amazon.com, the labels are printed using a Dymo LabelWriter Twin Turbo, and the shelf is a 3-Tier Bamboo Expanding Shelf from Container Store.
My recommendations:
Use a label maker if you have one. Having everything printed the same way makes it prettier and also easier to scan.
Using exclusively the same type of containers simplifies storage and also makes it easier to scan.
Put the labels towards the tops of the containers, so they're visible above the tops of the next row down.
This stair-step shelf expands to fit the horizontal space available, and can probably fit
about 60 containers, which should be enough for anyone.
I've gone with alphabetical order, which I've found to work very well. It has the advantage of being objective - there's no question where something belongs, and no taxonomical discussions about what category nutmeg belongs in.
As a bonus, this setup give me pleasure every time I look at it!
Here is a better deal: 12 jars for $20 (original link was 4 for $16).
Alphabetically works best for us.
I have a friend that does alphabetically by sweet and savory.
I sort mine primarily by pairing the ones that are most often used together, like I have cumin and coriander together...just like oregano, rosemary and thyme. Salt and pepper will always be living next to each other in my kitchen.
I keep my spices in half-pint mason jars in a cabinet labeled with a sticker from a label maker. The cabinet has three shelves (top to bottom):
Whole spices like cumin, mustard and fennel seeds up top.
In the Middle I keep powdered spices like paprika and turmeric, along with ground up blends like taco seasoning and curry powder made from the stuff on the top shelf.
Bottom shelf has dried herbs (thyme, rosemary) and extracts (vanilla, almond).
This way the most frequently used ones are on the bottom two shelves where I can get them easier. The mason jars fit together well, they fit great in the narrow cabinet two up two across and three deep.
My spices are too numerous to conveniently store in one spot. I usually buy bulk spices at Whole Foods, and refill my own shaker jars. When practical, I buy whole spices for maximum flavor retention, and grind them myself with a coffee grinder. Extra bulk spices and whole spices are stored in my freezer for longevity.
Once ground (or in leaf form), spices go on a rotating carousel, sorted by category (green herbs, peppers and pungent spices, etc). Ones that receive rarer use (turmeric, garam masala) or came in their own shaker containers (garlic powder, onion powder) go in the cupboard.
ALL of my spices have labels for when they were purchased. I've learned the hard way that it's the only way to make sure you're rotating spices before they lose the subtler flavors. Green herbs and ground spices lose their flavor especially fast, especially if they are stored in plastic bags or jars that do not seal well.
I keep them in a lower corner cabinet (lazy-susan style), stickers with labels on caps, like kinds together, most frequently accessed on the ends nearest the opening.
I have a magenetic strip on the wall of my kitchen with little containers stuck to it - I find it's quickly accessible and looks cool ;-)
I saw that on Good Eats, looks really handy (I think it's velcro there)
I have two methods that work well together:
First, I keep different "families" of spices together. For example, the ginger, cumin and turmeric generally live near each other. I keep the oregano, thyme, basil and rosemary in their own area as well.
The second method is to use different shapes/sizes of containers for different spices. Those which I use often and with different "families" (like salt, pepper or ginger) have distinctive shapes. Dried herps are kept in little round plastic boxes, whereas ground spices are generally in shakers.
Another option is to have a spice rack on the inside of the cupboard door, where all the spices are displayed in a way that is easily readable.
Check out Alton Brown's method in Good Eats: velcro on the back of a cupboard door. Easy access and a clever way to maximize storage. Also, a great show!
I put my "spice" rack on the back of the door to my pantry. I went to Bed Bath & Beyond and they have this over the door rack. The top two shelves are used for baking and the bottom two shelves are used for cooking. You can easily see every spice that you have and they are very accessible. I absolutely love having the spices this way. Not only are they easy to get to, but it also frees up counter space or shelf space in a pantry that would normally be dedicated for spices.
Two shelves gives me a first cut at sorting spices.
I know which spices belong up, and which down.
This roughly halves the size of the problem.
After that, a large variety of different jar types makes each spice quickly recognizable. Big jars do for the popular spices, small jars for the ones I use once a year. The Oregano belongs in an old Rohrig scrip bottle from the 70's. Marjoram and Savory share a single bottle type, but have distinct labels.
My mother kept her spices in a drawer with color codes painted on the caps. She could quickly pick out what she wanted without lifting the jars to look at labels. Going that route lets you use lots of identical jars, and finding a color code is faster than reading
I have two rotating carousels in my cabinet -- because of the height of my shelves, only small containers can fit on the top of one. I have spices on one, and herbs and extracts on the other.
I also have a drawer with larger containers and bags (used to refill containers, mostly whole spices), and larger items (cinnamon sticks, dried peppers)
Use an organization scheme from inventory management: IDs or SKUs.
Number the spice jars 1 to 100, for example.
Then track them in a spreadsheet. Makes it very easy to find exactly what you need. "I need jar 5, 19, 20, and 41 for this recipe." (If you can't identify spices on sight, you might need to put the name on the jar too).
I use a 6-column spreadsheet, like so:
ID. NAME. FORM. DATE. NOTES. REORDER. *
ID 7. Chili. WHOLE. Jan 2012. Ancho (hot!). YES.
ID 8. Chili. GROUND. Jan 2012. Aleppo (very hot!).
ID 9. Cilantro. WHOLE SEED. Dec 2011.
ID 12. Cinnamon. GROUND. Mar 2012.
ID 15. Cinnamon. STICKS. Mar 2012. YES.
ID 16. Cloves. GROUND. Apr 2011.
ID 18. Cloves. WHOLE. Mar 2012. YES.
ID 21. Cocoa. POWDERED, Mar 2010. Dutch-process; great for hot cocoa!
ID. Makes it easy to find the spice you need. "I need jar 10." It also means you can skip the alphabetizing and/or grouping of spices. Cinnamon right next to the onion flakes? No problem! Much easier to organize 5, 6, 7 than by spice name.
FORM. Helps me grab the "cinnamon sticks" not the "powdered cinnamon", the "whole cloves" not the "ground cloves".
DATE. Let's me know how old, as some spices lose much of their flavor after a few weeks/months. If it's old, I consider using more (or replacing it).
NOTES. Can contain just about anything, like "SAFFRON IS VERY EXPENSIVE. USE SPARINGLY!!!"
The spreadsheet helps with re-ordering too. I just copy/paste the name into Penzey's website (http://www.penzeys.com) and I easily find what I need to reorder.
You can add fields to the spreadsheet, like the product number at Penzey's for "Whole Special Extra Bold Indian Black Peppercorns". That definitely helps when it's time to reorder.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.990587
| 2010-07-09T19:32:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"CCTV Drain Survey LTD",
"Cathy Griffith",
"Eight Days of Malaise",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Herb Caudill",
"Humpton",
"Kafo",
"Korvo",
"Nathan Koop",
"Ryan Elkins",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Skoutariotis",
"Talcha",
"Thunderforge",
"Tim",
"Trevor Handley",
"adamjford",
"alphacentauri",
"bruce",
"chenrongalice",
"devoured elysium",
"dpp",
"forefinger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79",
"jsmorris",
"kender",
"maude decker",
"remembershirley",
"seattleite7",
"tobiw",
"trlkly"
],
"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
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.