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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2259
|
How briny should the water be when soaking broccoli to remove bugs?
I've seen advice to drop homegrown broccoli in a pot of salted water for a while so the bugs come out.
What's the right salt:water ratio and how long should I soak?
Gross, just gross. :)
@hobodave - It's not that gross... think about what they might be doing to grocery store broccoli to keep the bugs off.
The only number I've ever heard was 4-6 teaspoons of salt per gallon of water, but that's just something a friend told me, they might've made it up. I've never actually seen any bugs on broccoli - organic or otherwise - so when I wash it I usually just shake in about 1/2 tsp into the bowl.
EDIT: Here's a site that says 1 tsp per quart.
Ah... I remember doing this growing up. Usually used a small handful of table salt in a sink full of water, and the worms would be floating on the top after about 5-10 minutes.
Most of the worms.
Sorry I can't give you a more precise ratio; I actually suspect soaking in water does more good than the salt - the worms don't swim.
At least, most of them don't.
Re: most - Extra protein!
It doesn't matter. Salt is cheap, throw a good handful in.
Broccoli won't absorb salt, so any brine will remain on the surface. Just rinse it off.
I've found the same with eggplant -- it's impossible to oversalt if you rinse it off.
1 tsp to 1 quart water for five minutes. Do not over-salt as the bugs just roll into balls and don't come out at all. But if you salt lightly, they are lightly irritated and float to the surface.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.991420
| 2010-07-20T04:02:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2259",
"authors": [
"Cold Oatmeal",
"Jeff Green",
"John Farrell",
"andleer",
"bstpierre",
"ceejayoz",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6023"
],
"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
}
|
7511
|
Why does cinnamon in the grounds make older coffee taste better?
If I go to make coffee and find that the coffee is a little old, I'll sprinkle a little ground cinnamon in the grounds in the basket before brewing. I won't use enough cinnamon that you can actually taste it in the coffee, but it seems to cut the acidity and bitterness.
Does anyone know why this works? Is there anything other than cinnamon I can do this with?
Interesting...I will need to try this!
Fascinating. I now have hope for tomorrow's pot of coffee.
Edited; Still not getting an answer as to why this works, perhaps a clearer title will bring more eyeballs?
I would say that the cinnamon restores some of those floral top-notes that have likely evaporated from older ground coffee, and hides some of the mustier, oxidized flavors.
This is a guess... Cinnamon may decrease the ion charge of the water and thus make it less of a scavenger of the ions in coffee. I soak-brew coffee without cinnamon for 60 seconds. It takes 90 seconds to achieve the same flavor with cinnamon. This is worth it because the result is smoother.
Any chemists out there that can weigh in on this concept?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.991577
| 2010-09-22T02:42:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7511",
"authors": [
"Alain Harvey",
"Ann1957",
"Chris_K",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Isaac Rabinovitch",
"Jenn",
"Val",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93698",
"user15428"
],
"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
}
|
5853
|
Making cookies on a pizza stone
Years and years ago, I had a pizza stone, and discovered that it was great for making thin and crispy cookies. That pizza stone cracked in half, and it was only this year that I bought another one. Can I make cookies on a pizza stone? Will all my cookies taste like pizza? Will my pizza taste like cookies?
Edit: My previous stone broke before I had made more than a few pizzas on it. I'm concerned that tastes might be retained by the stone over time; is this possible?
Why are you asking a question you answered in your first sentence?
Perhaps he only used the old one for cookies and hopes to use the new one for pizza as well as cookies? @Neil Fein please clarify.
I was reminded of this silly little question today, when I discovered: Don't bake cookies on an insulated cookie sheet on top of a pizza stone. (I had left the stone in the oven and forgotten to take it out, it basically lives on the bottom rack of my oven.) The cookies in the middle are significantly underdone, I suppose the stone sucks heat out of them--or maybe shunts heat to the perimeter? Not sure which.
Can I make cookies on a pizza stone?
Unless I'm misreading, you answered this yourself with your first sentence.
Will all my cookies taste like pizza? Will my pizza taste like cookies?
Unless you're spilling pizza toppings onto the stone, no. Brushing it clean in between each usage will take care of any flavor transfer.
Good point, but my previous stone broke before I had made more than a few pizzas on it. I've since learned how to care for a pizza stone properly.
As you discovered years ago, you can of course make cookies on your pizza stone. If you are worried about taste, try putting parchment paper on top of your current stone under the cookies for a thin layer of separation. I wouldn't worry about it, though. What touches your stone from the pizza is the crust, and that's not usually a strong-tasting item.
I accepted hobodave's answer, but +1 here for the point about pizza crust being a fairly mild-tasting item. I may use parchment paper under cookies, to simply make it easier to clean up -- chocolate chips are fairly messy.
@Neil - I use parchment paper under my pizza (from the minute I roll out the crust). It makes using the cookie sheet that is my pizza peel substitute significantly easier. I can get a pizza in and out of the oven with no cornmeal or mess.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.991723
| 2010-08-23T21:34:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5853",
"authors": [
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"JustRightMenus",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"jkadlubowska",
"justkt"
],
"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
}
|
1484
|
How do you clean a pizza stone?
I have a charcoal grill (Big Green Egg) that has a ceramic insert that can be used as a heat shield or as a pizza stone. My stone is black from drippings and smoke. I'd like to cook some pizza on it, but I'm not sure what I should do to clean it.
Perfect. Sounds like your pizza stone is nicely seasoned. Scrub it with your stiffest brush, rinse with water, no soap, done. If you're paranoid about germs, cook it before cooking on it. Throw it in the oven at a few hundred degrees, for 15 minutes or so.
Ideally, you're supposed to heat the stone (thus sterilizing it) before slapping the pizza upon it anyway (although that requires a pizza peel).
The other reason you should pre-heat the stone is to get it nice and hot so the crust cooks rapidly.
My pizza stones explicitly say to never use water on them, as it can cause them to shatter in the oven. The other safety option is to put them in a cold oven, and let them come to temperature so any trapped moisture escapes gradually.
@Cinque: We also learned a hard lesson when we got our first stone. A pizza should not be the first thing you cook on it. The dough will fuse to the stone and you will need a chisel to remove it. Season the thing. Coat it with oil and bake it, cook a few strips of bacon on it the first few times you use it, etc. Anything but a pie until it is properly seasoned. And yes, even when it's seasoned, coat it with cornmeal.
I concur with all of the people above that the black burned on parts aren't at all a problem.
However if you want that buff color back, I got it back on one of mine accidentally. I had a pizza stone that basically lived in my electric oven. During some holiday or another I stuffed it under the lower burner of the oven, and forgot it.
Later I ran the electric oven self cleaning cycle. When I opened the oven I was shocked to see a big buff colored disk in the bottom of the oven! It had been black for so long I hadn't seen it when I pulled out the thermometer before cleaning the cycle and had forgotten it was down there.
I don't know that it won't break your Big Green Egg Plate Setter. I use the aforementioned pizza stone on top of mine to keep the BGE part cleaner.
I have used this technique a few times to clean up pizza stones others thought were "ruined' or "finally seasoned." But with an Egg part I suppose I would worry that it might break, and I would have to replace it. Pizza stones are much cheaper than Big Green Egg parts.
I second this. The self-clean on my oven cleaned up all the caked on stuff off the stone and turned it to fine white powder. Anything remaining is assuredly inert.
As long as the black stuff won't rub off on the pizza, blackness shouldn't matter.
You should probably heat it for a while to burn off any rancid fat that has been sitting on it since you last used your grill. After its cool, a putty knife and a Brillo pad should clean it up enough.
I scrape any crusted-on stuff (like pizza cheese) then rinse with water to get any soot off.
Never use soap on a pizza stone - they're porous, so it'll pick up a soapy taste that'll take forever to get out. Nothing wrong with it turning black - it's just becoming seasoned.
I've had many disasters on my stone. I used to freak out and would spend a lot of time trying to clean it.
All you need to do is scrape off the crusted on dough/cheese once the stone has heated off. The rest will burn away next time you heat it up.
Generally, I prefer putting it in an oven and using the self-cleaning function when there is a fewer amount of oil or baked staple foods stuck on the surface of a pizza stone. You can also use a pizza scrubber brush. Wash with baking soda.
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. I've removed that link; it was a little too much like spam for our community.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.991923
| 2010-07-17T17:05:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1484",
"authors": [
"Benny Jobigan",
"Benoit",
"Bethor",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Eric",
"Naseer",
"Rowland Shaw",
"ceejayoz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/771",
"raven",
"rmk",
"snekse",
"theodm"
],
"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
}
|
11521
|
Is 'Pizza yeast' any different than normal baking yeast?
A friend (Italian) mentioned that she uses 'Pizza Yeast' for making pizza, and one can't use normal yeast or it'll "grow too much".. I looked around the internet for "Pizza yeast" and all I found was people saying that it was a marketing gimmick and it was just normal instant yeast.
So here's my questions, is there anything special in "Pizza yeast" or can we just use normal yeast (in lesser amount of course) and achieve the same??
From what I can find, it contains 'dough relaxers' so you can shape the dough without it springing back. It also claims you don't need to let it rise, but it then tells you to bake your pizza for 30 minutes! So it essentially rises in the oven.
Compare this to 'proper' dough which you let rise for a couple of hours, pull into shape and then bake in a screaming hot oven for 5 minutes tops. It strikes me that using pizza yeast is 'pizza for dummies'; claiming 'it stops it rising too much' is nonsense because if the amount of yeast is correct in your recipe you control the rise anyway.
So it depends on whether you like doing things easy or doing things right. You can bet your pepperoni slices they don't use 'pizza yeast' in Naples. Personally I cheat just a little and use dried fast-action yeast as it has a longer shelf-life and you don't fuss around proving it, and my pizzas come out great.
30 minutes! I can't think that would give anywhere near an authentic result. Pizzas more than almost anything else require an inferno.
Absolutely, a hot, hot oven and a good hot pizza stone will give better results than any fancy yeast.
I would hope that a good Italian pizzeria has their own yeast culture, just as a good bakery would. You could call this "pizza yeast".
You could, but pizza yeast in this case is referring to the kind referred to in the question. And in any case, you could probably take that pizzeria's yeast and use it to make any bread, not just pizza.
anything you ever wanted to know about making perfect pizza you can find here http://www.varasanos.com/PizzaRecipe.htm
You should use the same yeast as bread, but in minor quantities. For a proper pizza dough you start the preparation the day before. This "pizza yeast" is a bit like cheating ;) (like fast yeasts for bread making).
Well, in Italy we use brewer's yeast to make pizza, on the contrary for sweet we use some baking/soda yeast powder (as is) and for bread we use as well brewer's yeast.
So, yes, the yeast used for Pizza and for bread are the same.
For a good recipe, in plain English (sorry mine is not so good), this is a correct recipe I found:
the most important ingredient is the brewer's yeast. You have to try to
find it… you can also use the powder
(barm) type but the brewer's yeast is
the best.
first of all you have to take a big cup (like the one for the milk)
and fill it with hot water and then
put inside the hot water the brewer's
yeast 25g (in Italy the standard ins 2
pieces 25g). with a little spoon mix
slowly in order to completely melt the
brewer's yeast inside the hot water.
Add a little spoon of sugar and mix
again
prepare in a big bowl 500g of flour (in Italy we have two type of
flour, the type “00” that is better
for the cake and the sweets in general
and the type “0” that is the best for
pizza try to find this type (“00”) add
half table spoon of salt (mix) and two
table spoon of extra virgin olive oil.
add a half glass of good with wine and the melted brewer's yeast
start (with your hands) mix the flour and the other ingredients inside
the bowl for, at least, for 5 ÷ 8
minutes… at the end of the work you'll
have a ball of “pasta di pizza”
(around one kg.)
now you have two choices: the first is to cover with a transparent
film and put inside the TURNED OFF
oven and left for 4 hours (20°C) the
second is to put the bowl (suitable
for the temperature of 60°C) inside
the oven @ 60°C for 2 hours.
when the fermentation will finish then take the “increased pasta ball”
and work it with your hands for 2
minutes
divide the pasta in little ball around 235 ÷ 250 g ( I try to exact
divide the pasta in 4 parts) and every
ball will be one pizza
start spread the pasta with the hands first and after with the
mattarello (Italian piece of wood
suitable for this kind of work) in
order to obtain the thin circle to put
inside you circular baking-pan (30 ÷
35 cm)
find a good Italian tomatoes sauce and add it a table spoon of
olive oil, salt a little bit and a
good spoon of origanum (mix)… start to
put the tomato on the thin pasta
circle 3 table spoon for each
find a good Italian mozzarella… I use to press the mozzarella with a
tool that make me possible to
eliminate a little bit the water… but
also if you cut it with a knife in
little pieces will be ok. One
mozzarella (125 g) for one pizza (more
or less) distribute it on over the
tomato on the thin pasta circle
start your oven ad put it at 250°C (the maximum you can)
when the oven is ready put the pizza inside and cook it for, about 10
minutes.
Hope it helps.
By 'normal/chemical yeast' do you mean baking powder/soda? Because as you said, for cakes, generally baking soda is used so as not to ferment the dough.
@ntt yes, I meant that, unlucky I don't know too many English kitchen terms, let me study a bit and I'll fix the answer.
Great. So I'm back to the question if Pizza yeast is different than the one used for bread.. As per as your answer it's not.. which is what I was trying to get at.. Thanks!!
@ntt I've updated with the official answer :-)
Lievito di birra (which means brewer's yeast) is the name given in Italy to plain yeast (saccharomyces cerevisiae, which in latin means sugar eater from beer). So, yes: there's no special yeast for pizza.
I use the pizza yeast to make dough specifically for "Fry bread" style creations and it's elasticity makes it real easy to work with.
Hi! Your observation that pizza yeast makes it especially elastic addresses the question, so it makes a decent answer. The rest was an unrelated recipe for something else. I removed it because the point of our Q&A site is to answer exactly what was asked, not share different information. See also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.992273
| 2011-01-27T16:14:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11521",
"authors": [
"Barb",
"Benjamin Scherer",
"Brian Nickel",
"Chicken Pie",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Hamada Hadad",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Mehraban",
"Orbling",
"algiogia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"notthetup",
"rumtscho",
"slim",
"tmow",
"user289320"
],
"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
}
|
7392
|
Is it better to store chocolate in the fridge or at room temperature?
What is the best way to store dark chocolate to preserve chocolate and flavour?
Chocolate should be stored in a cool, dry area whenever possible. A cold basement or wine cellar is perfect.
Moist environments, including the refrigerator, can cause the chocolate to bloom. This is when the cocoa butter separates and you start to see a white film at the top. It's actually still safe to eat this way and won't even affect the flavour much, it just looks a little odd.
That said, even tempered chocolate (i.e. baking chocolate squares) will melt at hotter room temperatures, so if the air is humid or you're in a hot climate, you'll typically want to refrigerate. Also, if you've just melted the chocolate to make a coating and haven't tempered it, then you must refrigerate it as it will melt even at colder room temperatures.
Otherwise, it's best not to refrigerate. It will generally keep for a year or more at 55-60° F (about 13-15° C).
Thanks for the idea of using a wine cellar for keeping chocolate cool. I live on the Big Island of Hawaii. I keep lots of cooking items in the fridge because the pantry is too warm for long term storage. And I have a big wine cooler that runs at 64 F. The fridge is at 33 F. Perfect!! Mahalo! And Aloha!
Why did you say that it looks odd? Atleast for some chocolates like "dairy milk" it tastes better. Also, sometimes keeping in refrigerator some chocolates break into powder. That has its own advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that since the surface area is increased,more amount of chocolate falls on taste buds creating more sensation
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.992811
| 2010-09-17T02:31:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7392",
"authors": [
"Brendan Hannemann",
"David Currier",
"Kristen",
"Pupil",
"Ritil",
"StackRover",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59321",
"radinho",
"user1965813"
],
"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
}
|
7844
|
How can this "Bloody Brain" cocktail be made without alcohol?
I found this recipe for a Halloween cocktail known as a "Bloody brain", here's a link, and I was wondering how I would go about making a non-alcoholic version.
The recipe involves strings of Bailey's Irish Cream that do not mix properly and form tendrils that bunch together and look like a brain. I would like to know how to achieve the same effect with no alcohol.
Your original question read like a recipe request, which is off-topic.
Most of the things in this are very easy to substitute.
Roses lime juice is sweet and non-alcoholic (and can be found in most supermarkets).
You can easily sub in heavy cream for Baileys: they don't taste the same, but chemically they react about the same.
Grenadine is just a pomegranate juice simple syrup. No alcohol there at all.
The only question is what you want to sub for the strawberry vodka. Some kind of soda, most likely. It's a question of taste. It won't be easy to get something that is both fruity and clear, but you might try white cranberry juice, or white grape juice.
That sounds like it would work... I'll give it a go. Thanks.
I do not suggest carbonated replacement for vodka myself.
@Chris: Yea, it sounded blech. But I couldn't come up with anything that was clear and fruit-flavored. The only things I saw were "Pill Glide" (http://www.northstarnutritionals.com/p/Pill_Glide.htm) and the Pur water-filter with the strawberry flavor option (http://www.purwater.com/pur-products/flavor-options/).
I second the white grape juice suggestion. Even "strawberry-flavored" fruit juice or most 100% fruit juice flavored drinks for kids which are normally about 80-90% white grape, apple or pear juice anyhow regardless of what flavor they are called - just look at the ingredients -- this is because those lighter flavored filler juices are the cheapest.
For example, the Minute Maid strawberry flavor 100% juice drink is apple, pear, and grape juice with less than 2% actual strawberry juice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.992984
| 2010-10-05T05:41:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7844",
"authors": [
"Adisak",
"Chris",
"Satanicpuppy",
"death_au",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5397
|
How to properly store mushrooms
I recently bought some mushrooms from the farmers market and have kept them in a brown paper bag on top of the fridge. 4 days later, they have started to have a slight odor between a mixture of dirt and dogs droppings. I suspect I have stored the mushrooms improperly, so it begs the question: What's the best way to store fresh mushrooms?
Mushrooms should be stored in the refrigerator in a breathable container. A paper bag works great. Mushrooms stored in this manner should last at least 4-5 days.
For the record, the top of the fridge is one of the worst places to store foods. Depending on the model it can actually be a few degrees higher than ambient temperature, thus accelerating spoilage.
Thanks for the response and additional fridge tip. I guess I'll be chucking this batch of mushrooms out.
This may or may not be applicable to your uses, but I quarter and then roast unseasoned mushrooms at 425 degrees Fahrenheit until they stop releasing water, then cool and repackage. They will remain good for much longer.
While I acknowledge this is really just a partial dehydration, I was taught dry sautéing years ago as a technique for flavor, so it’s something I do regardless.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.993152
| 2010-08-17T22:32:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5397",
"authors": [
"EatinDonuts",
"M.K.",
"Synesso",
"dashin00b",
"earlyadopter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2027"
],
"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
}
|
6522
|
What is the name of this eggplant dish that is similar to lasagna?
When I was at school I made an dish that was like a lasagna but replaced the pastry with Eggplant. It also had sliced bocconcini (I think) and was tomato based.
Just wondering if anyone knows the name of this dish? Is it just an Eggplant lasagna?
In Italian we call it parmigiana.
Wikipedia says:
Parmigiana or eggplant parmigiana (Italian: melanzane alla parmigiana or parmigiana di melanzane) is a Southern Italian dish made with shallow fried eggplant slices layered with cheese and tomato sauce, then baked. Variations made with breaded meat cutlets, such as veal and chicken parmigiana, have been developed in other countries, usually in areas of Italian immigration.
In Italy, you can find the variation with meatballs, but the original recipe (being from Southern Italy) doesn't include meat.
The eggplant version can also be breaded, with great results.
I always thought of the Greek dish Moussaka as Eggplant Lasagna. Except it is Béchamel sauce on top instead of more cheese.
Yeah I would have said Moussaka as well
moussaka is the actual answer.
Sounds like it could be the stripped down version of eggplant parm that, oddly enough, eschews the parm. I've had it a couple times in Southern Italy. Essentially, it's just layers of eggplant (with the moisture salted out in a colander, then the rounds dredged and fried), roma tomato passata, bocconcini (or any fresh mozzarella), basil leaves and sea salt. It's baked and it's delicious.
What is "eggplant parm"?
@TFD: "Eggplant parm" is a common abbreviation of "eggplant parmesan." See this other answer.
The Italian dish is called Melanzane Parmigiana
@JanDoggen : please give constructive criticism when people are trying to give good information but don't understand the site yet. In this case, they can't vote up until they have 15 reputation, and they can't comment on other people's questions & answers until they're at 50. So Charlie, thank you for corroborating what's already been said, but we try to keep duplicate answers (and questions) to a minimum. Once you get some reputation from "good" (subjective) answers or questions, you'll be able to vote up to 'agree' with an answer.
I’ve seen it called eggplant roulade
Wouldn’t “roulade” imply something “rolled”?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.993309
| 2010-09-01T19:19:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6522",
"authors": [
"Alex A.",
"Angie",
"Joe",
"Michael Natkin",
"Peter Sankauskas",
"Stephie",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mauricio.2003",
"tatsu"
],
"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
}
|
21747
|
Which oils are considered flavorless?
The cake recipe is calling for a vegetable oil. I have refined sunflower oil, and refined soyabean oil.
Do they qualify for flavourless oils? I haven't noticed any taste in any oil by now! Taste buds problem, perhaps.
Both refined sunflower oil and refined soybean oil are generally considered flavorless.
Also included among these are:
Canola (rapeseed) oil
Corn oil
Peanut oil
Safflower oil
Vegetable oil
The most reliable method of course is to taste the oil :). I'm sure you can actually taste the flavor of extra virgin olive oil.
Generic vegetable oil is most often soybean oil.
Around here it's usually a blend of corn, soybean and sometimes others.
My wife hates the flavour of the refined canola oil (most popular oil here in Poland) and I can taste it too, so I would not call that flavuorless. Though, that may be the Polish oil…
Asian sourced peanut oil has a reasonable strong flavour. Canola oil varies a lot too, some sources of it are quite obvious
@TFD Peanut oil is made both refined and non-refined. Refined is fairly flavorless (and is good for deep frying). Unrefined has a strong peanut flavor (and isn't so good for frying). Similar to the difference between virgin and refined ("light" or "pure") olive oil.
Most refined oils have little to no discernible flavour. It's the unrefined oils (think EVOO or dark sesame oil) that do.
I wouldn't hesitate to use refined sunflower oil or soybean oil in a cake; nor canola, peanut, grapeseed, or safflower. They're all pretty bland.
Really, the best way to know for sure is to taste it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.993627
| 2012-02-26T14:32:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21747",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Jacek Konieczny",
"Matt Bond",
"Mbiannie",
"Sorin Lascu",
"TFD",
"amagnasco",
"derobert",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83901"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21750
|
How do I keep the paddle of a bread machine from damaging the bread upon removal?
I love my bread machine. However when the bread is done baking, removing it from the machine breaks the bread where the paddle is. I know the paddle is embedded in the bread and it will break the bread a little. I am looking for ideas on how to prevent it or at least make it smaller.
Should I:
Remove the paddle before the second rising/the baking?
Oil the paddle before I add the ingredients? (tried it, does not work very well)
Do something else?
It's designed that way so your guests know you cheated :-)
I used to remove the paddle before the second rising to avoid breaking the bread. Did not find any other good way of doing it.
I am new to this "baking hobby using a bread maker". I have faced the same challenge, and at this very moment am experimenting to find the best "trick" to avoid having unsightly impressions created by the machine paddlers; therefore, I would like to share with you what I have "come to know" basically through experimenting, and some confirmed through readings:
Basically the bread maker is used for making bread and cakes; for cakes the solution is simple and straight forward.. simply because the cake ingredients whence mixed they become in a semi fluid state; to remove the paddles before the baking cycle or just when it starts, you can simply do the following:
Use a kitchen hand-held mixer (egg whisker) with suitable design, and insert it in the pan so the large end would form something like a net around the bread maker paddle/s, and gently pull up. You should experiment with this with the bread maker (B/M) pan empty and the machine is turned off and unplugged.
As for breads.. I have experimented with removing the paddles at different times during the operation of the bread maker, but always before the baking cycle or when it had just started. I must say that I am still experimenting to find the absolute right moment of time to do so; and I believe its only logical to tackle this matter (and experiment) with the understanding that different B/M have different timing with regard to when best to remove the paddles so the bread will not be adversely affected; and actually today I came across this very interesting page referring to this specific point:
http://blog.kingarthurflour.com/2015/02/17/successful-loaves-from-your-bread-machine/
Welcome to the site! Thank you for this thorough, well-written, answer. We hope you stay here and have a lot of fun!
To the above I should add that with regard to cakes, I have noticed that when making a cake with chocolate it's not very practical to use the manual mixer as explained in my above first comment because the mixture after kneading becomes too thick; I found using hand to remove the paddle/s is more practical in this case. (Thank you Sue for your kind comment),
To the above I should add that with regard to cakes, I have noticed that when making a cake with chocolate, for example, it's not very practical to use the manual mixer as explained in comments above, because such mixture after kneading becomes too thick; I found using hand to remove the paddle/s is more practical in this case. May I add another point which might be helpful with regard to removing the bread or cake from the pan after it has cooled; and that is to turn the pin/shaft/s about a quarter turn in both directions from below the base of the pan. (Thank you Sue for your kind comment),
I'm afraid the best answer might be to upgrade your bread machine. Newer designs have paddle shapes designed to minimise breaking the bread. I've even seen paddles that fold flat when they're not moving so as to not even get stuck in the bread. No idea how well that works.
I love my bread machine, it's great time saving "cheat" but I never bake in it. I like my loaves looking like I actually baked them. It's just a tiny extra step to let the bread maker do all of the hard work then shape the loaves and bake them in the oven.
I always set my timer to go off before final rise and bake (program time breakdown is near the back of my machine’s instruction and recipe booklet), at which time I open the lid, pull the dough out, remove the paddle, then replace the dough and close the lid again. The machine goes through the final rise and bake and the only hole in the loaf is the size of a screw. Perfect!
It depends on your bread maker and paddle design. I have a very old one that I keep as a backup which has a flat paddle design that breaks the bread no matter what. But newer designs should come out cleanly, and in fact should stay in the bread maker when the bread is removed.
But even on the newer, better designs, as the anti-stick coating wears away, the paddle will start sticking to the bread and become harder and harder to remove. If you have a newer design but it sticks in the bread and is hard to remove, chances are the anti-stick coating is worn and you will have better luck with a new replacement paddle.
To find a new replacement paddle, just google the bread maker's make and model name, and the word paddle.
Stuck Paddle? Before starting, Put a pea size blob of shortening in the bottom hole of the paddle. Push the paddle onto the shaft. I have been doing this for six months. When the bread is dumped out you can grip the paddle with your oven mitt and pull off.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.993799
| 2012-02-26T15:03:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21750",
"authors": [
"Bryce Wagner",
"Craig Nordham",
"Omran Al-Kwari",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"TFD",
"ThermalViscosityBreakdown",
"Vivian R.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48320",
"user48320"
],
"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
}
|
10008
|
My ginger is blueish... is it safe?
I bought ginger at the grocery store last week and kept it, unpeeled, in the fridge. Today I sliced it open and there is a ring of a blueish colour, instead of the yellow I was expecting. The ginger still smells like I'd expect (I haven't tried tasting it).
Would this be safe for use (I was planning on putting some in a salad dressing), or should I toss it?
Having just returned from Hawaii, I actually have a possible answer for you. There is a type of ginger that you can get there (though it's not all that common, far as I could tell) that's called blue ginger. It's just like regular ginger, only it has the blue layer inside as you describe. There was a guy selling it at a roadside fruit stand when we were there.
It should be absolutely safe to use.
edit: I found a link to somebody talking about it. Hawaiian Blue Ginger
Not only that, but blue ginger is often sold as regular ginger in supermarkets. It's not Hawaiian in origin, though, it's called galangal and its origins (and prevalence) are Asian.
It's my understanding that galangal is pretty distinct, flavor-wise, from true ginger. The lady at our Thai market was pretty adamant about the difference, but didn't have any galangal so I can't say what the actual difference is. The blue ginger I smelled in Hawaii was indistinguishable from regular ginger.
http://www.hawaiianorganicginger.com/brother-bubba-baba.html shows a variety of ginger, decidedly not galangal from the looks of the skin, which has a blue ring.
Galangal is not blue ginger; they are related but very different. The blue tint is perfectly safe, and probably only indicates that the ginger was fairly young.
Some varieties of ginger contain compounds called anthocyanins which can turn blue when exposed to acids (these are the same compounds that sometimes turn garlic blue). Varieties of ginger originating in Japan contain these compounds, but varieties originating in China do not, which explains why this only happens to some ginger. The pH of ginger is slightly acidic, so that probably starts the reaction.
... so, yes, this is a safe, naturally occurring compound in ginger. It is an antioxidant, so there is some evidence that it may actually be beneficial to your health.
Anthocyanin in ginger
Garlic turning blue
More anthocyanin info: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40616/what-causes-changing-blue-and-purple-pigments-in-food
This is certainly the correct answer for most people who'll find their ginger looking decidedly blue, just as I learned this week. In the 15+ years of using ginger root, it was my first time seeing this occur.
same thing happened to me. I returned from the store with fresh ginger, only to find that when I cut it open it was more blue than yellow. I checked around and found this reference: http://homecooking.about.com/od/foodstorage/a/gingerstorage.htm
Read far enough down and it says that its another variety of ginger. hope this helps.
It seems this blue ginger is perfectly safe to eat, because I've eaten plenty of it and been fine. I eat ginger just about every day. It's a wonderful panacea remedy; I mainly use it to promote better digestion and to get rid of indigestion from over-eating and hard-to-digest foods like beef and saturated fats.
It's definitely not chlorophyll because ginger's flesh is from the plant's rhizome which grows well beneath the soil; too deep for light to penetrate. Also, the leaves are where most of the chlorophyll production happens, even the lower stems are almost pure white in color. Although there is a layer of beautiful purple coloration just above the soil line on most ginger plants, the blue ginger most certainly seems like a different type of ginger; possibly a sub-species.
As a ginger connoisseur of sorts, I find this fine to eat, but I most definitely prefer the taste of the yellow ginger, and especially the white ginger (which is juicy, mild, & delicious) varieties better than the blue stuff. Hope that adds some useful info to this thread.
I've never heard of that being a problem. I don't know about the cause, though. Is it more blue or more green? If the root was exposed to light at some point I suppose it might have gotten some chlorophyl development.
McGee has written about acids changing the color of garlic. Maybe there's something similar going on?
Blue Ginger or Hawaiian Blue Ginger is not a true ginger plant , but the flower on it is the most beautiful dark navy blue. I have it all over my yard I use it in everything and love it. It is milder then the regular Ginger and makes a great tea.
i asked the produce department at Albertsons, and they said it was "mature ginger" and was getting ready to sprout, and I also found it to be much milder than the yellow, which only a small thumb in my juice cocktail spices it up significantly, the blue.....not so much.
The blue hue inside regular ginger is completely safe to eat. I work for a Ginger farming operation and we see it from time to time. My Boss asked another grower about it many years ago and was told it is a sign of very good ginger, and that is what I tell people nowadays, lucky if you get a piece like that!
Hawaiian Blue ginger is a different variety, and is not galangal. I have only seen pictures of Hawaiian Blue, looks spectacular!
I really think the answers on here are misleading and could cause someone to fall ill. Fresh ordinary finger should be yellow and firm on the inside. If it looks a bit spongy or dark or has those green rings (which can be quite thick to the point there's not much yellow) it's time to toss it out. This article nicely explains the difference between bad ginger and blue ginger with pictures https://www.thecookingblueprint.com/blog/2017/8/19/ripe-or-rotten-ginger
There's a type of ginger called black ginger. It's not actually black like the same suggests it's a beautiful blue, very rare and expensive. I don't know, your grocery store may have accidently mixed rare black ginger with regular ginger, I mean possible if they are selling the black gingers too. You might want to search it up. In India, it is used in Ayurveda medicine, cuisine, as well as Magic and potions and stuff
btw: I think accidentally you tried to edit another user's answer and replace it entirely with your answer.
I buy ginger a lot and from time to time will get one that has a greenish ring around the inside. I have consumed it and nothing happened to me :) Although I did notice ginger with this coloring tends to be less juicy and a bit more fibrous than the preferred yellow.
hi we think it does have to do with age and exposure ... have some i just peeled and cut and it has variations of green and blueish purple... have consumed it before with no ill affect ... it is more fibrous so true :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.994251
| 2010-12-11T22:26:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10008",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Anjali Shukla",
"Anne Beckett",
"Christian",
"Crabbymcnabby",
"DrRandy",
"Francois Balboa",
"Hamidreza",
"Hans-Christoph Steiner",
"Incorporeal Logic",
"JasonTrue",
"Kantisha Morris",
"Katja Berčič",
"Luciano",
"Monique",
"SourDoh",
"Tank Taylor",
"Yellow Hummingbird",
"bikeboy389",
"bubez",
"cmo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94512",
"shawn_xu",
"tacotacotaco"
],
"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
}
|
16249
|
Can I turn my marinara sauce recipe into "pizza sauce"?
We're making pizza for dinner tonight, and instead of buying sauce, I'd prefer to make my own. I've never made sauce specifically for pizza before, but I often make marinara/bolognese sauces for pasta.
The base of my sauces (without any extra veggies or meat for the bolognese) is a can of tomatoes, some tomato paste, white wine, onion, garlic, chili pepper, and herbs. If I made my normal sauce and then just puréed it, would it work for my pizza? I am concerned it might not be thick enough - any suggestions?
Just skip out on the tomato paste and white wine. Experiment with the rest. Personally, I like my pizza sauce simple -- crushed tomatoes, some herbs/spices, salt, pepper, and a little olive oil. But different strokes for different folks. After a few rounds, you'll settle on something you like.
There is no reason pizza sauce needs to be puréed. Unless you're going for a really thing layer, I suppose.
You will need to be careful about extra liquid in your sauce. Your base recipe should be adaptable. Go ahead and use the garlic and onion, but I would omit the white wine. If you are using canned whole tomatoes, drain liquid before using them. Simmer it to reduce it down until it is "spreadable" rather than "pour-able".
We make a lot of home-made pizza sauce with canned whole San Marzano tomatoes, drained and puree'd in blender. Salt, pepper, garlic and a few spices. My husband loves bright red color in the sauce so a bit of citric acid does the trick.
Enjoy your pizza.
Do you mean to simmer down the liquid in the can? I usually buy whole tomatoes (which obviously have liquid in the can) and chop them up, would it be better to use crushed/etc.?
This is pretty much what I ended up doing. I carmelized my onions, strained the tomatoes and threw everything solid (garlic, herbs, tomatoes and onion) in the processor. Then I added the tomato liquid after it reduced a bit, added some tomato paste and red wine (the colour was a bit too orange beforehand) and it was perfect! Thanks :)
You can absolutely do this. I tend to just use ground tomato with a little salt and pepper--sometimes cooked down, sometimes not. But really you can use any sauce that tastes good to you on a pizza.
If you're concerned about the sauce not being thick enough, I'd definitely suggest cooking it down some. Cook at a very low boil/fast simmer with the lid off. Use a wide, shallow pan if you can, as that will speed the cooking off of the water. Depending on how thick your sauce is to start, and how thick you want to end up, you may have trouble with scorching on the bottom of your pot, so watch your temperature carefully.
If you have plenty of time, you can pour your sauce on an edged tray and put it into a 225 degree F oven for a while to dehydrate/thicken. This takes quite a while, but the risk of burning/scorching is very low.
You can add thickening agents like starch, but the texture changes very significantly.
I don't really have time to have it sit in the oven for hours; would using more tomato paste (say, a whole can or more) make it thicken nicely? I suppose that will affect the taste though.
It would definitely affect the taste. And there's nothing in tomato paste that would increase the thickness of the sauce (except that tomato paste is thick)--no effect like adding starch or something. If you don't have time to do the oven thing, then do it on the stovetop, but be wary of scorching.
If you don't have time to cook it down enough for the pizza sauce consistency, try adding 1 can of tomato paste to it while you're cooking down. That is a "quick" trick for getting it right for pizza.
Add two or three times the quantity of onion you would use for pasta sauce, and cook them thoroughly. As well as thickening the sauce when you blend it will taste a lot more like pizza sauce. The only other essential is plenty of oregano.
Depending on the style of pizza you're going for, it might not take any effort at all.
Some pizzarias just use crushed tomatoes, and nothing more.
If I'm working from canned, I'll use whole peeled, slice then in half to remove most of the seeds, then crush them. When I'm using fresh, I just slice them and place them on the pie.
(then add garlic & herbs on top of the tomatoes, which gives you a chance to vary the amount for each person's tastes)
I find that crushed tomatoes work fine for pizza sauce. I dice 1 - 1.5 large Spanish onions, sautee with 3-4 cloves of garlic in olive oil until soft, then add a can of crushed tomatoes, some salt, oregano and some dried chili flakes. (I like a somewhat spicy sauce, so I often add extra garlic and/or chili flakes). Simmer off some of the extra liquid from the tomatoes, give everything a chance to break down, and you should be good to go. If you find that it's too thin for your taste, add extra onions or another vegetable like bell peppers and puree the whole thing.
Definitely avoid adding extra liquid (like your white wine).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.995104
| 2011-07-18T17:00:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16249",
"authors": [
"Apples",
"Dan Bryant",
"Daniel Vandersluis",
"Don",
"FMFF",
"Josh Hibschman",
"Sean Hart",
"bikeboy389",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/950",
"puja patel"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11271
|
Does preparation of food change the nutritional content with respect to fat type?
I apologize in advance for my lack of knowledge in how a fat comes to be saturated, and perhaps therein lies the answer to this question. However, due to my wife's gall stones I need to remove hard to digest fats from my cooking routine. In addition to buying fewer raw ingredients that have high saturated, hydrogenated, or trans- fats, I want to be sure that food preparation methods do not change the chemical structure of fats that I do happen to be working with.
I may just be over-thinking this, but in cases of suspending one fat in another, emulsification, etc I wanted to know if there are any methods I should avoid due to the chemical changes they entail. For instance, deep-frying foods (which typically use the fats I hope to avoid) is said to make them difficult to digest.
Please list any others that do; or let me know if I'm just being a worry wart.
By the way, I hope you are operating on the advice of a medical professional here, because even with all of the criticism around saturated fats (a lot of which may be valid), one criticism I definitely haven't heard is that they are more "difficult to digest". Concern tends to be more over the long-term health effects.
@Aar working with the surgeon who was originally going to remove her gallbladder, we were given recommendations to avoid foods that impair liver health and to lower fat consumption generally and improve fiber consumption. He also recommended taking standard steps to reduce cholesterol and we are eventually meeting with a dietician to get some more tangible guidelines.
Fair enough @mfg. Just wanted to make sure, since I'm so used to seeing other people acting as their own doctors and dieticians.
There's nothing wrong with me being responsible for my own diet. Why would I ever yield up that responsibility into less capable (and no doubt profiteering) hands?
The simple answer is no, you cannot convert monounsaturated/polyunsaturated fats into saturated fats through cooking alone.
Before I can even begin to answer in detail, I have to start by pointing out that "saturated" and "unsaturated" fat is already an oversimplification. These are very rough classifications of fats and the chemical reality is far more nuanced. I'd encourage you read the Wikipedia entry on Fatty acid for a relatively basic explanation.
Fatty acids are actually classified, chemically, in three different ways:
The existence of double bonds (CH=CH) somewhere in the molecular structure. Fatty acids with double bounds are unsaturated. Fatty acids with single bonds only are saturated.
The chain length (number of Carbon-Hydrogen groups). Another distinguishing characteristic of saturated fatty acids is that they are generally (maybe always) long-chain. The reverse is not necessarily true, however; not all long-chain fatty acids are saturated.
The configuration, either cis or trans. Trans fatty acids are not actually a different type of fat in the same sense as saturated vs. unsaturated; they are actually unsaturated fatty acids, just in a different configuration.
Although certain studies suggest that it is possible to create TFAs from edible oils with prolonged heat, it is also extremely difficult, to the extent that it's nearly impossible to do in meaningful quantities by accident. I will refer you to this study of heat-induced cis/trans isomerization which says that after 8 hours of heating at 180° C, the researchers found up to 6.5 mg of trans isomers per 1.0 g of oil, which comes out to a grand total of 0.65% by mass. This is practically nil as far as a home cook is concerned - these quantities only matter if you're doing commercial processing of vegetable oils, or maybe if you're using the oil for deep-frying and you reuse it dozens of times (far beyond what any experienced fry cook would recommend).
The study also says that edible oils (i.e. the ones you cook with) experienced less isomerization than other kinds. So really, the amount of isomerization you're going to get (conversion of the "good" cis isomers to "bad" trans isomers) is minuscule and simply insignificant as far as mainstream baking or frying applications are concerned. So forget about trans fats.
Can you create saturated fats? That would effectively mean breaking down the double bonds into single bonds. In order to do that, you need to add hydrogen (that's why saturated fatty acids are "saturated" - more hydrogen).
There's a name for this process, which you actually stumbled upon in your question. It's called Hydrogenation. It's adding hydrogen atoms to an unsaturated (double-bonded) fatty acid.
Hydrogenation requires a substrate (involving benzene or some other hydrocarbon), a hydrogen source (that's pure, dangerous, H2 gas), and a catalyst (heavy metal). My guess is that your kitchen has none of those things, unless you're cooking in a chemistry lab. So there is simply no chance for you to accidentally hydrogenate your oils.
What you really need to be more worried about with oils (unsaturated fats) is lipid peroxidation. That's the oxidative breakdown and, eventually, rancidity of fats, and polyunsaturated fats are particularly prone to this. Heat is a catalyst for peroxidation, so if you "burn" your oil (or other fats), you may end up creating the same sorts of free radicals normally associated with rancidity due to improper storage. The long-term effect of these free radicals is not firmly established but the consensus seems to be that they aren't good for you in the long term (cancer risk and so on).
So don't worry about converting your oils when you cook with them. It's practically impossible. You should be more concerned with overheating them or letting them go rancid in storage.
I notice a downvote; if I'm over-simplifying or if my answer is wrong somewhere, please let me know where. I want this to be strictly factual and correct.
I take exception to the strong claim that one can't convert cis-configuration bonds to trans- by heating. Check out Real-Time Monitoring of Thermally Induced Trans Fats in Corn Oil Using the FatIR™ Oil Analysis System. Admittedly I am not a professional in this field, but the concept of the "tail" of the molecule turning over so one of the two hydrogen molecules opposite the double bond moves to the opposite side is not unreasonable.
P.S. I think there's a misconception in calling cooking "non-chemical." Cooking in many ways is all about chemistry. While most of it may be the rearrangement of whole molecules in relation to each other, I don't think it's accurate to say the molecules are themselves never changed. For a simple example, doesn't the yeast organism produce new molecules rather than just rearrange existing ones? That's cooking.
@Emtucifor: Yeast is alive, for one thing, so you're really talking about a biological process, not a chemical one. I take your point; however, chemical reactions require chemical reactions and simply heating or mixing oils isn't going to cause that (except for the heat breakdown, i.e. peroxidation mentioned earlier). I didn't mean to imply that cooking in general was non-chemical, just the specific actions being talked about in this question.
First, do you mind replying to the more important point about trans fats being produced by heating? Second, hold on there: you said "any other culinary process" which you equated to "non-chemical". But such an exclusion seems artificial. I'm not convinced that "culinary processes" can't cause chemical reactions. Do you have a source for this? Something as simple as baking soda + vinegar can make new molecules. Restricting that statement now to "only the processes mentioned in this post" seems an afterthought. Please understand this isn't an attack, just an inquiry.
@Emtucifor: Baking soda and vinegar is another chemical reaction that requires multiple ingredients. I was referring to processes that are entirely thermal or mechanical in nature; mixing, frying, baking, etc. My explanation isn't an afterthought, I'm genuinely surprised that somebody would be reading into my statements beyond the context of the question. Anyway, as to the more important point you're referring to, I've been reading that link and trying to make sense of what they're saying. Once I understand it all, I will update the post accordingly.
Well, @Emtucifor, I've read through it top to bottom and the biggest thing missing is some reference to actual mass. Everything is given in spectroscopic terms, specifically in absorption units, and I have no idea if the numbers actually corresponding to anything significant from a nutritional perspective. If 3 hours of direct heat convert 1% of the cis bonds to trans, then my original statement is true that peroxidation is going to be a much bigger concern. I need to try to find a source that gives meaningful numbers.
Alright, I'm done with my research. Everything I've looked at says that yes, isomerization does occur, but in quantities so tiny that the issue is virtually immaterial to a cook. So I've updated my post to include all the fine details but my conclusion remains essentially the same; trans fats don't matter when you're cooking with non-hydrogenated vegetable oils.
@Aaronut: I’m probably misunderstanding you, and I’m sorry to barge in like that. But … cooking is essentially nothing but chemical transformation: frying, baking, …. All those are just fancy names for multiple chemical transformations happening, e.g. protein denaturation and Maillard reaction. The whole point of heating food is to elicit a chemical reaction. Furthermore, you stated that a biological reaction isn’t a chemical one, which is also false: Biological reactions are special chemical reactions which use an enzyme as a catalyst.
@Konrad Biology is just an application of chemistry, and chemistry is just an application of physics, and pure physics is just math. However, this isn't math.stackexchange.com, so let's not nitpick too much, as long as the answer is essentially correct.
@Bob: yes, I was aware of that. My impression was that Aaronut wasn’t.
@Konrad: Let's not get too wrapped up in that minor detail at this point, seeing as how that particular verbiage has already been removed from the answer and replaced with a much more detailed analysis of isomerization.
@Aaronut: FYI, I liked the answer, and upvoted it. As far as I see, it describes the whole process and the risks fairly. I just noticed that the discussion in the commends seemed to operate on the premise of a false dichotomy.
@Aaronut Your update is great. Thanks for being responsive. By the way, you have my upvote. So let me ask you a question: what oils DO you recommend cooking with? My understanding is that cooking with animal fats or tropical oils because they are more saturated is more healthy, as they are more resistant to damage. Not to mention that I don't believe the lipid hypothesis anyway (that cholesterol and saturated fat cause heart disease). I suppose this is worthy of a new question... ?
@Emtucifor: We try to stay away from those health topics here, since nutrition is really quite a different field from the culinary arts. If you're asking me my opinion (and I won't claim it to be anything more than that), I think it's yet another hypothesis that has merit and bears further investigation, but the scientific community is still gathering data and simply hasn't reached any definitive conclusion. What that means to me is that I'll cook with whichever fat is actually most appropriate for cooking a particular dish (except trans fats), and not concern myself with unknowns.
My experience is that every politicized "scientific" debate is essentially the same; in the non-scientific world you invariably have two violently-opposed sides arguing about whether the answer is "yes" or "no", while actual scientists in the field investigate facets of the problem. There is no simple yes or no answer, most of the time. Saturated fats seem to have health benefits, unsaturated fats seem to have other health benefits. Check out this link: Fats you need.
Fats don't generally change structure as a result of cooking. As you heat up a fat, it's structure loosens, but doesn't fundamentally change. (Cocoa fat is an exception.) So no, how you cook your food will not create more unsaturated fat (unless you're cooking it in unsaturated fat).
I think deep frying makes foods harder to digest not because it makes chemical changes to the food, but because it 1) dries out the food and 2) introduces more fat from the cooking oil.
If you want more info on what saturated and unsaturated mean, and which fats are less saturated, On Food and Cooking has a short section with lots of good info.
Counterintuitive though it may be, deep fat frying, if properly done introduces less fat than other fat based cooking methods. That is because it is cooked at a higher temperature, so it sits in the fat not as long as other methods. The outward pressure of moisture escaping the food works to limit the oil seeping in. The problem with deep fat frying is that it is rarely done with the healthier types of oil like olive oil (doubt that you could). Also items deep fat fried are almost always coated with a batter of some type.
@Bill: I think it's really the batter that's the issue. There are plenty of oils with high smoke points that are low in saturated fats - sunflower oil, for instance.
The process of saturating or unsaturating a fat involves breaking double bonds and adding hydrogen to the molecule. The more double bonds, the more UN saturated the fat.
This is all determined by the initial production of the fat. Animal fats are more saturated and certain 'desirable' fats are LESS saturated when they are created. There is no way that I know of to change this DURING the cooking process.
Extreme heat methods will make some chemical changes, but saturating the fat would involve breaking the bonds and adding hydrogen, and when this is done commercially it requires catalysts and other specific conditions.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.995509
| 2011-01-20T14:06:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11271",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bill",
"Bob",
"Burg",
"Dan",
"ErikE",
"Katra",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"asameshimae",
"chharvey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4386",
"mfg",
"theflowersoftime",
"user23116",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20067
|
What kind of stabilizers can I use when making souffles, Japanese cheesecake or egg beaten products?
I would like to know more about effective stabilizers for egg-based cakes and similar dishes. I've heard that some people use gelatine, but wouldn't that make the cake ( Japanese cheesecake) have a jelly texture? Are there other options if this is the case as I want to preserve the light, egg-y fluffiness of these dishes?
Japanese "rare cheesecake" (レアーチーズケーキ) isn't usually particularly gelatinous in my experience, but it also doesn't typically have eggs in it; it will typically have lemon though. The Japanese-style soufflé cheesecake, on the other hand, has eggs but uses foamed egg white (meringue) for structure instead of gelatin. I think the ratio of gelatin is relatively small compared to, for example, a "mousse cake".
For non-culinary reasons, I would offer substitutions to gelatin;
As for a powerful stabilizer akin to gelatin but that doesn't precisely gel (go to pectin for that), when you are heating the food I have found agar to be a pretty effective stabilizer in vegan quiche that rely on a silken tofu base.
I have used it to stabilize cheesecakes, pudding pies, and puree
based pies and been pleased each time.
As for a middling stabilizer/thickener, i.e. if you don't want to
veer nearer to the gelatin edge, you can try tapioca flour; per
Isa Chandra Moskovitz, "[sometimes tapioca flour can be used]
interchangeably with corn-starch in recipes, but we feel it does have
a different kind of cooked texture (thicker, gooier)."[VPITS
p.7]
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.996661
| 2011-12-30T04:21:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20067",
"authors": [
"JasonTrue",
"Jayesh",
"QuantumRob",
"Scott Downey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43871",
"user3605250"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23530
|
Can I use a dark cocoa candy bar in place of bakers chocolate?
I am making this new gluten free brownie mix and am wondering if I can substitute the Baker's chocolate squares called for in the recipe, with 70% or higher cocoa bars that I keep on hand. Are there any characteristics that the Baker's chocolate has that a bar wouldn't or couldn't be worked around?
Do you need to melt the chocolate, or otherwise how is it used in the recipe?
I always use 'normal' chocolate bars in place of Baker's chocolate. The important thing to remember is that you use good quality chocolate with a high percentage of cacao.
That said, there are different kinds of Baker's chocolate, so it is important that you use chocolate that is similar. For example, if a recipe calls for Baker's chocolate with a high percentage of cacao, I would really substitute it for a chocolate bar with high percentage of cacao. However, if they use it as chocolate chucks in the recipe, you can take chocolate with the same amount of cacao (or chocolate with less cacao if that is the taste you prefer).
Every chocolate tastes slightly different, so maybe you have to make the recipe a couple of time before you have the exact flavor you want. High percentage chocolate bars are cheaper and taste very good, so using them will give you a delicious result.
I would say yes. However, depending on what kind of squares it calls for it may change the taste of the brownie or how rich the chocolate flavor is. 70% cocoa bars would be more similar to what Baker's Chocolate sells as Bittersweet (67% cacao) so if the recipe is calling for Unsweetened squares (100% cacao) then you'll have less chocolate flavor (and perhaps a slightly sweeter brownie). If the recipe is calling for Semi-Sweet squares (54% cacao) then you'll have more chocolate flavor (and perhaps a slightly less sweet brownie).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.996821
| 2012-05-02T14:42:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23530",
"authors": [
"Francis Reyes",
"Lina Sonrisa",
"Marian",
"Oonah",
"Sam",
"Scott Carlson",
"Simona Rizzi",
"heshamkhamis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53378",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6352
|
What role do eggs play in baking?
Why do we use eggs in cake baking?
There are basically two types of cakes: butter and sponge (or Génoise). In a butter cake the egg proteins, like the gluten proteins, help build the structure of the cake. Additionally, the egg yolks have emulsifying action, helping create a smoother batter and more stable air bubbles. In a sponge cake the eggs additionally act as the main leavening agent, helping create and retain the bubbles that will expand during baking.
The eggs also add fat, flavor, and color to the cake.
Photo of cake made with varying number of eggs: http://i.imgur.com/uuHbEvf.jpg Comments thereon: https://www.reddit.com/r/food/comments/3gu9ew/what_a_different_amount_of_eggs_does_to_cake/ (Be aware, Reddit is fairly noisy)
Really - which is a rich fruit cake?
Hobodave's edited title is more appropriate, I think, as many delicious cakes do not have any eggs. Eggs have different effects on different cakes, but I would argue that if your dish is simply "cake," then they aren't, strictly speaking, necessary. It's often possible to replace eggs with other ingredients to achieve the same desired effect: adding more baking powder, protein and fat is usually a good place to start.
However, it's absurd to talk about what role eggs play in "cake," because this has different answers for different cakes. Eggs in a pound cake play a completely different role than eggs in angel food cake, for example.
Maybe better questions would be "What role do egg whites play in baking?" and "What role do egg yolks play in baking?"; that's angel vs. pound cake dichotomy.
Coagulated egg proteins in combination with gluten give baked goods the supporting structure they need.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.997003
| 2010-08-30T13:27:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6352",
"authors": [
"Alex Gordon",
"Trevor Hickey",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"ant",
"blahdiblah",
"dumbledad",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/948",
"mm24",
"ria",
"user1690059"
],
"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
}
|
30128
|
How to thicken bleu cheese dressing?
I tried this bleu cheese dressing: http://www.laurainthekitchen.com/all/episode.php?episodenumber=422&screen=2&sortby=a. It turned out good (not sure if I'd call it great), but it was a bit thin -- especially when it sits out of the refrigerator for a few minutes.
The only thing I used that I think was a substitute was for the heavy cream. I used Anchor Thickened Cream instead: http://shop.countdown.co.nz/Content/ProductImages/big/94160574.jpg. If anything, I thought this might make the dressing even thicker.
Anyway, any suggestions on what I can do to thicken the dressing? I want this for hot wings.
Any other bleu cheese dressing tips are also welcome.
Use less cream?
Xanthan gum (added redundant characters to get long enough text to be allowed to post)
Run it through a coffee filter?
I would try reducing the amount of sour cream in the recipe and see if you like the taste/texture and then go from there. Or you could try and substitute half of the sour cream with cream cheese to make it more creamy.
@Stefan - can you please elaborate on xantham gum?
@Mong134 - was that a serious suggestion?
@Brendan - is cream cheese a typical ingredient in bleu cheese dressing? With some bleu cheese dressing recipes I found on the net, people would complain and say it isn't "real" bleu cheese dressing (and might claim it to be ranch dressing, etc.).
@CookingNewbie Definitely. It works for yogurt, why not bleu cheese dressing? It might take a while, but it'll get the excess water out of the dressing.
@CookingNewbie i'm not sure that there is such thing as "real" bleu cheese dressing. Your just making a sauce with cheese as the predominant flavor. Don't be constrained to the recipe because it's supposed to be a certain way, as long as you like it then it's good!
@CookingNewbie: Running through a coffee filter can actually be a good tip if you need to thicken the dressing you already have (and not make a new batch). As said it works great for yoghurt and sour cream too (if you make a new batch, you can run just the sour cream through the filter first, that will make cream cheese). Just make sure to use a a good quality filter (or better yet: muslin fabric), otherwise it will taste like cardboard.
@CookingNewbie add very little, say 0.1 to 0.5% xantham gum, use e.g. a tea sieve to not make lumps, then mix. xantham gum will thicken almost anything, never tried in blue cheese dressing but it should work
This recipe just has a lot of liquid in you can see her dressing is very fluid. If you're comparing it to bought dressing this tend to contain thickener to get the desired consistency so this is to be expected.
There are lots of other recipes so might be worth finding one with less liquid to dry ingredients: more cheese, or other dry ingredients like mustard powder or onion powder. You can thicken it by blending some of the cheese in or adding more cheese by crumbling. This will make it thicker, it will also make it cheesier but that shouldn't really be undesirable. Letting it sit in the fridge will help it stay thick as you've noticed it is a lot loser once it's losing it's chill.
You might also want to consider what blue cheese you are using, A drier crumbly blue will thicken the dressing more than a wetter soft cheese.
I can't see the linked recipe (the video may only be available to you locally; I'm in the US) but an easy trick for dressings that are oil & acid based (i.e, vinaigrette) is to whisk in a small amount of whey powder when initially blending the dressing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.997190
| 2013-01-16T12:37:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30128",
"authors": [
"Andrew",
"Brendan",
"CookingNewbie",
"Cornelia",
"ElendilTheTall",
"JF Dore",
"Jin",
"MARK KAY",
"Stefan",
"Tara Dactyl",
"User1000547",
"citizen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76366",
"jeranon"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77979
|
I am having an issue with leaving macarons to form a skin
I have a few macaron orders, so I need to bake them. However, when it is raining and the air is moist they don't form a skin very well. What can I do to make sure they form a skin before they go in the oven when there is moisture in the air?
The need to leave macarons to form a skin is debatable, but if you feel it's necessary, put them uncovered in the fridge, which will dry them out nicely. Be careful that there's nothing else in there with a strong smell that may taint the macarons, however.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.997522
| 2017-02-01T10:11:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77979",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20598
|
How would I add heat to a brine?
I am interested in making roast chicken with a bit of a kick. I'm thinking about adding heat to the brine, but I'm not sure what the best way of doing that would be.
How would brine work with hot peppers?
what speaks against sprinkling chile flakes (the ones used for döner) on the chicken in the middle of roasting it?
See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39436/how-deeply-will-the-flavors-in-a-brine-penetrate-chicken
Hot peppers won't work with brine, as brine is water-based and capsaicin (the pepper hotness) is not soluble in water. You would need an oil-based marinade to pass the 'heat'.
I would suggest getting a jar of red curry paste (available in the asian section of the supermarket).
Rub a teaspoon or two on the chicken to give it a bunch of different flavour profiles.
Another option is to make a stuffing for the chicken and put some finely diced chilis in there.
But yes, I would suggest a curry paste rub on the bird.
I'm only a year late, but since I found this post maybe mine will still help somebody. I would Inject the chicken with a heavily diluted and seasoned mixture of Blaire's Ultra Death sauce. I would use something like 5 drops per 1/2 cup of broth. That should do ya ;) You can find Blaire's sauces in specialty stores or online, ebay is where I usually get mine. Good luck. Keep in mind the sauce is not salty, just raw heat with a unique flavor that would work well with any of your normal seasoning methods.
When roasting chicken, if you want to add heat to it, you're probably better off going with some sort of dry rub on the inside of the bird.
If you really want to go with a brine, you could use with an olive oil/vinegar mixture to absorb the oils from any peppers you want to add. You might try applying this after removing from the brine and letting this mixture soak for the last hour or two. However, I'd be worried that it would be too much grease/tang though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.997614
| 2012-01-19T05:14:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20598",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"Merc",
"dfrib",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93681",
"rockstone",
"rumtscho",
"vantage5353"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19678
|
Meaning of do not thaw for frozen food
Today I bought frozen food for the first time and the brand is Mc Coin.
I read the instructions, which have the following instructions;
Do Not Thaw and cook from frozen
I am unsure how to parse this. Can someone please tell me what the company is telling me in the instructions, and how I am to cook it?
Should I put my opened packet into freezer ?
Should I cook it directly from the packet ?
Your question is slightly confusing but I'll try to answer your question.
As far as I can tell McCoin brand is bags of frozen vegetables (correct me if I am wrong).
If it says do not thaw and to cook from frozen, it just means you do not need to thaw it before you cook it.
Thawing is the act of unfreezing something. This can be accomplished by leaving something out at room temperature to naturally thaw.
So if you have frozen corn and want to put it in chili or soup, just throw the frozen corn directly in without thawing it.
It a kind of a patty of burger but not vegetables so should i keep it in a freez before cooking ?
From the comment above you said it is a open package. I recommend you actually putting the package in a freezer ziplock bag to prevent freezer burn (esp since its meat).
ya its a open packet , anyways i keep that think in mind thanks :)
Many stir-fried veggies will get soggy and 'flaccid' if thawed; fry on high heat and they will turn out (...somewhat...) similar to fresh. Also, fries fried in deep oil straight from freeze will turn much crispier on the surface (although hot oil splatter may be worse.)
If you're cooking store-bought frozen food (a pot pie for instance) and you thaw it first, following the cooking instructions on the package will lead to over-cooking, burnt crust, and a dry meal. The instructions are predicated on direct from freezer to oven and you must adjust accordingly.
It means that the product is meant to go directly from the freezer into the oven / onto the pan.
For some types of food, thawing first, then cooking it in the oven, will lead to a not so crispy product - due to the moisture from the thawing.
ok so right now my packet is in freezer and its open so should i keep it like that till i cook it ?
Yes. Just keep it in the freezer.
I don't feel Do Not Thaw and cook from frozen is well particularly well worded.
Do not thaw prior to cooking would be better.
Leaving some foods such as meat to defrost out on the bench will see their outside reach temperatures conducive to bacteria growth while the middle is still defrosting.
Hence it can be safer to go straight from the freezer to the frypan.
Also cooking times can be more accurately stated as freezers have a tighter temperature range than room temperatures.
I guess the wording is probably reading do not thaw and cook from frozen. I.e. two separate sentences. The wording in the question had me confused as well.
We have to follow the instructions on the package. When it's written- do not thaw, then we have to cook (according to the instructions on the package- fry, oven or whatever is written on the package) straight from freezer into oven or fry it (whatever process is written) and put the remaining amount of material which we haven't used back into the freezer by closing it tightly so that ice doesn't form on the things inside the package.
I'm not sure how this is answering the question in any way that is substantially different from the answers already given years ago. Can you edit your answer to make it more helpful?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.997813
| 2011-12-15T14:39:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19678",
"authors": [
"Broken_Sunset",
"Cianna Anthony",
"Hunt",
"Jay",
"Maddie",
"Max Goodridge",
"Mazatman",
"Pritaningrum D",
"SF.",
"Sharona",
"Tatjana Heuser",
"fche",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96892",
"soegaard",
"user134137",
"user43046"
],
"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
}
|
25303
|
Kirby Cucumber Storage
I love the Kirby Cucumbers (I've seen them called "Pickling" or "Salad" cukes in the midwest) available over the Summer, but they tend to get slimy in the fridge quickly if not consumed within days.
Does anyone have a good method of storing this type of Cuke in the fridge? In plastic? No plastic? In a wet paper towel? I don't use them for Pickling so "in liquid & jarred" is not my option here.
Thanks for the answers.
According to the New Cookbook, from Better Homes and Gardens (p. 106), pickling cucumbers should be picked and used in the same day. Standard salad cucumbers last about ten days. Trying to get from 1 to 10 is a bit of a stretch, and storage considerations can vary.
Some people recommend the standard washing and wrapping in paper towel, others indicate plastic bagging without washing. The slime and mushiness seems to be a result of the loss of moisture through the skin. Perspiration is inhibited by waxing, this is likely the reason behind the prohibition on washing (assuming you have a waxed cuke). If you are getting the cuke from a stand it is likely fresh*er* and unwaxed.
First, ensure you are picking ideal cucumbers by verifying that the skin and flesh feels firm and without shriveling or soft spots. Then, in my experience with unwaxed cukes, you will likely get 3-5 days with them stored in a breathable container (to prevent pooling of moisture, and slime; a similar humidity issues arise from the high perspiration of grapes). Waxed, which seem unlikely to encounter, stored in a plastic bag it may last longer.
A breathable container could be one of the paperboard crates they come in (that's how I keep them), a basket, maybe a plastic perforated grape bag, or perhaps a so-called Green Bag ("breathable" bags, however absorbing ethylene is not terribly necessary here).
Good answer. Can you suggest a "best" type of breathable container?
@jfpOne23 I added some suggestions, the first two being the only ones I have tried personally and they both work; the latter two I added for the sake of completeness. I do not foresee the "ethylene absorbing" bags being of much use but the manufacturers tend to generalize their claims to usefulness. A grape bag would help because it might inhibit accumulation of moisture somewhat, but being in contact with the plastic walls would still be a point of contact where the moisture would cling. Remember, you don't want to draw the moisture out, but if you do you don't want it to hang around.
Thank you MFG, great info. I have only just subscribed to this particular SE forum, so I can't vote you up yet. If I could I would.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.998160
| 2012-07-27T18:12:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25303",
"authors": [
"Corkey",
"DeeDeeLongIsland",
"Karl",
"Maijda Kadri",
"Maxim",
"Noma Bahler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57885",
"jfpOne23",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32011
|
How to store smoked fish when traveling?
We went to an island for a trip to explore local fish markets. This place is mainly exporting fish. We managed to get one of the best smoked fish (tuna, mackeral etc) from their local markets. This is different from smoked salmon and rather very hard in texture.
Just before the flight we packed them with original plastic bag (no ziploc) into a packaging box and taped it - put in the dedicated luggage. That was it.
This all led to a very painful experience just now. However, after coming back from nearly 8 hours of flight + another 2 hours, we opened the box and dropped dead to find the dust type fungas layer on all the fishes. It has become slightly moist.
Next time around I want to take precautions and have disaster management; how can I best store smoked fish when traveling? What sort of packaging material should be used?
Are you sure it was fungus, if it was just a dust? I don't know what else it would be, but 8 hours seems short for that to grow.
In any case. Keep it very dry, perhaps by wrapping in parchment or muslin and packing in rock salt before sealing all in plastic. Cool it with ice, sealed in a separate plastic bag, or preferably gel freezer packs, also separate.
I've never been in that situation, so I can't say I've tested this advice.
I am yet to try out your suggestion. It happened when I flew from Maldives. Sigh the most wonderful fish my friends made for me.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.998533
| 2013-02-17T21:43:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32011",
"authors": [
"John Bollinger",
"Kevvy",
"Ujjwal",
"bonCodigo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73603",
"user73581",
"user73596"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10742
|
Cooking chicken in a risotto without it drying out
I was following a recipe for a chicken risotto, which said to brown the chicken (breast meat, cut into small pieces, maybe 3/4 of an inch or so) in the pan after browning the onions, and then add the rice and stock to the same pan afterwards (so the chicken was in the pan the entire cooking period of the rice). However, when the dish was complete, many of the chicken pieces had unfortunately dried out.
What can I do to prevent this next time?
Brown the chicken in the pan where you will cook the risotto. This will give your risotto some nice flavor if you make sure to scoop up the browned bits during cooking. Then remove it. Let it rest on a plate, tented with foil, throughout the whole time you are making the risotto. Towards the last few minutes, put the chicken and any accumulated drippings from the plate back in. This will warm the chicken and add the flavor from the drippings. I use this technique whenever I am doing any sort of single skillet dish with meat, starch, and veggies.
How long would the browned meat need to cook once put back into the pan? It seems to me like it'd be a tricky balance between getting the chicken back in with enough time to finish cooking (as once the rice is done it'll need to be removed from the heat or else it'll turn to mush) and not having it back in too early and ending up with the same dried out meat.
@Daniel - given that it's smallish cubes, by the time it is browned it should be cooked through (check pieces with a thermometer to verify). That means all you need to do is warm it, which should only take a little while. Given that you are putting it into a fairly moist environment (nearly-done risotto), I think the timing shouldn't be too hard. Something like with the last liquid addition.
Cook the chicken separately, and add it to the risotto towards the end. Whenever I make risotto, I usually cook everything but the rice and some aromatic vegetables separately and add it towards the end of cooking.
+1. In addition to keeping your meat/fish moist, this method will allow all the ingredients to keep their distinctive characters. When cooking everything together the ingredients tend to take on flavour from each other and in the end they all taste the same. Well, maybe not entirely the same, but you get the idea.
just an opinion.. Wouldn't cooking the chicken together with the risotto add extra favour to the risotto?
Also, which part of chicken did you use? Have you tried to use chicken thigh which is harder to get dried out?
I find that I prefer thigh meat for this sort of application. It doesn't dry out as much, and it has a slightly more robust flavor.
Brown the chicken in the risotto pan on both sides. Put in an ovenproof dish/casserole and add chicken stock approximately 1/2" (1cm) up the side of the dish. Roast for around 20-25 minutes @ 395F (200C). When done, pour the remaining stock into the risotto stock for extra chickeny flavour. Slice/chop the chicken and add to the risotto just before serving (though this depends on how long you've left the chicken sitting).
Roasting the chicken beforehand removes any worries about the chicken not being cooked, providing of course you cook it through (and believe me, undercooked chicken is not good). Adding the stock to the dish helps keep the meat moist and imbues it with extra flavour (breast meat especially is often quite bland).
Restaurants often cook this way.
Cook ingredients separately, to carefully control each cooking time/ process.
If you want to meld flavones use chicken stock for the risotto, or a vegetable stock for deglazing chicken.
Add it all together at the end.
Hi Chef. I see that you've contributed some great answers and earned some reputation of your own; now that you're able to do so, please consider upvoting answers you agree with as opposed to adding similar answers. Answers are sorted from highest- to lowest-voted, so if there's an existing answer you can upvote then it's to everyone's benefit to push that one up higher rather than starting again from zero. You can also leave comments on an answer if you have a minor correction/clarification, and eventually you'll actually be able to edit the answers. Oh, and welcome to Seasoned Advice!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.998711
| 2011-01-05T03:10:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10742",
"authors": [
"50-3",
"Aaronut",
"Daniel Vandersluis",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"JStroop",
"Joe Taras",
"Monika",
"RolandTumble",
"backdoc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/950",
"justkt",
"mike",
"user22021"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14853
|
Seasoning for Ground Meat
I am trying to figure out how to season the ground meat in my goulash. Here are the ingredients that are in the dish. What seasonings would be best so that the dish comes together nicely?
Other ingredients:
turkey sausage
corn
red bell pepper
green onions
tomato sauce
oregeno
egg noodles
a little bit of mild salsa
topped with shredded cheddar cheese
re-reading ElendilTheTall's answer, his scepticism seems correct-- are you sure it is goulash you want to make, not some sort of burrito filling?
Well, for a start it's not really goulash without paprika. Having visited Hungary numerous times I'd also say it's not really goulash with ground meat, turkey sausage, corn, egg noodles, salsa or cheese either, but each to his/her own.
Thyme is always nice in stew-style dishes, as is a bay leaf. Other than that just salt and pepper.
I propose the zest of several oranges! (Along with the aforementioned paprika, of course.)
UPDATE: It just occurred to me I used to toast caraway seeds, crush them and add them to the mix as well.
You're direction here is.. unique, for a goulash. However, as I look at where you're going with this, I'd say be sure to use a proportionally larger quantity of both red and green bell peppers, too.
I think what defines the flavor of the dish is the duo blend of bold beef and bell pepper, with a minor presence of tomato. Paprika helps establish robustness to that taste, as will onion and garlic. The rest is just ancillary, but will add depth. Elendi's recommendations for spices are spot on, and I might add pinches of rosemary and marjoram if there's enough beefiness to support that extra headiness.
for goulash,ditch the turkey, ground beef, cheese, salsa, and corn.
Add chunks of beef (or maybe mutton), lots of paprika, some potatoes, garlic.
Probably needs other ingredients as well, pepper for example (or something similar).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.999121
| 2011-05-17T00:15:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14853",
"authors": [
"Carissa",
"Carsten",
"Darin Crowe",
"Doug",
"JD Dion",
"John",
"KJYe.Name",
"benichka",
"ginger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2621
|
How to adjust for humidity when making rice?
Years ago, I ate at Sushi Yasuda in New York. After I went, I was reading up on the chef, and an article about him mentioned that he accounted for air humidity while making his sushi rice. Wow! My kind of guy!
There is a 'how much water with your rice' conversation on this site, one that basically said "get a great Zojirushi," but I'd like to hear from an expert sushi rice cooker -- can anyone explain to me a formula or set of considerations for making really great sushi rice? I'm thinking of the sort of thing taught sushi chefs at the Japanese equivalent of the CIA, if there is such a thing.
Here is a link mentioning ambient humidity as a concern for rice cooking: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg13272.html
I'm not an expert sushi rice cooker, but the humidity inside a rice cooker is already at 100%...I can't imagine how the outside air humidity could have any affect on how rice is cooked. Altitude, yes. Humidity, no.
Unless the chef was talking about rice drying out after it is put on the plate, in which case you would slightly increase the water and cooking time for dry climates.
Analogously in baking, flour changes weight depending on air humidity, so I can conceive of this being a legitimate concern.
Dry rice will have more or less water content dependant on the ambient humidity. If you want to test how much you have to account for this, take some rice during a humid day, weight, dry in a 200F oven for a few hours and then weigh again.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.999320
| 2010-07-21T15:30:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2621",
"authors": [
"Bert F",
"Brian",
"Eko Kurniawan Khannedy",
"Peter V",
"Robert Harvey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/982"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14846
|
Is food immediately taken out of the microwave safe to eat?
Do we have to wait a few seconds to let the microwaves go away, or can we eat it immediately?
Of course, I assume that the food is not too hot to be eaten.
Yes it is completely safe. Microwaves do not linger in food. The microwaves stop as soon as your microwave stops.
A microwave is just an electromagnetic wave similar to a radio wave, but at a higher frequency. It works by exciting molecules, particularly water, in the food and giving those molecules some of its energy as heat.
Microwaves do not alter the structure or composition of molecules or atoms directly, which is what happens with ionizing radiation (gamma rays, x-rays, and UV-rays). You could cook your food with gamma rays, but you would ionize many of the particles making them radioactive.
Wait...so you're saying I shouldn't be using gamma rays to cook my food?
UV-rays can knock electrons off, but do not actually alter anything in the nucleus. They will not make food radioactive, but might alter its molecular structure (as can microwaves - burning is altering the chemical structure of the food). But x-rays and gamma rays can actually alter the nucleus of the atom rendering it unstable. This can, potentially, make things radioactive. Don't mind me though, I'm just a pedantic geek who knows more than any sane person about physics.
The only thing you have to be careful of is heating liquids in ceramics. Because ceramics are smooth, they can prevent nucleation points from forming which normally allow the liquid to boil. This means the liquid can superheat, and when you take the bowl out, which sloshes the liquid around and creates nucleation points, it can explosively phase-shift into steam. But that's a worst-case scenario :)
@ElendilTheTall: I've actually had that happen to me, though luckily it happened in the microwave. I was heating a mug full of water and trying to get it to boil. It was taking a long time. Then, suddenly, I hear a muffled "WHUMP!" from the microwave. I turn it off. My mug is now 3/4 empty and there's water all over the inside of the microwave.
Yup. It often happens if you boil water in the microwave and then put a tea bag in - tea-bag = nucleation points = whump!
I've also had it happen while heating a cup of water. It was forceful enough that it destroyed the latch on the door, and we had to replace the oven. Would hate to have that happen with the cup in my hand.
I'm assuming you're thinking you might have to wait for the microwaves to disappear from the food? (Edit: actually, you said so explicitly …) Well, I don't think the physical properties of microwaves work that way. ;) Interestingly, here's an article titled “Microwaved Food Isn't Safe to Eat”, which I'm personally taking with a large grain of salt; but note that of all the claimed dangers with microwaved food, the possibility of “ingesting” microwaves isn't one of them! (The article does claim health problems have arisen from the microwave field next to a microwave oven; which is contradicted by the information found on Wikipedia.)
That's one hell of an article. Here's my favorite quote: "Microwaves destroy the life-force that gives food its vitality and nourishment."
Regarding the microwaves going away: Microwaves are essentially the same kind of electromagnetic radiation as light, just in a different frequency range. If the oven's light-bulb gets turned off at the same time as the magnetron, the microwaves should be gone by the time you stop seeing the light.
Regarding safety: I have eaten microwaved food on several occasions with no ill consequence. Of course, there may be long term effects I'm not aware of but you might try asking about that on a biology-oriented site since hobodave has already ruled out radioactivity from the physics perspective.
I am not a biologist, micro- or otherwise. I'm also not a nutritionist, but I've heard that microwaves can reduce the nutritional value of food. I'm certainly willing to believe that the interactions are small and complicated enough to be very difficult to fully observe. Further, I can believe that the pro-microwave and anti-microwave lobbies are pretty lop-sided in terms of funding and effort. Finally, it seems to me that nutrition is a complex enough subject for a lot of nutritional advice to be under constant revision.
Given those thoughts, I see the following possible approaches:
Eat a ratio of microwaved to non-microwaved food commensurate to your risk tolerance/aversion (cost) vs. perceived convenience, etc. (benefit).
Accept a credible, seemingly balanced viewpoint such as this one: http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Microwave-cooking-and-nutrition.shtml
Fund/oversee one's own clinical study over a number of years, applying one of the prior options while you await the results.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.999483
| 2011-05-16T20:17:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14846",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Danu",
"Diane",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gabe",
"Lutfi Zuchri",
"Matt",
"Michael Mrozek",
"Mikie",
"Omnifarious",
"Ryan Baker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"user141592",
"user31306"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1511
|
How long is it safe to marinate meat?
I started marinating some almost-thawed chicken and skirt steak in the refrigerator on Monday. It's Saturday, and I still haven't gotten around to cooking the meat. Is the meat still safe to cook and eat?
I made several different marinades consisting of lime juice, red wine vinegar, soy sauce, garlic, and pepper. I'm not sure if that makes a difference.
FYI: generally, marinade is the noun and marinate is the verb.
They will be so over-marinated that even if they are safe to eat, you won't want to.
I can't see any reason for the marinating itself to make any difference. If it's safe to leave the (un-marinated) meat in the same conditions for the same length of time, then it's safe to marinate it for that long.
Five days in the refrigerator is definitely stretching it for chicken - usually no more than a few days is recommended, and that's assuming it was fresh when you bought it (not a day before the sell-by date). Even if it's safe, it's not going to be very good. I've accidentally left raw chicken in the refrigerator and forgotten about it before, and it started to smell "off" after about 4 days. I hate to say it, but I wouldn't use it at this point.
As for the steak, you're probably okay, because you only have surface bacteria, but I would cook it well and right away. Again, most cooks I know will recommend no more than a few days in the fridge.
P.S. I've heard people say that weak acids such as lime juice "preserve" the meat, but never from a reliable source; even if it worked, every marinade is different and it would be nearly impossible to predict the exact amount of time it preserves for. You have no idea how much bacteria existed at the outset, and even if the marinade somehow helped to inhibit growth of new bacteria, the "spoiled-ness" of raw meat doesn't come from the bacteria itself but from the toxins they leave behind. It's not a requirement for the bacteria to multiply in order for the food to spoil, if enough existed in the first place.
Unless somebody has it on good authority that marinating makes any significant difference, I refuse to put any stock in that bit of folk wisdom and recommend that others be equally skeptical.
Salt and other substances that raise osmotic pressure kill bacteria. The concentration determines the efficacy. Lemon juice and vinegar are more than strong enough to kill bacteria at full strength. Alton Brown recommends them for cleaning cutting boards after handling chicken. But you are correct, the efficacy is determined by concentration, and that will differ with each marinade.
Even if you had enough salt and acid to avoid danger, after a week you'd be closer to pickled meat than marinated. Fine if you're making a stew, I suppose...
@Adam: Yes, they kill bacteria, but how much? To get the concentration you're referring to, the "marinade" would basically have to be a brine or pickling liquid, as Knives points out. No marinade is strong enough to do that. Concentrated lemon juice might, as would concentrated vinegar, but those things aren't marinades.
in fact marinating started as a means of preservation rather than flavouring. Some of the first marinades were pure brine and vinegar.
While health concerns for storing meat are very real, in the scope of this question it's actually not an issue. No amount of time you are going to marinate something that will yield a good result is going to pose a health hazard unless your meat is near expiration to begin with. Consider the following:
For most marinades, you will get very little difference flavor-wise from 20 minutes or several hours. In fact, you will get the most flavor by doing a short marinating right before cooking, then reapplying a coating of the marinade just before the food is done cooking.
For marinades that are meant to soak for more than a few hours, they generally call for about 24 hours. This is not an unsafe length of time. Longer than 24 hours is going to have no positive effects on your food...
UNLESS you happen to be brining the meat. For brining you may be leaving your meat sitting for much longer, but it is in solution specifically designed to preserve the meat and kill bacteria.
So all in all, as long as you follow general health and safety principles with your food, you'll be just fine.
Just to clarify #1: Don't reuse the same marinade! Reserve some from before you marinate the raw meat, then reapply the reserved portion.
... or, alternatively, cook the already-used marinade (e.g., bring it to a simmer in a saucepan, stirring to make sure the heating is even). Then you can use it safely for #1, assuming you follow the normal rules (e.g., don't leave the marinade—before or after cooking—sitting out on the counter for hours while a roast cooks; keep it in the fridge). But often @Aaronut's suggestion will taste better.
You can store marinated poultry in your refrigerator for 2 days. Beef, veal, pork, and lamb roasts, chops, and steaks may be marinated up to 5 days. (From http://www.foodsafety.gov/blog/marinades.html)
if you have too much soy sauce then the salt in it will start to preserve the meat, and if you marinate it for too long it will end up like eating peat bog man. I've had this just overnight from a soy and ginger marinade with beef.
In general though I would think that the beef will be ok, but I would be less certain about the chicken. It probably depends on how fresh the meat was in the first place.
Smell it and look at it. If it looks and smells ok, then its probably good. Any doubts and bin it.
You were keeping your meat cold in a high-salt, high-acid environment, so I wouldn't be too worried about pathogens. This doesn't mean you're absolutely safe -- there are no absolutes in food safety, even with fresh-killed meat. But, given the conditions you described, it should be safe.
However, I cannot imagine that meat would be any good after marinating for 5 whole days. After 24 hours, the marinade will really start to ruin the texture of your meat.
I just left the butcher shop and he told me that you can marinate beef for 27 days in allegro which I do not belive
That's probably true; Allegro sauce is almost entirely water, salt, and weak acid. If you use enough the meat will be pickled.
Chicken =2 days...meats such as steaks, lamb, pork = 5 days. Here's the link to Food safety.gov, you can find the definite answers you seek on this page :) http://www.foodsafety.gov/blog/marinades.html
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! This link looks useful although if you scroll up the page you'll see GypsyBowl has already provided the same link and other information.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:54.999896
| 2010-07-17T18:34:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1511",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adam Shiemke",
"Christopher Galpin",
"Dinah",
"Eggs McLaren",
"Jader Dias",
"Jay",
"Kyona Sanford",
"Mehdi",
"PeterJ",
"Plumpie",
"SevenSidedDie",
"Shog9",
"SilverbackNet",
"Whitney Cooper",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89236",
"jwenting",
"ollitietavainen"
],
"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
}
|
7443
|
How long should roast pork be cooked so that it stays light pink?
Often pork is much too dry when served, I would like to have it slightly 'rosé' pink.
So I am looking for some cooking instructions for cooking a roast pork in the oven. A time/temperature table should be fine.
I ask this as from the information I see around, temperature varies from 160ºC to 210ºC. But from experience 200ºC makes the meat much too dry.
What cut of pork are you cooking? Thickness is going to play an important role.
The USDA recommends an internal temperature of 160ºF (about 71ºC) for pork to be considered safe to eat. The exact time and temperature for your oven will depend on many factors, so always use a probe thermometer to check. If you're worried about it getting overdone, start checking the temperature a while before you expect it to be done (based on your previous experiences). There are also thermometers which you can leave in the oven, and have a remote part that can sound an alarm when a certain temperature is reached. Also note that the internal temperature will continue to rise a bit after you remove the roast from the oven, so you may want to aim for a few degrees below your target temperature.
210ºC (410ºF) does seem too hot to cook a roast, so I'd aim for something on the lower end. Whatever time/temperature combo you use, it's always the internal temperature of the roast that matters, both for safety and for taste.
This is good information, thermometers are great because they take the guessing out of it. And down the road experience will set you free from thermometers. Personally, when I cook for guests I use a thermometer to be safe, but when I cook for myself/spouse it is less of a concern and my experience usually steers me in the clear.
You might want to start cooking at that high temperature (230/450), to get some nice tasty browning, then drop the temperature a lot lower, say 150/300, to slowly and evenly cook the meat to the target temperature.
The latest USDA guidelines recommend internal temperature of cooked pork to be 145 degrees. This applies to whole cuts only, not to ground meat.
You can read a summary of the changes online.
Very good info. Normally, when you claim something which goes against a high-voted answer, you have more chances if you elaborate your answer more. In this case, I found a link confirming your statement and edited it into your post.
The important part of cooking meat to a safe range is a combination of time and temperature. The ranges that you often see from people like the USDA are a temperature at which everything nasty dies instantly. This is a much more definitive test than saying that you need to reach a temperature and hold it for a certain period of time. The US government has a great table showing time and temperature for cooking pork safely (just scroll down a little from the link). As you can see, it's safe to cook meat well below the often given 160F. In fact, it's instantly safe to eat at 144F. I assume that the reason for the 16 degree buffer on the often stated temperature is just to make sure people don't run afoul of the magic number.
What you must understand is that, at these temperatures, it's imperative that you don't mess about with the amount of time. They must be held for at least the time given. But, 140F only needs to be held there for a minute. Once you've got something all the way to 140F, residual cooking should hold it there for at least 60 seconds. Just don't play this one fast and loose.
Cooking something like a roast is slightly more complicated than just getting the meat to temperature though. Generally there's a lot of fat and intramuscular tissue that you want to rend and denature respectively. That's what makes the meat so juicy and tender. While this will begin to happen at lower temperatures, it takes longer. So the meat may not come out as tender or flavor full as you'd like.
I would suggest a little experimentation. As mentioned, the thermometer will be a huge help if you want to be able to do this consistently (due to varying sizes of meat). I'd throw it in the oven and run some tests. I usually do Boston Butt to 168F, and this comes out with some pink parts, but I'm not sure how pink you want the meat (or how much of it should be pink). I'd recommend starting at about 160F and then moving up or down in temperature based on how the meal comes out.
I'd start it at 425F(210c) and then drop it to around 325F(160-165C) as soon as I put the roast in: starting it hot often gives better results than keeping it the same temp the entire process.
After that, you're going to want to cook it 20-30 minutes per pound (if it's a butt roast, you might bump that up to ~40 minutes). I'd start checking it with the thermometer at the very bottom end of that range, and take it out of the oven before it hits your target temperature.
I do NOT recommend 160F(71C) degrees as your internal temp, unless you like shoe leather. The USDA believes everything should be cooked to a cinder: trichinosis and salmonella and most other common nasties are killed at around 140F(60C) (144F is the instant kill number, but it's pretty hard to get your meat to 140 without it staying there for the 60 seconds that would be needed to kill everything). You should take the pork out at an internal temp between 140F and 145F degrees, to insure that the internal temp hits 150F(65C), which is a good safety margin.
Internal temperatures will continue to rise after the roast is removed from the oven. If you remove it at 160F or 165F it'll be 170-5F before it stops cooking, and that's flat inedible IMHO, and in no way pinkish. If you feel that you must wait until it hits 165F, take it out of the oven at 155F, and it will get to 165F before it peaks.
(Insert disclaimer about undercooked food blah blah blah...To be 100% safe you should cook it to 1000 degrees, then snort the ashes)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.000436
| 2010-09-19T17:46:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7443",
"authors": [
"Brian McInnis",
"Chris",
"Daron",
"Evan Haas",
"Harlan",
"Skepi",
"Zeba",
"awithrow",
"elfmirfkin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52371",
"jags",
"rumtscho",
"toy",
"user15290"
],
"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
}
|
5997
|
What are some alternative wines for Boeuf Bourguignon?
Traditionally a Burgundy wine is used for Beef Bourguignon. What are alternative replacements for this dish?
Red Burgundy wine is made from Pinot noir grapes, so a Pinor noir from another region probably will work well. Wikipedia describes Pinot noir as “light to medium body with an aroma reminiscent of black cherry, raspberry or currant”, so any wine with those characteristics, such as a light Zinfandel or Shiraz/Syrah will be similarly substitutable.
+1 for Pinot Noir. I guess any red wine will do.
In Mastering the Art of French Cooking, Julia Child says it should be made with a full-bodied young red wine. She lists the following options: Beaujolais, Côtes du Rhône, Bordeaux Saint-Émilion, Burgundy, or a Chianti.
I've made it with a Bordeaux and can attest to it being delicious.
I'm making this tonight with a Bordeaux (2006 Chateau Bonnet, nothing special).
Operation beef bourguignon was a success.
It would change the flavor profile enormously, but making the equivalent of Boeuf Bourguignon with beer would probably be quite tasty.
I think this sounds awesome.
Or it could be overwhelmingly bitter.
It's not bitter but takes a really long time to cook and makes a 'carbonnade' or beef in ale etc. These don't really taste anything like Beef Bourguignon.
Yes, this is not boeuf bourguignon but carbonade, which is an excellent dish from Belgium.
I'd had success with Cabernet Sauvignon before (South Australia). I tend to associate "full-bodied" (and hence better for cooking since delicacy isn't relevant) with Cab Sav and Shiraz varieties far more than, say, Pinot Noir. Could be the characteristics of the local wines, though.
I'd be surprised if the choice of wine made a huge difference to the dish, however, as long as you didn't stray too far from the criterion of "ordinary red wine".
Agreed, Pinot Noir is typically considered to have a medium body.
I've had great success in the past using a chianti.
Try a Ribera del Duero; you may be surprised.
Try a Fuzion Malbec. It's a cheap Argentinian that stands up really well.
In Ontario, it's about 8 bucks a bottle, and anything comparable is at least 12-15. For god's sake, don't be cooking with a 30-50 pinot. That's for drinking!
As an aside, I've one book (Elizabeth David's French Provincal Cooking, I think) that refers to "Coq au Chambertin" with the practice of using "one bottle in the dish, two on the table". An expensive proposition these days (don't see many sub-$50 Chambertins in the UK). Doubt many (or possibly anyone?) could taste the benefit.
In "Heat" Buford talks about Mario Batali's "Brasato i Barolo" which was done in a wine that came from the same liquor supplier as the Barolo.
Ian G: I seem to remember Raymond Blanc describing using fine burgundy in dishes as crazy.
I certainly had a very delicious Boeuf Bourguignon in Calais one cold and wintry evening. I complained that it was clearly not made with red wine and was rather pale and anaemic. The chef came out smiling all over his face. "Mais oui, monsieur, it ees my mother's own recipe. White burgundy from my home town." He showed me the bottle. It said Grand Cru on the label. So I proceeded to try to hide in my seat. It was followed up by an excellent Roquefort from his cousin's place down in the Auvergne and he insisted I must have a good red wine (Burgundy) with this, on the house. So we drank the whole bottle between the two of us! Memorable evening!
You need some liquid that is as tasty as wine. Perhaps some beef consommé (Can o' Campbells!) would do the job. I would add a bit of red wine vinegar, or balsamic, to make it a little bit acidic.
I've not tried it but my uncle was telling me he's started using cider for this, googling turns up a few beef in cider recipes so he may not be losing his marbles just yet!
I suspect if you go to the parts of France where wine is grown less and apples more, like Normandy, you'd find the traditional local recipes used cider, just like the use of beer in Belgium mentioned in other comments.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.001032
| 2010-08-25T23:11:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5997",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Boss",
"Chris Cudmore",
"H Champion",
"Hinrik",
"Ian G",
"Lucky",
"Roscius",
"Tim Almond",
"Tina Lee",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"javanix",
"justkt",
"mouviciel",
"vwiggins"
],
"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
}
|
4403
|
How can I wash down spicy food?
Say, for example, I eat a very spicy jalapeno and I have a burning sensation in my mouth and throat.
Are there any foods or drinks to wash that away?
Dupe of http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3903/cure-for-burns-from-hot-peppers-capsicum-oil/3904#3904
If we're going to close this as a dupe (i voted since someone else has now), we should update the main question & answer to be more general than hands.
Sugar. I just don't know how to fluff that up into a full blown answer.
Mints can work as well
The chemical responsible for "the burn" is Capsaicin. The main reason you and everyone else has trouble with the lingering burning sensation is that it's not water soluble (which means it doesn't dissolve in water). So, flooding your mouth with water-based liquids doesn't loosen up those Capsaicin molecules on your tongue and throat.
Like @Iuls says, the most common and effective relief comes from full-fat milk or cream. That's because, while Capsaicin isn't able to be dissolved by water, it is fat soluble. It's also why more than a few people have been upset that the "milk solution" didn't work, when they tried it with skim milk.
If you're looking for a more "fun" solution, it's worth noting that Capsaicin is also alcohol soluble, which might explain all of that tequila and beer they sell at Mexican restaurants.
Full fat milk soothes the burn.
Yup, nothing does it like milk.
Aside from Milk or fatty drinks as an option, there are two other good options:
Hot tea or hot coffee. (Hot water will modestly dissolve oils to an extent and it will also make any saturated fats holding the pepper oils more liquid again.)
Anything alcoholic. The more potent, the better. Alcohol is both attracted to water and oils, so it will dissolve the pepper oils and then mix with the water and wash it down your throat. Beer works well, but wine or a mixed drink will do you better. Plus you'll be happier after a few drinks.
Combining all 3 options, I think a hot coffee with Baileys would probably do you best. (Hot, fatty, and alcoholic!)
Personally, I find that beer does the job (or maybe I just forget the heat).
Here's some culture-specific answers:
If the hot and spicy foot you're eating is Turkish, take the dairy approach. Nothing is better than ayran. It's a traditional drink of yoghurt with water, sometimes a bit of salt too. If you're in Turkey many cheap places even have specially priced offers of a spicy meal and a drink of ayran.
If it's spicy Korean food you're eating, dairy products are not traditional at all. Instead my Korean friends suggest the alcohol approach. The standard strong Korean alcohol, available at just about every restaurant, is soju (Korean 소주). It's similar to vodka though not as strong and a little sweeter.
Mountain Dew. most sodas don't work well, though some say sugar helps, but mountain dew specifically has brominated vegetable oil as a bridge molecule to dissolve the oil based food color that gives it that distinct yellow hue. the same bridge molecule helps dissolve capsicum in water to wash it away. never found anything that works as well.
Dairy products like milk, cheese, yogurt are very good at relieving spiciness. Bread also is very good.
Avoid watery items which don't actually help, and can often make it feel worse because it helps spread the spiciness around
Suck on a lemon(Or a Lime).
Just like the others say, water doesn't work. Fatty or greasy things do help. Also, for some reason very sour foods, such as pure lemon juice can provide some relief (Though you may prefer milk or beer).
In my opinion gargling warm water works better than milk. Yes it would burn a bit more at first but you'll then realize it's literally almost instant relief. I've tried all approach and gargle warm water and spitting it out works better. Though I use water that's a bit hotter than warm.
A cold Cola works very well. I guess a Pepsi would also do the trick.
From personal experience, I can say this is not a good idea. It tends to make it worse for me.
Perhaps the acidity in the cola makes it work better than water. Not really sure.
My experience is that the intensity of the spice increases for some seconds and then it feels better afterwards. Cola is definitive the best I have tried for spicy food.
No, it's the sugar that helps. The carbonation just makes it worse.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.001667
| 2010-08-05T23:48:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4403",
"authors": [
"Bluu",
"Corey",
"Dan",
"Dele",
"Iulia Barbu",
"KdgDev",
"Mary",
"Mary Ann Pintek",
"Mnebuerquo",
"Preston",
"Sumeet Pareek",
"Susan",
"The Hungry Dictator",
"Thomas",
"grm",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8463",
"kim",
"squillman",
"vcsjones"
],
"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
}
|
326
|
Can cheesecake be cooked without a spring-form pan?
I don't have a spring form pan but I watched a show where they seemed to cook their cheesecakes in regular pans. Is this possible or did I just not notice that they were in fact spring form pans?
I like cheesecake but don't really have the space to add another specialty pan to the kitchen, so any alternatives would be worth considering.
This is referring to a traditional baked cheesecake.
Alton Brown says never to cook a cheesecake in a springform pan. He uses a regular pan and lines it with parchment paper so that the cheesecake won't stick to the bottom.
Anyone happen to have an episode number for this? (I'm assuming if Alton Brown said it, it was in Good Eats at some point...)
Episode EA1E04 - titled Cheesecake (at least, that's what Food Network's website says.
Actually, he says he cooks savory cheesecakes in a springform pan, but he didn't talk about that much.
The Trouble with Cheesecake, transcript at : http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/Season5/Cheesecake/CheesecakeTranscript.htm
@Michael when did he say this? He used a regular pan and placed it within a water bath to distribute heat evenly. I remember he saying never use a spring form.
@Chris See the transcript @Joe posted. Search for spring.
When using a regular pan and a water bath, does he then just cut the cake inside that pan or is there some sort of trick to get it out of the pan?
@Terry Cost effectiveness for a individual baking one cheesecake is different than a bakery making 16 a week. The OP isn't asking whether it's better from a cost point, only asking whether it's possible to do... which it certainly is.
I always make mine in a 9 x 3" Fat Daddio's anodized cake pan. You can buy precut parchment rounds for the bottom, and you can cut a 30 x 3" strip of parchment to line the sides of the pan (I line the whole thing - makes it come out easier, and WAY cleaner - looks picture perfect when it's done). I use Crisco to "glue" the 30 x 3 strip to itself (not the pan) so I don't have to hold it in place when pouring the batter.
The key is after it's set for a long time in the fridge (at least 8-9 hours), to cover the top with parchment too, that way when you flip it it doesn't mess up the top at all. Then just use something to pop it out onto. I use a cardboard cake round, and "pop" the sides and bottom of the pan with my hand or a butter knife handle, it takes a little practice. You may want to run the knife around the pan on the outside of the parchment lining too, that helps. Take the parchment off the cake and flip it back over onto whatever you want to serve it on.
I used to do springform, but once I got the hang of this, I'll never go back; it produces a much better end result. And you can make it taller too because a regular cake pan is slightly deeper that most springforms of the same diameter.
No, you do not need a springform pan. I make both savory and sweet cheesecakes all the time. You also don't always need a water bath, or a crust. Alton Brown's cooking method is probably one of the best, just a regular pan, in a water bath, or without, cook at 225-250 for 1 hour, then turn off the oven and let the cheesecake sit in it for another hour. Then pull out and cool.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! You're a rarity. First answer on Stack Exchange and and it's a good one. It took me like 10 answers to get the hang of it. Check out our Tour and Help Center if you have any questions. I hope to see you again!
You can cook it in a regular pan. Even a non-stick pan without parchment paper is fine. Just cut it like brownies. You'll definitely need to adjust down cooking times given that your cheesecake will be a lot less thick, but be careful in doing so, especially if trying to add a brownie layer.
If you start making cheesecakes regularly, however, I strongly recommend a springform pan for 3 reasons:
1) It's more traditional and improves presentation
2) It's standard, so it's more compatible with recipes
3) A springform can more easily be fit into a water bath, which is, IMO, the best of all methods for making cheesecake. (and if surrounded carefully with foil, it will rarely leak, and even if it does the crust will provide some protection)
You can also just get a deeper cake pan to accommodate the depth and water bath.
In my experience, the best cheesecake is made in a glass pyrex pan, 9 or 10 inches, if you can find it or most likely have it or your mom or grandma or aunt. Bake it on 300 degrees, making your own graham cracker crust with unsalted butter, vanilla, and sugar, using 16 to 24 ounces cream cheese, 2 to 3 eggs, one half to three quarter cups sugar, real vanilla, fresh lemon juice, baked 40 to 60 minutes depending on your oven, on the rack, then, take out of oven, let cool 10 minutes, top with sour cream, vanilla, sugar mixture, put back in oven 5 more minutes, let cool complete, cover, put in fridge at least 12 hours. Serve totally naked, please do not ruin with toppings, and enjoy. The beauty is the cheesecake taste, not how it looks but how a cheesecake fanatic ends up eating the whole darn thing. No springform pan, no parchment, just a pryrex glass round pie dish, old as the hills which I'm hopeful you have and no waterbath. Oops, I just also Just gave you a receipe that is simple and very much sought after. Enjoy
In addition to springform pans, there are also non-spring removable-bottom pans, e.g.:
https://www.amazon.com/Ateco-Aluminum-Removable-Bottom-3-Inch/dp/B000FEM2XO
In use, they look like regular cake pans. They're simpler to make and use, and they don't wear out. Most commercial bakeries use them rather than spring-form pans.
The downside is that they leak more readily, since the bottom isn't locked in place. That's fine for a cheesecake: the crust will prevent the filling from leaking (and the filling is usually too thick to leak much anyway). They are inappropriate for cooking in a water bath -- unless you wrap them in aluminum foil, which you really should be doing for spring-form pans anyway.
They're superior to regular cake pans for cheesecake and other cakes that are too fragile to turn over, since you can just pop them right out when done, and you don't have to fuss with a spring. If they didn't turn the cake over to remove, they may have been using a removable-bottom pan.
I do a lot of baking, from cupcakes to cheesecakes, but one thing I struggle with is getting the cheesecakes out of a normal, pan even a glass pan. I found out that you could butter the pan before doing anything in it and you can flip the cheesecake over and it comes out nicely.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.002084
| 2010-07-09T23:42:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/326",
"authors": [
"B Phillips",
"Carmi",
"Catija",
"Chealion",
"Chris",
"Elizabeth Schechter",
"James Eichele",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Julie",
"Kenster",
"Lee",
"Matt",
"Michael Mior",
"SourDoh",
"VoY",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9592"
],
"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
}
|
6620
|
How can you reduce the heat of a chili pepper?
There are many chilis that have amazing flavors but are so hot that it is hard for most of us to appreciate them. Beyond the standard suggestion to discard the seeds and cut away the ribs, are there any other methods that can lower the capsaicin level while retaining the other flavors?
This was asked on Dave Arnold's Cooking Issues podcast, and I'm not sure they landed on a solid answer.
EDIT: I'm looking for something that might cut the perceived heat by like 90% or even 100%, not just make it slightly milder. Something that completely neutralizes the capsaicin, not simply buffers it on your palate. (Starting a bounty).
Great question! Favorited so I can (hopefully) start using more of the chilis I like in meals I make for my wife :)
Is this for the purpose of eating the pepper itself, or using it in a dish? How the pepper is cooked affects so much about how hot it ends up being.
@aaronut - I don't want to eat the pepper by itself, but I may use it in a dish either raw or cooked.
I've got a hunch that sugar and fat would be key to this, but I have to experiment a little. Most of my time is normally spent trying to bring out the heat.
By the way, just to defend my honor in asking this - I'm not personally shy of chile heat. I typically order 4 stars at Thai restaurants, e.g. But there are some more extreme peppers (habanero, scotch bonnet, ghost chili) that are just so hot that it is difficult for me to get the rest of their flavor in sufficient quantity.
Good question; even though I myself love spicy foods, I know many people who don't :-)
Just soak them in water after cutting or smashing.
Just useful information related to this question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoville_scale
In Indian cooking we usually add Ghee (Clarified butter) to reduce the heat of a chili pepper. Most Indian dishes, we would add a good heaping spoon of ghee before feeding little ones. This helps temper the heat but keeps the flavors alive so that the children get used to them and can gradually learn to eat hotter foods.
I forgot to add that any form of fat (cream, half&half, full-fat milk, butter or even oil) should do the same thing because capsacin is fat soluble. That's why the most effective to cool off after eating hot foods is drinking milk rather than water or other beverages.
Interesting answer! I know about eating fat after your tongue is already burning to reduce the pain, but I would have thought adding fat to the dish itself would almost make things worse. I would have guessed it would dissolve the capsaicin and make it more widely spread throughout the dish. I'll have to give this a try.
@Michael - but by spreading it out wouldn't it reduce the chance that you'd get a highly concentrated spicy bite? That, I think, would help quite a bit.
I cooked myself a sambar once that turned out very hot (I had some homemade sambar powder remaining and decided to chuck it all in, forgetting there was quite a bit of chilli in it). To reduce the heat, I added one or two tablespoons of yogurt per bowl. The difference was noticeable but definitely not a 90% or 100% reduction in heat.
This site talks about this a bit.
It says that ~60% of the capsaicin heat is in the pith and ~40% is in the seeds and other parts of the flesh. It suggests removing and discarding the pith and seeds to reduce the heat. It also suggests soaking the peppers in vinegar for a day. I guess depending on what you're cooking this may or may not work.
Also, since the capsaicin "is an alkaloid oil, it is soluble in acid, fat or alcohol", perhaps you can try to soak it in one of these things and that will reduce the heat.
I have found that roasting peppers and removing their skins can do a great deal to reduce the heat. I have a garden full of jalapeños and I roast many of them before putting them in salsas or eating them plane. The roasting does change the flavor, but I find that it mellows it out, while not eliminating it. It is your choice to keep the seeds or not, they maintain their heat for the most part, the roasting primarily affects the flesh. I roast till the skin is turning brown/dark brown in a couple of spots, set the peppers aside and when the are cool to the touch remove the skin and what ever else you choose.
Any cooking seems to tone the heat down. I'll often saute or sweat peppers, and it sweetens the flavors just like it would for an onion.
Although this may be a different solution to the question, you might just try some of the more flavorful mild peppers in combination with the hotter choices in the recipes you prepare. A sweet paprika pepper is wonderfully flavorful. A minimal amount of habanero in a recipe would still impart its flavor. Roasting the peppers may also intensify the flavor you want to emphasize.
One sure way to reduce the heat is by adding some coconut milk powder. This thickens the dish a bit.
interesting approach
Works quite well - in addition to removing the seeds, this is the method I use to make my dishes palatable to er... "Less tolerant others".
This is a great question, but unfortunately, it is not possible.
The reason is the Capsaicin compounds. Let me explain.
Capsaicin compounds are a very interesting substance that does not actually damage the tissues, instead it binds to your sensory neurons and tricks them into sending the message that the tissue is burned and under abrasive damage.
It is a perfect trick of the mind (and nervous system) you may say. All this time NO DAMAGE TAKES PLACE .
Any redness, swelling, etc is just a auto-response of the body.
It is funny to know that birds do not have this type of receptors and tat may consume the hottest chillies without having any unpleasant sensation.
At the same time, this very same compounds are very flavorful and perceived as such by the appropriate receptors.
There is not a district "flavor" component to the chillies, it is the Capsaicin compounds and they "burn".
Yes , was they are soluble in fats, mixing them with butter as Ambuja suggested or with high fat yogurt attenuates the burning sensation as it does no longer come in small concentrated portions.
Alternatively, start to teach your body and brain that it is nothing to fear by slowly building tolerance to it. I am sure that Ambuja knows a lot about this :D
No easy way out on this one , sorry :P
@Bogdan Belcea - So I understand that it is the capsaicins, and that they aren't actually burning or hurting anything. But I don't understand how you get to the conclusion that there is no possible compound in nature that might, say, bind to them and prevent them from getting to your sensory neurons, or in some other way differentially disable them.
I am not a chemist, but I seriously doubt not that there is an agent that may inhibit there action on the neurons, but one that may do this AND at the same time not alter them ... so that they are still the same ... and have the same flavour. Do not forget that the tasting is in fact just a way to identify classes of chemicals. You may do something to become for a time insensitive ... but without the sensation of warmth of pressure that gets overstimulated by the Capsaicin I do not think that any meal will be still enjoyable
Additionally, the Capsaicin and the altering agent has be altered and still be fit for human consumption.
Additionally,the altering agent and the Capsaicin after altering has to still be fit for human consumption. If the flavour was in an other substance of the chillies then it would be a worthy quest. This is why I consider it more useful to look for alternative strategies like building immunity to it, deleting it or develop techniques to make the "burning go away' faster or in a more pleasing way.
@Bogdan Belcea - the flavors are in different substances of the chili. The fruity flavors of a habanaero aren't in the capsaicins, for example. So what I'm looking for is a way to extract or neutralize the capsaicins (safely of course), while leaving the other flavor compounds intact.
@bog I am not following your reasoning where you say that there are no distinct flavors in peppers/chillies. Could you clarify this claim? Additionally, if you eat a habanero, with or without chewing, on an empty stomach you WILL end up with a painful belly full of acid along with rapid producing gas which causes painful bloating.
@mfg: I have eaten habaneros whole before on many occasions. I have not experienced either of those symptoms.
@hobo grats on that; i know it has left me doubled over both the first time, and the second time when i tried because maybe i just needed to get used to it. terrible cramps.
@daniel: ditto that, sir. @hobo: you da man!
I just made a chicken chili with habaneros from my garden. It was crazy hot. Too each bowl, I added a heaping tablespoon of plain nonfat greek yogurt. It tamed the heat considerably and brought out the flavors. I also added a little fresh lime and cilantro - so good now.
A bleach solution will neutralize the capsaicin (or at least, make it water-soluble). Making the pepper edible after that may be another issue, though . . .
(Disclaimer: don't actually try this)
A safer way to draw oil out of the peppers may be to soak them in alcohol first. Unfortunately, anything that will extract capsaicin will also extract the other flavorful (but non-hot) oils from the pepper. You may end up with a less spicy pepper, but it may also be less tasty.
One way to use peppers without bearing the brunt of the burn is to saute some in oil, discard the pepper and utilize the oil. Doing this, as with paprika, will alter and roast the flavor, changing it somewhat. Whether that is good or bad is for you to decide (although you can of course use a lower heat to roast it less). However, if you discard the pepper and keep the oil you will keep some of the flavor but it will be mostly just the heat.
A better way is to counterbalance the heat with complements and supplements. It will buffer, but also allow you to make the most use of capsaicin neutralizing agents while preserving flavor.
Incorporating nice fatty elements in the dish is a good way of introducing a complementary element that reduces the heat and allows the mouth to have ammo to dissolve the oils. It could be milk, butter, or bacon but fats will absorb the heat.
A supplementary element would be one that augments the flavor into a wheel so the heat isn't completely out of balance and the flavor of the pepper comes through more. For instance, if you look at good habanero hot sauces, they typically have citrus fruit concentrates in them. Whether you use orange, mango, lemon these elements assist in bringing out the fruity quality of the habanero. Supplements come in pairs though, so you add a nice bright flavor (i.e. orange concentrate) and a sweet (i.e. brown sugar).
Instead of washing out the heat, and the flavor/character of the pepper too, I have found in making food that it is ideal to balance it out instead with complements and supplements.
actually i forgot an additional approach, ZEST IT!
I just saw a tool on the blog Peppers and More called the Pepper Shark. It is a tool specifically for use in trimming the heat (ie cutting out the seeds etc) of peppers and keeping the flavorful parts.
Huh, certainly unusual! It seems like it is really only necessary if you want to keep the pepper intact - you can cut it open, that is pretty trivial to do with a paring knife.
Yeah crazy looking like some anime sword, and I assume you're going to be chopping it up anyway; but I thought knowing a tool for this purpose was out there warranted a minor update.
Some recipes use the seeded whole pepper, like chiles rellenos (stuffed peppers).
Awesome logo on that thing.
Heating over 190 degrees C causes capsaicin to break down.
A fairly scientific-ish PDF of a study can be found here.
Hello and welcome to the site! Please note that we discourage link-only answers. You know the internet: Websites change and then we and up with a load of broken links. Please always paraphrase the key points - think of what should remain when the link goes bad. And one formatting hint: There is the nifty little button over the text field with a "chainlink" symbol. Use this for a really fast and convenient way to embed links in your text, it will guide you through the steps.
The first sentence provided a concise and accurate answer to the question. The link was to back it up with facts, in case anyone wanted to check. I figured that was better than some anecdotal "sure seems hotter to me that way" kind of answer.
Looking through this thread, it is still the most accurate answer, and the only one backed up by any real test data.
Thanks for the tip about shortening the link, didn't know that.
The taste (that isn't heat) is primarily in the skin; most of the heat is in the pith and seeds. Remove the inside and you have the taste without the heat.
A technique that I use is to cut the chillies in half, and de seed them, then soak in water for a while before cooking. This tends to leave a lot of the flavor but reduce the heat.
I've been fermenting my jalapenos and other hot peppers by deseeding, chopping fine, adding sea salt as I would when making raw sauerkraut, putting a weight on them and leaving them on my counter for several days. When they turn olive green, I put them in the fridge. I keep the weight on them and they last for as long as it takes to eat them--so far, a few months. I notice the heat slightly, but it is very easy to eat a heaping tablespoon on my sandwich and it tastes delicious. As with other vegetables, the fermenting process preserves as well as enhances the flavor. (I added them to our tuna sandwiches for lunch and no one seemed to notice.)
Adding cream or milk to the dish softens the hotness. Even drinking a glass of milk during the meal helps.
Drinking Alcohol with the meal has the opposite effect btw.
capsacin is soluble in alcohol, so it can help.
Always keep a glass of chocolate milk handy. It kills the heat right away.
so, drinking spiked egg nog should be the ultimate spiceburnkill?
If it is at all possible if you remove the seeds then it will greatly reduce the heat of your peppers. That has a great deal to do why as a general rule of thumb the larger the pepper the bigger the chance to reduce the heat. You can actually remove the seeds but with those small devils it becomes difficult if not impossible.
PS I have not read the other answer so this may have already been discussed.
Clean with water, remove the seeds and soak in sparkling water and add lemon juice, keep en refrigerator 2 hours. Good luck
I cooked a sauce with chilli to eat with chicken. It was very hot and then I put spinach in a frozen block in. When we ate it, the heat was dramatically reduced, so perhaps the folate or nitrate in spinach effects the heat of the chilli.
Disclaimer: pure speculation...
This won't reduce by the 90%+, but maybe it will help a little: I've read how the pickers of peppers have to use gloves to prevent getting burned. Perhaps a higher concentration of capsacin is in the skin, and cleaning them by rubbing with something (bleached water, ghee, alcohol, oil-soaked paper towels, all of the above???) might reduce the strength. Or, for that matter, peeling them. This is all a guess of course.
IMHO this is not an answer - you said so yourself: pure speculation...
The skin has a very low concentration of capsaicin. The highest concentration is in the placenta.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.002686
| 2010-09-02T20:28:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6620",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ambuja",
"Anonymous",
"Arafangion",
"Bogdan Belcea",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Dan C",
"Dawn",
"Dawn Brezina",
"Emil",
"Fernando Espinosa",
"Florance Stroud",
"Jared Updike",
"Jennifer Innerarity",
"Jon Galloway",
"Josh",
"Mark Gregory",
"Michael Natkin",
"NRaf",
"Rowland Shaw",
"Shekhar Naik",
"Stacey Heil",
"Stephie",
"Susan E",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"ademar111190",
"bonCodigo",
"djangofan",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/866",
"justkt",
"meritra",
"mfg",
"sarah shepherd",
"skeg blade",
"stephennmcdonald",
"villu164",
"zanlok"
],
"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
}
|
13782
|
What different uses do we assign to salted butter vs. unsalted butter?
What different uses do we assign to salted butter versus unsalted butter?
The only real advantage to salted that I'm aware of is that the salt acts as a preservative; even if you're just spreading it on toast, you can always hit it with a slight sprinkle of salt if you really think it needs it.
Unsalted butter sprinkled with salt and salted butter offer two very different experiences. One is sweetly bland with distinct hits of strong saltiness, and the other tastes like butter.
In the UK most butter is salted and just labeled butter. Most people use this for everything, unless a recipe calls for unsalted butter particularly. I assume our baking recipes take that into account, but lots of our baked goods, eg shortbread, wouldn't taste right without it.
The short answer is that unsalted butter is for cooking with, salted butter is for spreading on things (biscuits, pancakes, etc.). Salted butters vary in the amount of salt they contain, so when cooking you should use unsalted butter and control the salt level yourself.
I believe I've heard that in some parts of Europe salted butter isn't even sold. If you want to butter your croissant, you use unsalted butter and sprinkle a touch of salt for flavor.
Well, you can assign whatever uses you want, of course. But in general, unsalted butter is used anywhere that you can't or shouldn't taste for saltiness, or where you want to avoid the salt, and salted for anything that you prefer it on, or where there's no worry about getting too much salt without knowing it. This is because the saltiness varies so much with salted butter, so you never know how much salt you're getting.
Of course, lots of people use unsalted butter for most everything--many prefer it on fresh bread, for example--and there are plenty of people who don't worry about using salted butter for everything either.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.004095
| 2011-04-05T21:38:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13782",
"authors": [
"Anthony",
"Beau Bouchard",
"Caleb",
"DJohnM",
"Joe",
"Julia",
"MBS",
"N Parker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user28857"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3488
|
How Do You Know What's In Your Pantry?
I often times find myself making decisions about what I'm going to make for myself and my fiancee at work before I go home, and then stop at the store for any needed supplies on the way. Granted this is not always the most efficient way of doing it, but it does have a couple of advantages:
Our schedules are often times unpredictable, and its hard to plan meals more than a day in advance.
I can always ensure the freshness of ingredients.
That small thing aside, there are certain things that are fairly standard, which I can never remember if I currently have in the pantry or refrigerator. Do I have enough fresh garlic in the house? Lemons? What spices do I have in the spice rack?
It would be really nice if I could look online somewhere to see what I have in my pantry right now. Does anyone know of a good internet site for managing your current pantry, that might also have a system for managing our favorite recipes? I'm thinking it might be worth the effort to manage my pantry online for the ability to check on it at work for this reason.
Does anyone else face a similar problem, and what have you come up with to solve it?
I bet there's an app for that.
If this is a SE-appropriate question, which I'm not sure it is, it may actually be better-suited for the web apps beta unless its wording is changed. http://webapps.stackexchange.com
Its a little old fashioned, but... pencil & paper?
maybe planning a weeks menu before going shopping is a good ideal
We are not very high tech in our kitchen, but we cook a lot. We keep a fairly standard inventory and when we use the last of an item - it goes on the "List". We buy that item at the big shopping trip once a week.
That's the system we use. Sometimes we end up buying something we didn't need right away, but it all gets used.
I keep a small DB of all my spices on a Dropbox.com account, which I can access with all my various computers and mobile devices. I tend to keep spices longer than strictly required, and its relatively easy to update when I run out of things, and with mobile access I'll always have the list handy when I'm at the spice market.
It works well for non- or semi-non-perishables -- I suppose you could make a similar system work for dry goods, as long as you made a note to mark them as "must buy" when your supply dips below some personal threshold; nothing is worse than thinking you have enough flour/sugar/molassass and finding that in fact you only have a half cup left!
Do you cook frequently? I used to have this exact issue with perishable goods when I only cooked once per week, but since going to preparing 6-8 meals per week, I have a better mental inventory.
I'm cooking more and more frequently. Used to be a couple times a week, and now its more often. Part of my issue to is that I'd like something that both myself and my fiancee can update, since we often times drain the fridge/pantry independently, without telling the other.
That's one of the unfortunate parts of having weird schedules.
My husband and I use an iphone app called "Grocery Gadget" that allows us each to add things to the (same) shopping list. Then, if either of us goes to the supermarket, we can see what we need. This is particularly good for knowing when to buy standard items like spices, flour and oil (provided we remember to put it on the app when we are low or run out).
I think it also comes on other mobile devices and has a web version as well.
See http://www.grocerygadgets.com/ for more details
Anytime you're running low on something that is a staple - put it on your shopping list.Keep your list online somewhere.
Online? hell, my mom used to just keep note paper on the fridge, and as we ran low on stuff, it'd get written down. My neighbor does the same thing. (I foolishly rely on my memory, which is why I probably have a dozen some bottles of hot sauce right now)
@Joe Yeah but he wants it online because then if his fiancee eats up something he was planning on making then the list on the fridge at home isn't going to help him in knowing that he should go buy the item. This way his fiance can update the online list and he would know before he leaves work
@Kyra : this is the reason I call my housemate when I'm heading to the store. Of course, as he doesn't tend to work from home that often, it's not a problem. (past roommates, who didn't work all weekdays, and would raid the fridge and eat something I was planning for cooking dinner ... yeah, that got annoying quickly. I might've spiked some things with significant amounts of sambal so he'd pay attention to when I labeled things)
I installed a notepad app on my smartphone. It allows me to do notes or checklists. I use the checklists to make shopping lists, and to keep a running inventory of my pantry. If I use something or buy more of it, I just change the number in front of the item to reflect how many I have, and I make the app sort the lists alphabetically to make items easily findable. This way, I can access my lists even when the store I'm in doesn't have enough bars for me to go online, or if I'm out of data allowance.
Pretty much any database or spreadsheet can do this, subject to a problem that might be a problem if you can't keep track of it now - garbage in, garbage out - meaning that if you don't both keep the database up to date, what it tells you won't be true. Dropbox or google drive (etc) can take care of the "multi-update/access ability" if the database you choose does not do that itself, or for a spreadsheet.
As for what I actually do, for anything shelf-stable I put it on the list when I use/open the last or next to last item on the shelf (i.e. lemon juice - when the last bottle on the shelf is opened and put in the fridge, it's on the list. It will have been on the "look for a sale on this stuff" list before that, as I usually keep two bottles on the shelf and one open in the fridge.) Perishables are more of a problem in that light.
Our schedules are often times unpredictable, and its hard to plan meals more than a day in advance.
Does anyone else face a similar problem, and what have you come up with to solve it?
I had similar issues due to a lifestyle that involved lots of commute (to work, to friends place) and friends that insisted I stay with them more than I stay at my space. I would often come home to open a refrigerator that would have wilted herbs and spoiling raw food. To top it, I had parents that visited me intermittently and stayed at my place, filling the refrigerator with fresh raw foods to cook meals they wanted and thus the refrigerator had a lot of raw food when they left. No amount of telling them worked. I also compost all my wet waste and am super conscious about wasting foods and in addition, I don't earn as much so I can't afford to eat out all the time.
To work around these life constraints, I started dehydrating raw foods that were left over. From garlic to herbs like parsley/coriander, mint to tomatoes, french beans, peas to fruits like pineapples and apples.
I would turn on my dehydrator before I left home for an overnight stay at my friends' place and come back to find all my fruits/vegetables dehydrated. Of course, there was a small amount of prep time involved but that saved so much food from going to waste.
Once I had dried food, I stored them away and made yummy meals like pastas, fried rice, soups, stews and ate dried fruit for snacks anytime. There was no more grocery shopping involved before making a meal.
which I can never remember if I currently have in the pantry or refrigerator.
Do I have enough fresh garlic in the house? Lemons? What spices do I have in the spice rack?
I am quite forgetful myself and get overwhelmed when there are too many things involved. Cooking is one such activity, there are dry ingredients to consider (those in pantry), wet ingredients (think those items in your refrigerator), the process of cooking itself and the cleaning up after it, wew!
To make cooking effortless, I started with storing all my dry goods in a clear plastic storage box where I could see them all in one shot. I definitely would have essentials like salt, pepper and oil. I only started buying spices that work with everything like turmeric and garam masala. This way when I was prepping for a meal, all I had to do was look in the box, gather my dry ingredients and wet ingredients from the fridge and cook in the kitchen.
The closest thing I can think of to meet your needs is Cook'n. It allows you to enter your own recipes, search those recipes, adjust recipe serving sizes, create menus, generate shopping lists based on the menus (you can add your own pantry items for this purpose, including their prices), and analyze recipes' nutritonal values. It's a handy program to have, especially once you've input all your own pantry items and recipes.
This doesn't help track whether the pantry ingredients are currently "in stock", though, which I think is the OP's actual dilemma.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.004299
| 2010-07-27T21:31:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3488",
"authors": [
"Arthur",
"BertNase",
"Eric",
"Erica",
"Escoce",
"Hydrangea",
"Ian",
"Joe",
"Kyra",
"Nick",
"OpenID-test1",
"Patrick Haggood",
"Philippe Lavoie",
"Pops",
"Robert Key",
"dave",
"derobert",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8529"
],
"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
}
|
5285
|
How can I make the best use of chocolate peppers?
One grower at the farmer's market in the alley near my work recently started selling a crop of chocolate peppers. I've had some moderate success using them as an ingredient, but am looking for tips on additional uses for them; particularly in how to make them more expressive of their flavor (i.e. is it particularly important to roast them before use, etc).
(If you're unfamiliar with these, they are poblano-ish looking peppers with a purple-ish color to them; they have a subtle, sumptuous chocolate-y profile and pair very well with very hot peppers.)
For example, I have made Chile Rellenos with them and they were very good; but recently I tried to incorporate them into a simple rice and eggplant dish and they didn't flavor the dish very well at all. I'm wondering if pre-roasting them ahead of time might have made them a better ingredient or if perhaps some other technique could have made them more worth including.
What sorts of preparation techniques or ingredient combinations would best utilize this unique ingredient and help enhance its flavor?
There's a little confusion about your question (see: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/608/uses-of-x-questions-are-they-just-recipe-swaps-in-disguise). The basic problem is that your answer is so detailed that it makes it seem that you're looking for more recipes, which are generally not part of this site's scope. It might be better to delete your answer and incorporate a summary of it in the question. Posts about how to improve a specific recipe are encouraged, as are general questions about utilizing an ingredient, but this is somewhere in between. Thoughts? Thanks...
thanks for the heads up; did not intend this to be a list of x, more a 'what is an appropriate use of this pepper where it goes from just having the characteristics of a bell to one where the fuller flavor comes out... and how?'
In general, you can roast peppers to develop a richer flavor. Then skin the pepper and you can use it for salsas, sauces, or just slice/dice it up for a sandwich.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.005037
| 2010-08-16T12:30:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5285",
"authors": [
"Anna",
"Bob Lister",
"Chuu",
"Duck",
"Erjjones",
"John Rock",
"John S",
"Marg Black",
"Ocaasi",
"RET",
"Vinny",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10602
|
Did extra insulation cause ice crystals in frozen mac & cheese?
I prepared two 9x13" casserole dishes worth of macaroni & cheese (roux based). In terms of the quantity of pasta, I used three pounds. After combining sauce and pasta I baked to try to eliminate moisture in the pasta and to give it that chewy texture.
Then after allowing to cool to below room temperature (I covered it and put it outside in the cold), I proceeded to bag portions. The process was to fill one sandwich-size ziploc bag, wrap the ziploc in saran wrap (squeezing out air in both steps), then wrap in foil, name & date, and put 4-5 units in a 1 gallon freezer bag. Place freezer bag in freezer.
From the very first pull, not four days later, I already had ice crystals. Where did I go wrong? The ice crystals didn't affect the flavor much if at all, is it possible that it's an aesthetic problem, not actually chemical? Could it be the foil usage (for which I received some questions when I explained the storage/packing method)?
Properly wrapped, the extra insulation would not have been the cause of higher than normal ice formation (freezer burn).
What I suspect might have happened here is that putting it outside in the cold caused all of the steam to condense on the surface of your mac & cheese, resulting in you bagging damper than usual mac & cheese.
Good call, basically it was freezer burnt before getting in the freezer. ha. I will wait to see if anyone else posts any alternative ideas, but this sounds very likely.
That would also explain why it didn't affect the flavor/mouthfeel -- it wasn't extracting moisture from the food, so it was effectively just frost forming, not 'freezer burn'.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.005252
| 2010-12-30T17:01:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10602",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Kate",
"Roan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jane meehan",
"mfg",
"user2904460"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16030
|
How do I incorporate cucumbers into cole slaw?
I am entertaining the idea of making a spicy (apple cidar vinegar, sriracha,etc) cole slaw and am looking to temper the heat a bit with cucumber. Is the best option to slice in long strips? Is so, should I keep, discard, or otherwise incorporate the skin and the seed pulp?
If you want to match the texture of the shredded cabbage you could use a peeler to get thin, long strips of the cucumber. If you want to contrast the texture you could cut it into chunks or slices.
I would discard the seed pulp to cut down on the amount of water that will fall to the bottom of the bowl.
The skin is completely personal preference. If it's thin and tender I like to leave at least strips of it on for color contrast. Otherwise I get rid of it to avoid the tough, chewiness it can bring.
A peeler would get you much broader strips than shredded cabbage.
I would try using peeled cucumbers, because of the texture issues.
You can grate them into a sieve, and then put some weight on them for half an hour or so. This will help drain some of the excess liquid.
This is the same preparation of the cucumbers that is used for cucumber raita, or tzaziki.
Do you grate them whole, or discard seed pulp first?
I grate them whole. It does mean more liquid comes out, but that doesn't really matter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.005430
| 2011-07-08T17:42:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16030",
"authors": [
"Carmi",
"Cascabel",
"Gopal00005",
"J...",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"leo60228",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7622
|
Are there any cooking techniques that employ "Dry Ice"?
I was watching a cooking show and one of the chefs used dry ice to "flash freeze" some fruit for a dessert - are there any other uses for Dry Ice that can be employed in preparing different foods? Obviously, you can't eat Dry Ice, so my question is based on using it as a Cooking Technique, not as a recipe. I never noticed before, but my neighborhood grocery store (Large Regional Branch) sells it....
To clarify, dry ice and liquid nitrogen are totally different things. Dry ice is CO2, and liquid nitrogen is N2. Dry ice is pretty cold, and directly into a gas when it melts/sublimates. Liquid nitrogen is (obviously) a liquid, and it's a LOT colder than dry ice. Your grocery store may well sell dry ice, but there's no chance it sells liquid nitrogen! Unless you know what you're doing, you can really hurt yourself with liquid nitrogen. Dry ice is not that dangerous.
Hi Attila - I've noticed that most of your questions have the [cooking-techniques] tag; although we haven't gotten around to totally removing it yet, we are trying to discourage people from using that tag because it's very vague and could apply to (almost) any question here (noted in the tag info). Please tag with the specific technique instead; if there isn't one, just omit the technique-related tag. Since this question is asking for a list of uses (technique or otherwise), I've tagged it [culinary-uses] instead. Thanks!
@Harlan: Dry ice can be dangerous for your free time, as soon as you realize it hovers on its own gas, hence traveling almost frictionless anywere. I warned you.
Yes, you can use it to carry aromas in modernist presentation or to make an anti-griddle (for making rapidly frozen items with a liquid center).
There aren't a huge number of uses for dry ice that I know of. One of the big ones is that it's a traditional way to carbonate certain beverages. I've seen root beer made by taking the flat root beer base and dropping dry ice chips in. It sublimates and then the gas goes into solution. You could certainly use it for that.
Other than that, it's a good way to keep things frozen during shipping. It'll keep stuff deep-frozen, whereas water ice will keep everything at exactly 32 F, which is not that useful.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.005574
| 2010-09-26T14:48:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7622",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Harlan",
"SF.",
"Stefano Borini",
"Tara",
"hrbrmstr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"jam",
"sharksfan98"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10229
|
Can you make pie crust from cookie dough?
I recently bought several packs of frozen cookie dough, sugar cookie, and I wanted to know if it's possible to reshape them and make a pie crust? If so what is the technique involved: cooking temperature, ect...
My suggestion is to bake the cookies, then crumble them for a cookie-crumb crust.
@Marti i would instinctively think the same - if you use a recipe for something that bakes ~10min (cookies) for pie crusts, the danger that you have a pie pan instead of a pie shell after it baked as long as pie does (~30-60min.) is high....
My recomendation would be to roll out the dough and pat it into the pie-plate and cook it with out any fillings (blind baking) you will probably need to poke holes into the bottom to keep it from bubbling up (docking). After it is fully cooked pull it out and let it cool. I would only use no-bake fillings in this, I don't think the cookie crust would react well to baking twice, maybe a french-silk type filling.
Maybe. It depends on what you expect.
If you expect something flaky and light like a traditional pie crust, you will be disappointed.
However, Jacques Pepin uses cookie dough for open faced fruit tarts on his show. And cookie dough can be used to make shells for custard based tarts.
You will need to blind bake the shell.
I had envisioned this would be more like a graham-cracker style pie shell. Yum.
Should work fine as a crust for a pie that uses a pre-baked crust. Just roll it out like a giant cookie, put it in a pie pan, and bake like a cookie.
I have no idea what would happen if you tried it with a pie that bakes the crust at the same time as the filling though. I don't think cookie dough would hold up that well on top, it would probably just make a mess as cookies usually have a significantly shorter baking time than pies; also cookie dough has a lot more fat than a crust so it would probably just melt into the filling.
I'd try it with a pumpkin pie (or another pie that has no top crust) and see what happens. It might not work that well but the result would probably still be edible.
You don't even need to roll it out -- use the coarse side of a box grater to turn it into shreds, then pack that into the pie pan. It might not give pretty crimped edges, but saves time when it's still frozen hard.
@Joe: A box grater solves all sorts of problems :) I doubt cookie dough would hold the crimping anyway, it is usually way too soft and melty for that.
While I've never tried this, it should be pretty straightforward. You'll want to treat this as if it's a frozen pre-formed pie crust and bake it separately from the filling for the best results. That way you can just shape the dough in the pie pan and follow the baking directions in the package. A couple of things to note though:
1- cookies puff up a little when you bake them. This normally doesn't happen to pie crusts, so you'll have to consider that when filling your pie. Perhaps some pie weights can help in this situation.
2- frozen doughs can be tricky to rework. If you're making a runny variety of pie this may not be your best bet. If your goal is to have a pie with a sugar cookie crust you might consider making it from scratch as it may roll more easily and prevent leaks in your pie. If what you are looking for is convenience, I'd say make the cookie dough into cookies and go buy a pre-formed pie crust.
This is certainly possible in general -- though I've never tried using pre-made cookie dough. You can certainly search online and find all sorts of recipes with pies with cookie crusts, and sugar cookie is the probably the most common. (Or, it's at least the most common that's actually baked whole, as opposed to baked and then crumbled to make a sort of "crumb" crust.)
Many people have mentioned blind baking to be necessary; I've seen recipes for both ways. It really depends on the consistency of the crust and the type of filling. I've definitely made an apple pie multiple times with a sugar-cookie crust that baked along with the filling, and frankly I would advise against pre-baking the crust in that case, since cookie dough often tends to bake and brown more quickly than typical pie crust. It's one of the few pies I almost always need a "pie shield" to prevent excessive crust browning on the outside. On the other hand, many other recipes recommend blind baking the crust first, which probably produces a slightly crisper result on the bottom. (The crust for the apple pie I mentioned tends to be cookie-like on the edges and top, but more cake-like on the bottom presumably due to moisture.)
I've also found a lot of success in putting cookie dough on top, though I'd recommend against a full "double-crust," since that would seem overwhelming in terms of sugar and richness. But a lattice crust could potentially work well (as long as the dough is fairly firm), or you could also pre-bake individual small sugar cookies and then float them on top of the filling. Again, the optimal way to do this will depend on the consistency of the dough and how fast it bakes.
Personally, I actually enjoy making pies with cookie dough crusts a lot more, because there's not all that worry about getting the exact consistency to get the perfect flakiness, etc. Usually with cookie dough crusts, it doesn't matter if you screw up and need to roll it out again -- just make it into a ball and do it again. It's not going to risk toughening it significantly or ruining the texture as with a standard pie crust. And if you're constructing a lattice or whatever and things break, no big deal: just press them together or re-roll.
I have been trying to remember the recipes where a cookie crust is best and I'm remembering only quickly-cooked fillings and cold fillings.
If you use raw dough and a long cooked filling (up to about 1 hour), the crust will be ruined due to burning.
This is how I did it: First, bake the cookie dough as a pie shell. Second, add pudding pie fillings or other fillings (fried apples, stove topped berry, ...) to it. Third, top with other toppings, such as meringue, whipped toppings, or ice cream.
Spray pie plate, slice cookie dough about 1/2 inch, place on bottom and around sides just till toudhing, let soften, then press all together. Can anyone tell at what temperature to bake and for how long? All I remember is don't bake for too long till dough is crunchy.
Hello and welcome - in general, try to make sure that you're not asking additional questions within your answer. You can request clarifications to other answers or the original question using comments, but the best answers are usually definitive.
I don't see why not I mean its the same as using it for cherry pie bars . Just pat dough for the bottom of pie Pan or cake pan bake it for about 15 minutes add pie filling (use 2 pie filling cans if using 9 X 13 cake pan ) and add pieces of cookie dough like you would crumbles evenly on top and bake for about an hour watch so it doesn't brown too quick at 350 degrees oven..cool slightly and serve with whipped topping..
As a prebaked pie crust should work just fine, press the dough into a pie plate. If you don't want it to sag too much from fat melting as it is being baked, freeze it before you bake (or at least refrigerate it). I have made such crusts - what I haven't done is used the prebaked crust for a pie with filling that needs a longer term bake. If I was going to do that I would probably freeze the baked prebaked pie crust before I filled it, just to slow down any further baking of the crust.
My great-grandmother's apple pie recipe used a sugar-cookie dough for the crust. It's very doable.
Can you tell us more about your great-grandmother's method? Did she pat the dough into the pan? Did she blind bake it?
Alas, she passed on before I was old enough to learn it. My mother saved the recipe, but claimed it was never "right," and we've retired it as incorrectly recorded. I do know it was made with oil, not butter, and was rolled out.
I've used commercial, pre-made sugar cookie dough for apple pies. It is to die for! Add a little flour to the dough, a scant quarter cup, and you will find it rolls out easier while keeping the taste. Reserve some of the dough. Bake the pie without a top layer, then about halfway through add some raw, cut-out cookies made from the reserved dough to serve as the top crust. I find it doesn't freeze well, but it is delicious!
This is an interesting technique! But including some key details like baking time and temperature would be a big improvement.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.005915
| 2010-12-17T01:13:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10229",
"authors": [
"Benjamin Kuykendall",
"Braithwaite's Removals SPAM",
"Christine Johnson",
"DRC",
"Dana Schiller",
"Debbie Warner",
"Debora Rittenburg",
"DrRandy",
"Elaine",
"Fakaza Mix",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marti",
"Mary Lindsay",
"Millie Dennis",
"Mimi",
"Nate Oldham",
"Richard Ayotte",
"Robert Cartaino",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"john",
"logophobe",
"martianboy",
"mu is too short",
"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/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34871
|
What is an alternative in Feijoada to smoked ham or beef?
While smoked ham and beef are great, are there alternative ingredients that can still impart the 'smoked' flavoring?
See: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1584/how-can-we-make-substitution-questions-more-helpful You might want to provide some context on why you wish to substitute, and what limitations or constraints you have. Otherwise, the trivial answer is "liquid smoke."
What kind of answer is "liquid smoke"? Use a little common sense and/or cognitive ability - looking for a subsitute that is a carbon based food, not liquid. You know, I left this site 2 years ago because of nonsense like this and I see it hasn't gotten any better!! Holy Crap
Actually, it is quite a serious answer, and I am sorry you didn't like it. Liquid smoke is quite literally condensed smoke from burning wood, hickory if I recall correctly. If you would give some more context, you will get better answers. Check my profile and you will see I have written hundreds of quality answers if given the chance, as have many others.
I'm pretty sure that liquid smoke is carbon-based. Is the question you intended to ask something like "What unsmoked foods taste smoked?"?
I've got to agree with @SAJ14SAJ. Are you looking to remove the meat completely or just use non-smoked meat and add smokiness through another means?
If you want to remove the meat completely, many "meat replacements" like tempeh and tofu are available in smoked varieties. Most of these simply have liquid smoke AKA "Natural Smoke Flavoring" added as part of their process, but actual smoked varieties do exist.
Smoky flavors can also be attained from the following
Freshly roasted cumin
Spanish style smoked paprika
Chipotle or other smoked chiles
Liquid Smoke
Some porters, stouts, and especially rauchbiers
Lapsang Souchong tea
Smoked salt
Katsuobushi/Bonito flakes (also adds a distinct fish flavor)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.006618
| 2013-06-22T22:22:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34871",
"authors": [
"AttilaNYC",
"Didgeridrew",
"Heather",
"Matt Stafford",
"Mr. Octodood",
"Peter Taylor",
"Rosme",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"enharmonic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81700"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1535
|
Techniques to get a nice golden-brown crust on bread
How do I make sure the crust of a baguette, etc. turns out a nice golden-brown when baking?
The trick is steam and high heat.
Heat your oven up to 450 F (230 C).
Bring a pot of water to boil on your stove.
Once boiling, pour the water into a deep roasting pan on the bottom shelf of your oven. If you can place it directly on the bottom of your oven (it doesn't obstruct vents) then that is ok too. 1" (2.5 cm) of water is enough.
Let the steam build up for 5 minutes
Spray your baguettes with water, they should be rather nicely wet. Don't forget to slash them as well
Put your baguettes in the oven on the top shelf. BE CAREFUL opening your oven. Don't let the steam blast you in your face or other exposed body parts. Let it dissipate a bit.
5 minutes into baking, spray the baguettes again (be careful)
10 minutes into baking, spray the baguettes again
15 minutes into baking, carefully remove the tin of water from the oven
Let bake for a final 20 minutes
Depending on how even your oven is browning the crust you may need to turn the pan at the spray intervals.
And of course, now there is the steam method that's only mostly sane.
No need to egg-wash them at all? Or do you spray your bread with water when they're already egg-washed?
@Gigili there's no need for an egg wash, at high temperature the sugars present in the flour will caramelize and turn the crust into a dark color. Tipically egg wash is used in baked goods that are baked at lower temperatures.
A light brush with an egg wash will give you a nice color to your bread every time.
Crack one egg into a bowl and add about ½ teaspoon of water. Wisk the egg well. After your dough is formed and ready for the oven, brush a light coating of the egg wash onto the dough and put it in the oven. After that, cook as you normally would.
Another thing you can try is to use a recipe with a little sugar in it. That will also help brown the crust as the sugar on the exterior of the dough will caramelize and give a nice color.
I also agree with the other recommendations of cooking with some steam in the oven. I do that every time
I
Another possible method is to bake the bread in an oven-proof pot with the lid on, which will help to keep the steam in.
This is essentially the method I use in baking no-knead bread, which uses a dutch oven. I bake the dough for 30 mins with the lid on and 15 mins more with the lid off. The result is crusty brown bread.
Excellent idea. Another tip I learned years ago when making rhubarb pies was to put the pie inside a brown paper grocery back sealed shut and bake the entire time. I wasn't sure why this made the pie so beautiful but now realize it must have been due to sealing the steam in. The bag does not burn, though there is a bit of a smell. These days may be difficult to find a paper bag, and I much prefer the idea of using a Dutch oven.
I use an easy technique ... i mix together an egg wash with melted butter, shove it in a spritzer (a spraying machine) and spray the bread about 5 minutes before it's done. I then switch the heat to broiler for 5 minutes, ..... voila!
You can also just brush with an egg wash immediately before baking - this is a classic technique for getting a shiny, golden glaze on breads and pastries, as well as an effective "glue" for toppings (seeds, salt crystals...)
The technique I use is a slight modification of the one Peter Reinhart describes in The Bread Baker's Apprentice (a must-have for any serious home baker, in my opinion). I put a heavy-duty commercial half-sheet pan on the bottom of my gas oven and a baking stone on a middle rack, preheat it to 500°F and boil some water. Then, when the bread goes on the stone, I pour a cup or so of boiling water into the pan and close the door. This is a great way to get steam burns, so be careful. Reinhart says to open the oven and spray the walls with water a few times at 30-second intervals, but I've never found that makes a huge difference.
Use a dedicated sheet pan for this, as after a few loaves it'll look like it was run over by a truck. I've also heard of using a cast iron skillet in the same role.
Here's what I did today to get a browned crust:
I added a cube of ice to the beaten egg (instead of 1/2 teaspoon water suggested by Al Crowley) and sprinkled a pinch of saffron on the ice cube (it shouldn't go inside the whisked eggs), then after a few minutes the ice cube melted and made a really nice orangish red color.
There you go:
Another point is, you must bake your breads in a very high temperature, that's the point of getting golden brown crust.
I also make milk kefir and the whey from this contains lactose. I add this to the bread mix instead of water and get a beautiful golden crust on my bread.
I find that since I've started baking my bread straight on a baking stone, the crust is much crunchier and thicker. I preheat to the maximum allowed by the oven (250 C), drop some ice cubes on the oven floor, slide the loaf of bread in and reduce the heat to 200 C, then bake for ~40 minutes.
I also mix egg wash with milk in order to get a golden brown.
In addition to the other techniques mentioned, diastatic malt will produce more free sugars to undergo browning reaction. The result is a slightly sweeter, more flavorful bread and a more browned crust.
Suggested amount: 1 tsp (5 mL) diastatic malt per pound/450g flour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.006815
| 2010-07-17T19:47:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1535",
"authors": [
"BlackMael",
"Budda",
"Carol L Alexander",
"Dan Carver",
"Gabriel Solomon",
"Gigili",
"Grant Smith",
"Jase",
"Joyce Dauby",
"Luciano",
"Pulkit Sinha",
"Shog9",
"Tanya C",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"molgar",
"rentzsch"
],
"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
}
|
2276
|
How do you raise your dough in cold seasons?
It is winter down here in Australia and I find it challenging to find a warm spot to raise my bread dough. What I have been doing is placing the dough in the oven (not switched on) with a pot of hot water, replacing it once or twice. The oven becomes a warm and moist environment for the yeast to do its magic.
What other alternative spots are there to raise the dough in cold seasons?
related, how to use a microwave for proofing : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/47590/67
A non-exhaustive list of ways to get your bread to rise when it's cold includes:
Just let it rise slowly over a long period of time, which does give you good flavour but requires serious patience
Put it in the airing cupboard, assuming Australian houses have such things, but in the winter the hot water tank will keep it nice and warm
If it's still in the rising in the bowl phase rather than having been shaped, you can carefully put the bowl in a larger bowl of warm water (not too hot though or it'll go a bit mad)
Sometimes I can get away with putting the pan with the shaped bread ready for the oven over a large bowl or bucket of hot water
Put it in the oven with the pilot light on if your oven has a pilot light
Put it in the top oven with the door open while you're cooking something else in the bottom oven, if you have two ovens (careful though, this can get too hot depending on your oven)
Encourage the cat to sleep on it
I stick it behind my computer. The thing is like a furnace.
Similar to using an oven with a pilot light, there are often warm spots on a cook-top/range with pilot light(s).
I just heat my oven slightly (it's electric), put the dough in covered, and shut the door. All of a sudden my bread is rising in a warm, dark place just as the recipe suggest.
No mention of radiators? (old house w/ cast iron radiators... not those little baseboard ones, so I can set large bowls of dough on there)
If you are talking about resting, that is for a short period, typically 10-15 minutes, covered with a damp cloth. When raising however, which takes considerably longer, what I do is set my oven at around 90 - 100 F or 30 - 40 C and put the dough in a lightly oiled bowl covered with a damp cloth. Have, with other ovens, turned the heat on briefly, periodically.
Sorry, you are right. I meant "raising". I will edit my entry. Thanks.
Many ovens I have seen (in the US) don't go below 170F. It's always annoyed me, but I guess it's an attempt to keep people from holding food at an unsafe temperature.
Run your dishwasher for a few minutes, wait to let the water finish dripping, cover the bowl of dough with plastic wrap and set inside--top rack seems to work the best for me.
Oops, I just said the same thing. I deleted my answer and upvoted yours. Works like a charm!
My mother used to put the dough in a steel bowl, cover with a plastic bag, and then wrap an electric blanket around the whole thing.
Warning: Cats love to sit on top of this soft, warm, aromatic goodness.
Really Late Additions:
The top of the fridge is often slightly warmer than the rest of the kitchen.
Put the dough in the oven and leave the light on. Tape a note over the oven controls to prevent anyone from turning it on.
I do something very similar to Shawn's solution. I put a large glass of water in the microwave to heat it up. Once that is done I put my dough right in next to it. If it needs a long rise, I will go back in an hour or two, pull out the dough and reheat the water for a minute or two. Then I can put the dough back in again.
Careful though, a since the space is small it can get hot quickly if you use a large amount of boiled water.
If your refrigerator doesn't have any cabinets above it, you can put a bowl of dough on top of it back near the wall. The waste heat that is sucked out of the fridge and freezer is vented out the back and will rise up the wall. It’s not going to be too warm back there, but it will be warmer than the counter.
I don't think the Australian winter can beat our harsh Canadian winter.
One suggestion is to switch then oven light on or to make use of a 60 watts incandescent bulb using an extension wire through the door gasket to keep the oven warm. This will keep the oven warm for an extended period. Or buy a bread maker! (Which I only use for bread kneading only).
To go another route -- a bit of forward planning and the use of a fridge might be another way to solve your problem, which is probably one of boredom or inconvenient timing.
Instead of making bread over the course of a morning -- say, between 9am and midday -- you can make it over 24 hours in the fridge, using the cold environment to slow the yeast and develop flavour. It works something like this;
Make the dough last thing at night, knead it, and pop it in the fridge. The yeast will get, say, ten hours to work in a cold environment, which works the same as an hour or so at room temperature.
In the morning, get it out of the fridge, knock it back, and shape it. Put it back in the fridge on its tray or proving basket.
In the evening, get it back out (it'll have risen by now) and bake.
I've made focaccia this way and the nice thing about it is that you don't have to 'time' things very much. Also, the slow prove gives a nice flavour!
I just fill the sink with some hot water and slap it in there, covered by a clean towel. Works like a charm!
You may want to play with the water temperature. In his book Bread, page 383, Jeffrey Hamelman provides a formula to calculate the right temperature of the water before mixing it with the rest of the ingredients. Also, it's mentioned that one of the benefits of the folding technique (just degas and knead for a few seconds every 30-50min 2-3 times) is that the temperature gets even in all the dough.
I don't know if the formula can be shared here. He mentions in a recipe that you can email him about the formula. You can also find if your library has a copy of the book using worldcat, I can see a few copies in Australia, I hope one of them is close to you!
Preheat the oven to 200 degrees (F), leave it there for 10 minutes. Shut the oven off. Make your dough, and when you're done kneading, the oven will be nice and warm, but not too hot. Works great!
I place mine in the bowl I made it in and place in / on the yoghurt maker.
If I'm baking in the morning, and my bed is still warm, I put the bowl under the sheets or the top duvet. Alternatively, I grab a hot water bottle and put it under a thick blanket with the bowl.
I put my bread in the slow cooker on the 'warm' function. Works a treat!
I place mine in an oiled bowl, covered with a damp tea-towel on top of the heating boiler. There's usually enough residual heat coming out of it to make it the warmest place in the house once the heating goes off.
I live in the Blue Mountains and it is impossible to get bread to rise in my kitchen at only 2 to 5 degrees above outside temperature. I mix and knead the bread in a bread oven machine (tried kneading and am hopeless at it). After one knead take out and form the loaf and place in the convection oven preheated at 40 deg C for 30 to 40 minutes. When time is up remove and cover with a tea towel or similar and preheat the convection oven to bake at 200 deg C for 30 to 35 minutes. Now we avoid buying bread at the shop if we can.
I usually use the hot-water-in-oven method you described, but I've also had success with just putting the dough in the oven with the oven light on (this is slower than the hot water method). I've also put the dough in a metal bowl and placed over some warm water in my slow cooker, put the lid on top, and set it to warm. This works a bit more quickly, so you need to pay attention and shouldn't do it if your dough needs to rise slowly.
Try placing an electric heating pad on the counter on low setting. Then put the bowl or pans on top. Check periodically to make sure it is not too hot. works great on granite countertops as they are usually colder than laminate ones. Good luck :)
There is a device created just for this situation. It has both temperature and humidity controls. Due to the pandemic, this item is currently out of stock on Amazon, but generally would be available:
https://www.amazon.com/Brod-Taylor-Folding-Proofer-Cooker/dp/B01MEEH0SE
However, it is available on Williams Sonoma site. It costs about $169.00. There are other brands, as well.
This one can also be used as a slow cooker, yogurt maker, kombucha maker, etc.
In proofer mode: 70-120F (21-49C) in 5 degree increments.
Humidity control is optional.
It can hold 2 standard loaf pans.
How about this: fill a hot water bottle with just enough warm/hot water to allow it to still lie flat (get the air out before closing), then rest your (preferably rectangular) container on top.
In winter when the sun is not too hot, I put the bowl of dough into a glass fish tank which is in the sun. The temperature sits on about 35C (measured with old vacola thermomter).
I love making yeast breads and live in South Africa where it can get really cold in winter. If in a hurry, I have found that putting the covered bread dough into the car which has been warmed by the sun,can really help it to rise, though of course it needs to be watched carefully and care must be taken to make sure the heat is not too hot!!
This is my first winter baking sourdough bread in Lithuania, and it has seriously affected my baking times! In the Summer my bread proofs in about an hour and a half, but now it takes about 9-13 hours. So I usually mix my ingredients some time between 5pm - 7pm, and should get my bread shaped and put into bannetons by 11pm (hopefully sooner, but sometimes I get a late start), then I let them sit on the counter and they are ready bake in the morning. Try starting in the evening, keep the dough on the counter top through the night, and see how your dough is in the morning. If it is over proved, you can start later in the evening, or use less water.
This was already suggested in a different answer.
Dishwasher for the win!! Make sure it's clean, of course, and water isn't actively dripping from above. I ensure mine's clean, turn it on and let the bottom fill with hot water, turn off before it can drain, insert bread - wait an appropriate amount of time... then bake.
How about a blow dryer? It has air and heat. I haven't tried it yet, but it probably works.
Rising takes a while - maybe an hour or two. I'm not sure if hair dryers are designed to be left on that long? And you don't really want air blowing around to dry out your dough, just a little bit of heat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.007317
| 2010-07-20T05:34:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2276",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Al Crowley",
"Cascabel",
"Colm Kelly",
"Del Catlett",
"Gilles 'SO- stop being evil'",
"Inaimathi",
"Isaac",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jonathan",
"Lee",
"Megasaur",
"Nogwater",
"Patricia Baker",
"Patricia Wade",
"Sneftel",
"Vaughn Green",
"anonymous coward",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/999",
"iamsid",
"justkt",
"soror ves",
"tony swingle",
"zachary"
],
"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
}
|
21417
|
What is silken tofu compared to regular tofu and how do you use it?
Because of the contest, I read up about tofu. It's something I'm not familiar with at all, I've only eaten it twice. I came across the term 'silken tofu'. I only know this by name.
I've found that silken tofu is in short tofu that's not well pressed. It's consistency is custard-like. My question is if this is correct. Are there any other differences, apart from the moisture content?
Another question is how to handle this. You can't fry custard AFAIK (although I'm willing to try ;-) ). So do you always use it raw? Or do you bake it in the oven? Do you use it as a 'sauce' with fried veggies? Or should/can you drain/press it yourself? If you would drain/press it yourself, would you have the same result as store-bought regular tofu?
Just a little fun tip - Silken Tofu is often manufactured INSIDE the carton you buy it in. Hot soy milk and coagulant are added directly to the carton, which is then sealed. The coagulant then does it's magic and the tofu forms inside the carton. This is also why most silken tofu doesn't require refrigeration - it was put in the package above pasteurization temperature, and hasn't been opened since.
Yes, silken tofu is undrained tofu. In Japan it is often eaten raw, in dishes like miso soup or even simply dipped in soy sauce. However, you can certainly cook it as well - it is especially useful as an egg substitute in vegan cookery (any number of recipes online).
Firm tofu is probably better for frying with as it holds its shape. If you have the time, patience and equipment (some form of weight and some muslin) you could press silken tofu to make firm, but firm is just as readily available.
Yeah I would definitely not bother trying to make firm tofu from silken tofu. Just buy firm!
Non-textured, or 'Silken' tofu (which comes in extra soft, soft, firm and extra firm varieties, just to be confusing), is typically used in sauces that would otherwise call for cream (I have used it in vegan mornay- and bechamel- style sauces), or in making cheeses (i.e. ricotta), and things requiring softer cheese (i.e. cheesecake) as a component. It is also used in dips and smoothies.
I use it in cooking for my vegan half and half (1 part soy milk to 1 part silken) as vegan half and half is more pricey. My girlfriend frequently uses it in vegan egg-salad (the secret is in using turmeric for color and black salt for the sulfurous egg-y taste), I have used it as a dressing for cucumber salad in place of mayonnaise.
It is a versatile component in both vegan desserts, and sauces, but textured tofu is typically the fore-runnner in terms of entrees due to it's flexibility (and compatibility with meat in most preparations) in frying and baking.
Typical recipes involve prepping it as a raw ingredient or a component of another element (i.e. sauces), and not a finished product like textured or sprouted or fermented tofus.
In assessing whether, or how, you would want to use it, I would recommend that you taste it raw. It has a nutty flavor that many people find either bland or too-much-like-tofu. Although I cannot account for the reaction your will palate will shoot to your brain, I can say it is easily flavored and the soy bean flavor overwhelmed. In making some desserts, for better or worse, it will feature more prominently if there are no other flavors to crowd it out.
Soups and heavily sauced dishes are typical of silken tofu dishes.
The soft curd is just gently slid in long enough to heat thru.
Served sliced cold and dressed with oily and sour or spicy dressing is appreciated for its contrast to other hot dishes.
I wouldn't recommend trying to press silken but boiling will firm it up a bit.
In vegan scramble, a smaller ratio of silken to firm tofu replicates the runny portion of soft cooked egg.
Silken tofu is known in Korea as sundubu. It's used directly in a soup called sundubu jjigae.
Silken tofu is the not so secret ingredient that makes vegan chocolate cream pie possible - just melt chocolate chips (don't overmelt them) and mix in silken tofu (a whisk in a power mixer is most effective to get it perfectly smooth) for a chocolate cream filling that nobody needs to know is vegan...
I am NOT a vegan and I make this pie. It's that good. Any similar custardy application should also be able to use it effectively.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.008560
| 2012-02-16T19:25:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21417",
"authors": [
"Ami Chagol",
"Kraminsky Law",
"Peggy Nielsen",
"Sam Ley",
"Tomasz T",
"Ulrik Voss",
"djvbmcBaw",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9091",
"marvinfeldman",
"pfctdayelise"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13258
|
How to hand-select the perfect coffee bean?
I would like to know from you guys, what criteria do you use to select the perfect (green) coffee bean for roasting purposes?
Is there anything else in specific you would like to know about the selecting coffee beans for roasting?
If you are hand selecting than you might refer to AA standards for the chaff, etc.
Also discoloration from the median color of the other beans can lead to irregular roasting intervals (if you have a mix of colors they may "crack " at different ranges of time). Similarly you should prefer the beans to be approximately the same size.
Your definition of "perfect" may be different than mine. Some people prefer specific types of coffee beans, such as Brazilian, Sumatran, Mexican, Kenyan, etc. I assume that is NOT what you mean, since that is based on your own personal taste.
I assume you are asking where you should buy your greens. The easy answer is to purchase high quality green coffee beans. This means that you should purchase from someone who you trust. You basically have to rely on other people's advice, and see if you agree with their recommendations.
After doing my research, I joined the green coffee buying club, where I buy most of my beans. I have have also purchased from (and recommend) Sweet Marias. Their web site is a treasure trove of information on coffee, including green coffee beans and coffee roasting.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.008925
| 2011-03-18T06:38:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13258",
"authors": [
"Michael",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27494",
"mfg",
"pt2121",
"user2517949"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13761
|
What is the fastest way to cook a Meat Salad?
Meat salad is made with large sized sausages, chopped into thin pieces like carrots or cucumber; then steamed and fried a bit, then served together with regular salad stuffs.
Looking to specific alternatives, what is the fastest way to cook a Meat Salad (Beef/Buff) using a Microwave Oven? I have grill, convection and microwave modes in my Microwave Oven.
Can you be a bit more specific - what kind of meat, for example.
@ElendilTheTall, I have updated the question.
I'm a little afraid to ask, but... what is a meat salad?
@Jefromi , to add additional emphasis, what is meat salad? (I presume based on involving a microwave we're not talking chicken or tuna salad here. Are you referring to Beef Masala? a la "Beef cooked with onion, capsicum & tomato..." )
It's large sized sausages, chopped into thin pieces like carrots or cucumber and steam and fried and little, then served together with regular salad stuffs. I am little annoyed by the process of steaming and frying, so I though I could use my oven for that propose, but I dont know the right settings, so I asked. I TRIED MY BEST TO CLARIFY
Since I cannot speak to the benefits of the convection or grill modes of your microwave, I would use the main setting.
In the context of a salad setting, although you want moist meat, sausage would produce a bit much grease. If the grill setting can actually cauterize the meat without creating too much grease, or if you can capture the runoff (i.e. with a bacon microwaving plate), it would be more beneficial. In many cases, though, the microwave will soften the sausage, then cause it to dry out (again, you will want to capture the grease for the sake of the salad). Nonetheless, it seems like the microwave is a poor alternative, and (if it is smoked/pre-cooked sausage) you might better to just eat it cold.
That said, if the problem is that you are just looking for an alternative to steaming and then frying, have you consider braising, searing, grilling (if possible)? You could also do a marinade to moisten the meat and then do a quick, very high-temp fry (in a skillet) to just crust the marinade and heat the meat. These all seem faster or simpler than steaming and frying.
Are you sure you want to use a microwave to heat up that salat? Normally a meat salat isn't cooked/grilled or put into a microwave. The saucages you use are generally already pre-boiled and the salad is eaten cold.
This is not a answer, better keep this as a comment. And, I dont mean to cook, the entire salad in the oven, just the meat salad.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.009068
| 2011-04-05T10:43:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13761",
"authors": [
"Brian Fitzpatrick",
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gabriele Boccone",
"Halimah",
"Pete",
"Starx",
"Sveltely",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5567",
"mfg",
"nrser"
],
"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
}
|
14144
|
What kind of beer for beer brats?
I have a package of bratwurst that I am going to cook within the next few days. The only two beers I have in the fridge are a stout and a lager. I'm sure I could use the lager and it would turn out just fine. But what about the stout? What kinds of beers are good with beer brats?
And while I'm at it, what is the most popular method of cooking beer brats? Just off hand I'd say marinate the brats in the beer, then maybe start cooking them by boiling them in the beer and then move them to the grill. Is that about right? Would that be too much exposure to the beer if I tried it with a stout?
What a curious cultural misunderstanding - in Germany, the bratwurst are cooked without beer. In fact, if they are cooked in a liquid instead of roasted/grilled, they shouldn't be called "bratwurst" (which means "roasted sausage"). The cold beer is saved for drinking with the roasted wurst. Now I am almost itching to try this out just to see if it is edible.
It is a common misconception that "brät" is derived from the New High German word "braten" meaning "roast"; is actually derived from the Old High German word "brato" meaning "finely chipped lean calf or swine meat". Therefore, etymologically speaking, "brät" most likely refers to the contents of the sausage, not the way they are cooked. As for whether or not it's a good idea to cook them in beer, that's a different story ;-)
At least that's the way "brät" is used in the US. For example, an American would probably not identify a grilled blutwurst as a type of "brätwurst."
@Rum you're not too far off; not all brats are prepared with beer. "Beer Brats" is more of a marketing gimmic in supermarkets; mostly trying to capture the flavor of the ones that are cooked in beer. Generally American Supermarkets have an aisle of pre-packaged, pre-cooked, soul-less sausages; sad really, though they are still quite tasty.
Since most are pre-cooked (in US Supermarkets anyway), and you are just re-heating, your (still tasty) options are pretty limited with respect to beer brats
From the perspective of UW Madison (self-proclaimed "Brat Capital of the World"):
Simmer in beer first, then grill. For more info here is a post regarding prep; this method would definitely be the preferred method for upping the intake of moisture without losing it during grilling (so long as you don't lose the brat flavor by wasting the beer you boiled them in)
For an incredibly "persnickety" method:
I have found that if you cook the brats on the grill first, then put them into the beer they don't shrink as much. Here's how I do it: I brown the brats lightly on both sides, then I place them in 'warm' beer for a few minutes. Repeat several times until brats are cooked thoroughly. Now you can put the brats into 'hot' beer to hold for individual serving... When I said brown the brats lightly, I meant about 20 seconds per side on hot coals then into a 180 degree beer bath. Any hotter and they will shrink. I continue alternating the grill and beer bath until they are fully cooked. It's a lot of work but my brats weigh almost as much cooked as when they went on the grill. Another thing you might try is adding chopped onion to your beer bath."
In a non-tailgate, just getting them cooked in a hurry setting:
For grilling, I put them whole on the rack, otherwise you will lose moisture. Adding beer (while grilling) won't really do anything but cool them and the charcoal down; but you could make a beer-mustard
For stovetop, I barely cover the brats in beer (typically watery domestic like Miller High Life) in a pot/pan that can accomodate the quantity of brats being cooked and heat until beer reduces like a glaze. Wait until casing browns up a bit, then enjoy. In this instance I fork them a few times to absorb beer.
For microwave, same as stove basically, fork and nuke covered with beer.
As for type of beer, I think watery domestic does it best for the boiling since the carbonation is high and the sugars glaze up nicely before the brat is over-done. For the beer mustard pale ales are recommended by some, but I like brown, spicy mustard and might try something sweeter like a porter and banging heads with some punch from horseradish.
FWIW, if you can get non-pre-cooked brats, the extra time spent cooking to render down the fats gives the beer ample time to flavor the meat. And to be absorbed by the cook.
@Knives I did find a recipe eventually that really went to great lengths to maximize the brat; sounds like it would probably be able to kick it pre-cooked or not. According to him and his beer-bath method, cooling and returning to temp maintains moisture and absorption best; for me pre-soaking works well, but I'd like to try his method (although I doubt I ever will).
that's... A really fiddly technique! That said, I could kinda see it working; the common technique (when grilling for a group) of moving the brats back and forth between the grill and the beer tends to produce reasonable results, this is just... waaaay more obsessive.
I never buy precooked brats and never have difficulty buying them (at least in Chicago). Brats are pretty popular here. At Trader Joe's I don't even think they carry pre-cooked brats. At the bigger grocers, I'd guess half are cooked and half raw.
Not a stout, the roast is too much with the delicate flavors of the sausage. I would suggest a German wheat beer, or a dark lager such as schwartzbier.
Normally, I wouldn't diss either of those suggestions, but... You're boiling or braising a sausage in it. Go cheap - subtle flavors really don't come through, at least in my experience. mfg's suggestion sounds about right; save the decent stuff to drink while you're grilling...
Like mfg said, most brats are precooked in the US.
When I make beer brats, I actually use the oven. (I do not have a grill) Take a roasting pan and place the brats in the pan, then pour one bottle of beer into the pan. I would suggest a lighter beer or even spiked apple cider (I discovered the apple cider worked well after someone left a few bottles at my apt). For brands, I would suggest Radeberger or Brooklyn Lager.
Make sure you slice or poke some forkholes in the brat so that the beer can sink in.
Then cover pan with tin foil and cook at 375 for 20 minutes. After the 20 minutes, take off the tin foil and spoon any leftover beer over the brats and let them cook for another 5-10 to get a little crispy.
Then grab some sauerkraut and a bun and enjoy!
Try throwing the sauerkraut in with the beer some time... Brats get a little tangy, kraut gets a little beery, a good time is had by all.
That's fun too! Though sometimes I like my sauerkraut a little crunchier. I also will sometimes add sliced apples in there with pearl onions so those get all squishy and good.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.009329
| 2011-04-19T00:45:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14144",
"authors": [
"Cynthia",
"ESultanik",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Nelson aka SpOOKY",
"Shog9",
"aliko",
"data",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"mfg",
"rumtscho",
"user29742",
"zompz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24033
|
Calibrating a home gas oven
We have a new gas oven which is consistently 30-40F low compared to the dial setting (we've checked with two oven thermometers). While we can get it calibrated as a service call by the manufacturer, I'd love to know how to do it myself. However, sources I've been able to search out via Google so far have been uninstructive and somewhat untrustworthy (e.g. eHow.com).
The range is a Summit TNM63027BFKWY 24" gas range.
Questions:
Has anyone on SA calibrated their own gas oven?
Is gas oven calibration generally the same for most gas ovens in the USA, or does the method vary widely by manufacturer?
If (1) is yes, and (2) is "mostly consistent", then can someone point me to a good resource on calibrating your own oven, or failing that, describe the steps?
Have you checked the thermometers from multiple locations in the oven or just one?
That's the temperature from the center of my oven, which is the temperature I care about. If it's hotter around the edges, that doesn't help me much.
Based on the catastrophic potential of fiddling with your gas line, this question is not suited to Cooking, but would make a better fit on DIY
@FuzzyChef while we accept such questions as ontopic on Cooking, a SE team member noted that it might get better quality answers on the DIY site. Do you want us to migrate the question, or to keep it here, seeing that you accepted an answer already?
First, you need an accurate thermometer that measures average temperature to adjust an oven. For example, a Proaccurate Oven Thermometer, which works by having an oil-filled chamber to average the temperature.
Normally, you can just pull the temperature dial off—the (usually) plastic piece you turn generally pulls right off the actual thermostat, its held on by friction. A gentle prying may be necessary.
After removing the knob, you'll have one of two types of adjustments:
They'll be two screws on the knob itself (in which case, loosen them both to adjust the temperature, it should be marked as to how much to turn it and in which direction—though, if you stare at it long enough, you can figure it out even if its not marked)
There will be one screw inside the shaft on the thermostat. It may be hard to see the screw (it can be at the very end of the hollow shaft). Turn it using a very small screwdriver.
After adjusting the dial, you should re-measure using the thermometer (and possibly adjust again...)
Appliance411 has pictures.
Thanks, Derobert! That's a better page link for stoves in general. HOWEVER, I do need to mention that, having had the repairman here today, Summit stoves have a unique calibration system which is not described by the Appliances411 page.
Having calibrated several ovens myself, I see there is an answer above that details the knob's screwdriver calibration procedure very well, but they left out the part about finding the correct temperature. To do that, you place two thermometers inside your oven (in case one is slightly off) set the oven to an arbitrary degree point, say, 350-degrees. You let it run until the main burner shuts off. At that point, the oven's thermostat has been satisfied and has cut off the gas supply to the main burner. Then, look to see what temperature the two thermometers are reading and set your oven's control knob to that number. Now that the control knob is calibrated to the same temperature as the two thermometers inside, it will bake accordingly.
I realize it's not exactly what you're asking for, but if it's a consistent offset, I'd simply create a little table and post it near the oven:
Desired Temperature | Dial Setting
|
100 | 70
200 | 170
300 | 270
400 | 370
etc.
This is not "how to calibrate"an oven, this is how to put up with one that needs calibrated.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.009946
| 2012-05-27T19:32:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24033",
"authors": [
"BlueDragon",
"Chet",
"Emilio",
"FuzzyChef",
"Hakan B.",
"Peter",
"Rob",
"Stephen Byrne",
"elaine lee",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"mfg",
"rumtscho",
"ƛƛƛ"
],
"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
}
|
25338
|
Why is it that white fish do not have as strong of a "fishy" taste as other fish?
As a rule, my wife does not like the taste of fish, or pretty much anything that once made its home in the water. However, she's decided to give fish another shot. Not wanting to hit her over the head with the "fishiest" of fish, I did some quick Googling and determined that white fish tend to be the easiest on the palate.
Why is it that white flaky fish like sole, halibut, and haddock have the least "fishy" taste?
Is there a scale relating color and texture to that of "fishy" taste?
Is there a more appropriate term to describe "fishy"?
You can soak a fish in milk prior to cooking to mellow out the flavor and remove some of the fishiness.
Another thing that affects fish flavor is the diet of the fish. I find farm raised catfish or salmon to be much milder than their wild cousins for this reason.
Kudos to your wife for giving it another shot!
Let me start with what I feel is the most important part of my answer: find a good fish monger and make friends. If the supermarket is the best you can find, so be it, but learn the name of the person behind the counter, ask about the fish, be interested. Ask what's just in, ask what's fresh. If the fish is frozen at sea, ask if you can get some from the freezer instead of the stock in the case that's been thawed and sitting all day.
Ask to touch and smell the fish. Look at the stock - do the whole fish have clear eyes? Does it smell like a dumpster? Getting the freshest, best fish will help you and your wife enjoy it more. Some good suggestions here on shopping for fish.
Now, on to your bullet points. Fish should never smell or taste "fishy". Fishy smelling fish is a sign of bad fish.
I find that a lot of my friends who say they don't like fish have had experiences with poorly handled or old fish. Fish must be fresh (or frozen at sea and handled properly afterward) to be good. I've stopped ordering fish in restaurants unless it specializes in fish (and I don't mean Red Lobster) or is well known for their freshness.
That said, some fish is certainly more strongly flavored than others. I found this nice chart here with a few varieties of mildly flavored fish. I do agree that flaky, white-fleshed fish is generally the mildest. Flatfish, like sole or flounder tend to be consistently mild. Tilapia has become an extremely popular fish lately.
However if you do find a good fish monger, talk to him about it and you should be able to find plenty of interesting venues: monkfish has been called the poor man's lobster, and I had some arctic char the other night that knocked my socks off.
As for why white fish tends to be less strongly flavored than meatier fishes, I can't really answer authoritatively. My guess would be that meatier fishes tend to be more oily and fatty, which equals more/stronger flavor.
Fishy is a good word for it.
JoeFish's answer about freshness, etc. is excellent and my answer is intended to suppliment it.
Darker-fleshed fish, including salmon and tuna, have much higher fat content in their flesh. This fat content adds a great deal of flavor, as well as vitamins and other nutrients. However, this fat also causes these fish to spoil faster than non-fatty "white" fish such as halibut, cod, and "snapper".
Fish in the herring family, such as mackerel, pilchards, sardines and any of the miscellaneous small fish which go under the name "anchovies", are very fatty indeed (up to 30% by weight), so much so they are called "oily fish". While this makes these fish very nutritious and tasty when fresh, it also causes them to spoil very rapidly and become "fishy". They also freeze poorly, decomposing rapidly when thawed.
For example, I won't buy sardines which were caught more than 36 hours ago, and cook them the day I buy them. For this reason, I don't recommend buying fresh sardines or mackerel ever if you live inland.
Even if they are fresh, oily fish have a stronger, more assertive flavor than other fish. People who are not that keen on fish generally dislike them.
I grew up in a fishing community in the province of Newfoundland on Canada's east coast and later in life I was a commercial fisherman for National Sea Products which is best known as Highliner Seafoods. I have also fished on smaller boats called inshore fishing and from my experience the darker the fish the oilier it is and therefore the stronger it tastes.
It seems like most of the answers didn't seem to really address the root of the question - what makes some fish stronger vs milder when it's not an issue of freshness -
the fish with a higher oil/fat content have a stronger "fish" flavor to them. So, for instance, if you look at a list of fish that have the highest/healthiest amounts of Omega-3 oils, they will also tend to be stronger-flavored fish.
I've always been told that a fishy flavor to fish is due to what a fish eats, and that typically bottom feeders are the fishiest. It doesn't seem to be perfect, but it's often correct. For instance, catfish is a fishy fish.
Overall, you'll be much better off eating lake fish than ocean fish. I'm not a big fan of fishy fish either, and some of the fish I like are yellow lake perch, bluegill, flounder, tilapia, cod, whitefish, and salmon (among others). Yellow Lake Perch is my all-time favorite.
I disagree with you.
Sole fish is so dang smelly and tastes horribly fishy. While salmon smells and tastes great. Is it because I live in the northern coast and fresh Salmon is just a mile away. And sole fish has to be transported over a great distance to my region?
By the time herring reaches my stores, they somehow turned pickled with onions.
I am sure the lobsters tasted different in Maine then when people finally eat them in California (after dry-ice packing them for the flight home and then another 4 hours before reaching home from LAX in hot summer heat).
If you love to try salmon and you want to eat them fresh and unsmelly, why not take a vacation to places where they get fresh salmon. Like coastal Washington, Oregon, or Maine. Or patronise a grocery store where they refrigerate the fish properly.
Bad fish is bad fish, of any type. I don't think it's fair to imply that white fish has a stronger fishy taste because you have experienced bad white fish.
Its the type of blood that the fish has in its body that determines the fishy tase
Can you give some more information on the blood types of fish? Like, what are the different types there are?
Considering that there should be no blood in the flesh after it's been cleaned, this shouldn't be a factor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.010355
| 2012-07-30T05:29:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25338",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"DHayes",
"Dennis Williamson",
"JOHN",
"JoeFish",
"Lorel C.",
"Ramen",
"Sandra Ericson",
"V L Y",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"user57993"
],
"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
}
|
25316
|
How to clean scrambled eggs from a pan?
As an example, I made eggs using Gordon Ramsay's Perfect Scrambled Eggs, at the end the pan ends up having a layer of eggs attached to the bottom and sides that is very difficult to wash (not a nonstick pan).
I found some recommendations online, but none of them have worked very well. Maybe there is no good way?
Baking soda
Run under cold water instead of hot
I did not provide links to recommendations I found so they can be their own potential answers and get the appropriate votes.
If you think the recommendations are bad, you should really just include them in your question. Otherwise people have to just post things and hope they're not the ones that don't work for you. There are probably things that work in some cases but not for you, and it's no fun for people to have you reject otherwise good answers.
Try a different technique, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7405/better-scrambled-eggs . A lot less clean-up is required
What else do you use that pan for? I don't have problems cleaning scrambled eggs off mine (also non-stick - stainless steel, in fact), but most of the time I use it to fry things in butter. And it's always been easy to clean.
For eggs, I'd just use a good ol' teflon pan - none of their disadvantages really apply here.
Also, for scrambling eggs I prefer this approach, on accounts of being infinitely less persnickety. The constant low heat means you can control the consistency by how much you stir and how long you let them cook.
Agreed with @millimoose - the only reason not to use non-stick would be that you don't have one. Even a badly mistreated non-stick with severely damaged teflon or ceramic coating is way easier to clean.
That thin layer of eggs sure is a pain. I take a two-pronged approach: immediately after taking the eggs out of the pan I run it under water until it stops hissing. This helps loosen the stuck-on stuff and rinse away any heavy crud.
Then I fill the pan with water and leave it on the counter while I eat my delicious eggs.
After breakfast I rinse the pan again and hit it with a green scrubby (e.g. Scotch-Brite brand - don't use this on non-stick) or the scrubby side of a sponge.
After the soak, the eggs pretty much just wipe right out.
Have you tried deglazing your pans right after cooking? If you won't be making a sauce, you can add just enough water to cover the bottom of the pan immediately after removing your food. You'll get a lot of steam, and the residue should lift right off the bottom (you may need to scrape a bit). Another way to remove tough residue is to coat the pan in a baking soda paste (make it very thick!) and air dry. You should be able to scrape off the baking soda layer and most of the residue. Depending on the stickyness of the residue, you may need to put in some old-fashioned elbow grease with either method.
Also: if you're using non-stick cookware, you may just have to use more oil to prevent sticking in the first place.
with scrambled eggs, you can forget oil. They will stick. (Other foods will do OK with oil though).
I tried this, and failed. The way I am cooking the eggs, does not get the pan very hot, so there is barely any steam. After getting the eggs from the pan, I left the pan on the stove to heat it up, and then put it under water, but most of the eggs remained there.
i know this is an old post, but i believe i've cracked this code, if you put an inch and a half or so of water in the pan and let it sit on medium heat for four or five minutes, rinsing the pan removes most of the egg, swiping with your finger, has the rest come off instantly
I do get this problem and it is that which caused me to search for an answer. Maybe the problem is of my own making because I mix the eggs into melted butter and cream and use a thick-bottomed stainless steel pan. I don't get the pan heated greatly as this thickens the eggs too quickly for me.
As soon as the pan has been emptied I put in water and washing-up liquid which works well with other recipes. There is always a residual amount of product left and I wonder if this is because the pan bottom is slightly pitted. The best way I have found to-date is to use a surface cleaner (mine is Method - Multi-surface). I spray it onto the residue and leave it for a few minutes then use a stiff brush to clear it away.
I start with the coarser "nylon wool"-type scrub pad, then switch to the scotchbrite-type.
The egg residue can be more easily rinsed from the coarser pad.
There is a most simple solution- use a nonstick pan.
I reset your user name because the old one got flagged as inappropriate. You should be able to edit a new one into your profile, but if you can't (there is a mechanism preventing you from changing your user name too often), leave me a flag with the new user name you want and I should be able to change it for you.
I once read in an old cookbook (I think the Betty Crocker one from the 1950's) to wash dishes used to cook eggs with cold water, not warm water, because the cold water keeps the egg from baking on to the pan even more than it already has. I tried it, and this definitely works! After removing all the egg residue, you can then wash it with warm water.
The vinegar would definitely get rid of that nasty egg smell!
Strong ammonia solution will dissolve caked-on eggs (and cheese) to some extent. It does not attack the nonstick or enamel coating, iron, or steel, but it will attack aluminium, so don't try it on an aluminium pan. Read the safety instructions.
Shake off as much water as you can so that the ammonia does not get diluted, and do the job in a well ventilated place wearing rubber gloves. Splash about 60ml / 2oz of strong ammonia in the pan, swirl it around, leave it outside with the lid on for an hour or so. A swirl every now and then helps. Throw the ammonia down the drain, rinse with water, then get to cleaning the pan conventionally.
Let the remaining sit in the skillet to dry and the eggs will lift slightly off the pan, especially the sides. Then take a paper towel, cloth or non-scratch spatula and remove. Try it. You will be amazed. (No water needed until time to wash)
I don't care for scrubbing. Too much work, and you end up with a scrubber that looks vile. Try this instead: Rinse the eggy pan, add Washing Soda and 2 drops of dish wash soap. Now push the solids around with a soft spatula. How nicely the residue sort of rolls up and liquifies! Scrape the pan bottom with a steel spatula if necessary. Let it stand for a few minutes. The gunk will come off easily when you rub with a soapy wash cloth under a trickle of running water.
Washing Soda is basically sodium carbonate, is my impression.(I use "Arm & Hammer Super Washing Soda". In my part of the world it comes in a yellow cardboard box.) Maybe Baking Soda would work too? (That is bicarbonate of soda.) I'm going to try the Ammonia idea someone contributed.
Do NOT use non-stick pans! You very well know that the non-stick coating wears off. Bits of that coating end up inside of anyone who eats your cooking. Assuredly, we were not built to ingest those man-made scrapings. For the love of your descendants, don't implant toxic waste in your kids' bodies.
That nonstick coating is PTFE, also known as Teflon. Many medical implants are made of, or coated with, PTFE because it is biologically inert and nontoxic. Flakes in food can appear unpleasant, but they aren't harmful.
cook rhubarb in the saucepan afterwards
Using the pan in question cover the egg with cold water and any vinegar and bring to boil add a good dollop of bicarbonate of soda and leave bubbling away.
Using a wooden spoon or plastic spatula scrape around the bottom.
Rinse and dishwash
Done x
I had this problem and used some water and 1/4 cup of baking soda on the pan and boiled it for 15 minutes on the stove. Then i cleaned it out with a green scrubbie and it came out nice and clean. Hope this helps! :)
I've just had this exact problem. What worked for me was to coat the inside of the pan with a good squirt of neat bleach and leave it soaking there in my kitchen sink. Each time I walk past the sink, I give it a quick scrub with the washing-up brush and after about 20 minutes nearly all the egg residue is gone... huzzah !
This is one of the reasons I used to hate cleaning up after breakfast. However, I've noticed that rinsing the pan first and scraping off the larger particles with a spatula and then letting it soak in dishwasher (machine) soap for a while seems to work better than normal sink dish soap. Then a little scrubbing, rinsing and then repeat with normal dish soap which leaves a nicer smelling pan and rinsing seems to work.
here is one idea.. putting silver foil in the bottom of the pan, though the eggs might take a bit longer to cook.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.011051
| 2012-07-28T19:15:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25316",
"authors": [
"Affordable legal services",
"Alan Wilkinson",
"Cascabel",
"Colleen Iankoulov",
"Dennis Leaser",
"Eric Brower",
"Jane",
"Lizelle Diedericks",
"Melissa Miller",
"MikeC",
"SF.",
"Saadi H",
"Saema Yashfeen",
"Stynbeck",
"TFD",
"Tim",
"Tom Rudd",
"Zachary Hamm",
"amanda kennedy",
"apraetor",
"earlNameless",
"ersu",
"george",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79432",
"masdawg",
"millimoose",
"moose918",
"rumtscho",
"staticsan"
],
"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
}
|
2329
|
Tips for grilling duck legs?
I recently attempted to grill duck legs on my propane Webber. I was afraid of flare-ups due to the high fat content in the duck meat so I grilled with somewhat low and indirect heat. It took a long time, but I got them looking lovely and brown and not burned. The only problem was this: they were tough and didn't taste very good at all. Clearly I did something very wrong. Any advice?
Someone edit the title to reflect that the question is about LEGS.
Edit made. Good call.
I think grilling is probably a bad plan for duck legs; the fat content is a real danger like you said, and duck legs are tough enough you probably want to confit them or braise them.
If you absolutely have to grill them, I would suggest confiting them at 200 degrees for three or four hours first (you could use veggie oil in a pinch) and then resting them in the fridge for a day or so in oil.
As for finishing them on the grill, rinse them off gently, re-season if needed, cook flesh side down on a medium heat portion of the grill for a while until mostly heated through, then flip them over on a high heat portion of the grill to crisp up the skin, watching out for flares.
To grill a duck.
Poke through the skin at 1 inch intervals so that the fat can drain easily.
Use a drip pan filled with water directly underneath the duck to prevent flareups (make sure fire is not directly underneath the drip pan).
Roast at 325 for 2-3 hours. Make sure internal temp is at least 165. Skin should be thin and crispy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.011827
| 2010-07-20T13:16:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2329",
"authors": [
"Alan",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Greg Sansom",
"Ian Mackinnon",
"Rasmus Faber",
"drxzcl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4162"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3762
|
Can I substitute Molasses for Honey in Baking Recipes?
Can I substitute one for the other in baking recipes?
Yes. You can also substitute 1 cup molasses with 3/4 cup packed brown sugar + 1/4 water, or 1 cup pure maple syrup, or 1 cup dark corn syrup.
Yes, you can substitute molasses for honey. They're going to function essentially the same measure for measure since they are both syrups.
Keep in mind however there will be a difference in flavor (not necessarily bad, just different...which would be the case for one honey over another...different tastes).
And don't forget molasses will impact the color of the resulting baked good!
Yes it is equal in measure but will make whatever your baking sweeter.
Which one makes it taste sweeter? The question asks about substituting in both directions.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.012022
| 2010-07-30T03:33:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3762",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dan",
"Josh Kretschmar",
"Leônidas Nunes Reis",
"Melanie",
"UberAlex",
"Vince",
"VoutilaD",
"d l",
"good_karma13",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80320"
],
"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
}
|
6787
|
Are there other parts of a Lobster that are edible apart from the Tail and Claws?
I was thinking of the innards - specifically the white parts inside of the main body and what looks like eggs.
You can eat even shell. Ground shell is used in French Bisque to thicken the soup and make it more flavored.
You can also use the shell to make fish stock. Which in turn could be used in e.g. Fish based risotto
The only parts that you need to avoid are the intestinal tract - the black line that runs through the tail, and the sac right behind the eyes which includes the brain, stomach, and other organs.
The tomalley is the edible yellow-green pasty substance which serves as the liver and pancreas. However, there are advisories in place by US federal and state agencies advising against eating the tomalley of Atlantic lobsters due to the high concentration of toxins present. I've eaten it before if that matters; it's delicious.
The roe present in female lobsters is also commonly eaten.
Anything else is edible, but not frequently eaten.
The roe is arguably the best part even if it's a little scary looking
Remove the Thorax shell (the saddle shaped one over the main body). Then you can take each leg off by gently wiggling and pulling. There's a nice piece of meat where the leg comes out of the body.
Then you suck the meat out of the leg.
I do like the claws and tail but the body is my big love. I adore picking it apart and finding that sweet meat as you break the body apart. It is tedious and only small amounts of meat but so good!!! I also like to take the roe and tomalie or lobster paste and put it with a bit of butter on a piece of fish and bake it, it then tastes like lobster!
If you can add more details on how to identify those bits, I think that would be a more useful answer to the original question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.012146
| 2010-09-05T21:03:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6787",
"authors": [
"Annette Headford",
"Eric Goodwin",
"Jonathan",
"NBenatar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"logophobe",
"slongfield"
],
"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
}
|
9612
|
Will vegetables and fresh herbs last longer in the refrigerator in a plastic bag?
Is there a difference between how long fresh herbs and vegetables last if they are in a plastic bag or in the open? If it does, is there a break-down of which ones it does make a difference for - example: cilantro seems to get mushy very quickly in a bag but last for a week in the open, but scallions last much longer in a plastic bag and deflate almost immediately in the open.
It depends on the moisture content. If the vegetables are wet when put in they will get mildew and go soft faster because the water has no place to evaporate. This is made worse when leafy greens are put in bags since they have so many nooks and crannies to hold water, and they seep out their own moisture content because of the large surface area. Try drying off the veggies first or putting them through a salad spinner to get as much water out of them as possible.
If I use a bag I'll go for paper mostly as it seems to absorb moisture instead of trapping it in
Very true. I actually avoid buying lettuce at the market if the sprinklers have just gone off. Otherwise, drying things is a good idea. Except perhaps for carrots, they seem to actually do better with a bit of moisture trapped in - not sure how it effects longevity with regard to mold, etc.
Drying herbs and lettuces before storing them in plastic is a good idea. You can also lay them in the bag on top of a paper towel if you aren't able to remove all the water droplets from those pesky nooks & crannies.
I go with wrapped in a paper towel, then put into a plastic bag, so there's still airflow around the herbs, and it'll absorb any moisture they might give off.
The optimal temperature for storing herbs is about 12 degrees Celsius, which is about 55 degrees Farenheit (53.6 actually).
If your counter top or pantry are near this temperature, then you shouldn't refrigerate your fresh herbs.
If you must refrigerate them, they will give off moisture which will condense on the leaves and make them less fun. You can use a paper towel or such to capture the moisture so that it doesn't condense, but the leaves are still losing their moisture, making them less crunchy/upright and causing them either to wil or dry out completely.
Ultimately, the best is to just use them fresh.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.012357
| 2010-11-30T15:28:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9612",
"authors": [
"Christian Wilkie",
"Joe",
"Murch",
"NBenatar",
"Simi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"leon",
"vylycyn",
"yuan",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6587
|
Simple things to do with very tart plums?
We got a bag of purple plums from our CSA that have a great flavor and seem ripe, but that are very tart. I'm the only person in the family who really likes sour fruit, and they are pretty sour even for me, so we are not going to get through them eating them out of hand.
What are some good fast and simple ideas for cooking them? A compote? Can I make something like apple sauce?
EDIT: Speed and simplicity are important considerations. Homemade jam is delicious, and I know how to make it, but jam-making isn't something I am going to do after I get home from work to use up some extra fruit.
Hi there, thanks for your question! Please note that questions calling for a list of answers (as opposed to seeking a single "right" answer) should be started as Community Wiki. I've converted the question for you.
A compote is an awesome idea - not so much trouble as jam-making, and you can go through it pretty fast if you eat it on breakfast things (pancakes, french toast) and desserts (cakes and ice cream)! I think I made something like this a while back: http://funnfud.blogspot.com/2008/02/cardamom-flavored-plum-compote-with.html (And if you're cooking them, you can also let them ripen pretty thoroughly to try and get them sweeter.)
Tart fruits work well in jellies and jams, or as candied fruit. These all allow you to vary the sugar content to get the level of sweetness you want, plus you don't have to worry about botulism as much.
You could also try a fruit-infused brandy: cut fruit into slices, and layer fruit/sugar/fruit/sugar into a tall lidded jar. Cover with a spirit of your choice, usually vodka, although a milder brandy or white rum also works. Let this sit for several weeks to infuse, strain, and use as a flavoring in cooking or as a mixer in cocktails (or just drink it).
I'd consider a plum buckle or other plum cake. As necessary you can up the sugar to compensate for the extra-sour plums.
A free-form tart adding berries to the plums as a filling also sounds tasty and like it would have a lovely texture. Perhaps blackberries or raspberries?
You can consider making plum syrup or plum wine, sure they are of very quick and easy "preparation", but they need some time to "age".
One example of Japanese plum syrup and plum wine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlBNdRKNhJI
Wow! Great video link for making plum syrup + wine.
Save some of those babies for summertime. Pit and freeze the plums, and use them to add tang and depth of flavor to smoothies and slushes when the hot weather hits. One of my favorite combinations is prune plum paired with mango in a base of pineapple and grape juices.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.012557
| 2010-09-02T16:04:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6587",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Mark A",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41"
],
"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
}
|
11977
|
Kids Lunch box - suggestion for fruit smoothie packaging
Could you suggest how to package a home made fruit smoothie to make it appealing to young children. The kids seem to love fruit tubes by innocent in their lunch boxes as they are colourful, easy to open and drink from.
How could I pack a home made smoothie to make it equally attractive?
You could use a plastic syringe (without the needle obviously), which can usually be found at cake stores and such.
Where I come from there's a chocolate shop that sells plastic syringes filled with chocolate for kids.
On the other hand, the extended plunger may take up too much room. In that case, maybe a test-tube sort of thing with a plastic top to seal it. I've seen them around, but wouldn't know where to find them.
interesting, I did not see them in shops around here really (Ireland) but I will keep it in mind
We have a ton of these large plastic syringes lying around for when our animals get sick and need to have oral medication, so if you can't find what you need in a food store, try a medical supply or vet supply. You can fill them and cover with foil or plastic wrap and a rubber band and pack the plunger with it separately. They're really convenient for topping cakes and cookies with, for example as Carmi alluded to, chocolate (picture the lines across girl scout caramel delites). http://warneronline.com/img_lg/640157_DN-Series_gr.jpg
There are places that sell long, narrow plastic bags.
I don't know what thickness of bag wall you'd need so there wasn't liklihood of premature rupture in transport, though. There might be other places where you could get lots of less than 1000, so you're not stuck with them if they don't work.
are those ok to be used with the foodstuffs?
@kristof : from the page for 1, 2, and 3 mil clear Industrial Poly Bags : Meets FDA and USDA specifications for food contact. The language on the thicker ones and reclosable bags are a little weaker, eg "All virgin polyethylene film meets FDA and USDA requirements." and "Meets FDA and USDA specifications.", but they all claim to be from the same materials, using slightly different wording (virgin polyethylene film) (note, a 'mil' is 1/1000th of an inch)
How about a thermos beverage bottle? If you pre-chill the interior, it should keep the smoothie pretty cold. Pack a straw along with it, and you're good to go.
This is certainly the easiest way to do it, but I think the OP wanted to pack it in a way that appealed to the kids fancy. I think Carmi is closer to the right answer.
@yossarian yes, you are right I am looking for something that the kids would find fancy, they seem to like it simply in the glass at home but the lunch box is another story
I actually would not mind using a bottle, not necessary isolated as it does not need to be kept too cold. But the bottle would really need to be a tiny one, and ideally colourful as well
We've had great success with those 'Sports' water bottles for kids - hard plastic with a spout on top that is pushed down to seal. Kids seem to love them because they're like the 'Fruit Shoot' bottles that are very popular here in Britain.
But they're pretty big as they're for water - I'd probably vomit if I drank that much fruit smoothie - so not great for really little ones.
maybe something homemade kids like thing from home and are unlikely to eat school lunches because they aren't used to it I suggest maybe a strawberry and banana fruit smoothie
The question was how to package it. The OP is already making homemade fruit smoothies.
These work fine, packaging is edible too
Clever, but really not an answer to the question (unless you'd care to explain how an apple qualifies as a smoothie).
[In the context of a child lunch box] You take a bite and chew, instant smoothie, works fine, no plastic thingies required :-) Guess how you blend flavours...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoothie
I like it:), it would really be ideal to give all fresh fruits, and I do include them, the idea of the fancy packaged fruit and yoghurt is to make it work as a treat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.012813
| 2011-02-09T13:27:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11977",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"George",
"Joe",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"dirtsailor77",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"kristof",
"manei_cc",
"sangeetha",
"stephennmcdonald",
"thom",
"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
}
|
15017
|
What is a Vienna Schnitzel?
I have heard this term frequently used, but I haven't been able to find a definition, even in the extensive Wikipedia Article on Schnitzel.
I can tell from my own experience that these can be huge and very tasty :-)
The article you linked to references this dish as "Wiener Schnitzel". That article defines it as veal--pounded, breaded, and fried--garnished with lemon, and served with potatoes.
"Wiener" refers to its Viennese origin, and Schnitzel to the type of preparation (pounded, breaded, and fried). There are many varieties of Schnitzels, made of several different meats, and with various sauces. Jaeger Schnitzel, for examples, is served with a creamy mushroom sauce. The one from Vienna is served with lemon and potatoes.
and is usually pork, not veal.
@jwenting, real Wiener Schnitzel is veal. I can imagine somebody making it from pork, but nobody in a German speaking country will accept that as a true Wiener Schnitzel. On the other hand, the use of French fries instead of potatoes is common, and nobody takes an offense.
I think jwentig meant that Jaeger Schnitzel is more often pork than veal, which I'd agree with.
I have never had the experience of having Wiener Schnitzel in Germany that is from veal; mostly it is from pork. In Germany, Wiener Schnitzel is usually bigger in size. In a traditional restaurant, fried potatoes and onions (at certain ones, red onions) are served as Beilage (side dish), while at most generic dinners French fries are usually served. I have cut down on meat years ago; but I am becoming a little hungry while typing this out..
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.013270
| 2011-05-25T03:49:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15017",
"authors": [
"Ivo Flipse",
"Ray",
"Unheilig",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"jwenting",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10057
|
Making juice from fresh fruit
I bought pineapple and mango with the intention of making some juice out of them. I tried puréeing the fruit in the food processor and then mixed it with some water and lemon juice in the blender. The result was a really pulpy mess, yielded maybe a liter, if that, and was mostly flavourless.
I have two mangoes and a cored pineapple (like they sell in the grocery store in a container). What can I do this time to make my juice work out better?
The easiest way would be to use an actual juicing machine. Instead of just blending everything together, a juicer will separate the juice from the pulp.
You're looking for something like this:
http://www.amazon.com/Hamilton-Beach-67650-Mouth-Extractor/dp/B000FHQJ6C/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1292255706&sr=8-7
Juice goes out one end, pulp out the other.
Do you think it's possible to blend it all up and then drain the juice out with a cheesecloth? Spit-and-bailing-wire solution, I know...
Thanks for your answer, but if at all possible I'd like to find a solution that doesn't involve buying new equipment.
I attempted to make a large quantity of orange juice like this one once. It was very delicious, but some of my friends were weary of the pulp level. I simply took a very clean dishrag and poured the juice through it. I had seen things like this done with spinach to drain it on the food network. Make sure that your cloth does not produce lint though and that it smells odorless, or you might end up with some very tainted juice.
exactly. another great juice is from carrots, but nigh unto impossible to extract without a juicer. better to have the right equipment. for $25 it's affordable (even if not durable).
you may also use woman's nylon tights for filtering, works like a charm
Because the juice is contained inside the cell walls of the fruit or veg and you will need to basically destroy them. A juicer works well for 2 reasons, one is that it totally ruptures the cell walls by using a really highspeed cutting head, and it has a built in extraction method to get the pulp away from the liquid.
Running the fruit through a food processor or blender can achieve the first part. But the extraction will be a pain. Cheese cloth works great for this. One issue is evaporation as you allow the liquid to drain off. So controlling the evaporation is a good idea.
One method that I have used before is similar to a coffee making setup. Pulp goes in the top with a filter over a catch container. Gravity will take time and you may need to change the filter a couple times. Another idea that is a little unconventional but cheaper is a coffee press. It forces the pulp to the bottom and allows the juice to come to the top. Not perfect, but it does work if you are trying to save money.
Do you have a link with scientific info for the claim that juice comes from intracellular fluid? More likely, it's intersticial, but not actually within the cells?
Its not a claim. I have done the research, in a lab, using the test equipment. Take a look at an orange and cut one open. Where is the juice stored? Juice companies for years have used enzymes to aid in the cell wall destruction to maximize the yield of juice production. Even something as simple as using citric acid (yes lemon juice) can help with some juice extraction. Want to learn more? Try the experiments yourself. http://www-saps.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/worksheets/scotland/fruit.htm As most of us do not have the enzymes laying around, mechanical separation is the next best thing.
What I ended up doing is puréeing my fruit in the food processor, and then pushed it through a fine mesh sieve, a bit at a time. Then I took the remaining pulp and ran it through the food processor a second time, and then back through the sieve. I also added the juice of half a lemon and half a lime. I ended up with about 2½ cups (625mL) of mostly pulp-free, sweet juice, and a container full of puréed mango and pineapple that has the consistency of applesauce (though I'm not sure what I'm going to do with it, and it seems to have lost much of its sweetness).
I tried cheese cloth as well as my sieve, but with the cheese cloth it seemed like I could not do very much at a time (though it was easier to squeeze juice out of the pulp when I could put the whole thing in my hand).
It was a lot of manual work for not a huge yield, however, so I don't know if I'd bother trying it again without a juicer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.013428
| 2010-12-13T04:19:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10057",
"authors": [
"AtlasEU",
"Chef Khaleel",
"Daniel Vandersluis",
"Doc Walker",
"GypsyBowl",
"Michael Aguzie",
"Mrs. Garden",
"Naomi Campbell",
"Patrick Costello",
"ciuncan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/950",
"ron",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11020
|
Does chili paste require refrigeration?
A recipe I am planning to make calls for chili paste, which I have never used before. I found some in the grocery store (it is Sambal Oelek ground fresh chili paste), which seems to be more liquidy than, say, tomato paste. I only need 1/2 a teaspoon, however, so I will have plenty left over.
Does chili paste require refrigeration after it is opened? It does not say anything about it that I can see on the jar. Also, how long will it last after being opened (regardless of whether or not it needs to be in the fridge)?
I don't know if it technically requires refrigeration, but I've always kept mine in the refrigerator and had it survive for at least 6 months with no noticeable degradation.
+1, I'd say that most don't require refrigeration, but unless you're really space constrained, I'd store it in the fridge. The fridge isn't going to hurt the flavor any. I used to keep mine out with the Tabasco, but once after a few months it started growing some mold and had to be thrown out. Now I keep it in the fridge and haven't had similar problems. I think those wide mouthed containers are more prone to infection than the ones with the smaller twist-open-and-squirt caps like sriracha comes in. Better safe than sorry.
Sambal Oelek doesn't generally require refrigeration. I've had a jar in my condiments cupboard for quite some time without any issue, and at work they have a jar next to the wok food station to add a bit of heat to the meal.
I don't have a jar to hand right now, but if you look at the ingredients, are there any acids? I recall a slight liquid (it's a wet paste) and a slight vinegar taste, so it's possible it's already got some preservative qualities without refrigeration.
It wouldn't hurt to keep it in the fridge though, it could add to the life expectancy of it, if you have space... in the UK we don't have big fridges, so having jars of long-life products isn't a great use of space.
Sambal Olek contains sodium bisulfite and potassium sorbate... so it doesn't need to be refrigerated. However, it will last longer in the fridge. Generally speaking, condiments should not be held longer than 90 days. Bon apetit.
I don't think sodium bisulfite and potassium sorbate are standard ingredients of Sambal Oelek, even though they may be present in many commercial Sambal Oelek products.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.013805
| 2011-01-13T22:25:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11020",
"authors": [
"Anjali",
"Cold Oatmeal",
"Jacek Konieczny",
"Jacqueline",
"LSchoon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/535",
"user22588",
"user3181236",
"user50496"
],
"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
}
|
4246
|
What could I use in a vegetarian b'stilla?
I love the idea of b'stilla but not sure I have any great ideas for a vegetarian version. Searching the web I see people trying it with winter squash, chickpeas or seitan. Any other suggestions?
I'd like such a dish with courgettes, or mushrooms. Chickpeas sound like a good idea, butternut squash might be good as well. Sweet potato, perhaps.
It would work well to use re-hydrated TVP. I have had vegan shepherd's pie and it maintains the kind of consistency through the cooking process that you are going to want in the pastilla / b'stilla meat(less) pie. Browning the TVP could prove challenging but if you make some kind of ground combination including a wild-ish mushroom (like cremini) and beets it could go aways to allowing it to brown to a very similar texture as the meat in pastilla.
I've never made b'stilla (though I might try soon), but after some experience with middle-eastern rice dishes I have the following advice:
Getting nutrition, flavour and consistency are all important.
Chickpeas are very good nutritionally, and also fit in with the regional flavours.
It's improtant to get the sweetness right. I usually use onions and carrots, finely chopped and sauteed for a long time, to which I add the cooked chickpeas.
The long cooking sorts out the consistency as well.
You can either give up on the full-meat flavour, or try to get close to it using Worcestershire-like flavours. A tiny bit of tamarind paste and some sweet soy sauce will go a long way towards this.
I've tried Seitan, and the consistency is wrong.
I've put some shredded soy stuff (meant to simulate ground meat) to good use in this sort of thing, but you need to flavour it right as it is as bland as something very bland.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.014012
| 2010-08-04T17:05:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4246",
"authors": [
"Jeff Burdges",
"MDMarra",
"Rob",
"SLB",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8092"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3134
|
Mexican Cheese Sauce?
There's a Mexican restaurant in my hometown that serves (their term) 'Arroz con pollo'. The dish itself seems incredibly simple -- it's pretty much just rice, chicken, and an incredible cheese sauce.
I've spent countless hours on google looking for a recipe for something resembling this sauce, but there doesn't seem to be one definitive version of arroz con pollo, so I haven't had much luck.
Can someone point me in the right direction?
Can you be a little more specific about what the sauce actually is? What it looks like, tastes like, any ingredients you know of? I don't think that you're likely to get a great answer without any more details.
Unfortunately, it's been a long time, and the place is 500+ miles away, so it's kind of difficult. All I can definitively say is that it's creamy, nearly white, and delicious when served over rice/chicken.
i think you're referring to that sauce at mexican restaurants that should be served on anything anywhere anytime
That sounds like a standard queso cheese (typically found on your chimis etc.)
If you are looking for a terrific queso recipe, there are myriad. However, two tips for any queso:
seek out "Chihuahua Cheese" (its a mild white that melts very smoothly and has a subtle flavor)
pepper and cumin and paprika roasted first are your friends, but if you add more than a little, they are your worst enemies. (also, fresh roast jalapenos for ideal flavor, don't use diced.)
Stuff like this is often highly regional, and even then different people will make it differently from house to house or eatery to eatery. I seriously doubt there even is a definitive recipe to be found. Considering that the name literally means "rice with chicken" and makes no mention of a cheese sauce, I doubt the traditional version of the dish has any sauce at all, let alone a specific cheese sauce.
If I were you I'd just start with a simple queso sauce and modify it to your liking. Beyond that, this site isn't a recipe exchange and posts seeking that are being closed.
They probably don't do this, but if you ever want a nice melty cheese sauce look into adding some sodium citrate to the mix, it helps prevent the cheese from coagulating and gives a very smooth melty sauce no matter what cheese you start with.
I have ACP in 2 differant mexican restaurants in the Avon Lake and Sandusky areas of Ohio. They were awesome. In both cases, I asked what kind of cheese they used, and both times the answer was white american cheese.
I have asked two different Mexican restaurants what the cheese sauce was made of and they said melted white American.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.014181
| 2010-07-24T21:27:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3134",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Caleb",
"Cho",
"ReadySquid",
"annu singh spam",
"aragaoalana",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93474",
"jerhinesmith",
"mfg"
],
"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
}
|
5900
|
What factors lead to rich crema on espresso?
I love espresso, especially when it has a rich crema (the head that forms on top of a well made shot). I notice that some cafes produce this consistently while others never have more than a wisp on top. Which of the many factors that go in to pulling good espresso shots specifically contribute to the crema?
Crema is a food foam. For crema to form and survive long enough for us to enjoy the espresso, something needs to hold the bubbles of the foam together. In most food foams proteins help hold up the bubbles, but in crema it is a mixture of proteins and oils. This makes it hard to predict what makes good crema. From practice, good crema comes from:
Enough pressure and well timed extraction
Fresh grind with a good grain size distribution
Darker roasts
There are also tradeoffs between stability of the crema and the amount of crema produced. The two don't seem to go together. The crema also should have bubbles that pop and sprinkle the coffee aromatics into the air and our noses (like champagne). The higher pressure extraction helps extract and emulsify the oils (about 0.1g ends up in one shot). The darker roasts help with the Maillard reaction which creates the still unknown molecules that give crema its color and volume.
The crema is done by the fatty content of the coffee, the high pressure (a good expresso machine has about 15 bar of water pressure) help to extract much fat from the coffee.
Also the quality of the coffee can influence the fatty contents; a mix of arabica and robusta type coffee can give a better crema than 100% arabica.
I've found the beans to influence the crema greatly. I've had to experiment to find good beans.
McGee's On Food and Cooking also lists the mineral content of the water used as an important factor in crema. He states that hard water will reduce the amount of crema produced but also that softened water causes over-extraction.
Grind size and the tamper pressure applied by the barista also make a difference to the amount of crema. Though I don't have any results handy to back this up. Around 30 pounds or pressure (13.5 kg) applied to tamp the grounds is considered optimal. Test this on a scale to get a feel for it. I've heard that some award-winning baristi will tamp with less pressure but grind the coffee finer to compensate.
As said before by SWrobel, beans should be freshly roasted 3 or 4 days prior. Beans just roasted or within a day or two seem to produce much more crema but the crema produced is not as stable. Possibly from too much CO2?
I am currently using a northern Italian style roast and it produces a nice think crema. Would be interested if anyone has done any experiments on how roast profile affects crema.
If you source your beans from a local roaster and grind on demand you should have no problem producing crema.
The only issue is producing a crema made of fine bubbles. Too fresh and there is generally too much gas giving you a very bubbly crema.
The origin and processing of the bean can also play a huge factor. If you have ever tried Monsooned Malabar you'll see what I mean.
However at the end of the day you want a decent cup of coffee and taste is the only thing you can go by. There is no ideal age for beans. My favourite blend tastes best to me at around the 1.5-2 week mark and still produces a fine espresso.
Beans should be roasted within the last week. Ideal age is about 3-4 days past roasting, and of course they should be ground right before extraction.
Typically, Brazil coffee beans are used in espresso blends because of their ability to produce crema, which would remove the need for robusta type beans.
As for your answer, pygabriel has a more technical answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.014727
| 2010-08-24T21:36:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5900",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Irfan",
"Patrick Jones",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17177",
"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
}
|
3218
|
How do you cook a steak like those found in fine steakhouses?
I went to a 5* restaurant once, the steak was unbelievable. You could cut it with a butter knife, it was fat and juicy, pink in the middle, great stuff.
When I cook it at home, I seem to just slice the beef thick, shallow fry it in olive oil with some garlic and that is all. It tastes pretty good, but is so far off what I had in that restaurant.
Anyone know how to cook the best steak? Better cuts of meat? Fry in butter?
Also any tips in general on how to cook good steak. All appreciated!
I think this is a good question, but really should be community wiki, as it's rather subjective (different people have a different idea of "best") and kind of a poll.
I don't really see how this question is fundamentally different from this question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/267/how-to-properly-cook-a-steak
The most important thing you can do is buy quality beef. You can throw a USDA Select steak on a 700 degree charcoal grill, cook it perfectly, and it'll still be tough and not at all what you'd get at a fine steakhouse.
In the USA there are three grades of beef available to a consumer: Select, Choice, and Prime. There are lesser grades but they go to fast food joints, prisons, military personnel, and miscellaneous other weird uses.
In most american supermarkets you will find only select, period. This is an "average" steak. It's typically devoid of marbling, and results in a rather flavorless tough steak.
To find choice steaks you have to go to a higher end supermarket, e.g. Whole Foods You will pay significantly more for a choice steak, but the difference is marked. The marbling will result in a tenderer steak due to the internal fat melting and tenderizing the steak.
Finally, prime cuts. These are very hard to come by in any supermarket unless you live in a bigger city. You typically have to go to a specialty shop or butcher for these. Less than 2% of all beef is classified as prime. On top of this, restaurants get first pick. So even if you do buy a great prime steak, you are likely getting the lower end of the prime spectrum. However, the difference is amazing. The marbling is more intense, more evenly distributed and when cooked properly results in a steak that melts under your knife.
Another one-up a fine steakhouse has on you is they age their beef. Any steak you buy in the grocery store is minimally wet aged. The finest steakhouses dry age their beef. The difference? Wet aging consists of simply vacuum packing the meat (as in a whole side of cow) and refrigerating it for about a week. After that, it's cut smaller and sold to stores. Dry aging is a more complicated and expensive process. Dry aged beef is hung for at least two weeks in a refrigerator. Moisture in the meat is allowed to escape and evaporate, which concentrates the beef flavor of the beef. The beef also grows a moldy rind which is cut off and thrown away. After the aging is complete you're left with 75-80% of the meat you started with. This commands a premium price.
Unfortunately, you can't dry age a steak in your home. There are some refrigerator aging processes that you'll find on this site and others, but they aren't a true comparison.
Another variation that has become more popular is grass-fed beef. This has become a recent fad, at least in the USA. Cattle are traditionally fed corn which makes them fatter and "juicier", but it also leaves the meat tasting very bland. Likely, if you live in the USA, every steak you've ever had was corn-fed. Grass-fed beef on the other hand is fed predominantly grass, they're allowed to graze as cows should. This is good for the cows, because they don't actually eat corn. A cow is made to eat grass. Corn is rather harsh on their digestive system, but they are given no other choice. In the wild a cow would never eat corn. The end result is a very different flavored steak. Grass-fed beef has a much richer, meatier flavor. However, it's also tougher than corn-fed beef. For this reason a steak you will be served in a fine steakhouse is likely not to be grass-fed unless it is specifically designated as such.
With all that out of the way I suggest doing what I do. When I feel like an amazing home cooked steak, I'll splurge on a nice choice ribeye, dip it in a mixture of melted clarified butter and oil, season liberally with salt and pepper, and pan fry it.
Technically, it's better not to mix the oil and salt, as that lowers the smoke point of the oil and you are cooking at a high temperature for the searing.
Salting the steak prior to cooking forms a delicious crust. And the smoke point is largely irrelevant because it's being cooked well beyond the smoke point. I have not had a problem cooking steak this way, besides a great abundance of smoke.
I agree with the salting prior, but you don't need to keep the salt after the crust has been formed. The lower the smoke point, the longer it's going to smoke, and the more acreolein is going to be produced.
Just to note that all the beef and lamb in NZ is grass fed. Doesn't make it easier to get prime cuts though!
Man, am I glad to live near a Wegmans. No "select" beef sold at all, and lots of "prime" grade - that they dry-age in-store!
@hobodave Cows, wild or not, eat anything. We feed cows pumpkin and kiwifruit when available, they eat it in preference to grass (they are standing in large fields of grass). Have seen cows demolish a whole field of ripe tobacco too, they where "high", and the farmer mad! Grass feed is much tastier than corn feed though
The problem with finding the higher quality meat is that the high-end restaurants suck them all up. I had a former roommate who worked at a Gordon Biersh; one night, she brought home some steaks that they had decided weren't good enough for them to serve (they were end cuts, not center cuts, and the amount of fat (not intra-muscular) was rather high vs. amount of meat). It's possible that they were dry-aged, but when I got them they were in individual cryovac bags. I did a typical treatment, but they were hands down better than your typical grocery store steak.
+1 for dry aging. Something that hunters know is you can safely hang meat outside in the winter time. So long as it doesn't get above 40F your meat can hang out there for quite a long time. Carcasses are hung for weeks sometimes outside before the butchering process begins and you can do that too with a larger piece of beef. This doesn't help after the thaw nor before the freeze, but during those periods of time which is when most people eat more meat anyway, the outdoors is where people have stored meats for 1000s of years.
Hot, hot, hot. Steak restaurants use a very hot grill. That's the key. You want to get a good sear on the outside without over cooking the interior. The three ways I've seen used with success at home are:
Broil on high. You need a good broiler for this
Use a cast iron pan (preferably with ridges) and get it very hot before you begin
Use a grill. Get it up to 700 before you start. This might be hard on some gas grills. This is the method I use on my big green egg. It only takes about 2 mins a side plus resting.
As stated already, start with good meat.
Make sure you rest the meat for five minutes.
There's an argument against using a ridged pan. The Maillard reaction that develops the flavour in the sear only takes place above 140C. Air is a much poorer conductor of heat than metal and the ridges mean there will be cooler areas on your steak. These areas are less likely to reach the temperature necessary for the reaction and thus won't get the sear and the flavour it brings. Using a ridged pan looks pretty though which is why many restaurants use them.
Simple rules:
Buy the best cut you can afford. Prime, grass-fed, aged. Don't freeze it.
Pat it dry. Salt it. Let it sit until room temperature.
Get the grill/pan/broiler HOT. Sear it quickly and completely on both sides. Lower the heat.
Get a meat thermometer. Homecooks overook. 135 degrees F is medium rare. 170 is burnt. Steakhouses won't serve anything over 155. The more you cook steak, the more it tastes like hamburger.
Finish it with a pad of butter. Steakhouses do this!
Let it rest for 5 minutes. Not on a hot surface. Don't touch it. Don't poke it. Don't taste it.
Eat it by itself, maybe with a bold red wine, like a cabernet sauvignon. Chew the meat and the fat, and swill the lingering jus around in your mouth with a little wine, just like you do in the restaurants.
Your temperatures are 20 degrees off. 140 F is Medium, 180 F is shoe leather. Rare is actually 120-125 F, Well-done is 160 F.
Was going by memory, slightly off. I'm going by a book called Mastering the Grill by Andrew Schloss. Lists medium-rare at 135 and well at 170. Adjusted accordingly.
The butter is really what gets my steaks closest to the steakhouse. I mix up some butter with some kosher salt, garlic, parsley and rosemary and let a generous pat melt over top. I'm still experimenting with the mix, but it really brings an extra awesomeness to the steak.
@DHayes: Whythe kosher salt, if you are already mixing meat with milk (butter)?
@dotancohen - I'm not sure of the answer, but from what I recall the texture of kosher salt is bigger - flakes moreso than grains - which might give the results a different texture or flavor due to the changed distribution.
Answer 1: when I lived in France, there was a proverb that translated as:
The difference between a $10 steak and a $20 steak is the sharpness of the knife
they give you to eat it with.
Answer 2: are you buying aged, grass-fed, prime-grade beef?
Answer 3: I doubt the restaurant shallow fries a steak in olive oil. Some sort of broiling, or even grilling over an open flame, is much more likely.
easier to follow if you answer with @User rather than the number of the question. the ordering changes according to votes. We don't know who you are answering to...
@step I was just enumerating as list of possible thoughts, not responding to other answers or comments.
There are a number of factors that go into the preparing a good steak.
How the beef was raised, butchered, aged. Obviously you have no direct control of this, except in where you shop.
The cut of the meat. How to select the best steak that you can for your budget.
Storing the steak (if you aren't buying it to cook the same day).
Marinating or salting.
Heat.
Resting.
Sauce/gravy/spices added afterwards.
A great steak is like religion. Lots of people will claim their way is the only way to heaven.
Suggestions:
Don't go overboard in buying the most expensive cuts until you're started to get good results with decent cuts.
Buy the same day so you don't have worry about storage yet.
Start with a simple, thorough salt covering 1 hour before cooking (same time as you take them out of the fridge to start warming up). Rinse off and dry right before cooking.
The level of heat you need is dependent on how you like your steak. The more rare you want the inside, the hotter and faster the cooking method needs to be to still sear the outside properly.
Rest the steak so the flavor doesn't leak out as soon the steak is cut.
A great steak shouldn't really NEED any other flavor, but what matters is your preferences.
Keep in mind that a well marbled steak actually needs to be cooked a bit longer than your standard supermarket steak. You need the marble fat to melt and coat each strand of muscle fibre. Now, if all you have to work with is grocery store beef, then by all means cook it rare. But good beef should go at least medium rare to medium. But be careful, you really don't want it any more than medium.
Also, do not discount the importance of standing time. The heat and juices need to redistribute themselves through the meat, particularly to the center.
Lean meats (and I'm thinking about bison and moose here) aren't marbled well at all, and should be served as raw as you find appetizing.
Assuming all you've got is grocery store, here's my grilling technique (for a 3/4 inch steak):
2 hours prior, wash and pat dry steak. Return to fridge, uncovered, to allow the surface to dry completely.
1 hour prior, remove from fridge and let it rise to room temperature (Remember your 4 hour bacterial growth time here—if in doubt, skip this step).
Immediately prior to grilling, spice and salt the steak. I prefer Montreal Steak Spice.
Get the grill as hot as you can. Mine will hit 750 degrees.
Lay steaks on hot grill at a 45 degree angle (/). Grill 2 minutes.
After two minutes, Rotate (not flip!) the steaks to the vertical (|). If possible, move it to an unused part of the grill. This will make for nice diamond charring.
2 minutes, flip (to a new part of the grill, 45 degree angle /)
2 minutes, rotate to the vertical, new part of grill (|)
2 minutes. Kill the flame, move steak to upper rack, and let stand with lid open for 5 minutes.
This will leave you with a rare steak. for medium, increase total time by 2 minutes.
For a thicker steak, you can increase the cooking time by stage in increments of 30 seconds, as well, you let it stand with the lid closed for a few minutes, allowing it to bake, before the final lid open standing.
A lump of blue or brie on the steak during the standing time can be nice as well.
If you are following this but are using a pan and not a Grill, then be aware that 750 degress f is above the flash point of most Vegetable oil (canola is 621). So if you do this you will get a kitchen fire.
I think this method is probably the closest you'll come to that high end steakhouse experience unless you have the kitchen and money to handle installing a restaurant style broiler:
http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/dry-aged-chimney-porterhouse-recipe/index.html
I've had good luck with the limited aging method used in the link above, though if you want to go all out you can order dry-aged steaks and have them delivered.
I follow the method here for seasoning:
http://feeds.seriouseats.com/~r/seriouseatsfeaturesvideos/~3/N14tJIusPl8/the-food-lab-more-tips-for-perfect-steaks.html
As mentioned above resting is imperative and the thicker the steak the more rest time. If you're cooking something thicker than 1 inch I'd definitely let it rest 10 minutes and increase that by a couple minutes for each 1/2 inch thickness you add.
This is closest I reasonably know to come to steakhouse quality at home. I highly recommend you try it at least once.
An unusual technique that I just learned, and I can attest makes a wonderful steak: Low temp oven baking, followed by high heat searing. I found here (thank you Nom Nom Paleo) originally, but I'll paraphrase below because links and websites have a way disappearing.
Get the very best steak you can find.
Let it come to room temperature before cooking. About an hour (an important step, often bypassed).
Preheat the oven to 275˚F with a rack in the middle.
I rinse and pat the steak dry (I believe this is important).
Trim excess fat (to your preference)
Salt and Pepper the steak (both sides)
Put the steaks on a wire rack set baking sheet, set in the 275 oven
For medium rare, bake until the center of the cut is 90˚F to 95˚F (20 to 25 minutes) (maybe 95˚F to 105˚F for medium?)
About 5 minutes before you expect to remove the steak from the oven, get a cast iron pan on the stove top on high heat. (5 minutes for me, because I have electric, gas is probably 2 minutes to heat a pan)
Remove the steak from the oven. It will have a faux aged beef look to it. It's not a good look, be patient.
Throw a chunk of butter in the hot pan, then sear the steaks on the top and bottom about two minutes each side.
Using tongs and gentle handling, sear the sides.
Let the steaks rest unmolested on a plate for 10 minutes, loosely covered by foil (probably the most neglected step in all of steak cookery).
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is the increased use of sous vide. Sous vide is perfect for very thick cuts of meat that you want to cook evenly throughout. Then use a very, very hot grill to sear and finish. No grey edges.
Get a meat thermometer that you can leave in while it cooks. Since obtaining one of these, every cut of beef (or any other meat I grill) has been a winner.
Sear under high heat broiler. I love the charcoal chimney method I learned from Alton Brown. 90 seconds underneath the chimney, flip to other side for 90 sec then finish on hot grill. Perfection.
It's all really about the product you start with. Dry Aged, Dry Aged, Dry Aged. I can't emphasize this enough. If you don't have a butcher in your town or city, I believe you can order beef online in the US/Canada, probably elsewhere as well. It's expensive, but it's worth it if you want to replicate that very expensive steakhouse experience.
This might be over the top, but I have cooked steaks like this, and I find it even better than many steak houses, assuming you are starting with an amazing product.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgF3gKBNKbM
An alternate for a smaller steak, is to dry your steak and let it come up to room temperture. Let the pan get smoking hot, literally. Salt the steak, no pepper, it will burn. Put the steak down, for 30 seconds, flip, 30 seconds, flip, 30 seconds, flip, 30 seconds, flip. Repeat until you've cooked for 2.5 minutes on each side (variable on how thick your steak is). This will form a really really great crust, while keeping the inside nice and rare, as the outside retains the heat, but the inside doesn't get penetrated by as much.
LET IT REST! This has been said repeatedly, and it's true. The biggest mistake home cooks make is cutting into that bad boy too early. IT's beter to have a luke warm steak that's rested, over a steak cut into too early. Resting allows the juices to be absorbed back into the muscle. Try to rest it on a rack so it's not swimming in juice, reducing the crustiness effect of it.
Try a flavored butter, blue cheese (cambazola is a nice starter blue), add pepper. Slice on the bias, and enjoy!
2.5 minutes per side is only good if the steak is 30 mm fat, otherwise that would kill a typical cut
AAA ribye
Searing hot grill
Dip in soy sauce
Grill and salt and pepper as you turn
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.015079
| 2010-07-26T00:05:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3218",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Amateur Baker",
"BWFC",
"Boiling Water",
"ChristopherLowe",
"DHayes",
"Doug DuCap",
"Escoce",
"Fred",
"Gabe",
"Gani Simsek",
"Joe",
"Judy Moodley",
"K. Crow",
"Marc Bouvier",
"Megha",
"Michael Wolf",
"Mike Eging",
"Ocaasi",
"P.Brian.Mackey",
"Ryan Elkins",
"Sol Banganan",
"Stephane",
"TFD",
"That Realtor Programmer Guy",
"Tim Gilbert",
"bmargulies",
"ceejayoz",
"dj624 ",
"dotancohen",
"draksia",
"gareth",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/812",
"klypos",
"rbrayb",
"ronnieDrew",
"some dumb guy",
"tony",
"tony19",
"trampster"
],
"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
}
|
2349
|
Why do things smell good while cooking but have little flavour when finished
While cooking, particularly things that cook slowly on the hob, it smells really good while cooking but when finished it never seems to have as much flavour as I hoped.
Am I doing something wrong or does this happen to everyone?
You're inhaling all the flavor!
Add salt or MSG. These help intensify your perception of the flavor in the food.
This is common. Certain foods (COFFEE!!!) just smell better than they taste.
@chris: coffee tastes like addiction. Mmmmm... addiction.
There are two components to flavor: aroma and taste. The wonderful smells you get are the volatiles of the ingredients you have been cooking, and while they add a lot to dishes, aromas are just part of what makes food enjoyable. One also needs to worry about taste, and that may be the missing part. When I decided to improve my cooking three years ago I was mystified by flavors. I wanted to know how spices worked and how to use them better, but all the reading and experimenting did not help my cooking.
Then I learned the Remick Maxim (lower the temperature when possible) and the quality of what I made went up more than in the entire previous year. I then heard Thomas Keller speak about salting and things clicked. One has to get the salt, acid, and sweetness of the dish right or everything else amounts to nothing. Once I learned to pay attention to taste, spices became easier.
The next steps have been:
Understand caramelization (the Maillard process or reaction), it is a great source of flavor.
The main ingredient needs to be rich in flavor. Even something as simple as rice will make a difference. Try making rice with Basmati from India or Pakistan, where they age the rice before selling.
There are a lot of underdeveloped recipes out there. Beware.
Use spices in groups that traditionally grow in the same region. Cumin and coriander, basil and thyme.
One thing that can never be overstated with slow cooking is the flavor of your liquid.
If you slow cook in plain old chicken broth, it'll taste little better than if you cooked in water. You need to flavor and reduce the liquid before you add the meat, in order to maximize your flavors. Broth, wine, garlic, herbs, onions, carrots, etc, and cook it down before you add the meat, so that the meat can bubble happily in a bath of flavor.
And for gods sake, never add water. You have an opportunity to add something, so add something tasty.
Yes. It makes a big difference to use a flavorful broth.
I had the same experience for years. You're not doing anything wrong.
It is generally in the nature of flavourings (spices, herbs, even vegetables) to release a shock of scent when they hit the heat, which is where the smell comes from.
Also, particularly with slow-cooking dishes like casseroles, rich thick sauces or things like dahls and curries the flavour when you turn the heat off isn't as good as you think it should be.
The trick with these things is to remember that the chemistry is still going on even after the cooking is done.
I find, particularly with slow cooking dishes, that they tend to taste better the next day. In fact, these days I make Indian style dishes before going to bed, and then pack them for lunch the next day.
Remember that the flavour of your dish is going to depend on how diluted or concentrated the flavour actually is.
To make a stock based liquid more concentrated, you can reduce it (by simmering quickly). This allows water to evaporate as steam, which creates a stronger flavour.
Alternatively - sometimes you need to add more seasoning. It's a good idea to taste your food regularly as you cook, so you can make judgements about the correct ratios (and adjust as necessary).
With many recipes, starting with a good stock (or bouillon) is a very good way of ensuring that your dish starts off in a flavoursome way. I'd recommend doing some research in this area.
+1 for the comment about tasting as you cook. not enough people do this, then wonder why their meal doesn't taste good.
This sometimes happens to me, but I've learned some good ways to avoid it:
Cook things slower. A lot of spices take time to work their way into the food, particularly if you're working on a bland base like rice or pasta.
Add a little more salt. Salt brings out existing flavors, and can do wonders for a bland dish.
Add a little more oil/butter. Butter, especially, brings out existing flavors and adds a wonderful creamy texture.
Try marinating or brining your meats before you cook them.
Try steaming your vegetables instead of boiling them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.016719
| 2010-07-20T14:43:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2349",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"AmbiguousX",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Joshua Partogi",
"Martijn Verburg",
"Peter Steinberg",
"Shog9",
"Tree77",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"papin",
"pmod",
"zeedo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3053
|
Are you supposed to eat the rind of Brie cheese?
I've heard that it's OK to eat this, but I think it tastes gross. Are you really supposed to?
If you don't, the brie police will break down your door and beat you with the rind until, broken and smelling faintly of ammonia, you give in and eat it.
@Knives You're absolutely right. I'm still in hospital from the last time I threw out the rind.
It's a personal preference. It's certainly edible, and it won't hurt you. I find the texture a little weird. Generally you can eat the rind of almost any cheese. However, make sure you're not mistaking a wax coating for rind.
I think it is considered uncultured to not eat the rind, in some circles at least.
I like it fine; on good cheeses it seems like that outer layer has a lot of interesting flavor. I love it when at things like industry conference buffets thrown by giant rich corporations the good (or great) brie rinds gets mostly left behind for me :-)
If you don't like the taste of it, don't eat it. I suggest adopting that policy as a general rule. You might consider using the rinds with other old cheese nubs from your fridge to make cheese spreads/dips (food-processored with some white wine, a little salt, maybe mustard, etc).
Great rule! That's how I got through two months in China, with the added caveat, "Stop asking what you're eating."
I like the rind, but only on fresh Brie. If it has been in the fridge for a week or so, the rind will develop a pungent flavor that I don't like, even though the cheese itself is fine. Any longer than that, and all the cheese starts to take on the strong rind flavor. Not good eats.
@JSM the trick is not to keep the cheese in the fridge. In my experience it will ripen not well but only the rind deriorates. Outside it ripens throughout.
Such spreads are how a very typical Munich dish was developed. [Obatzter][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obatzda] over-ripe Camembert rests mushed with spices and condiments. Eaten throught summer along with Bretzn in Biergarten. The worse the cheese, the better the Obatzte.
You don't have to, but I think it adds to the texture and gives an interesting counterpoint to the cheese.
If you're doing baked brie in puff pastry, however, I'd recommend shaving it down so that its thinner...the extra layer gets a little weird, makes people struggle with it.
It is edible, but there's definitely mold on the rind of brie. (Much like a lot of cheeses). Personally I don't like the taste; so I cut through the rind and eat the nice creamy part of brie. Most every cheese that smells (limburger cheese, etc), smells the way it does because of the rind.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.017154
| 2010-07-23T23:59:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3053",
"authors": [
"Aaron S",
"Debbie Zaretsky",
"Echilon",
"JSM",
"Matthew Flaschen",
"PolyPixiePaladin",
"Ritwik Bose",
"Shog9",
"gicappa",
"gschenk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"wageoghe",
"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/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8767
|
How to fix a sauce that is too sweet?
A while ago I attempted to make the Better than Olive Garden Alfredo Sauce from food.com.
One of the ingredients it calls for is heavy cream and as I live in Canada where they don't sell heavy cream I decided to substitute it for equal amounts whipping cream. The other ingredients called for are sweet butter (I used unsalted butter), minced garlic cloves, white pepper, grated parmesan cheese, mozzarella cheese and pasta.
The finished sauce was way to sweet and we didn't finish our plates let alone keep the leftovers. The only sweet ingredient I can see is the heavy cream so I am guessing the problem lies with that ingredient so I ask... Did I substitute the right ingredient for the heavy cream? Should I have changed the portions? What do you recommend.
Are you looking for an answer that balances or eliminates the sweetness?
At the minimal balances the sweetness though elimination also works....
As daniel says, they most definitely sell heavy cream in Canada, it's just called whipping cream. Go by the fat content and ingredients, not the name.
I made it again and it tasted WAY better. I used half and half (10%) instead of whip cream and added more salt.
Unless there was sugar in your cream, there's nothing particularly sweet about this combination. Did you salt the pasta water to roughly seawater saltiness? If not, did you adjust salt before serving? If your pasta water was under-salted, that would explain the sweetness, since the only significant source of salt otherwise was the parmesan.
Heavy cream is equivalent to 36-40% whipping cream.
In the event that your cream was pre-sweetened, there's not much you could do except add salt and hope the sugar doesn't overwhelm. It's a fairly common technique to add sugar to a salty dish to make it taste richer, or salt to a sweet dish for a similar purpose. But it wouldn't work very well if the cream was very sweet. Since I've never seen sweetened whipped cream except in aerosol dispensers, I can't say for sure.
Whipping cream is sold in versions that contain sugar and versions that don't contain sugar. Did you use a version that contains sugar? If so, try the version without.
Yes: in the US, "heavy cream" is completely equivalent to "whipping cream". In fact, some cartons say "heavy whipping cream". None of them contain any sugar.
Sweetened whipping cream is a product, both in the US and Canada. https://altadenadairy.com/products/sweetened-vanilla-whipping-cream-paper-half-gallon/
Hypothetically speaking, if you are stuck with the dairy ingredients you have and are looking for a way to harness the sweetness, but don't want to add food ingredients, you could add sage and basil to make it more savory but keep to the sweet notes. While the sage gives you a nice base, basil will take you past the sweetness with its floral notes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.017446
| 2010-11-02T15:12:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8767",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"FuzzyChef",
"Gianni",
"Kyra",
"Marti",
"OhGawd",
"Rajesh",
"alvaro",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"marty",
"mfg",
"walkerlaw"
],
"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
}
|
6109
|
Is MSG necessary or what to replace it with?
I have always heard that you should stay away MSG. For example when buying bouillon crystals we should always make sure that it doesn't contain MSG. Yet I came across this recipe for spinach soup that calls for 1/2 teaspoon of MSG. This got me wondering are there any pros to MSG. Should we stay away from it or should we incorporate it into our diet and if so should we limit how much we ingest? If it is 'bad' then is there something I can replace it with when a recipe calls for it?
You should refer to the discussion here:
Are MSG and Accent (Seasoning) the same thing?
Some relevant points:
MSG is found naturally in seaweed and other things. It is used to enhance the flavors it is combined with.
It is completely harmless unless you are limiting your sodium intake. Check out the wikipedia article on the subject as a starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate#Health_concerns
In short there has been no linkage to any adverse effects found in many controlled studies.
As far as replacing it- You can leave it out altogether or add a little salt.
Seaweeds contain glutamic acid, which stimulates the same mouth-parts as MSG (the glutamate R-group is what the mouth is sensitive to). Also: Some people don't like it. Just a matter of taste.
Great answer. MSG is monosodium glutamate. It is the salt of a sodium ion and glutamic acid. Both of these are know to be safe individually, and as such, it's difficult to understand why MSG would be bad. It is possible that the manufacturing process adds some sort of harmful contaminate, but it is more likely that the perception of MSG as dangerous has caused people to have a negative psychological reaction to it.
my friend's seizures are not a psychological reaction. For him all the glutamates are excitotoxins to his vulnerable brain. I am fine with them as are most healthy adults thus the inconclusive results.
MSG has been the subject of debate because of its possible effects on health -- most commonly headaches. While there is a stigma attached to MSG, there hasn't been any conclusive research to show that MSG is in fact linked to adverse reactions.
MSG (aka glutamates) serves as a flavor enhancer. Using it creates a richer, meatier, mushroomy taste and brings out the flavor in a lot of dishes.
I've seen fish sauce and Mrs. Dash seasoning suggested as suitable replacements for MSG.
Dashi contains lots glutamates. I add some hon dashi to my rice to give it more flavor.
Does alcohol cause headaches? See how difficult it is to pin down the effects of MSG.
This is an interesting topic in that there is a polarisation between people who want to avoid it and those who swear by it.
There is some misinformation in that MSG is not exactly found in nature. Glutamate (or glutamic acid) is a common amino acid - in fact the most common amino acid. Proteins, such as we consume daily, are a combination of amino acids, which are essential to human health (though glutamate is not an essential amino acid, in that we can synthesize it from other amino acids). When glutamic acid is bound to other amino acids, this is called bound glutamate. Bound glutamate produces no umami flavour, and indeed the overwhelming majority of glutamate is bound in proteins.
For example in beef the most abundant amino acid is glutamate, however only 1% of this is unbound glutamate. https://academic.oup.com/jas/article/94/6/2603/4702294
There are specific taste receptors in humans, T1R1 and T1R3, which specifically respond to L-glutamate in its unbound form. In other animals these may respond to L-amino acids more generally. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4942866/#b22
We also have taste receptors for sodium, which make things taste salty.
Here we should note that MSG is the sodium salt of L-glutamate. What does this mean? Well originally MSG was produced from kelp, which contain free glutamate. This process is discussed here https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/3/728S/4597145 but was and remains a highly industrialized process and is not reasonably describable as natural. Nowadays MSG is produced using bacteria species such as Corynebacterium glutamicum, which digest glucose into glutamic acid.
The specific context of MSG is that it dissolves very easily, which glutamic acid does not. When it is dissolved, you will have a sodium ion (Na+) and a glutamate ion (C5H8NO4-). Here we CAN note that if you boiled beef, or seaweed, or whatever, then you would end up with water with sodium ions, and with glutamate ions dissolved.
And if you add MSG to water then you also have water with sodium and glutamate ions. So when it's dissolved, it's not possible to distinguish glutamate ions from industrially produced MSG from those that occur naturally in beef, or are produced during fermentation, or whatever. So functionally it's best to think of MSG as 'free glutamate'. The sodium turns out be barely relevant, in that while high sodium is unhealthy, sodium chloride is 40/60 by weight between sodium and chlorine, meanwhile MSG is 12/88 ratio between sodium and glutamate. Larger negative ions apparently also have the effect of making the sodium taste less salty, so MSG doesn't taste at all salty, and may be a bad substitute for salt in context when a salt/sodium flavour is specifically required
E.g. this graph shows that the amino acids which create crab flavour don't result in a proper crab flavour without added salt
Equally if you consider MSG as an additive to food for flavour purposes, then for example:
(https://academic.oup.com/view-large/164182789)
adding MSG to plain boiled rice resulted in lower scores from tasters
adding salt had little effect
adding salt + soy sauce (which contains free glutamate ions along with other amino acids) made it taste better
I have read some very bad takes by people who think you can just add MSG to something with no flavour and it will taste great. You can't.
At the same time, those who claim that MSG is unhealthy are simply wrong. There is simply no difference between a glutamate ion from MSG (which industrially is very pure and clean) and one found in a steak or tomato. Some online sites came a more generalized 'free glutamate sensitivity' (in which case you might want to avoid sources of free glutamate generally, not MSG at all) but these don't seem to be reproducible in controlled studies. https://www.nature.com/articles/1602526?foxtrotcallback=true
There are various ways to produce highly concentrated glutamate, for example this patent covers producing industrial glutamate from tomatoes:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US6890574B1/en
The purpose of this invention is to be 'healthier', for people who are scared of MSG. However the chemical outcome is exactly the same - glutamate ions in your food, it just doesn't need to be labelled as MSG.
Still I'd note some issues with MSG:
as noted too much MSG can make things taste worse, so you need to be careful adding too much
MSG is very highly pure. Commercial MSG is at least 85% free L-Glutamate. The highest occurring free glutamate in foods are (https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/publications/documents/MSG%20Technical%20Report.pdf):
Marmite 1.96%
Parmesan 1.2%
Fish sauce ~1%
Oyster Sauce 0.9% [the source does not indicate whether this is an MSG-free version]
Peas 0.2%
If you consider, for example, a Parmesan biscuit recipe, then Parmesan might be 1/3 of the recipe. Allowing for moisture loss during cooking the resultant free glutamate would be around 0.5%. This is not far from stated optimimum palatability for MSG, which is 0.6%. However of course, MSG is not a substitute for ingredients and flavours. If you consider a Thai green curry with 3 tbsp of fish sauce (roughly 0.5g free glutamate) then it will certainly have a strong umami flavour, but the other flavours from the fermented fish will bring more than just adding MSG to a chicken curry.
In other words - if you have a big tub of MSG, then you can easily add too much MSG, because a tsp of MSG is going to add as much glutamate as a large piece of Parmesan cheese, and because it's highly pure it's going to be harder to distribute it properly (in this context, for example when making Chinese food, it might be a good idea to mix it with other sauces before adding it to a stir fry, so there is no possibility of MSG 'clumps')
This is a vegetable bouillon powder:
I believe it is quite popular with parents cooking for their children, as it is 'organic', and contains no MSG.
However, referring to the ingredients:
Sea salt, Hydrolysed Vegetable Protein, Potato Starch, Palm Oil, Vegetables 8% (celery, onions, carrots, leeks) Lactose, Spices, (turmeric, white pepper, garlic, mace, nutmeg) Parsley, Lovage.
HVP is made from vegetable proteins, boiled in hydrochloric acid. This process breaks the bonds between the amino acids in the proteins, and further breaks down glutamine into glutamic acid. Thus depending on the process (an enzymatic HVP process is also possible, which doesn't break down glutamine, resulting in a lower-glutamate HVP) and the protein source (e.g. soy), HVP is 15% glutamate.
It wouldn't be accurate to say that HVP is MSG, but once you add that expensive organic powder to a soup, then it's got the exact same glutamate ions floating around as if you had added MSG....
That's not to say this powder is bad. Here I think it's worth bringing up two related chemicals often found with MSG, which are disodium guanylate, and disodium inosinate. These are salts of IMP (inosinic acid) and GMP (guanylic acid). These are not glutamate, but they work with it to increase umami response in the glutamate receptors.
Here is a product made by the world's best known MSG producer, Ajinomoto sold in Malaysia and Indonesia:
The ingredients: salt, sugar, MSG, IMP, GMP, chicken powder, chicken fat, garlic powder, artificial chicken flavour, shallot, hydrolysed soy protein, spices
This is extremely popular additive to vegetable dishes, chili pastes, curries, and more, and it contains not just MSG, but also two MSG 'enhancers', IMP & GMP.
Cooks in Indonesia or Malaysia may refer to it as 'ajinomoto' (which is the brand name, but is also often a synonym for 'crystalline MSG') or 'penyedap' (flavour enhancer). Because it is so common to cook with such powders, many restaurants advertise 'tanpa penyedap' (without flavour enhancer).
From a culinary perspective it is not really plausible to get the best flavour out of a dry packet. Lots of cheap foods, such as grilled meatballs (processed meat), contain large amounts of such 'penyedap', and you can smell it from afar, and it does not smell anything like grilled satay made from chicken. To me it's an unpleasant smell. I doubt the MSG is to blame, more likely the artificial chicken powder and other things.
A restaurant that advertises 'no MSG' or the local language equivalent, might well make higher quality food, in that you can make an extremely umami-rich tasty sauce without any MSG, but it's going to use more ingredients and take more time than just adding some artificial chicken powder/MSG blend to your boiled vegetables. OTOH, adding a higher than usual amount of MSG can help reduce the amount of salt needed to make something tasty, which could be useful on a low-sodium diet, so 'no MSG' doesn't necessarily mean the food is healthier (it might not even be 'more natural', but it might be a reasonable indicator that the restaurant is using more expensive ingredients. In some places of course, it might just mean 'bland food, white people eat here'. But that's not the case in rural Indonesia where plenty of places 'tanpa penyedap' have no white customers at all.).
So I would consider distinguish several categories of 'MSG' here:
stock powders, bouillon powders, 'Maggi powder' and so on - whether they contain 'MSG' or not isn't that important, because they are pretty much all going to contain free glutamate. E.g., a 'Knorr stock pot' contains yeast extract (Marmite, effectively), which is a source of free glutamate. It's probably higher quality than the 'Masako' above in that it doesn't contain artificial flavours. But then it does cost more. It also doesn't contain IMP or GMP, which I guess reflects different levels of consumer education in the West vs SE Asia - a lot of Western consumers want 'all-natural', and IMP or GMP don't really have a way in there, whereas 'reading the label' seems to be less of a priority in a lot of developing countries.
processed foods, which rely heavily on MSG and usually IMP & GMP as well - instant noodles, potato chips and so on. Most of these are 'bad food' in that they are cheap and unhealthy. But MSG isn't the reason why they are bad, the MSG is just there to help the cheap processed stuff taste better.
things that contain significant amounts of free glutamate as a result of fermentation, ageing, drying, or other culinary process - e.g., miso paste, soy sauce, fish sauce. Here MSG in the ingredients isn't inherently a bad thing, in that you're not going to go over the glutamate palatability threshold simply because your oyster sauce contains MSG (because oyster sauce is strong enough that your food's fault would be 'too sweet' or 'too salty', not excess glutamate). BUT, a sauce or whatever without MSG (or cheat's version like HVP) may contain more of the natural ingredients.
E.g.: the ingredients for Lee Kum Kee Panda Oyster sauce:
Water, sugar, salt, oyster extractives (oyster, water, salt), monosodium glutamate as a flavor enhancer, modified corn starch, wheat flour, caramel color.
vs. the Green (MSG-free, gluten-free) version:
Water, sugar, salt, oyster extractives (oyster, water, salt), modified corn starch, caramel color.
In this case both likely contain the same amount of oyster and hence natural free glutamate, and it may be that the green version simply has less total glutamate, rather than any more oyster to make up for the missing MSG. In other cases, though, a lack of MSG (and its proxies) could be a good thing IF it means more of the expensive raw ingredients have been used, instead of a lower quantity with MSG to achieve the same outcome - if I was buying a fish sauce, I'd probably prefer one that only contains fish, salt, sugar, and water, rather than a different brand with MSG as well, because the first one is likely to have more fish in it.
The tl;dr is that MSG itself is not bad at all, but it's fundamental to a lot of really bad, processed food and cheap, unnutritious food. When cooking at home most cultures have a source of free glutamate, e.g., British cooks might add Marmite (yeast extract) or Bovril (hydrolysed vegetable protein), Japanese cooks might add soy sauce or miso paste, and so on. These various umami sources are going to be more expensive than pure MSG, but they will also add more to the flavour of your dish than MSG would do, because they aren't a single amino acid, but many. A variety of high-umami sauces, etc., in your kitchen is going to add more diversity to your cooking than MSG alone, to the extent that it's not obvious you really need MSG, but using MSG isn't bad either....
This is a powerhouse of an answer. Well done.
You would find it difficult to stay away from MSG since it occurs naturally in most foods.
Concerning the dangers of using it as a taste enhancer, I imagine the health issues are similar to those of other sodium salts.
it's actually considered positive to use MSG in some cases because then you can get away with less salt.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.017739
| 2010-08-27T02:09:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6109",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Pat Sommer",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"iman1003",
"justkt"
],
"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
}
|
13562
|
How to stop my cupcakes from sticking to their cupcake wrappers?
I have found that every time I make cupcakes (or muffins, cornbread & hot dog muffins, etc) that the paper liner sticks to the finished cupcake. I know its not me because the Tim Hortons 'muffins' also stick to their liners.
How do I fix this?
You want to kill the experience of scraping the remainder of muffin from the wrapper with spoon/fingers/teeth? You barbarian!
There was an edit to this question which really turned it into an answer; please feel free to post an additional answer, but don't remove the question itself.
Isn't that normal?
I suppose if it's causing a problem, you could use a non-stick (teflon, etc.) muffin pan, without the paper liners.
You could also try silicone-coated (parchment) liners. A quick check reveals that e.g., Amazon sells them.
<purist>cornbread shall be cooked in preheated cast iron, and if that's sticking, you need to season your cast iron properly.</purist>
Thanks... and they were muffins with cut up hot dogs and corn... really good... and bite sized :D
I've had this happen too and I've found this little trick helps. Line your muffin/cupcake tin with your papers and then give the papers in the pan a light coating with non-stick spray.
One question would be why do you need the wrappers? If you don't need them at all, just grease the pans and don't use them.
I once agreed to make cupcakes for a wedding**, and as I knew this was a potential problem (and I didn't want people dressed nicely having to struggle with unwrapping frosted cupcakes), I greased the muffin tins, and purchased larger than normal wrappers. Once the cupcakes were baked, I removed them from the pan, and just placed them in the wrappers.
** I actually agreed to make a cake. I was told 'just a plain white cake'. So I took 3 months of cake decorating classes. Then somehow it changed to '150 cupcakes, with a rose on each one' ... luckily, I found a place where I could buy the roses, but I had to clean 'em out.
I agree, I never use wrappers myself for muffins or cupcakes. Instead, I spray the pans with cooking spray; I find the cupcakes release just fine.
If you put them upside down into the microwave under a wet paper towel for 15 seconds, the cupcake papers come right off.
Have you tried the silicone baking cup liners? My wife and daughter used it whenever they bake muffins and banana bread and with perfect result, no burnt side and bottom and evenly cooked muffins non-sticky and easy to slide cupcakes and banana breads. You don't need to buy paper cupcake liners everytime because silicone cupcake liners are reusable and easy to clean. To learn more see...
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00P87R4PO
I second the non-stick spray. Another suggestion would be putting a water bath in to keep the muffins or cupcakes from drying out too much and sticking to the paper.
I've found cooking them in paper cases and silicone cases seems to stop them sticking. I think the silicone stops the moisture escaping and the paper means they don't stick to the silicone.
The question is how to keep them from sticking to the paper liner.
Put the paper inside a silicone mould. I think the silicone stops them from drying out in the over which seems to make them more likely to stick.
Slide a cookie sheet filled with water under the bottom rack. The moisture in the oven prevents the muffin from sticking to the paper liners.
Never heard of that one! I'll have to give it a shot!
Using tin foil type liners instead of paper ones has worked for me in the past.
My muffin recipe calls for melted butter, so I brush a little into the bottom of the wrappers and up the sides a bit. Works a treat. I've also seen greaseproof silicone ones that might be worth a try.
I used both paper liners and the foil outer they did not stick. Then I bought cheaper paper and they stuck really bad.
I stumbled upon Wilton parchment paper cupcake liners and voila!, no sticking to the paper. Something must be different though because cupcakes never used to stick to paper liners like they do now. The parchment works great though. Jo-Ann's sells them and you can find them in stores where Wilton products are sold.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.018893
| 2011-03-29T17:25:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13562",
"authors": [
"Andrey",
"Echilon",
"EllDeeAitch",
"Gail Nicholls",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kyra",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SF.",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer",
"Zainab",
"con mc",
"howard baker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97501",
"nrbray",
"shradharawat"
],
"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
}
|
13682
|
How would I make a Paleo yogurt-based frozen custard?
OK, I've been tasked with making a Paleo dessert, and I'd like to try to make a frozen dessert. Here are the ground rules for Paleo desserts: only fermented dairy (yogurt is fine, milk and cream are not), only honey and maybe palm sugar as sweeteners, eggs are fine, nuts are fine, raw coconut oil is fine.
I'm thinking it might be possible to combine full-fat yogurt, strained perhaps, with egg yolks and honey, bring it up to 170 to make a custard, then chill, to get something that would freeze acceptably in a standard home ice cream machine.
Any suggestions? Would this work? I'd think it would taste good, especially with some chopped almonds and berries mixed in, but I'm worried about texture. What issues will I have with using honey as the sole sweetener? Will there be enough fat in the yogurt?
Frozen yogurt made with full fat yogurt is very creamy and full flavored. You might find that the eggs are unnecessary.
If you do do the custard watch you temperature carefully as yogurt curdles easily when it is heated. If you have a lot of fat in the yogurt then it will be resistant to curdling otherwise you can take out some insurance by mixing in a little bit of corn starch- if that is allowed.
Honey is perfectly fine and many frozen yogurt recipes call for it.
I ended up with a recipe of 3 egg yolks, 12 oz of Greek (strained) yogurt, and 1.8 oz of honey. Whisked the yogurt and honey together over a double boiler, then tempered into the eggs and mixed, then heated the whole thing up to custard temp (170) and cooled. Made a pretty good, smooth-textured, if simple-tasting, frozen custard! Will want some other components for balance. The honey-only sweetening was fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.019253
| 2011-04-02T16:21:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13682",
"authors": [
"Harlan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5019
|
Can I substitute quinoa flour for bleached flour in a baking recipe?
I wanted to substitute Quinoa Flour for bleached in an apple nut-bread recipe - will it work, any adjustments for similar substitutions in general?
According to Bob's Red Mill, which makes the quinoa flour that I use:
You can substitute this flour for half of the all-purpose flour in many recipes or completely replace wheat flour in cakes and cookie recipes.
You can do whatever you want :)
The flavor of quinoa is significantly different than that of white flour, and the consistency tends to be a bit grittier (although this is probably a function of the milling process). The other thing that quinoa lacks is gluten--the protein that makes bread doughs rubbery and stretchy.
Gluten is necessary when making yeast breads to capture the CO2 released by yeast to make nice bubbles in the bread, although there are workarounds to try and mimic the consistency that have been developed by people with gluten allergies. For some ideas, see What are good techniques for getting gluten free bread to rise? for some ideas. If you aren't opposed to gluten, you can buy gluten, usually at health food stores. It is usually labeled as "vital wheat gluten". Add about 1/6th as much as the flour the recipe calls for.
If the bread is a quick bread (using a something like baking powder as the leavening agent), you should be able to sub without changing the recipe. You'll need to keep an eye on the consistency since the quinoa will probably absorb a bit more or a bit less water depending on how finely it was milled.
If you're going completely gluten-free then you'll need something like arrowroot or potato starch to help hold bubbles as the break bakes. The tiniest bit of xanthan gum would also do wonders.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.019415
| 2010-08-12T17:03:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5019",
"authors": [
"Bryan Crosby",
"Eric Goodwin",
"J..",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9730",
"user9713"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4323
|
How do you cook frozen Lobster Tails?
I recently received a large bag of small Lobster Tails (4-6 oz each) that are frozen - It says Slipper Lobster Tails on the package. Any Ideas as to the best way to prepare - defrost first, boil right away, how long to cook?
Its much like a frozen Shrimp, definetly better defrosting first, either in a cold water bath or leaving them in the fridge. If they are individualy frozen they should defrost really fast in cold water.
Grilling is my favorite way to have them, they are amazing and easy to do. I would think that broil/bake/saute methods would be tastier than boiling.
There's a quality difference between cold-water and warm-water lobster tail. If you're sure you have good quality, don't sweat it, but if you're unsure, prepare a dish that has more accompanying flavor's.
There are many suggestions on preparation out there (Google is your friend), but thawing them first (fridge or microwave defrost) is almost always recommended.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.019585
| 2010-08-05T12:28:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4323",
"authors": [
"Brett Burky",
"Lorenzo Von Matterhorn",
"Papa Dez",
"banderson623",
"cjay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8547",
"jconnor",
"johnhunter",
"user8439",
"vegansmarties"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22819
|
Is it true that natural peanut butter splits in cookies?
I was watching a video recipe about peanut butter cookies. The maker mentioned that you shouldn't use all natural peanut butter for making those cookies, because the oils would make your dough split. You should use the other kind (I have no idea what this is).
Is this true?
My peanut butter contains these ingredients: peanuts, vegetable oil, vegetable fat, salt. I'm assuming this isn't 100% natural peanut butter? Is it only natural peanut butter if it contains only peanuts?
Peanut butters that are not "all natural" include cheaper oils along with sugar and emulsifiers to keep the mixture from separating and to make it lighter and smoother.
That lack of emulsifiers could make a huge difference but it depends a lot on the recipe.
In a normal cookie dough fat is creamed with sugar and eggs are beaten in one at a time which adds a ton of emulsification power from the lecithin in the yolks.
Additionally- the fat will bind with the flour and be baked into the cookies. Like Jefromi- I have not had any problem with the fat from natural peanut butter separating out after baking.
If you made a cookie dough and either left out the yolks or didn't beat it well enough to properly emulsify- and then let the batter sit out for a while before baking I would fully expect the peanut oil to separate.
I've made peanut butter cookies with various "all natural" peanut butters, containing no extra oil/fat, just peanuts and possibly salt. They didn't split. I suppose the recipe you're looking at could be somehow different but it seems really unlikely. I haven't even seen splitting in cooked sauces using these kinds of peanut butter, along with plenty of other liquid.
As far as I know, the main thing meant by "all natural" is that it doesn't contain other oils like yours does; those are generally used to replace some of the peanut oil, so that it doesn't separate while in the jar. But separating over a long period of time in the jar is a far cry from splitting in cookie dough where it's mixed with plenty of other ingredients, and probably sits around for a few hours at most before baking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.019709
| 2012-04-06T11:04:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22819",
"authors": [
"Akshay Anand",
"Alger",
"Charlie England",
"Petr Chutny",
"VenomFangs",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55134",
"vidhyaelwa"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25693
|
What knife and cutting technique should I use for cubing bacon?
I like to fry and cook cubed bacon for various dishes, but I sometimes have a hard time cutting through bacon, especially where the fat meets the meat. The bacon just tends to move around too much, and it gets trickier at the end of the slice (or chunk). I usually use a 6 inch serrated knife for this task. What knife would be best - serrated, chef's, or filet? Or something else? Is there some special technique I should be using?
Cutting bacon into cubes was a regular prep task for me when I was cooking professionally, so I got very fast at it. Here are the tricks I found:
Fully cooked (baked) bacon cuts MUCH faster and cleaner, and you can make perfect cubes
Don't use a serrated knife. It'll be easier to cut with, but it will shred and fray the bacon as you slice, eventually making a mess.
Use the sharpest knife you have, especially for uncooked bacon. There's already a tendency for it to slip and slide around, and a sharp knife cuts with less back-and-forth motion.
You want a deep-bellied knife such as a santoku or Chinese cleaver, because you can slice through multiple stacks of bacon at once.
Stack slices of bacon so you can cut multiple pieces at once.
Try to work with 4" by 4" blocks of bacon, so the pieces aren't big enough to slip around as much. With this size you're still able to do a lot at once, but it's fast
Organize your cutting board. Pick one corner for whole chunks of bacon, then cut into strips and move to another spot, then finally into cubes which goes in another spot.
Now if I were a culinary school, you'd have paid a few hundred bucks to learn what I just told you.
Back when I used to work at a restaurant, the kitchen would use pork belly, not bacon (which is cured and smoked). The prep was to braise a large block of pork belly, something like 8" x 8" x 2" (thickness) slowly for a few hours. They'd let it cool and refrigerate it. The next day, they'd cut the chilled block with a non-serrated knife as you've suggested. This would result in true "cubes". It's possible to make a pork belly into bacon using this same process, so long as one has the patience to smoke and brine it first.
@EricHu Yes, when I say bacon, I mean house-cured bacon. We also started from big slabs of pork belly, cured it in the walk-in, and smoked it. We actually used an improvised smoker made from 2 deep full hotel pans plus a slotted insert, with hardwood below. The whole thing sat on a heat source to char the wood and smoke the bacon.
Cool tip, another culinary school lesson :) Is it feasible to use that setup with an oven without resulting in a smokey kitchen?
@EricHu That setup is probably inadvisable without good ventilation. I'd do it outdoors or somewhere with a proper vent hood (what we did).
I first remember seeing Melissa d'Arabian demonstrate using KITCHEN SHEARS to cube bacon during her season on "The Next Food Network Star". I tried it soon after and I find that the scissor action of the shears makes it EASY to cube bacon. Clean, consistent easy to use.
I would say a chef's knife, for sure. Make sure it's sharp! If you've never sharpened your knives (not just honed using a steel) it can make a world of difference.
If you are having troubles, making sure the meat is chilled will help. Straight out of the fridge works okay, but it is even easier if you throw it in the freezer for 15 minutes or so.
Just use a slicing machine for the first 2 cuts (1st=slices, 2nd=stripes) and a sharp blade for the 3rd cut (the cubes). That's probably the fastest and most precise way to cut lots of them :)
Guess I should mention one trick: put them in the fridge/freezer for a while ...
simply because fat on low temperature is way more easy to handle.
I'm not Kramer, I don't have a deli slicing machine at home. Sorry!
You could ask at the butcher's to get them boned out & sliced there already.
There are no bones in bacon.
What we have here (as seen on the picture above) ... there's ordinary 2 soft rips contained, which should be removed prior to cutting... even if they're not exactly a bone :)
Stack and slice with a large santoku or cleaver (you'll need the weight, depth and relatively flat blade)
I use a pair of scissors. This is clearly the most underrated kitchen utensil. I've written an article about my top five - scroll to the bottom to see the scissors.
One huge advantage is that you can do it straight onto the frying pan leaving only the scissors and your fingers for cleaning :-)
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! We're a Q&A site, so we ask that you only link to things if they're actually part of your answer. In this case I don't think the link provides any additional information for this question, so it's basically just an unsolicited advertisement for your site, which is definitely not allowed here. Since this is your first post I'll just edit it out for you, but please refrain from doing this in the future.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.019918
| 2012-08-16T22:50:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25693",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Candyland Crafts",
"Carol Howman",
"Cascabel",
"Craig Hoague",
"Cristobal C",
"D. A.",
"Eric Hu",
"Gigirini",
"Greg Layman",
"John King",
"Katherine Duke",
"Martin",
"Shanna",
"Sheila Tems",
"cosullivan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"jscs",
"smcg",
"user58923"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
26088
|
Mixing liquid margarine and water
I am trying to mix 1 part water and 1 part liquid margarine on a stovetop. I notice it will not mix too well. I would also like to make this sauce thick. What would be the best way to do that?
You're trying to mix oil and water. They shouldn't mix just like that. What are you trying to accomplish?
I'm sure there's a phrase about oil and water not mixing...
Margarine (liquid or otherwise) is mostly plant oils and fats that will not mix, on their own, with water. Even with vigorous mixing you will only get them to stay unseparated temporarily (as with a vinaigrette).
Apart from vinaigrettes you will generally need to use some kind of emulsifying agent to prevent separation. It is difficult to suggest such an agent without a better idea of what kind of sauce you hope to make.
Béchamel sauce, for example, uses roughly equal parts flour and fat to make a roux to which milk is then added. Flour is the emulsifier in this case.
Water and margarine on their own will almost certainly not make a tasty sauce. The closest I can come up with is Beurre blanc which is an emulsion of butter and vinegar or wine. The emulsion relies on compounds that are found naturally in the butter. Although margarine contains emulsifiers, I couldn't say whether they are sufficient to hold a sauce together. Either way, you're not going to get close to Beurre blanc, or anything else with just these two ingredients.
My advice is to find and follow a recipe.
Update: As is so often the case, once I had written this answer I started to doubt myself. Is it really not going to work making a sauce with just margarine and water? Did I really answer the question asked?
Thickened Liquid Margarine (ok, Butter) and Water Sauce
I went to the hob and measured out equal weights of unsalted butter (I've no margarine) and water. I warmed the butter (2 oz) and half the water in a small saucepan. I mixed the rest of the water with a tablespoon of corn starch an whisked this into the contents of the saucepan once the butter had started to melt.
The result is a sauce with the same look and consistency as thick custard. Without salt it tastes very bland, but a quarter teaspoon of salt is enough to make it pleasantly buttery.
Before corn starch was added I saw that the sauce visibly separated after about 1.5 minutes. After it was added the sauce became stable.
Using margarine I guess it won't taste as good, but hey, that's enough guessing.
Chris Steinbach's answer is right. An addition: if you add an emulsifier, you will get an even mix which will even thicken a bit with stirring. You can use lecithine for that. If you want an oil-and-water mix which is not only homogenized but really thicker, use a thickener like xanthan or guar. So, if you relly insist on doing it, there is a way.
But I still can't find a reason why you would want to do this. It is neither easy nor tasty. As the other answer noted, if you want a sauce, get a recipe and follow it. I would start with veloute (beurre blanc is somewhat harder to make, so I wouldn't advise it for a cooking beginner), it is expensive because it uses butter and stock, but the taste is worth it. The method (roux+clear liquid) will even work physically with margarine-based roux and water, but tastewise it won't come near the original.
I suppose you can also make a mayonnaise by adding an egg-yolk.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.020439
| 2012-09-10T02:19:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26088",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"ElendilTheTall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6789
|
When used for measuring ingredients in cooking what is the difference between a "dry ounce" and a "liquid ounce"?
I've seen numerous recipes that call for measuring "liquid ounce" but at the same time telling you to measure something like flour as "dry ounce" - I've even seen references to "fluid ounces". Are they interchangeable when measuring ingredients? If not why, if so why separate the two types of measurements?
Both liquid ounces and fluid ounces are the same. They are a measure of volume. These are commonly called liquid measurements. These include: teaspoon, tablespoon, fluid ounce, cups, pints, quarts, and gallons. Why fluid? Because it's measuring volume.
The term "dry ounce" is one I have never encountered. It's rather confusing and misleading. Technically a dry ounce would imply a measurement of weight. 1 oz = 28g.
Your recipe could be calling for a measurement by weight of flour, or it could be using a terrible phrase "dry ounce" to imply that you should measure the flour with a measuring cup used for dry measure, as opposed to a measuring cup used for liquids.
This is absolutely right. One more valuable thing to know is that for water, an ounce by weight or volume is (very close to) the same. So if you are in a situation where you are estimating, and the thing you need to estimate is similar in density to water, you can treat them effectively interchangeably.
What do liquid measuring items look like or what are they called? I feel like all I have are measuring cups (either plastic or glass)...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.020959
| 2010-09-05T21:10:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6789",
"authors": [
"Michael Natkin",
"Rhea",
"Siddhartha",
"destrada",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2765"
],
"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
}
|
6957
|
Is there a difference between a slow cooker and a crock pot?
What is the difference between a crock pot and slow cooker? Both terms seem to be used for the same thing. Is this correct? Are they the same? Or is there some key difference between them?
Crock-Pot is a brand name. Slow cooker is the generic term.
It's like Kleenex & tissue or for the Brits, Hoover & vacuum.
crock-pot is a American brand-name
slo-cooker is a British brand-name
"slo-cooker" may be a brand name for a generic 'slow cooker', it just happens to be that the British chose a brand name much closer to the generic.
"Crock-pot" has become a genericized brand name; any brand of slow cooker can be called a crock-pot, even though Crock-Pot is a specific brand. For more examples, see wikipedia's list of genericized brand names.
All crock-pots are slow cookers (in the USA), but all slow cookers are not crock-pots. For instance, I inherited a slow cooker from my mother that is essentially a non-stick casserole with a lid that sits on a separate warming unit not unlike an electric griddle. It's pretty useless for cooking, but a decent service unit.
EDIT: Obviously, it is marketed as a slow cooker. Equally obviously, it's not a crock-pot. Down-votes without explanation are very annoying. http://www.target.com/p/west-bend-oblong-slow-cooker-with-tote/-/A-10646883?ref=tgt_adv_XSG10001&AFID=Google_PLA_df&LNM=|10646883&CPNG=Appliances&kpid=10646883&LID=PA&ci_src=17588969&ci_sku=10646883&gclid=CIXhr9TbhroCFYk9QgodURQAUg
THIS is a crock-pot: http://www.target.com/p/crock-pot-stainless-steel-slow-cooker-5-qt/-/A-10963122?ref=tgt_adv_XSG10001&AFID=Google_PLA_df&LNM=|10963122&CPNG=Appliances&kpid=10963122&LID=PA&ci_src=17588969&ci_sku=10963122&gclid=CI_Ln_CUh7oCFQeCQgoddgIAoQ
That is the same device being talked about. It's just designed to be removed from the heating element for transport. Mine does that too, though it's shaped a bit different.
@Yamikuronue talked about where?? The question asked about the difference between crock-pot and slow cooker. I gave an example of a slow cooker that is decidedly NOT a crock-pot. And now I've been down voted twice?
One of the benefits of a "crock pot" is that it heats from the sides as well as the bottom. My slow cooker obviously heats only from the bottom and in no way resembles a crock-pot.
Plus a crock-pot is insulated all around. My not-a-crock-pot is not.
The term slow cooker is the generic product name for a stand-alone appliance with a heating element and ceramic casserole dish that cooks foods with slow, moist heat. As I suspected! My appliance doesn't even really meet the standard for slow cooker (although it is marketed as such), much less crock-pot.
I will grant you this: I wouldn't call it either one. But if it's a slow-cooker, it's a crock-pot, in my book. I was accepting your premise that it was considered a slow-cooker for some reason
It could have something to do with what it calls itself, "West Bend Oblong Slow Cooker with Tote". Is a 30lb roaster a Crock-pot too?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.021125
| 2010-09-08T00:57:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6957",
"authors": [
"Bryson",
"Cheryl",
"Dhamu",
"JoeyChang",
"Jolenealaska",
"Leo",
"Nikolai Novik",
"Spammer",
"Uninspired",
"Yamikuronue",
"Yawus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88031",
"john01dav",
"mishan",
"sadpcd",
"tina",
"vstepaniuk",
"xer0x"
],
"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
}
|
7440
|
Is there a way to infuse roasted coffee beans with different flavors?
I would like to be able to grind my own flavored coffee beans - hazelnut, French vanilla ect.. However, I don't want to buy the coffee beans that are already flavored but would rather try to recreate the infusion method at home. Does it involve soaking the beans, for how long, at what temperature.....
That's an interesting question. How do they do it for the flavored beans that you can buy?
Coffee shops flavor their beans by taking plain roasted coffee, and adding flavoring oils to them. After the oil is tossed with the beans, they are left alone to allow the flavor to soak in for at least 30 minutes.
The coffee flavoring oils are a lot like candy flavoring oils. Although I haven't tried it, I bet you could use those to flavor your beans.
In the land of everything available through the internet, I'd bet you could purchase these coffee bean flavoring oils on-line, and in small quantity. (We bought HUGE jugs of the stuff for the shop!)
I haven't worked in the coffee shop for over 10 years now (since becoming disabled in an unrelated accident), so I can't remember the exact ratio of flavoring to beans. I want to say that for every 1 lbs of beans, we mixed in .03 lbs of flavoring. I don't know what that comes out to be by volume, as we did everything by weight.
As I suspected, you CAN purchase these flavoring oils on the internet. The first hit in a search landed me at a site that allows purchase of flavorings in as little as 2 oz and on up in graduated sizes to gallons. The first hit took me here: http://www.coffeeflavoroils.com/#Home_Roasters
You can also add flavorings into the coffee grounds when in the filter: cinnamon, cloves, nutmeg, orange rind, crystallized ginger, etc. As the coffee brews, it picks up the flavoring.
This works pretty well. I've also roasted and ground almonds with the beans, which makes a very nice almond-flavored coffee (almond extract doesn't even come close to how good this is).
Oh, that sounds delicious!
I do this with cinnamon sometimes and it is indeed delicious. A tiny pinch will flavor a whole pot. Cardamom is nice too.
From my experience, be careful when using really fine powders like cocoa and cinnamon (especially in an espresso machine). They have a tendency to clump and clog filters, which can lead to a big mess to clean up. As long as you use a reasonable amount and mix them in with the grounds, you should be fine though.
Just add the flavor to the brewed coffee; there is no particular advantage in flavoring the beans in advance. Any good brand of flavoring syrup like you see in a coffeehouse can be added to the pot or cup.
All flavor syrups are comprised primarily of sugar, the question is based on not wanting to add flavoring after the fact.
In that case, instead of buying syrup, buy pure flavoring extract. Just as you can add a drop of vanilla extract to your coffee pot, you could do the same with any other flavor you fancy. If you really want to toss it on the beans, you can, but I don't see any upside to that.
The advantages that occur to me would be convenience and consistency. A cup - or even a pot - of coffee requires a very small amount of extract or essential oil for flavor, and personal experience tells me that early morning bleary-eyed preparation is a recipe for disaster... Of course, this is why you're better off using a (mostly sugar-water) syrup or (mostly alcohol-water) flavored spirits. But if you don't like starting your mornings out with the sugar-booze Breakfast Of Champions, I could see trying to flavor the beans as a fair compromise...
We've developed a new way to flavor coffee. It's called "INBRU" and it let's you flavor any coffee - dark roast, light roast, decaf.. - in the brew basket. It's made from recycled American rice hulls and it's pretty amazing. Inbru adds no calories or sweetness. Inbru is not a "whitener." It's simply a way to flavor coffee as you desire. You can check it out at inbru.com
Welcome to the site, and thank you for providing a helpful answer! Please check out the FAQ, where you'll see that you must (in your answer) disclose your affiliation with a product if you're self-promoting. You can just edit to add it in.
@JustRighMenus: I thought the use of 'We' made it apparent.
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to confuse or deceive. I created Inbru and I own the company. Thanks for the forum. It's a nice resource.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.021389
| 2010-09-19T15:03:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7440",
"authors": [
"AttilaNYC",
"Bob",
"Dan",
"Eclipse",
"Howard",
"Jenn",
"Juju",
"JustRightMenus",
"Martha F.",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mimefilt",
"Rodel Sarate",
"Shog9",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"rck",
"rrrrrray",
"sunny",
"user15284"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7583
|
What is the difference between a 63-degree egg and a regular poached egg?
Recently on Master Chef one of the desserts featured a 63-degree egg - what is the difference between that and a regular poached egg?
A 63-degree egg is slow cooked in the shell in a water bath of 63 degrees celsius. The shell is removed after the cooking process. A poached egg is removed from the shell before cooking and cooked in simmering water for a short amount of time. According to this experiment, cooking eggs at slightly different temperatures in a water bath seems to make a difference. Perhaps the more exact cooking temperatures of a 63 degree egg give it a different texture than a regular poached egg.
Yes, also, eggs cooked in their shell at precise temperature are cooked a lot longer, often an hour or two. That means that the yolk is cooked to almost exactly the same temperature as the white. You can get yolks that are at various versions of a perfect soft-boiled egg yolk, while the white is not rubbery. They're very different from poached eggs.
A benefit of the long cooking time at 63 degrees C means the eggs will get pasteurized, whereas regular poached eggs will not get pasteurized. (Of course you can always buy pre-pasteurized eggs if there are safety concerns with poached eggs.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.021758
| 2010-09-24T13:01:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7583",
"authors": [
"Harlan",
"Kang Min Yoo",
"Peter Warbo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"jeffd",
"mpoisot",
"nageeb"
],
"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
}
|
9509
|
What are the options for thawing a frozen turkey?
I'm aware of a few methods (many days in the refrigerator, hours under cold water, etc.) for thawing a whole turkey before cooking it. However, I don't know how these methods balance against each other for,
Speed (do we have days or hours to thaw this turkey?),
Safety (something about bacterial growth),
Ease (is there a trick to this that makes it way more convenient?)
...?
What are the options?
For the visual learners i have a youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXp09HwJjA
Let's start with the assumption that Safety is never in the balance. Safety has to be taken into account for any method that we use and that means that we want to keep any food that is time and temperature sensitive out of the danger zone. The danger zone is the temperature range from 40 degrees F to 140 degrees F.
If you have plenty of time, letting the turkey defrost in the refrigerator is safest and easiest, since there is little that you have to do. The turkey is always out of the danger zone and all you have to do is put it in the refrigerator. However, it can take a very long time, 24 hours for each 5 pounds of turkey weight...4 days for a 20 pound turkey.
Assuming you haven't planned that far ahead, the other safe method is to defrost in the sink with cold running water. The water doesn't need to be pouring out, just a steady stream so the water turns over regularly. Water is a better conductor of heat than air, so the turkey will defrost more rapidly than in the refrigerator.
The danger zone is why you don't want to defrost the turkey using warm water, or just sitting on the counter. In either of those cases, the outside meat is warmed into the danger zone before the inside defrosts, so you have some of the meat (the part that is most likely to have come into contact with contaminants) in a temperature range that promotes bacterial growth.
I don't even want to imagine the water costs from trying to defrost a whole turkey under the tap... even just defrosting a few chicken breasts is a pain!
Ah, that was a good description of, "the danger zone." I get it.
Cooler Thawing
At home we thaw our turkey in a cooler in the tub. This keeps the water cooler longer, frees up the sink, completely submerges the turkey. Make sure to thoroughly clean the cooler before and after with antibacterial dish-washing soap.
The turkey has to be tightly sealed with no leaks. The tissues absorb water and consistency of meat will change.
Keep the water as close to 40 degrees F. as possible. Check frequently. Change water when it is close to 40 (or you can drip the water into it the cooler so it overflows slowly into the tub - For better food safety this is the preferred choice). If you have to leave overnight drip water into cooler.
USDA (USDA Turkey Thawing) says 30 minutes per pound to thaw
or
Turkey Weight - Thaw Time In Cold Water
10 to 14 lbs - 5 to 7 hours
14 to 18 lbs - 7 to 9 hours
18 to 22 lbs - 9 to 11 hours
22 to 26 lbs - 11 to 13 hours
Cook as soon as possible, because this method is not a controlled environment.
Make sure to sanitize your tub.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.021897
| 2010-11-27T09:47:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9509",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andres Jaan Tack",
"Derek",
"Erik",
"Jaif",
"Kshitiz Sharma",
"chrisjlee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95640",
"systemdebt",
"udog"
],
"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
}
|
816
|
How to recover jam that has set too hard?
Every time I make jam I always manage to set it too hard. Is there any way to recover it once it's done this?
This is amazing, for years the question I always get was why has my Jam NOT set. Be thankful :-)
What sort of fruit are you using? Are you adding pectin or getting from fruit too?
The only way I know is by adding some more liquid and warming the mixture, It may or may not improve things...
For what its worth, the consistency of the jam after cooking, tends to be related to the amount of sugar added for a given fruit, with hard skinned fruit typically requiring a slightly different process to soft skinned fruit. It's also controlled by the amount of pectin added to the brew as well as the overall cooking time and temperature.
It depends on the type of pectin you used. There are thermoreversible and thermoirreversible pectins, if I remember correctly. If it is thermoirreversible, the adding liquid+warming won't help.
With my extremely limited knowledge of jamming, I would guess you could try cooking up some more of the fruit, no sugar, no pectin, and stirring a little bit in at a time. As Pulse said, it's the sugar / pectin ratio that get you 'jam'.
I'm extrapolating from my meager knowledge to think that you could lower that ratio with more fruit added.
I'm going to be jamming up some berries soon; if I have a chance, I'll post results here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.022175
| 2010-07-13T10:06:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/816",
"authors": [
"Chelsea",
"James",
"Louis Rhys",
"MGOwen",
"Shaihi",
"TFD",
"eruditass",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"richard",
"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
}
|
10670
|
Can i freeze chocolate cream frosting / ganache?
I made some chocolate cream frosting / ganache (basically just double / heavy cream with plain / bittersweet chocolate, melted and whipped up).
I ended up with twice as much as I need. Can I freeze it or will I simply have to eat it all (oh, the hardship)?
You may absolutely freeze chocolate ganache and most other chocolate preparations. It should keep for up to a year without any noticeable change in quality.
Try to get a tight seal so it doesn't pick up other freezer odours. Use a small freezer bag if you can, and maybe put that in a hard sealable container as well. The freezing itself won't hurt the ganache at all but if it catches a whiff of those tuna casserole leftovers then you won't want to use it!
Thank you! (But I was slightly hoping you'd say I had to eat it all now :-))
@Vicky: I know it's tempting but it'll be even better once it goes inside some truffles and cream puffs.
When you take it out of the freezer, warm it slowly if possible and don't break the seal until it is at room temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.022330
| 2011-01-01T20:47:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10670",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Aurast",
"Computerish",
"Stephanie",
"Vicky",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"jColeson"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9836
|
How long would a no-bake cheesecake last?
I have an excellent recipe for a no-bake cheesecake that my family has made hundreds of times over many decades. For the first time today I was asked how long it would keep in the fridge. It's never lasted long enough for it to be a question, so I didn't have an answer.
Main ingredients are cream cheese, eggs, whipping cream, butter, sugar, milk, and gelatin. The egg yolks, some sugar and milk are heated. The rest is not.
Any thoughts on how long it would last? Would freezing affect it in any way?
I think that in the past I've made an egg-based no-bake cheesecake and eaten it after a week. I'd think it starts to smell/taste bad if it's gone bad.
What's this "keeping" thing? I've never had a cheesecake last more than a day before it's all gone!
Yeah, I asked this question 10 years ago, and I still haven't managed to keep one around long enough to find out if it freezes.
Still an open question so I'll comment. Whenever I've taken my cheesecake to a church function or potluck I have never brought back leftovers. I've learned that if I want to taste my own creation that I need to take out a couple of slices beforehand.
I wouldn't keep it more than 3 days, 5 at the most if I was desperate for some cheesecake. I agree with your statement though I have never had a no-bake cheesecake last more than a day in my family.
You could freeze it and I have tried with a piece, not a whole pie before and mine turned into cheesecake soup when I thawed it and tasted terrible. I am by no means an expert freezer of food though.
The raw egg whites and cream are what make me nervous for keeping longer than 3-5 days. And because no-bake cheesecake depends on gelatin for much of its structure, it will likely become much softer after freezing, as Varuuknahl experienced. The explanation for why gelatin breaks when frozen is too much chemistry for me to try to explain it, though. You can look up syneresis if you're feeling smart.
Eggs are a surprise in that recipe, but everything else would be fine for 5-7 days assuming they're fresh. Raw eggs, in a neutral-pH dish, imply 2-3 days unfortunately.
My grandmother makes the best no bake cheesecake without eggs, and she routinely freezes it and then thaws it in the fridge overnight without it losing its shape. Defrosting by microwave would NOT be recommended. I can't answer the storage time though because that's what I just googled!
I may give that a shot next time I make the cheesecake if I can keep everyone's grubby paws off the last piece. I do wonder however, if the absence of eggs would affect it. I will report back when I see what happens to it.
As far as freezing it, you could also try cutting it into small squares and freezing them separately. Then you could serve frozen cheesecake -- possibly dipped in chocolate!
Thanks for the neat idea. One day when I've got some time, I may try that. But doesn't answer my current question, unfortunately... The goal of the person making the cake is to serve a one made today, in 7-8 days.
I think the answer above of 3 days is probably right, but there are lots of other deserts which would freeze well. If I had to cook now to serve in a weeks time I'd probably go for http://www.deliaonline.com/recipes/main-ingredient/chocolate/truffle-torte.html it freezes perfectly and thaws on the side in a few hours.
If properly wrap with plastic wrapper, and store below 30 degree F, it can last a month. But if without wrapper, it will start to crack and appear unfresh. Try not to store with meat in the freezer as cheese can absorb any ordour in the freezer.
Below 30F is an odd thing to say - your freezer should be at more like 0F, and your fridge should be above freezing.
I make a no-bake cheesecake with cream cheese, icing sugar, baileys, grated chocolate and whipped double cream. It lasts a few days.
This doesn't answer the question really, as its functionally a different recipe.
I make no bake cheesecake with infused alcohol;rum, bourbon, vodka, whiskey, tequila and also one with coffee. No eggs to the recipe. They last for six months, frozen. And though liquor doesn’t technically freeze; it doesn’t soak into the crust.
your recipe doesn't have eggs, and you haven't mentioned anything about the gelatin in the OP's question either. Why do you think this answer would apply to the OP's cheesecake recipe?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.022470
| 2010-12-06T17:51:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9836",
"authors": [
"Ali",
"Angie",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Cascabel",
"Esther",
"Larryander Zajicek",
"Peter Jennings",
"RedFox",
"Rory Feeney",
"Russ Clarke",
"StackExchange saddens dancek",
"V Groves",
"bikeboy389",
"doneal24",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93812",
"talon8",
"vwiggins"
],
"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
}
|
10436
|
Should I brine a goose?
I've had really good luck with brining turkey & chicken. I am making goose for this Christmas and have found mixed suggestions on whether to brine the goose. Does the fat content of an average goose lend towards not brining? Are their alternate techniques that would better bring out flavour in a roast goose (just do a straight roast, no brine)?
Koshering is one technique to consider ( Source ). You also might want to consider fairly low and slow for the heat.
No. The fat content of goose, like most waterfowl, is very high. This makes it unsuitable for brining. Brining is intended to bring moisture to meats that tend to dry out, such as chicken and turkey.
See my answer to "What are the basics of brining meat?" for more details.
thanks for that info . Brining a turkey or a goose was completely foreign to me. It was helpful and I think I have a plan new years.
If you have purchased farm-bred goose, the fat content is probably too high.
If you have wild goose, a brine would probably be a great idea. I usually cook wild goose in a stew, so that the moisture level is high since wild goose are very lean birds. The closes thing I can compare wild goose to is a very low-fat roast beef type of texture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.022943
| 2010-12-22T21:09:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10436",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"Grayson",
"Renshia",
"Riegardt Steyn",
"SlinkDoink",
"The Ugly",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3892",
"justkt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30072
|
Wood for a cutting board, will sanding make it food safe?
I would like to make a cutting board from some hardwood I have. I'm pretty sure it has been imported, so I think it might have been fumigated or treated for insects/pests at some point. I've tried researching about this but I found very little, but the little I did find suggested sanding it as the fumigation process would only leave chemicals on the surface. Does anyone have any input? It looks like a good beginners project but I want it to be as food safe as possible.
Please do not use treated wood for chopping board. It might be easier to dope foreign molecules deep into the grain. Getting the doping material out of the wood would probably require dissection of the piece of wood at angstrom finite dimensions. OTOH, I have yet to come across pressure-treated hardwood.
I just recently read a book on carving wooden spoons, and there was a brief mention of avoiding sanding ... something about how it damages the wood differently from cutting, such that it'll weaken the wood and cause it to absorb water. (which I've noticed when I've tried to 'fix' wooden spatulas via sanding)
If you think the wood was treated or fumigated, I wouldn't trust sanding to make the wood food-safe. As another answer notes, wood is porous and could very well have absorbed the chemicals deeper than you'll sand out.
I would definitely err on the side of caution here and only use wood that you know is safe to begin with. There is no finish that you can use on a cutting board that will keep the base wood completely out of contact with the food, due to knives being used on it.
I would recommend starting with hard maple. It makes durable, great-looking cutting boards, and is completely food-safe.
Wood is inherently porous, so the big concern with wooden cutting boards is keeping them relatively sanitary after chopping things like meat and fish on them. Some people use mineral oil or bees wax, although I have personally used coconut oil. Straight cooking oil isn't a good idea because it will go rancid.
One thing that you want to make absolutely sure of is that the wood has not been pressure treated or soaked in any kind of preservatives. If the hardwood was ever exposed or intended to be exposed to outside elements then there is a good possibility that it could be treated with highly toxic preservative chemicals.
My brother is a carpenter, and he would suggest using Salad Bowl Finish (http://www.rockler.com/product.cfm?page=5344) I can personally attest to the fact that it does a nice job - we used it on all the cutting boards in our kitchen.
SBF is a great product, but not in this application. The problem here is that SBF (and any film finish--polyurethane, etc) only sits on the surface. It will be worn away and cut through by use as a cutting board, which will expose the treated wood underneath.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.023089
| 2013-01-14T14:21:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30072",
"authors": [
"Amna Rajpoot",
"B.Lovett",
"Cynthia",
"Joe",
"JoeFish",
"Liz",
"LowlyDBA - John M",
"Prettysparkle Chanel",
"Rishav",
"Steve Marino",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"user70148"
],
"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
}
|
368
|
Mayonnaise Substitutes
I love pasta salads, tuna salad, sandwiches, and sauces; but I don't really like the texture of mayonnaise or the feeling I get after eating mayonnaise.
What mayonnaise substitutes have you found work well? For what dishes do you believe your substitute to be appropriate?
@Village : this question was originally quite generic, mentioning salads, sandwiches and sauces. What might be best for sandwiches (eg, switching to a completely different condiment, simply to add moisture and flavor, such as mustard) may not work for a pasta salad (where a vinagrette works well) or visa-versa.
You might like the texture of, and how you feel after eating, egg-free mayonnaise. The texture is similar to that of regular mayonnaise, with a subtle difference you might like.
For salads I always use an olive oil based dressing. This will consist of ingredients such as lemon juice, garlic, Dijon mustard, balsamic vinegar, red or white wine vinegar, etc. depending upon the ingredients in the salad.
Sandwich fillings are a little more tricky. If it's the texture of the mayo you don't like, then adding to it to make an Aioli won't help much.
Once again, it does depend upon the ingredients used but even here it's possible to use a vinaigrette based on ingredients above. With this you can make a Muffuletto style sandwich.
Another possible option would be a Tapenade these can be made from a variety of ingredients to form a smooth paste, which can then be spread on a sandwich.
MiracleWhip, of course...
If it's just the taste of the oil that bothers you, you can easily make your own mayo using whatever oil you wish. A cheap extra-virgin olive oil makes a delicious mayonnaise, IMHO.
Otherwise, use vinegar. It's a great general-purpose condiment, can be flavored easily, and there are plenty of varieties to choose from. Naturally, this won't work well if you need the body of mayo, so go with some form of prepared mustard in those cases - it's like emulsified vinegar (in that it's emulsified vinegar).
+1 for olive oil mayo. Even store-bought olive oil mayo such as the one made by Kraft have half the calories/cholesterol/etc than regular mayo.
Home made extra virgin olive oil mayo will taste extremely strong. I'd recommend a blend of olive oil with a flavorless oil, or use a refined olive oil.
I personally like Greek-style yogurt as a salad dressing. YMMV.
You could try a mayo-substitute, like this one (vegan). Since you're making it yourself, you can change the proportion of the ingredients if you don't like it.
@Aaronaught, oops, missed the closing "
Cook an egg, put it in the blender with some oil, lemon juice, mustard and salt. This allows you to create a mayonaise-like substance, but with less fat content so you'll have much less of a greasy texture.
For something like a potato salad I'd add some heavy yogurt to this.
-1. This is not a substitute for mayonnaise, but a recipe for quite standard mayonnaise. The cooked egg instead of raw is a minor variation, which makes it a bit easier or trickier, depending on how much you cook your eggs.
Then you don't know what mayonnaise is. For standard mayonnaise you use only the raw egg yolk, with a large amount of oil (in fact if you wanted, then one egg yolk is enough to emulate more than a liter of oil). That is what gives stanard mayonnaise its greasy texture. What I described is different: you only use a small amount of oil, and you use a whole cooked egg. This gives a similar taste to mayonnaise, but without the greasy texture, i.e. exactly what the question is asking for.
A mayonnaise is a sauce made by emulsifying oil in egg yolk and adding mustard. There is no prescription of what amount of oil to use, and technically you can use 12 cups of oil for a single yolk on the high side or a few drops on the low side. What you describe is exactly that, emulsifying oil in yolk, you are just using less oil. Which makes it a mayonnaise with less oil, but not a different food product. The inclusion of egg white is less common. But just because many recipes for mayonnaise stay in the 30 to 90 ml oil per yolk doesn't mean less oil isn't mayonnaise.
By your logic, a pancake is the same thing as creme patisserie, it just has different amounts of egg and flour! Something which uses many times less oil, has egg white in addition to the yolk, and cooked egg instead of raw is sufficiently different to not be called mayonnaise any longer. You could as well argue that Bearnaise sauce is really mayonnaise. In any case, what you call it is irrelevant. The question was "but I don't really like the texture of mayonnaise or the feeling I get after eating mayonnaise.". I answered that.
A perfectly good substitute for mayonnaise in any type of dressing is to blitz up a soft tofu.
Tofu works great as it pretty much absorbs the flavor of whatever else is in the dressing. Plus its healthy!
It's not suitable in all circumstances, but I like yoghurt mixed with tahini (2:1 or so) as an alternative for mayo in salad dressings. It has a good flavour on its own, but can also be spiced up with lemon and garlic. It's thicker than yoghurt on its own so can be spread on a sandwich.
Yoghurt mixed with pesto works well, too, especially for pasta salads.
Although not really a mayo substitute, I quite like Heinz Salad Cream with a salad.
I like a tuna pita every so often, but only made at home. I keep a jar of Nayonnaise on hand just for this. Can't say what it tastes like in anything else, but I can't tell the difference with tuna, garlic, celery, and pickles mixed in.
Only regarding the sandwiches since salats are already discussed in the previous posts: Queso blanco1 with herbs, spices or whatever you want can suit sandwiches well. You could use cream cheese, Quark, ricotta, pot cheese or Bryndza etc.
Note: Same here, I neither like Mayonnaise. Cream cheese and Quark spread on bread suits my palate.
1I'm not very satisfied with this translation because I meant Frischkäse which is not only commonly used in Latin American countries like the Wikipedia acrticle says and is not necessarily white. Cream cheese is only a kind of Frischkäse. Frischkäse is mild unaged cheese. According to the German cheese law the water content of the chesse's fat-free fraction has to be higher than 73%.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.023381
| 2010-07-10T01:37:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/368",
"authors": [
"Brendan Long",
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Caroline",
"David Hoffman",
"J. Wenzel",
"Joe",
"Josh M.",
"Jules",
"JustRightMenus",
"Kassidi Allen",
"Kobi",
"Paperjam",
"Paul Giddings",
"Shannon Severance",
"Toby Allen",
"Troy Hunt",
"baba",
"bryn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/949",
"rose",
"rumtscho",
"steve"
],
"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
}
|
139
|
How to Store Fresh Herbs
What is the best way to store fresh herbs like parsley or cilantro? I find I have about the same luck with them whether they are left in a plastic bag or I put them in a cup of water.
Easy, dry them out ;)
Make sure that the herbs are clean of dirt. Different herbs live differently. Show you can put in vases like flowers, rosemary and thyme don't need to be tightly covered and tarragon likes to be wrapped in a damp paper towel.
If you're going to store anything leafy in a plastic bag, I wrap it first in a paper towel, then in the plastic bag, so none of the leaves touch the bag. This prevents the issue where the outer leaves turn to goo. (I'm not sure what the actual biological issue is ... moisture/condensation? poor respiration?)
Don't wash it before storage, as the extra moisture will cause it to rot faster.
I think I've gotten as long as a month out of flat leaf parsley, when I buried them in the back of my crisper drawer and forgot about them. (of course, I wasn't constantly opening the bag as you would when using them, and I'm not sure exactly when I placed it in there, as I had forgotten about it).
Whenever I buy greens from the supermarket, they are always misted with water over there... They are rather damp. Should I dry them all out on a chopping board first? Also, does the rubber band around the stems have any negative effect?
@slav : Yes, you don't want to leave too much water on them, or they'll rot. The rubber band doesn't help as it keeps everything tightly packted together, so any moisture that forms from transpiration will have less air to evaporate.
Personally I think the best way to store fresh herbs is to use a small herb garden. I just planted one and found it very useful for things like thyme, rosemary, and parsley.
If you don't have room for a small herb garden then a plastic bag in the fridge is usually the next best thing.
Update: Cool link on popular mechanics on growing a garden in 5 gallon drywall buckets.
I can't seem to grow Cilantro without killing it
@Zaphoid: Isn't that the idea? :-)
This is the best thing I've done. Nothing beats going out for fresh basil. Or mint for your julips and mojitos ;)
@VinkoVrsalovic - This is only OK if the herbs are treated humanely. For example, all my cilantro is free-range, cage-free, and have access to the outside.
I tried a herb garden. Mint tends to grow faster than I can use it, the roots catch fungus and moss develops on the soil. Cilantro takes a month to grow fully, and after flowering, it dies out quickly. Also, it tends to catch some kind of white powdery fungus on its leaves. I eventually threw away the grow-bags and just bought herbs from the store.
Basil: Make sure the leaves are dry! Use a papertowel to dry them off. Then, trim the end of each stem, and put the basil in a glass of water. Avoid having any leaves below the waterline. Change the water regularly. Keep it at room temperature.
Parsley and Cilantro: Same instructions except refrigerate with a baggie loosely over the herbs. Be sure they're not in an area of the fridge that gets extremely cold.
Rosemary: Wrap in a damp towel, and put it inside a baggie in the refrigerator.
However you store them, be sure to clean them up again after you get them out for use. Remove any yellowed leaves, give them fresh water, and make sure there's no leaves below the water line.
As others have mentioned, for longer storage, you can freeze herbs if longer storage time is needed.
Refrigerator storage methods
Some tender herbs (ex: cilantro/coriander and parsley) can be refrigerated by placing them in a cup of water (like a bouquet of flowers) and covering with a plastic bag. And like a bouquet, you'll want to change the water regularly. Ref: JustRightMenus, Michael Pryor
You can also get away with simply wrapping them in a paper towel and then in plastic, or wrapped with ice in paper. This will tend to work better for more hardy leaves (ex: rosemary, sage) Ref: Joe, Ryan Olson, TheComfortOfCooking.com
Freezer storage methods
For long-term storage, you can freeze cold-tolerant herbs. Seal in air-tight freezer bags, or submerse in liquid to prevent them from drying out, freeze as quickly as possible, and store as cold as possible. Try not to thaw before using. Ref: bubu, Kev
Room temperature storage methods
Some herbs (basil...) don't handle cold well. To keep these fresh, or if you simply don't have space in your fridge, you can try the same "flower bouquet" technique mentioned above, but without the bag over the top. Set out of direct sunlight and change the water periodically. Ref: JustRightMenus, Dinah, franko
You could also simply cultivate a miniature herb garden, and pick what you want when you need it - doesn't get any more fresh than that! Ref: Bryant
Other (not-so-fresh storage)
You can, with minimal effort, make a herb-flavored oil or vinegar by simply submerging fresh herbs in a good-quality oil or vinegar. Exercise caution when storing oils made with fresh herbs though, as if not properly refrigerated they can foster the growth of dangerous bacteria.
Drying is a great way to keep some herbs around for off-season use. Hang a bunch in a dark, dry place until thoroughly dried, then store in an air-tight container away from heat.
When you chop the herbs before freezing they are really easy to use. I try to always have frozen chopped parsley in the freezer.
I tend to wrap any leafy vegetables/herbs in paper towel or put them in a paper bag when putting them in the crisper. Instead of retaining the moisture, it lets it escape preventing the nasty sludgy rotting effect of dampness. It'll maybe give you a few extra days as the stuff will slowly dry out or wilt, but shouldn't become slimy.
I think I like this option the most but it does seem strange to use paper towels like that.
Take a cup and fill with water.
Put the cilantro in the cup (as if they were flowers)
Place a ziploc bag over the top of the cilantro and loosely fit it around the top of the cup
Place the cup in the fridge.
It should last a VERY long time like this.
I learned this from Joel.
I use this method. It allows cilantro to last about a week sometimes a week and a half.
@chrisjlee A week and a half doesn’t sound like a very long time.
StillTasty.com has good instructions for fresh cilantro and parsley.
BTW: the advice for these 2 happens to be the same but it's not the same for all herbs. For example, here's their advice for basil.
Their site has good advice for other herbs and foods as well. The one thing that they do that drives me crazy is disabling highlighting so I can't copy/paste.
My method is similar to Joe's, but I skip the plastic bag entirely. I wrap a bunch of herbs in a towel, then put a few ice cubes in a fold of the towel. They melt slowly enough to keep the towel just a bit moist, and our herbs last for weeks.
Freeze it. Most herbs freezes well and do not lose the scent easily. The only caveat is that the color is usually lost. It is rather a trade off.
In a way, drying preserves more of the color and presentation of the herb, but freezing preserves more of its flavors.
In my opinion, get those resealable bags, put them in, squeeze the air out, put into fast-freeze compartment, take it back into the normal freezer compartment after 1 day, then store for up to 3 months.
Works better for some herbs than other. Basil fails completely with freezing. Parsley works great though.
i actually have had a bit of success keeping it in a small vase on the counter, out of a lot of direct sun! i change the water every day, and trim the ends of the stems a bit to keep the ends from going slimy.
well heck -- i was just randomly surfing some cooking blogs i frequent, and look what i found: http://comfortofcooking.blogspot.com/2010/07/how-to-store-fresh-herbs.html
+1 from me, it's my preferred method of keeping pretty much any herb that I use
If only there were a way to automate changing the water :)
It looks like the blog has moved, and the redirection didn't quite work. This seems to be the relevant content : http://www.thecomfortofcooking.com/2010/07/how-to-store-and-freeze-fresh-herbs.html
I like the comment from @DaveVoutila best. I don't use a paper bag, though - just paper towels. The herbs will eventually wilt, but they'll still be fine for soups, stocks, etc. In fact, in time, they'll become rather similar to dried herbs.
If you only need to preserve them for a few days after getting them fresh, just using some aluminum foil to create a sealed package and store them on the fridge usually works out pretty well.
Many herbs freeze quite well (works better if you have a fast chill compartment which reduces the chances of water crystals forming in the flesh).
When you come to use them prepare what you need right out of the freezer and straight into your dish.
I've found that herbs packed in a vacuum, and then maybe put in the fridge, preserve their taste and smell for quite a long time.
You'll probably only get 10 days of freshness in the fridge, so consider freezing it. You will lose some of the freshness, but it can still be useful for seasoning soups, stews, etc. Freezing, as a means of preservation, works for lots of foods.
Freezing, or consider making a paste of it together with some oil (and store well). You'll lose the effect of fresh leaves, but it'll stay good a while longer.
Zaphoid, have you tried using special "Produce bags" sold in supermarkets? These have tiny perforations in the plastic that let the veggies or herbs breathe and also cut down on the excess moisture, they have a zipper and can be washed dried and reused. Do not use these bags for mushrooms which should go in small brown paper lunch bags.
oh well there is lot of ideas to make leafy vegetables fresh like spinach,cilantro etc if u want to keep it in fridge firstly roll them in newspaper then in plastic bag it will work and there is another idea you can keep leaffy vegetable in a pan n cover it properly n keep it in kitchen if its winter season u dont have to keep it in fridge,or you can just open it from bundle and spread it on large tray n keep it under sky in night it will be fresh because of dew drops which fell on it.
This is five years on & I recommend you put it in a brown paper bag (No sweating) and then place in the fridge - plastic bags are out - they cause moisture which causes rot to stems and leaves
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.023912
| 2010-07-09T20:02:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/139",
"authors": [
"Adam S",
"Amresh Kumar",
"Brendan Long",
"David L",
"HakonB",
"Joe",
"KorvinStarmast",
"MT1",
"MT_Head",
"Matt Peterson",
"Nav",
"Nivas",
"Rob",
"Rob Grant",
"Sandi",
"ScottKoon",
"Slav",
"Umbranus",
"Vinko Vrsalovic",
"Ward - Trying Codidact",
"Zaphoid",
"anon",
"bill watcher",
"chrisjlee",
"ckv",
"ddimitrov",
"dmo",
"franko",
"fryguybob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97178",
"pacoverflow",
"skarface",
"squillman",
"tooshel",
"travis",
"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/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18279
|
How can I make posole "pop" faster?
I have run into this a few times. I soak dry posole overnight, and then add it to my sweated/sauteed vegetables, add water, and stir it regularly, and it still takes over 4 hours for the kernels to pop. Is there a part of the process I am missing or doing wrong, or could I just be dealing with old posole?
Posole is essentially Nixtamalized Corn, or hominy.
Use a pressure cooker.
Try for example this recipe:
http://ljcny.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/chicken-pozole/
where dried hominy is cooked in a pressure cooker.
No, but only because I don't have one. I don't really use recipes for this sort of cooking, though, to me it's more about technique and getting a good balance of the various flavors.
It seems to me that the cooking time with a pressure cooker is greatly reduced due to the higher temperature. If I remember correctly the cooking time is around an hour.
Here is an example of a Posole recipe which uses a pressure cooker. The cooking time is 1 hour. http://peggyunderpressure.com/2011/05/mexican-pork-posole/
That appears to use canned hominy rather than dried posole corn, though.
True. This guy uses dried: http://ljcny.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/chicken-pozole/
sounds good. Change the form of your answer from a question, and I'll feel comfortable upvoting it.
@baka - Done! -
As per SE policy, the contents of that link should be moved into the body of the answer, in case the link in question dies.
The pop is a steam explosion, caused by rapid heating of the kernels' interiors.
Put the well-soaked kernels into boiling water, only enough at a time to avoid taking the pot off the boil. Add them carefully and watch them pop.
A pressure cookers heat is too gradual and heats the kernels relatively evenly.
10 minutes in pressure cooker from the time it starts to boil, according to a table I found on cooking grains in a pressure cooker
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.024731
| 2011-10-10T00:26:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18279",
"authors": [
"Anna",
"Ayush Arora",
"Janior Torres",
"Kim",
"Kirstie",
"Peter Radavich",
"User1000547",
"baka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91322",
"soegaard"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23222
|
Can I freeze chilli powder?
I sometimes make Bulgoki where I use Kimchi powder - the Korean chilli powder Gochugaru.
However, I can only buy Gochugaru in one kilogram bags. Due to this, I can only get to use about one-third before the expiration date. Does anyone know if I can freeze the Gochugaru in individual portions?
I think the real question you want to ask is how much freezing it might extend the lifetime.
possible duplicate of What should I know to store my chili powder?
There's no reason why you can't freeze it. Just try and expel as much air as possible from whatever container you're storing it in for maximum longevity.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.025030
| 2012-04-20T12:04:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23222",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Ellen Spertus",
"Judy Ward",
"SeaReader",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52562",
"mfg",
"statsnoob",
"user52562"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21655
|
Infrared thermometer for oven temperatures
IR Thermometers read surface temperatures. Can they accurately read the interior temperature of my oven through the glass panel? Or will it be reading the surface temperature of the glass rather than the interior?
Depends on how clean the glass is
It will measure the temperature of the glass itself, but not necessarily in an accurate way. Most glass is largely opaque to IR, but will radiate IR of it's own based on temperature.
The trick with IR thermometers is that they are guessing the temperature of an object by making an assumption about how much IR (Infrared Radiation) that object will radiate when it is a certain temperature. Cheaper IR thermometers have what is called "fixed emissivity", which means that they always assume that the object you are measuring is radiating 95% of the radiation that it would theoretically emit if it were a perfect black-body object. An emissivity of 95% (or 0.95) is a good start for most household objects - cloth, painted surfaces, etc.
Where it breaks down is with things like shiny metal, glass, liquids, etc. For those objects, the amount of radiation released at a given temperature is more or less than the expected 0.95. Shiny metal pans, for instance, can be as low as 0.2, meaning the displayed temperature will be much lower than the actual temperature.
You can use tables of emissivity values to correct your temperature reading, like here:
http://www.tnp-instruments.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/Infrared%20Thermometer%20and%20Emissivity.pdf (Note, for this table, use the 8-14 micron column).
That takes away most of the convenience of the thermometer, but it is a useful reference. The closer an object's emissivity is to 0.95, the more accurate your thermometer will be. You can improve accuracy by painting an area flat black, or even using a piece of masking tape stuck on the object to make a good "reading point". Fancier thermometers allow you to set the emissivity, and even fancier ones allow you to auto-calibrate with a contact-thermometer add-on.
To get back to the original question, glass has an emissivity of around 0.75-0.85, meaning the measured temperature will be a little lower than the actual temperature. Of course, even an accurate glass temperature doesn't tell you a lot about the actual oven temperature. My favorite surface for taking the measurement is my pizza stone, which is just about 0.95, perfect for accurate readings.
Good idea on the pizza stone - assuming you've let it come up to temp.
That is part of why it is a good point to measure - an oven may claim it is full temp, and an oven thermometer measuring the air temp may claim it is fully heated, but the internal surfaces may still be gathering heat.
Sorry, you'll have to open the door. IR Thermometers will typically only read the "exposed area and not through glass."
Further:
Don't try to use IR to read "through" a glass window. While an IR thermometer's target indicator light can be transmitted through glass, the actual "read" will be of the glass surface and surroundings rather than that of the target on the other side of the glass.A handy "workaround" technique that will give you an approximate reading of a case's internal temperature is to flip open the case top or front and quickly take a reading from its inside surface, which should approximate the temperature of circulating air in the case.
Understand your instrument's "field of view." How much of a target an IR instrument takes its reading from is also important. Some units use a light emitting diode and lens to cast a flashlight-like illumination over the actual target area you are measuring. Others use a laser dot that indicates the center of the target area, but not the boundaries. (Food Management)
To make use of your IR thermometer, be aware that "They will not measure polished surfaces accurately, or measure through glass, because glass can block infrared radiation. To measure such surfaces, stick a piece of flat finished adhesive tape to the shiny surface ... and point your thermometer at the tape. (Fluke)"
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.025130
| 2012-02-23T19:58:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21655",
"authors": [
"Ida",
"Mircea Nistor",
"Sam Ley",
"andrew",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9091",
"lightonphiri",
"mfg",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23305
|
How to make lactose free mashed potatoes
To begin with, I use soy cream instead of dairy-based cream. It tastes alright, but not superb, and it seems to require more salt. What is missing that I should find a substitute to add back in?
It sounds like you might have a recipe (or at least ingredient list and desired result) in mind using dairy - if you could edit your question and add that, it'd be easier for people to help make a lactose-free version. There's a ton of variety in mashed potatoes.
By "cream" do you mean "milk?" If you are lactose intolerant, I suggest some margarine and either sour cream or yogurt. If you have a lactose allergy, still margarine, more alternate dairy products, and some kind of spice mix, like an Italian seasoning.
I mean heavy milk cream. I would gladly use sour cream but that bothers me too.
I made some this past week with a little olive oil (maybe 1 tablespoon?) and a little almond milk (maybe 1 teaspoon?). (I am unable to eat dairy.) I also had a rutebega mashed in--one rutebega to 4 Russet potatoes. It was delicious and even my husband, who can eat all the dairy he wants, thought they were just fine.
Thanks, I will try the rutebega addition. That sounds yummy. I am surprised you use so little liquid though, I usually add 1/2 pint to 4 large Russet potatoes.
You can add fried bacon, and be sure to include the fat rendered off while frying to compensate for the lack of butter.
I've been told that ghee has no lactose in it, so that might be one alternative to butter, but not to the milk, as I find you need some water-based liquid to get the consistency I like -- you're rupturing starch into the liquid, which gives a creamy mouthfeel.
I personally use stock, not milk to adjust the liquid in my potatoes. You have to adjust the salt, but I personally prefer it. (and it has nothing with my not being able to eat dairy.) You can add some olive oil to change the mouth feel, although too much and it's pretty obvious it's olive oil in there.
As milk is sweet, you might also consider adding a bit of other root vegetables like carrots or sweet potatoes in, but that'll significantly change the color, which the kids may not like (or they may love ... you never know). If you use carrots, you'll want to start them cooking while you're prepping the pototes, so they get a head start on the cooking, and it doesn't hurt to cut them a bit thinner.
Mashed potatoes do not require anything to be added?
Use a fresh potato variety suitable for mashing (check with you local vegetable supplier), all you need is to mash them, and introduce some air by using a whipping process (a fork will do)
People typically add milk or cream to old or dry potatoes. Use a better potato for better results without adding anything. Reserve some of the boiling liquid to fluff up dry potatoes a little if required
This is very much a matter of taste. Even with wonderful potatoes, some people will prefer some creaminess or fat.
I have tried lactose free milk and I was surprised how good it was. I love milk. My mother not so much. She can't have dairy at all.
I go to the Asian markets, sometimes health food stores. They have a dairy free cream cheese that was surprisingly good. I use that when my mother visits. Add seasoning last so not to over-season. To thin and smooth it out, us a little of the potato water or a little soy milk. If you don't, it will be very lumpy. I didn't find just using soy milk as good.
You should check out their other non diary items. Not to shabby, some brands better then the other. Also, Smart Balance makes a margarine that is non dairy. Pretty good.
I could imagine adding most of the products you list to mashed potatoes. But waffles ?!
Sorry, I was just pointing out that there are also non dairy waffles that are pretty good. My goof!
If you can have butter (some people can, as the amount of lactose remaining is small), that can add a rich fattiness that soymilk sometimes lacks. Another good add-in is roasted garlic cloves, which you can mash with the potatoes -- I find even with dairy in them, that kicks the potatoes up to the next level quite handily. I usually find milk and soymilk interchangeable, but almost always add butter and/or garlic.
Yup, I can have some butter so I do add that, and I agree that garlic works wonders. Though at the end of the day I am trying to make my lactose free mashed potatoes taste really close to dairy ones which my kids adore.
Interesting enough I replaced milk to make oatmeal with soy milk and get far superior results than using milk and of course water. Then again it's all about the pallate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.025478
| 2012-04-25T00:26:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23305",
"authors": [
"Amannda T",
"Cascabel",
"Christian",
"Deb Hobert",
"Haroon matawalle",
"JCJ",
"John Hamilton",
"José Justiniano",
"Matt Thalman",
"Natalie Rivera",
"Onepotmeals",
"Rob",
"Shayne",
"Tschallacka",
"darwhen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53764",
"jani",
"nature1729",
"pb8330",
"rumtscho",
"夢のの夢"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45774
|
Very unusual kitchen tools
I found this very interesting post. I can guess what some of them must be but have no idea about the others. Can someone please help identify these:
There's only one I can ID with 100% certainty. #9 is a pair of butter churns. Pour milk in jar, crank paddles, get butter.
It would be helpful to number these for easier responses.
If only this site allowed other users to edit posts... :) I've done it
These are some fascinating, weird tools, but this looks a bit OT because it's not about a specific problem. I'm presuming that you don't have most of these things sitting around collecting dust because you don't know how to use them.
Number 7 looks like sugar cube scissors, used to pick up and serve sugar cubes. And 11 looks like tweezers to remove fish bones, such as from salmon. Interesting array of tools.
I can confirm 7 for sugar cube scisors. I have a pair handed down the family for a couple generations.
If this question is going to stick around, I think there should be a single community-wiki answer. It's kind of a mess trying to read through the answers and match things up with the photos, and parse out conflicting dupes and agreeing dupes, and figure out which items haven't yet been identified.
okay, I tried to fix the numbering, but the preview when editing and what it's displaying when not editing do not match up.
Okay, numbering is a little better, and I've created the community wiki answer. I'll go through and delete the existing answers now.
Just a question of how to use google translate on an exiting web site (the russian one antonH links http://stalic-kitchen.livejournal.com/666290.html)
Hi, whoever marked it as being too broad, it is an identification of some unusual kitchen tools and is food history as well. So, I don't understand why it should be categorised as being too broad.
@Divi Yes, kitchen tools and food history are on topic. But "too broad" doesn't have anything to do with whether the subject is on or off topic. It's possible to ask a question that's too broad about anything. I imagine someone thought it was too broad because you asked about 14 different tools, rather than something more specific.
@Jefromi: I can create 14 different questions to be very very specific but I still don't see the problem. They are very specific things I asked about and there are no guidelines saying how many items I can ask to be identified in one question
@Divi I did not say I agreed. I attempted to explain why someone might have voted how they did, and in particular why your argument (it's about tools and history) has nothing to do with it. It's clear that asking about one thing is okay, and asking about 1000 is not, and somewhere in between is a line. If I had thought this was clearly too broad, I would have voted as such, and your question would be closed. But I personally think this is on the okay side of the line, though it's definitely pushing it.
@Jefromi: Thanks for the explanation. Sorry, I didn't mean to sound angry :)
Back when "too localised" existed as a close reason, this would have been a definite candidate for closure on the grounds that someone else who is trying to identify one of these tools wouldn't be able to find this question with a search engine.
This is a collection of identifications from existing answers. If you know what something is, please add it here, rather than adding yet another answer - and remember to explain how you use it!
1. An egg scissor. Lee Valley used to sell some as recently as this century. You hold it like scissors, open the blades, put the circle over the top of your hard-boiled egg (which is sitting upright in an egg cup) and close the blades, neatly cutting off the top of the egg. The chicken motif reinforces the purpose. It's gold coloured because it's an entirely showing off tool that nobody genuinely needs.
2. Fork for sardines
3. A pair of tongs for asparagus. Thumb goes in the top ring, two fingers in the rings underneath. Just for asparagus. Yes, it's silly.
4. A butter or cheese knife with an integrated fork. Cut a pat of butter, use the fork to transfer it wherever it's going.
5. Knife for oranges
6. Another butter/cheese knife+fork.
7. Sugar cube scissors. Used to pick up and serve sugar cubes.
8. A cherry pitter. Insert cherry, work the action, no more cherry pit.
9. A pair of butter churns. Pour cream in jar, crank paddles, get butter. You can move the top from jar to jar.
10. A bbq-type fork. It has a little piece of machinery integrated to push whatever it is you've skewered off again. If you squeeze the little handles sticking out at the top, the scissor action will push the end down. I guess it removes the need to use another utensil to do the job...? (It's either that or something designed for easy fire-roasting while you sit at a comfortable distance.)
11. A strawberry stem remover. They still sell these: http://www.shop.thekozynook.com/Strawberry-Huller-5582.htm OR Tweezers to remove fish bones, such as from salmon. OR Tweezers to pluck feathers from birds.
12. Stand for fruit knives
13. A sugar spoon with integrated caster. Take a bit of sugar from the bowl, then use the hole to drizzle it over your food.
14. Device for holding game at cutting (put it on one of the critter's legs, lock it with the screw)
They appear here in Russian, so I used Google Translate.
Nice link - there's even more neat stuff there. Also, Google Translate yields something akin to dadaist poetry. To wit: "Two cups with shelf mustache. Surely these were Hercule Poirot. Horn as shoes for infant feeding. Somewhere in the East still runs like horns."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.025884
| 2014-07-22T11:13:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45774",
"authors": [
"AntonH",
"Cascabel",
"Divi",
"ElendilTheTall",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Laura",
"Peter Taylor",
"Preston",
"SF.",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40567
|
Ganache by pouring before fondanting a cake
in a few days, I will be trying to create a buttock shaped cake (back and buttocks). I want the fondant to look very smooth and want to ganache the cake to have a smooth effect. I will be using dark chocolate to make the ganache. I am pretty good at ganaching a square or a round cake (traditional method) before I fondant the cake but am not very confident getting the ganache smooth on a carved cake. I only did it once and it was a disaster and wasn't smooth at all.
I was wondering if I could pour a layer or 2 of ganache while it hasn't set yet but is cool enough so that it sets firm on the cake and gives me a smooth finish. I couldn't find anything anywhere and was wondering why its always the traditional ganaching method and if the pouring method would work or not.
This is the look I'm trying to achieve but with a carved cake
I noticed noone has commented on this yet, but can I inquire (for the sake of knowing) why you are making a buttock shaped (chocolate, of all the different flavors to chooses from haha) cake.
@Jay: Coz my boyfriend likes mine....haha
I asked a professional cake maker at the shop where I buy my cake ingredients and got told not to pour the ganache for the effect that I was trying to achieve. I got my results by following method:
First, I applied the ganache as usual, following the traditional method.
Then I dipped my hands in hot water and smoothed the ganache with the wet hands
In the end, I used a hot knife to get it perfectly smooth.
This made a good looking cake.
There is no reason pouring ganache wouldn't work for this. 50/50 cream to bittersweet chocolate will work just fine. Just move quickly while the ganache is warm - you shouldn't have any problem at all.
here's a picture of a cake iced by pouring 50/50 ganache:
50/50 poured ganache sets firm in the sense that it stays put once it has cooled. Considering the carving that your cake is going to require, and the fragility that I would expect in the cake, I'd definitely go with a liquid that is more pourable than the icing in your picture looks to be. 50/50 ganache slices just fine. Look at the cut out in my picture. The slice through the ganache will just as "clean" 48 hours later.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.026352
| 2013-12-25T00:51:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40567",
"authors": [
"Dennis Bowden",
"Divi",
"Fluffcakes",
"Jay",
"KTOnionCutter",
"Kishore",
"Mickey England",
"R.TAYLOR",
"RobNixon.com",
"Spamming Spammer",
"Walton Taxis Service",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95696",
"rw458"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25607
|
Buying chocolate transfer sheet
I've just found my new-found love for making chocolate cups. And on one of the videos of how to make chocolate cups, the lady used a chocolate transfer sheet to get a really pretty chocolate cup, which she then filled with some mousse.
I wanted to buy some chocolate transfer sheets myself and started to look on ebay and found a lot of very beautiful sheets at very good prices. Before I go ahead and buy them, my question really is if they are safe to use (health-wise) and if I need to be aware of any issues with them, for example, should I only buy brown ones and avoid any that use colours.
Here are some pictures of them.
If you consider food dye safe (as present in soft drinks, commercial ice cream, Skittles, and thousands of other products), then you should consider these sheets safe too, they are printed with food dyes. If you are afraid that officially approved dyes are bad, or suspect that the cheap sheets are a grey import from a country where there isn't enough quality control to ensure the use of approved dyes only, you shouldn't use them - we have no way to tell if this is the case.
@rumtscho: Then is there a brand that I can trust or are there things that I should be looking out for more?
sorry, I don't use them personally, so I can't recommend brands. But with the question here, I hope that somebody from the community will be able to tell you more.
Yes, they are safe for three reasons:
They are approved by the food safety organizations.
You work the chocolate at a very low temperature.
You transfer the chocolate very rapidly.
Even with 'unsafe' plastic, nothing bad would happen.
I think the OP is more worried about the transferred pattern being unsafe, not about the plastic leeching anything.
@rumtscho, I guess you're right.
You must ask hearlth certificate approval for transfer sheet, plastic food contact FDA approval test, and food colouring authorized in your country. Many compagny made transfer sheet with out license, and you don't really don't know what are inside... Make correct choice, and work safe on your creativity..
DECOTATOO.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.026590
| 2012-08-12T06:48:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25607",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Divi",
"ELovesCookies",
"Pat",
"Rhys Williams",
"VirginiaB",
"boshi gorge",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"jmunsch",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4143
|
What went wrong with my Chocolate Chantilly (Hervé This' recipe)
I just made Hervé This' Chocolate Chantilly and it didn't taste anywhere near as good as I had hoped. The consistency seemed almost right, though very slightly grainy, but the taste was, well, what you might expect: watered down chocolate.
Does anyone know what, if anything, might have gone wrong? I'm using Weiss chocolate with 57% cocoa solids. I was expecting it to taste something like chocolate mousse. Do I need to alter my expectations?
I'd say yes, even after looking at the recipe.
This dish should taste like the chocolate you use and have the texture of a mousse. I'm not familiar with Weiss chocolate, but I don't think 57% is adequate. I would suggest at least 70%.
Perhaps you should try a different brand? Again, I'm not familiar with Weiss, but is it any good? Do you like the taste of the chocolate alone? You should. If you try a different brand, I'd suggest Valrhona.
Update
The graininess is a result of over whisking. If you over whisk you can simply return it to the pot and start again.
Also, I looked up Weiss chocolate with 57% cocoa solids, and I'm more confident that this is the primary cause of your flavor problems. The breakdown for this is: 57% Cocoa, 42% Sugar, 36% Fat (the fat is included in the cocoa solid). Cocoa butter (the fat) is what carries the chocolate flavor (provided by the non-fat cocoa solids) and provides the richness and body of the chocolate. Chocolates with 57% Cocoa typically contain 33-36% fat content. Whereas chocolate with 70% cocoa solids typically have a fat content in the range of 40-42%. This lack of fat can lead to a "blander" taste in the finished dish.
Another thing to keep in mind is that this dish gives you a fair amount of wiggle room. If you whip it up and it feels like it's still lacking in some fat, then melt it, add more chocolate and start over. If you end up with something that isn't light enough, you can simply start over and add a little more water. As long as you don't burn anything you can do this indefinitely.
Finally, if you feel like experimenting you can use something besides water. In the original article Herve This recommended orange juice or blackcurrant puree.
Another Update
I found a video that uses tea in place of water. It also demonstrates how to do it without whisking, using a N₂O siphon.
Thanks, I'll try another brand. They don't sell Valrhona at my local but they do sell Amedei which I considered a little over the top (read expensive) for a first effort. Maybe I'll have to shed some doubloons in the name of science :-)
I was thoroughly sceptical that changing the chocolate would make such a difference but it does! Using a 100g cake of Valrhona 71% and 85ml water, the Chantilly came out creamy, bitter and delicious. Thanks for this answer.
@Chris: I'm glad it worked out! :)
Hahaha. The video you linked had an ad in front of it for Hamburger Helper! I can't imagine that the click through of that is very good!
Excerpt:
"Break up the chocolate and put it into a pan with the water over medium... Stir the chocolate in the pan until completely melted. Have ready two bowls... Into the bigger bowl, put some ice and a little water, and place in it the smaller bowl. Pour the melted chocolate into the smaller bowl and whisk over ice - the mixture will gradually thicken..."
Possible Problems:
you didn't use good enough chocolate (I'm not familiar with Weiss)
you need to use a chocolate with higher or lower cocoa solids
you used too much water
you didn't whisk it long enough
This is an experimental recipe, so try again. Experiment.
Any explanation for the vote?
Chocolate quality is a possible factor although the difference in taste between the Weiss chocolate and the best I've ever tried is marginal, whereas the difference in taste between the Chantilly and an egg or cream based mousse made with a similar chocolate is quite appreciable.
Too much water? Maybe; at least my taste-buds tell me so. Wouldn't I have had thickening problems with too much water? It thickened up nicely.
If anything I whisked too much, according to one source that would account for the graininess.
That helps narrow it down. Why would more or less whisking affect the watery flavor, though? It could be multiple issues: maybe it thickened up nicely because you overwhisked, and it tasted like water because the overwhisking was the only way to make a watery base thick??
Sure, that makes some sense. I may have made a mistake measuring. I'll try again although I'll probably reduce the amounts to save wasting chocolate.
Overwhisking this actually results in a breakdown of the water-chocolate emulsion, which causes the graininess, and results in a less thick texture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.026812
| 2010-08-03T21:34:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4143",
"authors": [
"Avisek Chakraborty",
"Chris Steinbach",
"LarsB",
"Ming K",
"Ocaasi",
"Shawn",
"TXChetG",
"Ted Wong",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4251
|
Red apples safety
I used to peel off the thin wax layer that covers red apples. Is this necessary?
Are you sure you aren't eating the table decorations? ;-)
The food-grade wax applied to apples after being washed post-harvesting (which removes their naturally produced waxy outer coating) is safe.
From the U.S. Apple Association:
Waxes have been used on fruits and vegetables since the 1920s. They are all made from natural ingredients, and are certified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be safe to eat. They come from natural sources including carnauba wax, from the leaves of a Brazilian palm; candellia wax, derived from reed-like desert plants of the genus Euphorbia; and food-grade shellac, which comes from a secretion of the lac bug found in India and Pakistan.
That said, if the layer of wax is so thick that you can peel it off, it wouldn't hurt to brush it off under warm water; wax isn't digestible. (I use a speck of Dawn or a spritz of enzymatic vegetable/fruit spray to clean my apples because I hate the added wax.)
If you're eating red delicious apples coated in thick wax, you are really missing out on the wonder of dense, sweet, crisp, tart apples. Red delicious have an unnaturally thick skin, mealy flesh, and little apple flavor. I highly, highly recommend some Gala, McIntosh, or other smaller, rounder, really delicious apples.
Also, it's at least a good idea to rinse with a light soap/vegetable wash since the wax can pick up dirt and bacteria.
Poster only said red. Anyhow you should look much farther than Gala for apple variety.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.027554
| 2010-08-04T18:23:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4251",
"authors": [
"Ali Raza",
"Erik Olson",
"Herr",
"Joyce",
"MikeyB",
"Peter John Acklam",
"Shad",
"Tim Gilbert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8072",
"kgodey",
"whoisjake"
],
"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
}
|
4860
|
Homemade and commercial kefirs
I want to produce kefir at home for personal consumption but I don't know where to find kefir grains. Any ideas?
Some of my friends buy commercial kefirs. Do commercial kefirs in the market have the same quality as the ones produced at home?
Kefir grains are like sourdough starters - just not as common. It's kind of cheating to buy them- you get them from other people that are throwing away their extra.
I got mine many years ago by finding a community mailing list and sending emails to a bunch of people asking to share. Unfortunately I have since lost the community that I used.
This page:
http://users.sa.chariot.net.au/~dna/kefirpage.html#Kefirmaking
Has some info including links to a couple Yahoo newsgroups where you could ask for grains.
Alternatively- if you find yourself near Austin Tx. send me a note and I'll save some for you. It requires advanced notice to save the extra grains.
If all else fails you can buy them on ebay as well.
As for your quality question. It's difficult to compare homemade and commercial kefir. The commercial kefir that I have access to is very mild and sweet. I like my homemade kefir much more tart and yeasty.
All in all it's a lot like making yogurt or homemade buttermilk. You can't necessarily get better than the good commercial products but
You have control over all the ingredients
It is a TON cheaper. Just the cost of milk.
Here is a source for organic kefir grains.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.027728
| 2010-08-11T11:15:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4860",
"authors": [
"Alfonso",
"Erin Blue",
"Ian Barnett",
"Steve",
"callum",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9359"
],
"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
}
|
4854
|
Are there benefits to using a lemon squeezer?
There are lots of products on the market to ease lemon squeezing. I've never used any of them.
Are there any benefits to using one? What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of the different types?
You should only start using one if you have a pressing need.
That is tongue-in-cheek, but unless your have a need, there is no 'should use'. One such need may be hygiene (or saving effort, or lack of strength in the hands), but only you can determine whether that's true.
UPDATE: original post was modified (and better for it)
As in the earlier answer, benefits may be:
Hygiene
Economics (more juice from your lemon, if normal squeezing isn't enough for you)
Speed / efficiency
Catches the seeds for you
A possibly disadvantage may be that it mangles your lemon skin (depending on type), which you might still want to use. On the other hand, models may also exist that allow you to squeeze efficiently after you've scraped some of the skin (if you needed to), which can be a hassle if done by hand.
As to specific models: I don't use any. (probably just use the orange juicer if I had a bunch. Like hobodave - don't need another singletask device that sees uncommon use).
Definitely helpful to have the seeds caught and get more juice!
I'm a recent convert to the type where you load the fruit between two halves of a metal mold and squeeze. I find that it extracts a very high percentage of the juice with minimal effort and does a good job of separating away the seeds. I find it a lot less messy than the reamer or other type I've owned in the past.
this is what i use, too. they are cheap, easy to clean and store (no counter space needed -- in fact, mine does double duty as decoration by hanging on my wall), and it does a good job.
These are also the kind America's Test Kitchen rated highest. That is compared to motorized ones or other handheld variants.
I don't like these because they don't fit larger citrus fruits well.
i should have mentioned that i have three different (color coded!) sizes, one each for limes (green), lemons (yellow) and oranges (orange, of course). got 'em at our local mexican market. not sure if i can post links, but here's the lemon and lime one: http://tinyurl.com/29lmkoo; and here's an orange one: http://tinyurl.com/2fze4x5
Arrghh! 3 different sizes for different fruits. sounds like a night mare! what if I want grapefruit juice?
well, like i said, they are doing double-duty by also being decoration in my kitchen, so it's not like they are taking up counter or drawer space. as for grapefruit juice, i get mine in a carton. :)
The yellow one works fine on both lemons and limes, and I imagine smaller oranges as well. Not likely it will do a grapefruit. Start with the yellow one and see if you get addicted - I am.
And don't bother with the green one unless you only do key limes & bagged limes, as they won't easily fit larger limes. (and as limes are mostly seed free, you don't have to worry about them slipping through the larger holes of the yellow ones.) If you think you're not getting enough of the juice extracted, just load both (pre-juiced) halves into it, and give it another squeeze. There also exist ones that can do two different sizes (my aunt has one, don't know if it's this brand or not, but it looks similar) : https://www.amazon.com/Zulay-Premium-Quality-Metal-Squeezer/dp/B00YBP918M/
I use one of two things: my hands or a lemon reamer.
The lemon reamer is great if you really need to get all of the juice out of the lemon. It takes much less effort to use compared to your hands alone. This makes a difference if you are needing to juice several lemons; your hands might get tired.
In practice, I think I use my hands 80-90% of the time. It's not common that I'm juicing several lemons all at once.
I don't have any experience with the more complex (expensive) tools, but I don't think there's much justification in purchasing anything fancier than a reamer. I don't see a benefit to having a bulkier, more expensive unitasker in my kitchen.
There are some reamers for sale with a strainer attached to the handle. They are only slightly more complex than a regular reamer and allow you to squeeze straight into the food.
+1 for hands. they are the way forward. might use a fork as a stand in reamer if I have a particularly awkward lime
My lemon squeezer has a lid with the squeezer and a container underneath. On the pro side,
it holds enough liquid to make a couple of glasses of orange juice;
it will separate the juice from pips and most of the flesh.
On the down side,
it has two components which means more to clean, more things to search for while your cooking;
this particular model has a lid that fastens too tightly. It's easy to get covered in juice as you try and pull it off.
I'm a huge fan of the vintage glass bowl/reamer combination. They're large and have a built-in bowl for catching juice, very easy to use, and extremely easy to clean. I get great leverage standing partially over them (I'm also 6'2" so that might factor in) and I've never had any other tool get so much juice out, though I've never tried the type of simple hand reamer hobodave mentions in his post. As a bonus, if you have a china cabinet or anything similar, they're pretty attractive and can be displayed if you so desire :)
My model is two pieces, there is a glass reamer that sits inside a glass bowl, I find this catches pulp way better than the single-piece models. The top piece looks exactly like this, and the bottom (bowl) is very similar to this, except no reamer attached of course.
edit: It looks like what I have is very similar to what Chris has, except glass. His bullets apply to mine as well, except the last con - this doesn't have any seal whatsoever, which I thought was going to make it dangerous to use, because I expected the top piece to slide as I moved back and forth. However, between the small "point" on the bottom of the top piece, and the downward pressure I exert keeps it from moving at all.
If you have relatively strong hands, I don't think it's very useful. Just roll the lemon (or lime) on the counter, pressing down on it to break down the fruit a bit, then slice in half and squeeze each half. A little fine-mesh sieve with a handle is great for catching the seeds, or your fingers will work in a pinch. Quick and one less item to store and wash!
On the other hand, larger citrus can't really be juiced that way, and not everyone has a handshake of steel, so some people might well want a gadget.
One benefit could be saving your hands and skin from citrus infection.I never let lemon juice or any other strong acid get on my hands, it messes with the skin and can cause citrus infections (which is a common problem for bartenders cutting and squeezing limes and lemons by hand).
I guess you mean skin irritation by citrus juice... Infection is the colonization of a host organism by parasite species. Lemon hardly qualifies as a parasite.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.027898
| 2010-08-11T08:47:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4854",
"authors": [
"C.D. Reimer",
"Cassie",
"Chad",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Eran Harel",
"Joe",
"Kurt",
"Kyeyune Frank Kazibwe",
"McCogley",
"Michael Natkin",
"Morph",
"Purplegoth",
"Sam Holder",
"franko",
"heathenJesus",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9603",
"justkt",
"krul",
"lanthano",
"nico",
"prismaticorb",
"ramonovski",
"zabelsr"
],
"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
}
|
28491
|
Is there a basic, universal recipe for cupcakes?
Does anyone know of a "basic, universal recipe" for cupcakes?
I would like to find a cupcake recipe that will use the same basic ingredients with variations to change the flavor or add ingredients to my liking and tastes.
though recipe requests are off-topic for this site, if you do an internet search for "basic cupcake recipe", you will get many hits for cupcake recipes with variations.
You might find something that will work for adding nuts or other solid ingredients, but fruits (unless dried first) will add enough moisture that you need to adjust the recipe to compensate. I'm guessing the peanut butter would be a problem, too, although peanut butter chips might work.
FWIW, it's pretty easy to translate a cake recipe into cupcakes - http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15833/how-do-i-change-cake-recipes-for-cupcakes
From personal experiences, reading cookbooks, and making far too many baked goods I've learned that it can be tricky to just adding extra ingredients while maintaining a universal base cake or cupcake recipe. However, with good judgment and some basic ingredients ratios you could come close to an archetype.
Some ratios (by weight) of basic ingredients include:
Pound Cake - 1 part each flour, eggs, fat, and sugar
Butter Cake - 2 parts each flour, and sugar. 1 part each eggs and fat
Beyond that here are some basic rules
The ratio of sugar to flour should be 1 to 1 in most recipes, maybe slightly higher in the sugar side of things.
Same with eggs, they should weigh about the same as your fats, possibly slightly more.
In general liquids measurements (including eggs) should weigh the same as or more than the sugar.
Eggs are in interesting ingredient. Whites tend to dry things out while yolks tend to make a richer more velvety texture. More yolks to whites (like in a yellow cake) make for creamer textures, the inverse make for drier more crumbly textures.
Then comes leavening. A teaspoon of baking powder per cup of flour often does the trick.
Adding extra ingredients however can throw off your recipe. Bananas for example can replace some of the sugars and some of the fats. Peanut-butter some of the flours and some of the fat. Adding enough chocolate chips, though they stay pretty much contained, may not interfere with the other ingredients but will increase the density of your recipe and may require additional cooking time. Adding coco powder instead of flour usually deems the need for more egg yolks and sugars.
Really you just have to play around until you get a good feel for things.
-1 for chocolate chips may require more baking time. What is your source for that information? Are any of your suggestions based on actual experience or recipes? Please include your sources or basis for your information, @rheone.
@KristinaLopez, added blurb about chocolate chips modifying density/thermal mass requiring more cook time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.028479
| 2012-11-18T15:59:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28491",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"John Joe",
"Kathy",
"KatieK",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Loni Drach",
"Meghendra",
"Paresh",
"Serunjogi Dawooda Bogere",
"fancyface Thandiwe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"nlthalia",
"oftedal",
"rheone",
"zzzzla456"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115415
|
Emeril 360 Oven. How do i disable timer when baking?
With the Emeril 360 oven, is it possible to use with out timer running? Can you turm off timer when baking?
Did you look in the manual before asking?
Sometimes on fiddly, supposedly clever products the best thing to do is to set an arbitrarily long time and cancel the program. On my combi microwave, I set an hour for things that will take 20-30 minutes and need checking at the end
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.028743
| 2021-04-26T14:56:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115415",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13692
|
Is it acceptable to reheat frozen food?
If I make a frozen meal and then save the leftovers in the refrigerator, is it OK to reheat it the next day in the microwave? Since it's already been frozen (or freeze dried, whatever they do), it seems like it may not be the best thing to do.
And I realize this is hardly "cooking", but I figure it loosely fits under the site's umbrella.
If you mean like a potpie or a TV dinner? Yes you're fine, go for it.
If you're really worried about it here is the rule. (been a few years since I took serveSafe)
When reheating foods you want the internal temperature to reach 165 degrees F. (74C) for 15 seconds. In practice (at home NOT at the restaurant) just get it nice and hot.
Note: Homemade foods generally need to be carefully reheated but not frozen dinners etc. They cook them pretty good at the factory.
+1 Good enough answer for me. Just beware that you heat (and cool) as fast as you can. If you leave your food out of the fridge a couple of hours you could have a problem. Take care with the elderly and the young.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.028820
| 2011-04-03T01:49:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13692",
"authors": [
"B4B",
"BaffledCook",
"Josh Gallagher",
"Skittlez",
"Tomas Rahal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94715"
],
"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.