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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
13594
|
Which mild pepper is a good substitute for Serrano pepper?
I plan to make a guacamole dip and one of the ingredients is Serrano pepper, which is 10,000 to 23,000 heat units by the Scoville scale.
That is way too spicy for me.
Which one of the milder peppers (100-2,000) would be a good replacement?
One option is to simply use less of 'em, especially if their primary purpose is for heat.
Also, the capsaicin (the hot substance in any pepper) is concentrated in the membrane that holds the seeds. Strip that out and the pepper will be much milder.
I second Elendil's comment - have you actually tried a carefully seeded serrano in anything? I may have a higher tolerance than you, but it doesn't seem very hot to me at at that point.
@Jefromi: No, I haven't consciously tried a hot pepper of any kind. Only once, jalapeno, with seeds, by mistake. Not fun.
Then how do you know that a serrano minus seeds and membrane, as a small part of guacamole, is "way too spicy"? A raw, intact jalapeno by itself would be a bit much for me too.
I don't. I was judging by the table.
US Jalapeno and Anahiems (red jalapenos) are usually under 2,500. If you cook them a little bit, it will also reduce the spiciness, while maintaining the flavor.
Did you mean fry or boil them?
I would throw them into the frying pan with a little bit of oil. Boiling might work, but I haven't tried it. BTW, what other people said above about removing seeds is crucial.
Anaheim peppers make a nice substitute, first in reducing the heat (500-5000 scoville), but also in terms of its availability and similar flavor. It does frequently run on the hotter end of that spectrum though.
You were right about availability. Anaheim was easy to find and worked perfectly (seeded and raw).
You can just omit them if you don't want any heat. Otherwise, Anaheim or Jalapeno would be fine choices.
Chopped green peppers are a great substitute if you absolutely don't want any hotness to your dish. I used poblano peppers are a great substitute and they register as a'1' on the hotness scale.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.028959
| 2011-03-30T15:35:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13594",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5060",
"michael",
"z-boss"
],
"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
}
|
13512
|
Can/should I use rapid rise yeast for longer proofing?
More generally, what are the limitations of rapid rise yeast compared to other types of yeast?
Rapid rise yeast has enhancers added to make the yeast more active and lower the amount of time needed to proof the dough.
I wouldn't use it if I wanted a longer proofing time because I think the dough would rise too far wouldn't result in a good crumb or flavor. That being said I think you could use rapid rise yeast with a longer proofing time. Maybe you would want the larger volume of dough and other effects.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.029147
| 2011-03-28T00:32:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13512",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13666
|
What qualities should one look for when choosing Egg cooking gear?
Stainless Steel seems to be all the rage in cooking stores these days, yet frying eggs on one leads to an extremely messy cleanup situation, assuming you can get it out without breaking it. Scrambling eggs works fine but the cleanup is brutal, even with loads of butter.
My goal is to cook/fry eggs in a pan, Teflon seems the obvious choice; but it quickly starts to flake off making the food uneatable.
What type of pan and associated tools (spoon, spatula, etc) should I look for? I’d also like to avoid using loads of butter, PAM, and oils, seeing as eggs have enough fat and cholesterol already.
Interesting point, though my primary worry is not about it flaking off on it own, but from repeated scraping from utilities: spatula, spoon, etc... Any ways around that?
@Michael- make that an answer instead of a comment and I'll vote you up.
Modern non-stick pans should not have problems with coatings flaking off. Spend $50 on a non-stick pan and it will last you for a very long time. Coatings on good pans should hold up to any non-metallic utensils. Very expensive pans suggest that you can hit them with a hammer and not hurt the surface.
Did a bit of poking around, and also heard that a rubber spatula works quite well.
Heat proof silicone spatula!!
We love our cast iron skillets for eggs.
Given some oil, fried eggs simply never stick. If there isn't enough oil you have to push them a bit to get them loose.
Scrambled eggs stick a bit, but cleanup is a few seconds with water and a scouring pad.
And that's for $20.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.029226
| 2011-04-01T17:01:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13666",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"Nate",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/280"
],
"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
}
|
13600
|
Advice on preparing/incorporating sprouts in salads?
Alfalfa/Bean sprouts can have a strong taste or they are too firm to chew on easily. I tried adding salt or salty ingredients with some success to soften the sprouts and reduce bitterness. What is your advice for combining them in salads?
Do you mean brussel sprouts? Alfalfa is another common type, so your question isn't really clear.
Be aware that sprouts are a high risk vegetable for salmonella contamination. I've stopped using them altogether, but I suppose they'd be ok for soups and stir fries.
@chris: Please provide supporting evidence when making such claims.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/03/30/bean-sprouts-bacteria.html?source=science20.com
Sprouts are just very young plants. They should be handled and washed just like full sized plants, and should be no more risk than full sized plants. I don't get this article?
I'm going to guess that you mean bean-sprouts, and not Brussels sprouts.
In that case, you just roll with the crunchiness. There's a lot to be said for balancing textures and not just flavours.
Tomatoes and cucumbers are relatively soft; peppers, sprouts and celery give crunch; lettuce and cabbage give a sort of fibry texture. They can all happily co-exist in the same salad.
If you did mean Brussels sprouts, I would recommend just using cabbage instead. It can be finely chopped into a salad and gives a nice touch.
For sprouts it can just be as simple as taking them out of the package, washing, tearing in half by hand and either mixing with greens or bedding under vegetables. As for matching up textures, I find sprouts fit well with crisp vegetables, seeds, and beans, but not so much with meats.
Store-bought sprouts tend to be rather mature. Some robust sprouts (soybean and the like) can be lightly blanched, although this is only recommended because of potential impurities. To blanch sprouts, just dip them into boiling water for 30 seconds using a colander, and dip them in ice water immediately.
You may want to try germinating your own sprouts.
Growing your own sprouts offers a few advantages:
Variety: Try out different types of seeds, grow the ones you like most.
Choice of Maturity: Try out at what age you like them most. 3-day-old sprouts tend to be softer and milder.
No doubt about cleanliness: If you grow your own sprouts, you know they are clean.
thanks, i have been growing sprouts, and that is what brought the interest in this topic.
Careful about the maturity of beansprouts: too young and they are still toxic in their raw state. 40 people went to hospital from a conference salad buffet featuring chickpea and kidney sprouts.
Mung bean is the most common store-bought cooking sprout. sprouting at home means that the water used has not been contaminated by animal agriculture, ie E Coli and other beasties that have broken out in commercial production.
Nearly raw mung beansprouts are less bruised and darkened in salad and have more tender crunch. Pour boiling water over sprouts in a sieve. Shake a bit and let cool. Can be stored in the fridge at this point a day ahead.
Chinese would dress with a drop or 2 of sesame oil (dark)and a splash of vinegar and perhaps a bit of garlic with salt and pepper (white) to taste.
Another Chinese way is with lengths of chives making the dish 'green and white snakes'. Normally served hot but why not as a crunchy cold salad?
"kidney sprouts" - mature raw kidney beans would also be toxic ...
I'd halve them, par boil for a few minutes in salted water, then stir fry them with some pancetta, before tossing through the salad leaves. Drizzle on the pan juices and dress with olive oil and some kind of acid (vinegar or lemon juice).
That's if sprouts weren't the devil's own vegetable, of course ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.029395
| 2011-03-30T16:05:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13600",
"authors": [
"Adam C",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Little Ms Whoops",
"RabbitFish",
"TFD",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"rackandboneman",
"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
}
|
13711
|
What is the importance of letting pizza dough sit?
I am relatively new to pizza making... I've made 10 pizzas or so. I am having trouble understanding the process the yeast makes it my dough...
I see recipes ranging from 1/2 TS to 2 TS of yeast, the time the dough must sit before going in the oven varies, and all that seems to be insignificant to me compared to the heat and time it will spend in the oven...
Can anyone explain the science of it to me?
It depends on other amounts. You say you put 1/2 to 2 TS of yeast, but on what amount of flour?
Kenji over at Serious Eats gives some of the best "pizza science" lessons on the Internet. Here's a good article on the role of yeast and fermentation in pizza dough:
http://slice.seriouseats.com/archives/2010/09/the-pizza-lab-how-long-should-i-let-my-dough-cold-ferment.html
In short, time and kneading cause proteins in dough to form an elastic network of fibers called gluten. Yeast consumes starch and emits carbon dioxide. Gluten traps the carbon dioxide which causes the dough to expand or "rise".
The amount of yeast and time may vary based on the intent of the cook. More time allows the cook to use less yeast (the yeast organisms will multiply) and allows for a greater development of the proteins in the wheat flour.
A longer, slower rise will allow for the greatest flavor to be developed. In his tests, Kenji found the optimum rise time to be 2-3 days in a refrigerator. However, this must be balanced against the cook's desire for an expedient dinner :-)
In my personal pizza cooking, I usually use 1 packet of yeast (2.25 tsp) for approximately 13 cups of flour. I will typically allow this to rise for around 24 hours on my kitchen counter-top (my house says cold at around 55-60degF). If the dough will not be used right away, I will put it in the fridge but will allow it to warm to room temperature for several hours before cooking it.
Good luck with your pies!
Yeast is a fungus. Yeast eats some of the carbohydrates that are in the dough and turns them into tiny bubbles of gas, which go into the dough and make it rise. A lot of dough uses yeast to make it rise so it's less hard, easier to roll out, and easier to chew.
The kind of yeast that comes in the packet needs a little time to activate (it sort of hibernates in there) and warm up, but too much heat will kill it, which is why it needs time to rise before you put it in the oven.
edit: I fixed grammatical errors.
To add to Tim's comment. The references at the bottom of the wikipedia article on yeast are a wonderful resource you can learn as much or as little as you would like... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeast
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.029810
| 2011-04-04T12:17:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13711",
"authors": [
"AnimeLady4U",
"F.P",
"Feltope",
"Ska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5524",
"kaque",
"linuxhackerman",
"pincinator"
],
"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
}
|
7012
|
What can I use to replace eggs in the recipe?
I'm not a vegan or something, but my stomach can't take many chicken eggs in food.
I've got a recipe for an Imeritian khachapuri variant (cheese-filled flat bread) recipe where eggs are used as a "glue" (I think) for the filling. (Sorry, the recipe itself is in Russian, I'll give any details if needed.)
Now, this recipe also uses eggs for the dough. That is a bit too much eggs for me. I'd like to replace eggs in filling with something. (Other option is to leave eggs in filling and replace them in dough — but I feel that the taste will change too dramatically.)
Note that I'm not interested in commercial (or "chemical") solutions.
Update:
Ingrediends for the filling:
Soft cheese (150 g)
Hard cheese (150 g)
Two eggs
Some herbs and salt to taste
Here is a Google Translate version of the recipe. I think it is more or less understandable.
Another update:
Note that it is not necessary to get the exactly same taste with the modified recipe. I will settle for anything that tastes good enough and is more or less along the same lines as the original.
Hi Alexander, welcome to the site. I think you will need to let us know what the ingredients are for the filling at least for us to be able to best help you.
It looks like you're basically making a cheese custard for the center of the bread. Flax seeds aren't going to give you a firm, egg-like texture. Instead, I'd use something that already has that cooked-egg texture, like tofu, which also won't impart any flavor (so you'll need to tackle that issue separately).
Experiment with different preparations, but I'd start off with a silken tofu, then purée the tofu in a blender with a bit of cornstarch (to help it firm back up when cooked). Once the tofu has been processed you can mix in the shredded cheese. and throw the filling in. You'll probably have to do several attempts before you get the ideal preparations and keep in mind that it won't taste like the original thing, but may bear enough resemblance.
EDIT: In response to the comment, I would say you could try using tapioca in a high concentration, dissolved in a bit of milk or cream. After cooking (hopefully) the tapioca will help to create the texture you want, and it will actually not affect the flavor.
The other (obvious) option is to just leave out the eggs and not replace them with anything. It won't be the same, but neither will any of these substitutions, and it will likely still be good.
Tofu is rather hard to get here... Also, I try to avoid soy in my food.
This question provides several generic vegan egg replacements. One that may suit your needs is flax seed and water.
Also, while you mention that you can't take many chicken eggs, how about replacing with another egg? Does that work for you?
I should try another kind of egg — but, I think, it is better to reduce the amount regardless of the kind.
Eggs have various properties, among them:
as a "glue" as you suggest, you can replace them with some sort of gelatin or pectin. You can find it naturally in some fruit seeds or fish/chicken bones. Industrial flans use agar-agar from red algae.
as an emulsifier, as in mayonnaise, you can replace them with garlic, mustard or anchovy. Many mediterranean recipes use this (e.g., aioli).
I don't like mustard. Garlic and / or anchovy sound like interesting idea! It will be quite a different dish though... but looks worth trying.
I'll post a few of the example I feel would work well for your situation below, but the following page has some great substitutes for eggs in different situations you would use them.
http://www.foodsubs.com/Eggs.html
For Filling you may want to consider using Silken Tofu as it somewhat resembles the texture of a scrambled egg and takes on flavors very well.
If you'd like to substitute the eggs in the dough you could use a couple things:
1 egg = 2 tablespoons liquid + 2 tablespoons flour + ½ tablespoon shortening + ½ teaspoon baking powder + 2 drops yellow food coloring if you want the color from the yolk
flaxmeal (Make flaxmeal by grinding flaxseed in a blender until it has the consistency of cornmeal. Use two tablespoons flaxmeal plus 1/8 teaspoon baking powder plus 3 tablespoons water for each egg called for in recipe.
mayonnaise (Substitute 3 tablespoons mayonnaise for each egg called for in recipe.)
gelatin (To replace each egg: Dissolve 1 tablespoon unflavored gelatin in 1 tablespoon cold water, then add 2 tablespoons boiling water. Beat vigorously until frothy.)
Looks interesting, thanks. I'll study it. One note: mayonnaise is made with eggs, so, I think, it is not really a replacement (but it should reduce egg proportions, I agree).
There is similar question and it has accepted answer With what can I replace eggs? . I can't comment so I added it this way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.030057
| 2010-09-09T10:10:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7012",
"authors": [
"Alexander Gladysh",
"Angela",
"Donna",
"Frank Wholaver",
"Kassy",
"MoonKnight",
"Primprim",
"Sam Holder",
"Tom Kealy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35260",
"kcmartz"
],
"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
}
|
23611
|
Corelle Visions Covered Versa Pot 1.25 L
Can the Corelle Visions Covered Versa Pot 1.25 L be used on an induction cooker?
Simple rule - If a magnet doesn't stick to it, it can't be used on an induction cooktop.
No, Visions cookware is made of glass, which does not conduct electricity. Induction cookers require conductive cookware.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.030432
| 2012-05-06T16:45:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23611",
"authors": [
"Acadia",
"Alan Harris",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mars",
"Rixhard",
"Toni",
"WhatEva",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53745"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24804
|
Safety of old, unopened bottles of ketchup
I just found two bottles of unopened ketchup dating back several years. One says "Best used by September 19, 2008," and the other says "Best used by May 10, 2010." I think I should throw them both out, but I wonder if there is any chance they could be used in making a barbecue sauce which calls for boiling the ingredients together for 30 minutes. What about in baked beans or other such recipes which are baked? Would that kill botulism or other dangerous organisms?
Assuming that there are no apparent problems with it (either from storage method or upon opening and inspection), I am one to agree with StillTasty in this case and say that you would not likely encounter any problems making barbecue sauce. They say twelve months, though.
For the sauce though, not only will the long, slow boiling help; but the ketchup is likely chock full of high-fructose corn syrup (which acts as a preservative), and you will be suspending more sugar (again, a preservative) in it.
@Carol no problem, if one of them is correct feel free to mark it; if you found another answer more suitable, answer your own question with it and some citations and an account of why it works
The rationale behind keeping most of these low acid sauces is that 1) the pH is low enough (below 4.5) - ie it is sufficiently acid - to prevent growth of food poisoning organisms such as botulinum, and 2) the product is pasteurised to remove temperature sensitive organisms that could survive at these low pHs. So, as long as the jar hasn't been opened, it should be safe, but the eating quality will deteriorate over time. If it has been opened and stored for more than the shelf-life says, other organisms may have got in, and if in any doubt I would chuck it. There is a history of reducing acidity in favour of increased consumer prefereeance of milder foods.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.030505
| 2012-07-02T18:42:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24804",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15612
|
How should I boil green beans to keep them crisp?
I just pulled fresh Blue Lake Bush green beans from my garden, snapped the ends and wanted to boil them, while keeping then crisp. How should I boil them so they are cooked through, but not limp?
You shouldn't cook more than a few minutes, and should cool them as quickly as possible afterwards. Ideally, you'll be blanching them, and here's how:
Bring a pot of water with a pinch of salt in it to a roiling boil
Dump beans in, and cook for a few minutes
Check that beans are fully cooked (time will vary by variety and ripeness of beans)
Strain beans, and IMMEDIATELY transfer to an prepared ice water bath to cool as fast as possible
This ensures beans are precisely cooked, but do not have a chance to over-cook, and using the ice water helps them retain color and flavor.
It's how we get deliciously crisp haricot vert (French green beans) at the restaurant I work for. Note that cooking times and crispness will also vary based on the variety and age at which the beans were picked.
To speed up the process you can boil the water in an electric kettle.
And for extra zing, don't just use plain water, use some good stock and a little raw sugar in it
... and if you are using plain water, at least salt it.
If you place the beans in iced water doesn't that mean you will be serving them cold?
You can warm them back up for service @Petras. Shocking them in ice water to halt the cooking process is a fantastic way to cook veggies to a desired doneness. Veggies like brocolli will even become more vibrantly green than they were in their raw form due to some chlorophyll voodoo.
BobMcgee's answer (the accepted one) is great (as far as it goes), as well as all of the comments. Absolutely salt the water, use stock or add flavorings if you like.
You can blanch the beans way in advance of the meal, even the day before.
Remove the beans from the ice water, shake to remove excess water, roll them in a paper towel and put them in your vegetable drawer in your fridge (or in a plastic bag, NOT sealed).
When it is time to eat, give the now dry beans a quick, hot saute in whatever you want! Olive oil, butter, sesame oil, garlic, shallots - whatever floats your boat.
That method works great for a lot of vegetables.
Com'on now. You're just blatantly trying to make me hungry.
I don't know if Blue Lake Bush green beans are different, but UK green beans reliably take just 8 mins steaming.
8 minutes?!? Blimey. I steam mine for 3 minutes max. I do like them on the crunchy side, though.
Every green bean is different. Sometimes even from the same vine picked at different times the bean will be more tender and sweet than at other times requiring less cooking time.
The beans will release certain chemicals into the water which will turn them a dark green so use a very high water to bean ratio and salted water also helps keep the beans bright green.
Because each batch of beans are different it's hard to say how long it will take, but if cooked too long they become mushy and a little too waxy. The general rule is when the bean is no longer squeaky on the teeth when bit into it's done. Chew on a partially cooked green bean and you will understand.
The Blue Lake require far more cooking than a snap pea or snow pea and shouldn't be expected to have the same crunch when cooked properly. The squeak needs to go away.
The cooking time of green beans can vary quite a bit.
It will be at least 10-15 min, sometimes it can go up to 30 minutes.
I advise you to cook them for about 10 minutes and taste one. Do so every two-three minutes until you have them a tiny bit too hard for your taste.
After that, you will fry the beans (for example with oil/butter and onion) which will make them a bit softer, as you like them.
-1 Anything past five minutes and they are mush. Steam them for 2 to 3 minutes and they'll be fine
@TFD: you clearly have different beans than we have...
@Mien medium green coloured pods, with lighter green seeds in them, 10 to 15 cm long. Grows in messy bushes or along wire runners?
I ended up cooking them around 10-12 minutes and they were crisp and delicious. I think they take longer because they are a thicker variety.
There are two things that get commonly referred to as "green beans" in the UK: the 4" - 6" pencil-thick things, and the fat, flat, bumpy things with broad bean-like things in. I think that's where this confusion has come from.
@Gary: the latter are peas. I think TFD and me both mean the first ones you describe.
@Mien: Nope, there are definitely flat green beans. Have a look at the varieties at Cook's Thesaurus, for example - they're a third along with common green beans and haricot verts.
Yes there are flat green beans, round green beans, giant green beans etc. None of then take more than a few minutes to cook properly. Anything more and you are destroying them! See @BobMcGee answer
@Mien: You must be cooking dried beans, not fresh ones. Otherwise, I can't see how you're not turning them to mush. If you are using fresh, I've got to see a picture of these beans...
@derobert: Yes, they are fresh. And I really boil them at least 15 minutes and they are not mush :p
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.030676
| 2011-06-19T21:36:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15612",
"authors": [
"Austin",
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gary",
"JBentley",
"Maria R",
"Mien",
"NRTRX",
"Petras",
"Preston",
"Roland",
"Spammer",
"Stace",
"TFD",
"Vicky",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6540",
"user33099"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20405
|
Pan instead of a skillet
I'm going to be cooking salmon in a white wine sauce & the directions indicate that I need to use a skillet. I don't have one of these, would I be able to use a normal pan or a frying pan instead of a skillet?
If I do use a non-skillet pan, will that mean I need to take special measures to ensure the same end result; or is the skillet just preferable, but bearing little practical difference for this task?
Welcome to Stack Exchange. Try to search in our existing question base to see if someone else already asked your question before posting your question. Check out this possible duplicate: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/20198/8305
...when is a skillet not a frying pan? I know the difference between a fry pan and a saute pan but I thought "skillet" was a term for the former?
@Yami most often, when someone says "skillet" they are likely referring to a cast-iron skillet, or some other comparable, heavy-bottomed pan. Typically a fry/saute pan can be inferred to mean just non-stick, or probably some other pan meant to conduct heat more directly than a heavier bottomed one.
Hi Mary, I think that you can help us help you if you explain the preparation. Bird's answer is all-around good, but but could you describe the method of cooking a bit more? Also, I added some additional queries to make answers appeal more to the root of your question; feel free to roll back if I misinterpreted your post.
A normal frying pan would probably work just fine for you. If you use a non-stick pan you'll tend to get less crisping on whatever you're cooking and if you plan to deglaze to make your sauce you'll get less yummy bits to work with. However, I've used non-stick cookware to make a lot of things (porkchops in white wine sauce, yum!) and it usually turns out fine. Just be aware, too, that if you're using non-stick cookware to fry and your recipe calls for any kind of cooking oil, you should probably use a little less to avoid that gross oil-soaked effect.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.031113
| 2012-01-12T20:20:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20405",
"authors": [
"Jay",
"Ken Snyder",
"Khin Sandar Soel",
"Yamikuronue",
"ZeraMarie",
"coldstonie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19272
|
What temperature and time should I use for a cupcake recipe?
I am having difficulty baking a vanilla and chocolate cup-size cake. The ingredients are as follows:
12 (1 ounce) squares semisweet chocolate, chopped
1 cup butter, cut into pieces
1 cup cold milk
1 1/4 cups all-purpose flour
1 pinch salt
2 eggs
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1/4 cup white sugar
The problem is that the cake burns on the outside, and then the inside is not completely done. If I reduce the amount of batter I use in the tin to a half-size cup, they end up as cookies. I have also tried to reduce the temperature from 200 degree to 100 degree, extending the time from 15 minutes to 30 minutes but still do not get a well-balanced end result.
I would like to know if I have a bad mixture of ingredients, or a completely wrong temperature and timing for cupcakes.
Your problem is too much heat in the crust and not enough in the middle. In an extreme case, you get your result, in a less extreme one, you get a domed cake. So, all the advice from this question applies: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13167/how-do-you-make-a-cake-lift-equally-and-minimize-doming
Where did the recipe come from? If it's one you found somewhere (as opposed to one for something you've had and are trying to duplicate), the best answer might be to find another more trustworthy recipe so you aren't stuck iterating, trying to modify this one.
Firstly, it strikes me as odd that your recipe has no raising agent - no baking powder, no bicarbonate/baking soda, no self-raising flour. Unless you're whipping a lot of air into the batter, the cakes will barely rise, and you will end up with 'cookies'.
I would add 2 teaspoons of baking powder and 1/4 teaspoon of bicarbonate of soda (baking soda) and see if that helps.
As for the temperature of your oven, I wouldn't go so far as to halve the temperature and double the time. The idea is that you need enough heat for the cakes to rise at a decent rate then form a crust on the outside. 100 degrees will do little but slowly dry the cakes out.
Domestic ovens are rarely well calibrated, so your oven may be running hotter than the dial indicates. Invest in an oven thermometer to make sure you are setting the temperature correctly: I have had an oven run 40 degrees hotter than the dial said before now!
If you haven't got the time to get a thermometer, try setting the oven about 20 degrees cooler on the dial, to around 180 degrees.
Thanks ElendilTheTail, yeah, I miss the baking power. By the way, does I bake at 180 degree for 15 minutes or 180 degree for 30 minutes?
180 (on the dial) for 15 minutes. The cakes should rise, and you should be able to put a skewer or toothpick into the centre of any cake and remove it without any crumbs sticking to it.
The proportions are off too. There's too much butter, milk, and not enough sugar. I'm assuming the chocolate is chopped and used as chips, and not melted. If it's melted, that is also compounding your problem of not baking properly. Find a reliable recipe. There is something wrong with that one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.031297
| 2011-12-01T03:42:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19272",
"authors": [
"Anderson Karu",
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"John Michael Sharples",
"Lafonk",
"N Scott McPherson",
"Saadia Ismail",
"Tal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8129",
"ronan_mac",
"rumtscho",
"yippy_yay"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9220
|
What is the proper way to use corn starch to thicken sauces?
How do you mix corn starch slurry and how do you use it?
Do you add the corn starch to the water, or do you add water to the corn starch?
Generally what proportions do you need, what is the ratio of water to cornstarch?
Do you need to use more slurry to thicken more liquid; if so, what is the quantity per volume?
One word of advice: whatever you do, once you add the slurry don't cook for too long or get too hot (do not boil). With enough heat, the starches will break down and the sauce will likely become runny again, except this time it will be runny with added corn starch flavor!
My long experience of using corn starch (or corn flour as we say in the UK) contradicts what stephennmcdonald says. You have to boil the liquid (sauce/custard/fondue) to get the starch to reach its full thickening power, and once it has, continuing to boil certainly won't make it more runny. stephennmcdonald must have accidentally curdled something (not the starch, which does not curdle).
Agree with Paul S - you HAVE to bring it to a boil for the starches to thicken.
This article seems to reconcile the comments above -- they recommend simmering for a short time over medium heat, but not to cook too long or the starch will lose its thickening properties.
When making the slurry, stir cornstarch into cold water until it has the consistency of cream. This can be set aside until it's needed, but be sure to stir it briefly before you pour it into the sauce to redistribute the starch granules in the water. You should pour it into your sauce toward the end of its preparation.
According to McGee you should use roughly 2/3 as much starch as you would flour. If you aren't using a recipe, add your slurry a bit at time until it's a thick as you like it. Also remember that the sauce will thicken a bit as it cools, so it should be a little bit thinner on the stove than you intend to serve it.
What volume do you use per serve? I use .25 to .5 tsp per serve, with about four times that in COLD water to make slurry
I honestly never measure it :)
You can add cornstarch to any cold liquid, like orange juice or milk. When it's properly mixed, you can add it to the warm (hot) liquid you want to thicken.
I usually start small, with maybe a teaspoon of starch and a tablespoon of water. I guess that's roughly 2/1 water to starch by volume.
You do need more starch slurry for more liquid, but I advocate for going cautiously and starting with a single "dose" and then seeing if it's enough.
That would be 1 to 3 ratio
Fair enough. I can never keep the conversions straight.
When making a slurry, I find it easier to avoid lumps by adding the liquid to the starch a little at a time. Then to use it, add a little slurry at a time to your sauce and bring it up to a bare simmer. Then add more slurry as necessary to reach the desired thickness.
Another idea if you don't care about the added fat is to make a roux with the cornstarch. Since the roux is cooked you avoid the raw starch taste. For roux, I never had any lump problems adding the starch directly to melted butter.
I've never had cornstarch form lumps on me. If you let a slurry stand for too long, the starch will settle out of it into an apparently solid layer, but just a little stirring will get you back to a lovely slurry. Cornstarch is really strange this way.
I'm glad you mention that settling problem because I always found that quality to be annoying. Seems like I get involved and it's "one more thing" to worry about in the midst of preparing a meal. That's why I mentioned the roux idea.
Corn starch (UK=cornflour) granules 'explode' like popcorn when heated, but on a miniature scale - this is what makes it thicken stuff (Starch gelatinization). This happens just below water boiling point (as PoloHoleSet has posted).
If you add conrnstarch slurry to liquid that is too hot, the outside grains 'pop' and form a thick sticky layer around the rest, which is one reason why you get lumps. Let the liquid cool a little before you add the cornstarch, stir it constantly, reheat it gently, don't boil it hard.
Save back a small (6-8 oz) jam or relish jar. Add your water and corn starch, tighten the matching lid and shake vigorously, voila! A perfect lump free slurry ready to pour or drizzle into your sauce.
most starches will separate from water if you let them sit. this is why a roux is used; it changes the gravity of the flour and prevents it from sinking to the bottom of the liquid where it burns
Unless you are recommending to make a roux from cornstarch, which is entirely unnecessary, IMO, this doesn't really respond to the question that was asked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.031585
| 2010-11-18T02:43:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9220",
"authors": [
"CHERI",
"CheeZe5",
"Devil0s",
"JGurtz",
"Johnny",
"Kris",
"Marika",
"Marti",
"Michael Baker",
"PaulS",
"Pippa White",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Randy",
"Shaikh Amiruddin",
"SpinUp __ A Davis",
"TFD",
"anu",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94700",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21935
|
Why didn't my lemon tart set?
I am using this Smitten Kitchen recipe for lemon tarts.
I made it a few times prior (all within the last few weeks) and it worked beautifully. I loved it because it had a great balance of lemon flavour, to sweetness. The main selling point, however, was the 5 minute prep time.
In my most recent attempt, I made the pie as before - followed the directions pretty closely.
However, this time, the pie did not set. The top was caramelized nicely (I probably left it in longer than I did previous times, about 40 minutes?), but inside the pie was almost completely liquid. I have an analog oven thermometer as well, so I know my temperature was fairly accurate.
I don't do a lot of baking, so I was sure to follow the recipe pretty accurately. The only thing I changed in all three attempts, was I added an extra half lemon's worth of zest. Is there anything I may have missed that may have caused the tart to not set?
How can I ensure consistent results?
Note: On the first success I used large eggs, the second success was made with medium eggs. The failed attempt was used with the same batch of medium eggs. Not sure if that's relevant, since we used the same eggs. I wouldn't have thought it'd make a difference, other than the fact that they've been in our fridge an extra week or two.
You definitely put the right amount of cornstarch in?
Yep, 2 tablespoons. I distinctly remember doing it the most recent time.
I added the [lemon] and [acidity] tags because that may actually be part of the problem here; corn starch is weakened by acidity unless it is modified starch. Zest isn't highly acidic but you may have ended up with too much juice or pith.
An analogue thermometer isn't too accurate. Besides, it sounds like you measured the oven temperature, not the tart filling. So I suspect that it was the heat after all.
A custard with both eggs and starch needs to be thoroughly cooked. The reason is that yolks contain an enzyme which liquidifies starch. It doesn't happen outright, but will happen while your tart is cooling. The only way to prevent it is to heat the mix high enough so the enzyme is deactivated.
To quote On Food And Cooking,
However, the survival of yolk amylase can spell disaster in the fillings for American cream pies, which are often made in the fashion of a bouillie rather than a pastry cream, and are held for hours or days before serving, enough time for a perfect cream pie to disintegrate into a soupy mess. No matter what a recipe may say, always be sure that the egg yolks in a starch-filled pie filling are heated all the way to the boil.
Interesting... So what would I do differently to ensure consistent results? I have the built in thermometer plus a second oven thermometer. I left it in as long as I could without burning it...
Baked at lower temperature for longer, I think. "Burning" happens on the crust only, it is possible to blacken the surface while the center stays raw.
I agree that this is probably the case. Use the convection setting on your oven and don't open the door. You may need it to be on a lower rack. Another approach would be to blind bake the crust and make the custard on the stovetop. Stirring continuously, wait until it comes to a full boil (stop every so often and see if it's bubbling in the middle) and continue cooking it (stirring continuously) for another 30 seconds to fully deactivate the amylase in the yolks. (Amylase is the same enzyme present in your saliva that breaks down sugar.) Then put it all together and finish in the oven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.032101
| 2012-03-02T21:32:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21935",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"ElendilTheTall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81730",
"myklbykl",
"rumtscho",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16027
|
Ideas for using garlic scapes (other than in pesto)?
Does anyone have ideas for using garlic scapes? These are the green shoots that are the above-ground part of bulb garlic. Think of something a bit like a scallion in appearance, but thinner, firmer and curly. They are in season right now (July), and we have been getting some in our CSA box every week for the last few weeks.
The most common use for them appears to be in pesto. I tried that the first time we got some, but the result was just too strong for me, and I am a real garlic lover. (My six-year-old daughter adores classic basil pesto, but she thought the scape pesto was awful.) They are milder and much "greener" in flavor than bulb garlic, but they still have a pretty strong kick when raw.
Personally, I just throw them into stir fries or fried rice (add them near the end of the cooking time). I've also had them slightly stir fried with pea shoots in sesame oil. Simple but delicious.
Tofu666, an amazing vegan blogger, fries them often. Here's a sample:
http://veganmenu.blogspot.com/2007/06/seitan-and-lentil-stew-fritto-misto.html
This page has instructions for pickling them:
http://notwithoutsalt.com/2009/06/18/garlic-scapes/
I made a really nice summer spread with yoghurt, some chopped garlic scape, lemon, and pepper. We put it on pita and it disappeared very quickly.
I also made a pretty good chicken marinade with tomato, lemon, ginger, garlic scapes, a little oil, and some pepper. When you cook the scapes, they become softer and the flavour mellows out.
I've been using them in salads where I would use green spring onions - just not using as many. Also I've got a "CSA soup" I've been making lately that involves bok choy, beet tops, and kale - I saute the stems with carrots before adding them to the soup and I've put a scape or two, sliced like green onion tops, into that saute to great effect. Since I got 10 last week I pretty much have to use 1 or 2 each meal :-)
I use the green tops of garlic when I want a rounder smoother garlic taste for my dish. Often I'll chop them to make garlic butter for garlic bread. I'll also add them to chreem cheese for a spread or to sour cream for a garlic dip. You can chop them on top of toasted cheese to give an extra flavour. The also work well in most dishes that already contain garlic, so add them to pizza, pasta sauce, stir fries or anything else that you like.
Great sauteed together with some earthy greens (e.g. kale)! Then make a delicious pizza with it maybe add some feta cheese!
I realize this is a very old thread, but having recently gotten into garlic scapes, I am shocked that no one mentioned grilling. I love them, brushed with a little oil and seasoned, straight on the grill. Taste amazing when they have those little browned charred parts on them too.
Use them in an omelette with goat cheese. Yum.
Another saute aplication: blanch them, then dice them into roughly half-inch to inch-long pieces and saute them in the bacon/pancetta fat for a pasta carbonara (or an 'eggless' version, just pasta tossed with crispy bacon and something green), letting them take the place of the traditional peas — the garlicky flavor there plays perfectly off the bacon and parmesan, and the texture (to me, at least) is a lot like an asparagus, a bit of bite but different than the crispness of the meat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.032433
| 2011-07-08T14:36:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16027",
"authors": [
"Gene",
"Jim Freund",
"Lenni",
"Michael Lovin",
"Rory McNeill",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57303",
"maxflipz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2304
|
Is there a difference between green and spring onions?
I've seen some recipes call for green onions but always use spring onions? Is there a difference between them? Is there a better substitute?
It's a regional preference on what they're called.
When you're buying seeds, they're also called "bunching onions", and I grew up calling them "scallions", although I think that scallion specifically don't have a bulb yet formed, while green/spring onions might.
update : A little research suggests that "spring onion" is the preferred term in the UK, AU and Canada, "green onion" in the US south, and "scallion" in the US northeast, however I'm not sure what the exact boundries are as in the US mid-atlantic, I'll see both "green onions" and "scallions" for sale, with "green onions" being larger (scallions with no bulb, maybe 12"/30cm long, while green onions might have a 2"/5cm bulb, and have over 24"/60cm of green top). It's possible that "green onion" might be a polysemous term that varies by region.
Actually, on the West Coast of the USA, "spring onions" refers specifically to the immature stalks of large-bulb onions (usually red onions) harvested in the early spring, as opposed to the almost-mature stalks of small-bulb onions (scallions or green onions). So if you're reading a recipe from a California chef, "spring onions" are not the same as green onions, although you can probably substitute without real changes.
Southeast US:
Scallions and green onions are basically the same thing, no bulb; spring onions have a bulb.
Spring onions have a large bulb at the base. The bulb is mild in flavor and the flavor in the stalk is more intense.
Green onions have a much smaller white end. The stalk of the green onion is milder than the bulb/end.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.032722
| 2010-07-20T10:10:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2304",
"authors": [
"Danny Staple",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jeff Whitmire",
"Matt Alexander",
"Myrddin Emrys",
"Scott",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"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
}
|
2425
|
How should I store a cut bell pepper?
Recently I'm finding that I'm ending up using only part of a bell pepper for a meal, and so wish to store the rest for later.
So how should I best store half-used bell peppers so that they stay as fresh as possible?
Put in a ziplock bag with a piece of paper towel to absorb moisture, and stick in the fridge. Also applies to lettuce.
that's great, pretty much what I do now, but it's nice to have confirmation. I'll have to start using paper towel - at the moment I do use it for lettuce, didn't think to use it else where.
I actually use the paper towel trick for a lot of fresh vegetables and herbs.
Bell peppers suffer from cold storage stress: their respiration rate goes up when they are stored in a cold place, which makes them spoil faster. One trick to get around this is to dip them in warm water (130°F / 55°C) for a few seconds (12 on average), dry them, and store in the warmer parts of the refrigerator wrapped in a paper towel and in a ziploc as @Tim Gilbert explained.
Due to general time constraints after work right now, I actually purchase all my peppers in bulk and freeze them.
I take a Saturday or Sunday and cut them all into a combination of strips and dices, freeze them on baking sheets in our second freezer (my home version of IQF), and then store them in ziploc bags in the kitchen freezer for easy use. When a recipe calls for any kind of peppers, onions, or garlic, I just reach into the freezer and grab a handful. Because they're frozen individually they don't stick together, so they're easy to portion, and since I generally sautee them anyway, they defrost extremely quickly in the pan (or in a casserole as it bakes).
My wife prefers the texture of frozen-then-cooked onions to fresh-cut onions; I personally don't have a preference, both are just fine to me.
I cut the pepper along it's "seams" and around the "shoulder," discarding the center with the seeds. Then I trim the membrane from each section and discard. I stack the sections, skin side down, in a large enough plastic container (I use a clean Cool Whip container.) to hold them without hitting the lid. I use chopped green pepper in my salads and the pepper has lasted two weeks or more.
I only cut what I need keeping the center with the leftover parts and put it in a plastic container like a sour cream container in the fridge. Never had any problems with it staying fresh, but I do go through peppers pretty quickly (i.e. once cut it is in the fridge at most two days).
I've got some Tupperware Fridgesmart and I think they're great. The peppers & lettuce last so long and keep so well.
Disclaimer I don't work for or receive any commissions from Tupperware (though my cousin is a rep)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.032895
| 2010-07-20T19:08:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2425",
"authors": [
"DMA57361",
"Nick",
"Sian",
"WrightsCS",
"cozinhandocomcebola",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"matt strickland",
"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
}
|
11852
|
Is there a difference between seasoning and flavouring?
I find the meaning of the word 'seasoning' slightly elusive. Before I started to take cooking seriously, I'd have said that any herb or spice used in cooking could be called a seasoning.
Without having had it spelled out to me, I'm now under the impression that seasoning refers only to the addition of salt and pepper during cooking. Some recipes will simply say "season to taste"; the implication being that salt and pepper will be used for this. Needless to say, not all recipes are consistent in this usage.
Does anyone have a definition of 'seasoning' that disambiguates it from the more general 'flavouring'?
This is the perfect example of a question that fits a [tag:terminology] such as we use on many other SE sites. I see we use [tag:language] for similar purposes here. Maybe they could be tag synonyms.
The problem is, both Sarge's and Carmi's answers are right depending on who is using the word. Some people use the word seasoning to just mean salt, some mean salt and pepper, and some mean "anything you want to use to bring the flavor to the desired point, including salt, pepper, lemon juice, spices, herbs, etc." If you are dealing with someone in person, it is best to ask. With a cookbook, sometimes you can figure it out from context or from other recipes. Otherwise, you'll have to make your own best call. In my own recipes, I will generally write "taste and adjust seasoning, adding salt and/or more lemon juice as needed".
Seasoning to the serious chef means salt. Thats it. Just salt.
Pepper is a spice and and as such would be spicing.
Unfortunately, there is nothing that makes the people who write the cookbooks use any consistent terminology, so actual usage varies. There is a difference between "season to taste" and "salt and pepper to taste" and that difference is pepper.
Salt affects so much in cooking that it developed it's own terminology and I'm sure that since English is a constantly changing language, eventually the word will grow to mean something else, but for now, salt.
+1 for another simple and unambiguous definition. I only wish there was something in the etymology of the word to help me decide between this and the 'finishing touch' definition.
I would define seasoning as the salts, herbs, spices and other flavours used to give a dish its finish. This as opposed to the main flavours of the dish, which come form the basic ingredients. For instance, if I season mashed potatoes with salt, pepper and nutmeg, they are still potato flavoured at the base, with a salt/pepper/nutmeg finish to them.
Flavouring would refer to the adding of any flavours, be they basic, finishing, or enhancing. The word flavouring also has a sort of artificial connotation to it. True story: I once tasted strawberry flavoured pineapple. This was dried pineapple that was soaked in fake strawberry flavouring.
Due to the problematic availability of spices in the cradel of the English language, there is a tendency for seasoning to be construed as only salt and black pepper, particularly in older cookbooks, though not only there.
Lastly, it is important not to mix up seasoning of a recipe with salt with a use of salt for a different purpose. Salt is often used for its chemical properties (it will draw water out of foods, has an effect on dough etc.) as well as its flavour.
+1 for your definition of seasoning as a finishing touch. There may also be something in what you say regarding older cookbooks.
Seasoning means enhanced the natural flavors of a food without significantly changing the flavor. And flavoring means adding a new flavor to the food, per the definition in Wayne Gisslen's book Professional Cooking 7th Edition (a college book for culinary arts).
Agree with all answers here for a predominately Anglo-Saxon cooking approach. However, I've noticed that seasoning when talking about Thai food (for example), is often defined as a combination of fish sauce, palm sugar, lime juice, and sometimes chili - all added to taste at the end of the cooking process.
I'd suggest different cultures have different definitions for 'seasoning'.
The thai definition is similar to my theory of "seasoning messes with taste (5 basic tastes minus bitter, plus heat), flavouring with flavour/aroma"...
Spices are basically ingredients derived from various parts of plants like root, bark seed etc and have a typical odour profile characteristic of the plant. Spices can be used singly or in combination of various spices to make a homogeneous blend.
Seasonings differ from spices significantly as there are various functional ingredients like acidulents, salt, Flavour enhancers, gums and stabilisers, sugar, etc are added in various combinations along with spices to impart special characteristic to the blend.
One can say that spices are a subset of seasonings.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.033168
| 2011-02-06T14:24:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11852",
"authors": [
"Chris Steinbach",
"PWC Brackets",
"Stepan",
"chickenorganiclover",
"hippietrail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95894",
"mike",
"ppl",
"rackandboneman",
"sue_spins",
"user24395",
"user24471",
"yaobin"
],
"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
}
|
2995
|
Stock vs Broth - What's the difference in usage?
I've now learned (from this site) that broth and stock are not the same product (see this great answer).
So, in any given scenario, why should one use stock rather than broth, or vice versa?
i.e. What's the practical difference?
EDIT: I'm mostly looking for when to use one vs the other.
Classification and use of Stocks vs. Broth:
Broths are the result of cooking meat, not just bones. They're generally the result of preparing another item and usually not prepared specifically on their own. The juices poured off from a roasted turkey (after being degreased) would be considered broth. Whole chickens being poached for another preparation would create broth.
Stocks are made from just the bones. They are prepared specifically for use in other recipes (sauces, soups, stews, rice, etc.) Stocks are never salted in their preparation or the finished dish will most likely end up too salty due to reduction that will take place upon further cooking. Note that homemade stock will be often a bit more broth-like than restaurant/commercial stocks, since it's really hard to get all the meat off the bones.
Stocks are usually simmered for a very long time (4-6 hours for chicken & 8-12 for veal/beef) to extract maximum flavor and gelatin from the bones.
Broths aren't usually cooked nearly as long due to the fact that cooking the meat for extended periods (even chicken surrounded by the liquid) will result in tough, flavorless meat.
Consomme: a fortified and clarified stock. The stock is fortified in flavor by the addition of a "raft" which is a combination of lean ground meat (appropriate to the type of stock being used) with brunoise (1/16 inch) mirepoix (carrots, onions, celery), and egg whites. The raft mixture is stirred into the cold stock and as it gently heats, the proteins coagulate forming a "raft" on top of the stock. A small hole is poked in the center (if one hasn't already formed) and as the stock bubbles through the hole it leaches back through the ground meat/egg white raft which filters out impurities to clarify the stock and fortify it with flavor.
Bouillon: French word for broth.
Court Bouillon: sometimes called a "short broth". A poaching liquid usually used for fish that is usually comprised of water, acid (lemon juice, vinegar, wine), parsley stems, bay leaves, peppercorns, and some salt.
When to use Stock vs. Broth:
Use stock when a sauce is to be reduced significantly or when clarity of the final result is preferred.
Broths can be substituted for stock when the body of the liquid or clarity isn't important, and when the liquid will be thickened by addition of a starch.
my supermarket sells both chicken "stock" and "broth". can they be used interchangeably in recipes?
secondly, if a recipe calls for chicken "broth", do they really mean "stock," which you say is "prepared specifically for use in other recipes"?
I know the question focused on using one versus the other, but since this question is really easy to find when you're searching for the difference in how they're made and is otherwise awesome, I've edited in a couple bits about that.
The differences between stock, broth, consommé and bouillon is actually quite difficult to pin down.
At one time a stock was something that was kept on the cooker and was constantly added to. These additions could have been meat, vegetables etc. Hence the name stock. These days fresh stock is typically made fresh, when needed. A stock typically forms the basis of soups and sauces.
The usual method for creating a stock (or Grand Bouillon as it's also known) is to add the cleaned bones and fresh meat trimmings to a large pot of water. Once brought to the boil additional ingredients are added, such as carrots, leeks, onions etc. This is then simmered for several hours. Finally, the liquid is passed through a fine sieve or cloth to remove the bones, meat and vegetables.
A broth, technically speaking, is a salted stock. However, when referring to a broth the generally accepted definition is a soup, although it can also be used as a base for gravies, and sauces.
Unlike stock, the process of creating a broth usually involves using large amounts of meat and and not simply meat scraps and bones. For example, a chicken broth would use an entire chicken in addition to vegetables.
Consommé is similar to broth but usually egg whites are used to clarify the soup.
You will also find similar terms such as court bouillon, there are also regional differences in the preparation and definitions.
Broth is actually frequently made from stock. It doesn't have to be, but often what a cook will do is make the stock using the bones to give it an even flavour and then boil the actual meat and some vegetables in it to make the broth. Throw in some grains and it's basically a soup - the line between broth and soup is blurry, if it exists at all.
Broth can be used as a base for sauces, but it's more common to use stock for that, because stock is clear. A broth is generally cloudy, even if strained, so this uneven distribution of fat doesn't make it such a good candidate for sauces that are supposed to be homogeneous (smooth, consistent). Broth is more common to use in something like a gravy, where you'd normally expect some separation of the fat or even chunks of meat.
But, I'm speaking in generalities here, and in reality, broth and stock are often interchangeable. I've used chicken broth in recipes that called for chicken stock and been none the worse for wear; if the broth is fairly clear (most canned chicken broth is) then it makes a fine substitute for stock.
Probably the biggest difference is that broth, especially when made from stock, will have a stronger meat flavour. If the end product won't have too many other additives (soup is the most obvious example), then you might use a broth to achieve a result that's more savory than you'd get with stock alone.
There might be something I'm missing, but I think that's the gist of it. The differences are very subtle.
From Michael Ruhlman's, "The Elements of Cooking".
"Broths (bouillons) are distinguished from stocks in that a broth is intended to be served as is whereas a stock is the foundation for other preparations." p.74
From reading old cookbooks and Escoffier's commentary on it, it seems to me that one possible distinction is that stock is mainly about the texture it produces (ie the gelatin extracted from the bones), while broth is about flavor.
Random tip: if you're a meat-eater and you've never tried it, drop the remains of a holiday roasted turkey into a pot of water for some outstanding stock/broth/whatever. (Simmer it for a couple hours of course :-)
An additional note from Wikipedia:
Be further aware that in Britain, there is a distinct difference between Broth and Stock, very different to U.S. definitions: A Stock is a thin liquid made by simmering raw ingredients until all the taste has been retrieved from them, finalised by sieving to get a result that is a liquid alone.
The famed Italian Cuisine chef and writer, Marcella Hazan,distinguishes between
Stocks and Brodo (Broth) as follows:
Stocks are primarily made from bones or shells (crustacean).
Brodos (Broths) are primarily made from meats.
Italian Cuisine favors broths according to Hazan.
I have been making stocks for many years but I have never made a broth.
But I intend to do so in the near future.
I have made Stocks from duck bones, shrimp shells, lobster meat+shells, veal bones
and many other things.
Do yourself a favor and look at an award winning Italian cookbook entitled
The Splendid Table by Lynne Rossetto Caspar.
Her Stock/Broths are masterpieces, something you won't see elsewhere.
From personal experience...
Stocks can be used to great effect in making sauces for the same type of food from
which they originated.
For example, shrimp in a sauce made from shrimp stock and other ingredients.
But completed stocks can also be used as a soup with no other foods added.
Duck Stock all by itself, or Lobster Stock, is delicious.
A word about Lobster Stock...
Using a large amount of lobster shells will give an end result that really
doesn't taste like lobster. It will taste more like fish.
If you are aiming for a true lobster flavor, use the cartilaginous part of the lobster
that is inside the lobster's body, adjacent to the legs. This is actual lobster meat.
A stock (broth ?) made from these will actually taste like lobster.
I use only this part of the lobster (and the legs which also contain meat).
Be sure to tear away the greenish gills on the underside of the cartilaginous area.
When I have lobster to eat, I freeze these parts, saving them up until I have enough
of them to make an outstanding lobster broth/stock.
It's great !!
stock = bones(usually thicker)
broth = meat(usually thinner)
This is the process of cooking down either bones or meat down.
Stocks are great for stews where you are slowly simmering and tenderizing meat.
Broths are used for sauces and soups.
The more complete stock has a palatable difference in taste and "feel" than broth. Broth is "waterier". You can use stock where you would normally use broth, and you'll be pleasantly surprised at the difference. You may need to use more salt than with a pre-salted broth. But in my view this is the preferred liquid for anything chicken. Use it in Enchilada, tikka masala, and alfredo sauces in place of other liquids or add it early and let it reduce before adding other liquids.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.033840
| 2010-07-23T13:27:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2995",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chef Flambe",
"Colin Green",
"J.K.",
"Jens",
"Olson",
"Patty Erhard",
"Rihards",
"Rob West",
"Walt Rissmeyer",
"gestep",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95116",
"rbp",
"somebody",
"thomas grutta"
],
"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
}
|
1481
|
How do you cook corn on the cob on BBQ?
Do you remove peel and wrap it in tin foil ?
Do you put it directly on gril (with peel) ?
How much time ?
The best way I have found is to soak the ears in husk for several hours before grilling. This lets the husk soak lots of water. Then place the corn, still in husk, on a hot grill for about 10 minutes, ~1/4 turn, 10 minutes, turn... until the husk gets brown, even burnt.
You should be able to tell when the corn is cooked by the smell. The sugars in the corn will start to caramelize and brown in the husk and it will give off a delicious caramel smell. You can check them by peeling down the husk to make sure that they are cooking well.
Times will depend on your grill and how much patience you have. In general, it is difficult to overcook. You want to watch out for drying, but that usually takes a while if you soak the ears beforehand.
Foil is a poor substitute for the natural wrapper. The husk both protects the cob from too much direct heat as well as holding water close to the cob to gently steam the kernels. And its just prettier with the browned and burnt husk, au natural.
I have found it only really needs about 30 minutes of soaking time. I agree that it's difficult to overcook, too. I typically grill it, turning frequently, for about 30 minutes.
It's also tasty to add some butter & spices to the corn before grilling it. See http://www.justrightmenus.com/recipe.php?id=231
you want to leave the husk, but remove the silk.
I have found it's really tasty is after soaking, peel open the husk, butter the corn, close the husk with a strip of foil, then grill it. MMMM
@davethieben: I used to remove the silk first but found there's really no need. Once cooked, it peels right off cleanly and easily. Much easier than getting it off before cooking, and by not opening the husk there's no need to tie it shut.
I've done it a few different ways --
husked, desilked, over indirect or low heat : my current favorite method; brings out the sweetness of the corn without the grassy qualities; have enough time to turn it without charring, but if you're late turning, won't instantly turn into charcoal. Takes maybe 15-20 min. Still works for corn that's been sitting for a couple of days, without much prep.
husked, desilked, straight over direct heat : had to work quick, or they'd get overly charred, but very easy to prep, and cooks really quickly.
husked, desilked, wrapped in foil : not bad, less likely to char, but I'm lazy and it's extra work (and quite a bit of foil if you're doing a dozen ears).
husk on, but trimmed the husk and silk that went past the ear : (unsoaked; the ears were fresh from a road-side stand) : No bad, still had to de-silk after cooking, but gave it a grassy note which wasn't my favorite. (if you're a fan of green peppers, you might like it).
husk on, opened, de-silked, then wrapped back up in the husk : much more effort than other methods; gives the corn a grassy quality to it
Now, if you're cooking over campfire ... then yes, I'd soak the husks, or go with aluminum foil ... but a grill where I have more control: husked, straight on the grill.
In the past, I've soaked it as per an earlier suggestion, but not for several hours since my grilling is usually relatively impromptu. I soak it for as long as I can get away with (usually at least half an hour), leave the husk on, and drip a little bit of melted butter on top of a foil sheet, then add some simple seasoning (garlic powder, salt, pepper, whatever) on top of the butter, then wrap it up and grill it for about half an hour, turning every 10 minutes or so. I'm not sure if the butter and seasoning helps, but it doesn't hurt, and you're not losing much. It's certainly not the BEST method, but it works for me.
I would suggest leaving the husk on, and just throwing it on the grill. Turn is every couple of minutes, and pull it off when it feels a bit soft to squeeze.
Soak whole ears in the husk in a bowl of water. Gently peel back husk (do not detach), remove silk, rub on some garlic butter if you like, then replace the husk. Tie with kitchen twine if necessary.
Grill for 20 mins, turning every 5.
I husk, add a little butter and salt, wrap in foil and put them on the edge of the grill, turning 1/4 to 1/3 turn every 7-10 minutes or so.
when you are done grilling your corn...try taking 1/2 Lime dipped in Sea Salt and rub on to your corn...delicious!!!
I love to put lemon pepper and Parmesan cheese on my freshly grilled corn. (I leave the husks on for a little while and throw it on the grill with all the husk on--I get all the flavor from the butter, lemon pepper, and Parmesan!)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.034681
| 2010-07-17T17:01:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1481",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Daniel Paull",
"John",
"Jonathan Mayhak",
"JustRightMenus",
"Mathieu",
"Petrus Theron",
"Richard",
"dave thieben",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/947",
"rcabr",
"wmorland"
],
"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
}
|
4614
|
Cues to a reliable or unreliable recipe?
Over on this question about measurements we got into an interesting discussion about recognizing reliable recipes. What cues do you look for to recognize one you would trust? This is a community wiki question since it has no definitive answer. I'll throw out three to get us started:
Good signs:
+ If I can see a picture of the finished food and it looks delicious
Bad signs:
+ If the author doesn't know the diff between "1 cup of pecans, chopped" and "1 cup of chopped pecans"
+ If the ingredients aren't listed in the order you will need them in the recipe
Great use of community wiki! :)
I think a good recipe has several basic components.
An introduction. It should describe the dish, its appeal, briefly its history, its usage, and what techniques it involves.
An assessment of the prep time, cooking time, cost, and difficulty.
Clearly sized and organized ingredients (wet/dry, major/minor, by stage, role).
Simply written steps which emphasize sense-notes: how to tell when something is ready. These are analogous to driving directions where the writer says, look for the large blue roof on the left, or wait until the road starts to get really curvy and go downhill. They help you know where you are, and when to stop. A good recipe will tell you about the ideal texture, color, heat levels, scents, and even taste. They let you in to what a chef is looking for and thinking when they make something.
A great photo. It's often a gimmick, but a good photo really helps one envision a dish. Even better is a whole sequence of photos, one for ingredients, each stage of prep, intermediate goals, and the final product.
I also like a detour into nutrition, anecdotes about where the author ate/made/found/invented the recipe, and any other interesting discursions.
A bonus is suggestions of next things to try, substitutions or alternatives, ideal accompaniments, drink pairings, and plating ideas.
Also, I generally look at the source--who the author is, and where the recipe was published.
Cost will be highly variable. Other than that, good list. :)
@Galactic: I agree about the variability, but it can be useful to give a relative assessment of overall cost (such as $ to $$$$ perhaps) or to highlight that a particular ingredient may be surprisingly expensive or has less expensive alternatives (or that less expensive alternatives will not give satisfactory results).
Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, it's always relative by context. Pricey for Home and Garden is going to be lower than pricing for Food and Wine. A general source like NYTimes is probably just to the right of normal (a little rich but basically accurate). Worth noting, of course, that very cheap recipes can be much more delicious than very expensive ones. Homemade pasta, a tablespoon of fresh grated parmesan, an egg yolk, and a drizzle of olive oil will probably beat out a run-of-the-mill sirloin steak with peppers and onions any day.
A huge red flag for me on cookbooks is poor editing. By that I mean specifically that there are numerous typos, spelling errors (especially on ingredients or techniques) or obvious omissions. If they can't be fussed to read the book for errors, I find it unlikely that they've tested all the recipes.
This doesn't necessarily disqualify a cookbook, but I'm sure going to be careful to read and really think about the recipes before I try any of them.
For example, while Alton Brown's first cookbook is pretty good, it's loaded with typos, spelling errors and grammatical issues (or at least the first edition was). I think there's a lot of good theory in there for beginners, but it's plainly a rush job and I have been suspicious of some of the recipes.
And while I generally love The Silver Spoon (a giant Italian cookbook), I became very suspicious of it when I found a recipe for some blueberry thing that didn't actually list blueberries as an ingredient. I still use it very occasionally, but my trust in the book has dropped considerably.
I'd be put off by this too, although in fairness, if it's just one or two errors then it's still possible that most of the recipes were tested. (In a book like JC with thousands of recipes, I'd be shocked if there weren't any errors!)
Agreed. That's why I don't just give up on books outright when I find editorial issues. But it does give me pause.
Getting the units of measure wrong (via poor editing) is all too common -- even worse when the editors don't know the subject matter, and substitute capital T for a little t (tablespoon vs. teaspoon!)
I have different expectations from cookbooks and stuff online. Many cook book recipes are checked in a test kitchen, where they'll try different stoves / microwaves / etc, following the recipes without having extra information in advance. I have no idea if there's the equivalent of a 'UL' mark for test kitchens, though.
All other recipes, unless it's really good with descriptive text like roux and ocaasi mentioned (cook until browned and crispy, about 10 minutes; reduce by half; etc), are to be assumed suspect. Even terms like 'medium onion' bother me unless the amount of onion isn't really important. 'An onion the size of a tennis ball' sounds unprofessional, but I think it's a clue that the recipe writer knows about the issue that people's 'medium onion' may vary, which means there's a chance they've shared the recipe with others already.
(I still have some issues with some of my mom's recpies ... when it says 'the size of a walnut', I have no idea if that's shelled, or unshelled)
I'm also not sure that I'd trust professional chefs any more than amateur chefs -- some professionals are used to cooking huge batches, and just scale them down; but that could have issues in how much surface area there is for evaporation, etc. It's one thing if it's from someone who you've tried their recipes before, but part of that's also that you like their flavor combinations not just that they can write a clear, unambiguous recipe.
I also like recipes that clearly list what equipment you'll need, not just the ingrediant list.
Unshelled.
I compare it with several other recipes of the same, similar dish. For example lets use chili. If I see a recipe for chili that I might want to try I will compare it to what I know about how to make chili. If it's similar I will then look at other chili recipes and compare the similarities and differences. If anything throws off warning flags in my head I'll just move off and find another recipe.
I also look at who wrote the recipe. If it's a chef I trust then I'll just go ahead and start cooking.
I think a good recipe has several basic components.
A quick summary, describing the dish and why I would want to make it.
A photo. I mostly choose to make a dish because it looks delicious.
Season - when the ingredients are in season (If possible - in a British cookbook for a British audience, for example.)
Country of origin
Author of the recipe, and author of the original recipe, if this is a modification. (I tend to trust a recipe more if the author's country of origin is the same as the recipe's or she lived there for a period.)
Timings - prep time, cooking time, total elapsed time
Ingredients, with substitutions where they are difficult to obtain in some locales, or very seasonal. I tend to prefer weights to volumes, being European and because it avoids the pecan issue above, but volumes are acceptable for baking. (When people use cups for herbs, I never know if you're suppose to cram them in or not.)
Techniques used (I prefer this to difficulty, as people have experience in different areas of cooking)
Equipment needed (anything unusual - it's most annoying to get to step 5 and find you need a 3 cm loaf tin or a fluted potato peeler)
Method, in clear steps, without any over-long paragraphs. I'd be looking for clear timings for each stage, but also clear indications of how to judge for myself whether to move on. The method should also include clear directions as to how far one can progress before pausing, refrigerating and then finishing off later.
Notes - including frequent pitfalls, amusing anecdotes, suggested side dishes and accompaniments.
The recipe source that matches these ideals best is Delia Smith, worth a look if you haven't discovered her.
Please, no volume measures for baking, especially flour!
When its a recipe for a baking, measurements by weight are a good sign (baker's ratios are an even better sign, but I don't expect that in something intended for a general audience). Especially when I see flour measured by volume, I worry about the recipe.
Descriptions of how things should be at strategically-chosen steps, and how to best fix it if its not that way, are good signs too.
In general, I like recipes with more reliable measurements. "Bake until its 155°F, then finish in sauté pan" is better than "Bake for 40 minutes, then finish in sauté pan" (maybe my temperature is off a little, or my piece of chicken is a slightly different size).
Another sign is where it came from. Recipes from a random Google search have a lot more unreliability than, say, ones from Cook's Illustrated.
On top of all of this, I look for conciseness. The biggest thing to scare me off of a recipe is one that goes on for almost a whole page or more. I understand it's necessary for some recipes but short, sweet and to the point are incredibly important.
So, I think finding recipes with the the right balance of information/substitutions/nutrition/etc is very important.
Lastly, I believe consistency across your recipes is a plus. All of your recipes will likely have the same structure, but do they have the same tone? Do they have the same POV? Do they all have the same amount of extra information?
Good signs: All ingredients measured in grams. (maybe millilitres for low viscosity fluids)
Bad signs: "Ounces". "Heaping", or "large" anything. Measuring anything that's not a low viscosity fluid by volume.
Regarding video recipes: If it looks too good to be true, too easy or too glamorous, it probably is.
There's a lot of extremely popular clickbait videos that pretend to be recipe videos while in fact they are meant to be 'eye candy' to be watched, and the end result if you follow the steps will look nothing like they make it out to be. The videos frequently skip essential but not-so-attractive looking steps, skip or substitute essential ingredients that are considered 'unhealthy' or otherwise unfashionable, sometimes outright substitute actual result of given step with a store-bought fake and in rare occasions suggest things that could have disastrous consequences (like bleaching strawberries in actual bleach...)
Ann Reardon has a whole playlist of debunking these fake recipes - often with hilarious results.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.035086
| 2010-08-09T05:39:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4614",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Catalyst",
"Dennis Williamson",
"GalacticCowboy",
"Gapton",
"Martha Marshall",
"Ocaasi",
"Rob Paterson",
"Ryan Rho",
"Simon Peter Chappell",
"Venesectrix",
"bikeboy389",
"derobert",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9220",
"skoeld",
"user8830"
],
"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
}
|
45660
|
What is the difference between custard pie and custard tart?
What's the difference between a custard pie and a custard tart? I looked at "Pie" vs "Tart"?, but it doesn't really answer my question as a custard pie does not really have a lid.
I would think that the pie is baked and the tart not but then again Portuguese custard tarts are indeed baked.
possible duplicate of "Pie" vs "Tart"?
I'd give the linked answer another look: the accepted answer also refers to depth. Deep = pie, shallow = tart. I'd use that as my guideline.
@ElendilTheTall: I don't believe that it answers my question and the below accepted answer is a more complete answer
Pies originally were specifically to denote enclosed items (the crust sealed the item that was to be eaten). In many cases, the crust wasn't actually eaten -- it was a nasty charred thing that was discarded.
In time, pie crusts improved to the point at which you'd eat the whole thing ... but the star was the filling, not the crust.
Tarts, on the other hand, are closer to a shortbread cookie with some sort of a topping. The crust is typically a critical part of the item, rather than just being a container for something else. (which in part is why people mention tarts being more shallow; there's a higher proportion of crust to filling).
So, my best attempt at determining if I should call something a pie or a tart. Note that these are in order. (as I'm trying to make sure that 'pizza' is a pie, not a tat)
fully enclosed by crust : pie
full bottom crust, with a crumb or lattice top : pie
no crust at all : not a tart, but not a pie, either.
has no sugar or fat in the crust : pie
chewy, flaky or crumb crust : pie
not structurally sound enough to be picked up and eaten one-handed : pie
was cooked in a tart pan : tart
baked without a pan : galette
over 2" / 5cm tall (not counting whipped cream or berries) : pie
less than 6" / 15cm across : tart
shortbread crust : tart
... I have no idea what I'd categorize thing that didn't match something already.
This is a more complete answer than the one I found in the link in my question and even though the custard pie and custard tart are both not enclosed, it gives me a better understanding.
Maybe add this answer to the original question and close this one?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.035929
| 2014-07-17T12:47:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45660",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Divi",
"ElendilTheTall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27431
|
When should I ditch a pot with teflon?
Possible Duplicate:
How to know whether the teflon coated pan's life has reached end?
We have this set of teflon covered pots, how do I know when the teflon gets too worn out? Or does it ever?
Things we put in, does not come as easily of, as it did when the were new.
They are aprox. 6 years old.
Ehow has an article on the specific dangers non-stick coatings can cause to humans and pets including fumes from heating a pan to too high a temperature, which I was unaware of.
Of course, if the coating is flaking or fuzzy-looking, actual coating material, which is a carcinogen, can leach into the food cooked in the pan.
Link to the Ehow article:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6531918_dangers-using-teflon-cookware.html
Eh ow articles are usually either copied from other sites, or of low quality. They exist for google add ranking only! Not workth quoting
@TFD - do you have any basis for thinking that this particular article has erroneous information? Do you have any useful info for the OP? Thanks!
PTFE is not that bad! It's duplicate question anyway, likely to be closed soon. No point in promoting eh ow in the excellent and fully democratic SA site :-)
I would get rid of them, and not replace them (with teflon). Teflon is okay for pans, but for pots, it's always good to have a set with really thick, heavy, copper bottoms. Spend the money on a good set and you won't be disappointed.
Could you expand on this a bit? Right now, it doesn't answer the question (how to know when the teflon has worn out). It would also be great if you could provide some concrete reasoning or evidence of teflon not being okay on pots, and why pots with copper bottoms are better.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.036148
| 2012-09-27T15:58:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27431",
"authors": [
"Bolton Bailey",
"Jasper Laguitao",
"Knetic",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Laura",
"Sandra Lindner-Turner",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"sleepless",
"trying_hal9000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29948
|
Best way/temperature to get maillard reaction on meat/steak
Background
In relation to this question/answer. What temperature does the Maillard reaction occur?
The answer to the question above states that over 400F/200C there is basically no maillard, only caramelization. It also states in the chart that you get most flavor full result between 250F/110C and 300F/150C. This goes against what I believed; I though the hotter the better (within reason). Therefore I use a blow torch. But maybe what I like is a mix of some maillard and some caramelization.
Question
With respect to the temperatures described in the previous question. Would my meat taste better if I used a 300F/150C pan instead of a very hot blow torch?
I wish I knew an answer, or even how to google one--but it sounds like what you need here is an experiment :-) I certainly know which method seems more practical in the typical kitchen....
There is a difference between the ideal pan surface temperature and the ideal meat surface temperature. If you put pre-cooked meat (e.g. sous-vide'd) in a 150°C pan for searing, by the time the meat has a nice crust you will get significant overheating in a thick layer under the meat surface. A blow torch is probably an overkill, but I have had best results with searing in a 300°C pan (for very short times, of course).
@rumtscho Good point, but do we then get any Maillard effect or do we only get caramelization? I actually use a blow torch and it is very clean and nice, buy a hardware one, not a 'food' one. If you only do 2 steaks it is about as fast and much less cleaning up! With more meat it is to slow and I use a pan.
for steaks you really should be pre-searing before the sous vide process, the maillard reaction will continue to develop flavors as the steak cooks and the final searing time will be greatly reduced because of the pre-sear and make it less likely to have an overcooked ring in the meat.
@Brendan interesting info. I don't have a sous-vide bath yet (half the parts are sitting at home waiting for time to do a project) but for normal roasting and sometimes pan-frying, I follow Kenji's recommendation of first low-temp roasting, then searing and not the other way round.
i've done side by side comparisons and the pre-searing is better hands down. The crust takes maybe 20-30 seconds to reform post-bath where you'd need minutes to create the same crust in a post sear scenario. I also recommend salting after cooking, only put aromatics or butter in the bag when cooking.
@Brenda, Interesting all info I have read so far say there is not much difference between pre and post sear. I have tried (long time ago) and could not see much difference. (never did side by side though)
you should check out www.chefsteps.com they are doing an entire course on sous-vide and a recent video shows the difference between pre and post searing.
The meat will pass through various temperature ranges when heated. The moisture in the surface layers of the meat will gradually evaporate, and once they are dried out, the temperature will start to rise more rapidly.
I think the balance of caramelization vs. Maillard also has to do with specific proteins and sugars available, but you're right -- around and above 400F/205C, caramelization proceeds fast enough that there's generally little opportunity for Maillard (the sugars break down too fast).
In any case, the issue isn't how hot your heat source is as much as how long the surface stays within particular temperature ranges. If your meat surface actually gets significantly above 400F/205C for a significant period of time, it will start to burn. But even after a couple minutes in a pan, the meat surface may not be equal to the pan temperature. Why? Because generally moisture is constantly escaping from the layers immediately below the surface, and that moisture will keep the interior below the boiling point (212F/100C). That lower temperature steam needs to be heated as it approaches the surface, which will keep the surface temperature from rising too fast. In a very hot pan or under a very hot heat source, a significant dry crust will eventually form and ultimately start to burn if the heat goes on long enough.
To get to your exact question -- if you use a 300F/150C pan, the following things will happen:
You'll lose a lot of heat immediately when dropping the food into the pan, lowering the pan surface temperature temporarily.
Now you might have a pan surface that is only close to boiling water temperature or something, and that's not high enough to cause significant Maillard browning in a reasonable amount of time.
The surface of the meat will gradually come up to boiling temperature, requiring a fairly large amount of energy. That won't allow the pan surface temperature to recover significantly for a while.
Once the meat surface hits 212F/100C, the water in the surface meat needs to boil off. It takes a huge amount of energy to evaporate water compared to the amount of energy it takes to raise the temperature. While that's going on, the meat will get "stuck" at boiling temperatures for a while. (This is quite visible, for example, when you crowd a pan with too much meat, and you get moisture pooling in the pan for a couple minutes that has to burn off.)
Note, so far, you don't get any significant Maillard browning going on, and no caramelization at all. If the surface meat has taken too long up to this point, it can acquire a boiled taste/texture that may not be optimal and may change the kinds of browning reactions that eventually do occur. Eventually, enough water boils out and the surface layers become drier.
Once enough surface moisture is boiled out of the meat, it can resume rising in temperature, which will happen much more quickly. But if the pan is still only going to a maximum temperature of 300F/150C, it will take some time. (Remember that the surface of the meat is still in contact with much cooler interior layers, which still have moisture that's generally not at a temperature more than 212F/100C.) And heat transfer rate depends on the difference in temperature between two things. So if the pan is 300F/150C and the steak is 212F/100C, you'll get a relatively slow temperature rise, and the closer the meat gets to 300F/150C, the slower the temperature will rise.
Eventually, after a few minutes, you'll get close enough to 300F/150C that Maillard reactions will occur noticeably, and you'll get some browning. Even then, the browning may take a while, because you still have the moisture coming out of the meat, which would probably keep the surface layers below 300F/150C.
Now, if you start out with a pan that's at 500F/260C (or even higher), the pan surface will transfer its heat (probably dropping down to 200-300F/95-150C in the process), and accomplish steps 1-5 in a matter of seconds instead of a matter of minutes. At that point, the layers of the pan underneath the surface will still have a lot of heat (since they started at 500F/260C instead of 300F/150C) and will transfer heat back to the pan surface. So after the first few seconds, the pan surface rapidly begins to rise again getting to 300F/150C fairly quickly, which will produce maximum Maillard reactions. Wait a little while, and you'll start getting significant caramelization. Wait further, and the meat will burn.
What's the ideal pan temperature to begin to get maximum Maillard in a brief time? It really depends on the material of the pan and its size and thickness, as well as the amount of meat you plan to drop into the pan (which will influence how much heat is needed to get through steps 1-5 quickly). When starting out with a superhot pan (say, 700F/370C or so), you'll get a lot more caramelization, less Maillard, and you'll have to be careful not to burn the meat if you wait too long to turn. With a pan that's only 400F/205C to start, you should get more Maillard, but it will take longer to brown, which may not be ideal if you want to keep the interior of the steak cooler (medium rare or whatever). With a heavy pan that transfers heat slowly (e.g., cast iron), I'd generally go with something around 550F/290C personally, which seems to be a reasonable balance. If the meat is going to crowd the pan, I'd go higher to burn off all that excess moisture as quickly as possible.
[Edit: As rumtscho noted in comments, the type of range -- gas, electric, or induction -- could also affect heat transfer and recovery time for a pan to come back to high temperature. Also, there are many specific properties of materials that will influence the heat transfer rate and recovery time, including the rate heat moves through the metal (thermal conductivity), the amount of heat stored in the pan (heat capacity), the rate heat conducts out of the pan surface (diffusivity), and the rate that radiative heat comes off the pan, which is mostly dependent on color (emissivity). Note that the heat capacity and thermal conductivity are often combined in one number to give a sense of "thermal inertia" or "effusivity."]
With a blowtorch, the temperature is obviously quite high, and the heat will be continuously replenished (unlike a pan, which has a temperature "recovery time"). You can go through steps 1-5 almost instantaneously. Whether you get more Maillard or more caramelization will depend on how hot the flame is and how close you hold it to the meat surface. You might experiment with backing the torch away just a bit and use it for a slightly longer time. It might change the effect and flavor profile slightly, but I've never played around with this much myself.
Thanks, sounds like good advice, basically we always mix caramelization and maillard. Also your meat should be a dry as possible, to reduce heat loss. Does a 'deep fryer' 'contain' more heat than a hot pan. I.e. if I have a normal (whatever size that is) pot with standard Oil at 200C, will it reduce less in heat than a pan at the same temperature?
Very nice answer, but there is a small addition: the speed of the steps you described depends not only on pan material, but also on oven type. Induction heats the upper surface of the pan (skin effect), so the energy is replenished constantly without waiting for heat to be conducted from the lower surface (as would be the case with resistive electricity or gas). If the pan also has a high heat capacity (cast iron) and is preheated well, its temperature also drops less from just the meat cooling it.
@Stefan this is very hard to answer. The heat capacity of oil as well as the speed with which it conducts heat should be less than those of most metals (warning, I haven't actually looked them up) but oil is a fluid, which means that you are looking at convection happening alongside the conduction. Also, you have more meat surface exposed. Getting the theoretical answer to that right will probably be enough for 3-4 credits towards a physics degree.
@rumtscho :-) , agreed, but if we make it simple (lots of factors not considered) the main point is how much thermal energy does 2-3l of oil 'contain' compared to one cast iron pan. Sorry I'm not a physics guy ... will do some research tomorrow :-)
@rumtscho - Good points. I think you'll still end up with a temperature gradient with induction, but you're right that the pan surface will receive energy more directly there, which should make for a faster recovery. Also, I didn't mention heat capacity directly, but that was part of the materials issue - thermal conductivity, diffusivity, emissivity, and heat capacity will all influence the browning process to various degrees.
@stefan if you want to understand how heat capacity works in pans, read http://forums.egullet.org/topic/25717-understanding-stovetop-cookware/. I am afraid they don't have the coefficients needed for oil, but you can look them up at wolfram alpha. What you want is to compare the specific heat per cubic centimeter of iron (3.53) and oil (1.8), then approximate the volume of iron in a pan. Still, the rate at which their interface to meat cools when meat is added to the system will be different, even if you chose amounts of oil and iron with the same heat capacity.
@Athanasius I was under the impression that the skin effect heats the upper surface of my pan, but now it looks that it may only apply to the lower surface due to the extremely low magnetic field penetration depth in iron. I have definitely observed a very localized heating effect exactly above the coil, but this could be the result of conduction after all. Must get that cleared before I know if my comment above is correct.
@rumtscho Yeah, I would think the skin affect would apply to any conducting metal... so almost any material in the pan. And in a pan like all-clad with a ferrous outside layer, and a copper or aluminum non-ferrous middle layer, probably only the bottom layer gets heated inductively. This is a very interesting discussion.
@SAJ14SAJ I have layered pans, and they don't seem to respond much slower than cast or forged iron pans. But of course, the thickness is different.
@rumtscho That may indicate the speed of conduction is high enough that it is not a significant factor.
@rumtscho - I hadn't really thought much about induction cooktops, and I assumed the magnetic field would penetrate further, but now that I read more, I agree that the strongest heating would probably occur at the lower surface, as you said.
Disregard the previous comment in this space :-) I did more research on emmissivity. Fascinating! The color thing means the dutch oven method for bread baking really needs dark color, like a cast iron dutch oven, rather than my stainless one!
@SAJ14SAJ - Emissivity is effectively the ratio of a particular surface's radiative characteristics at a particular temperature compared to blackbody radiation at that same temperature. A dull, black surface will be close to 1. A lighter or shinier surface will be lower. Sorry, I was trying not to use too much jargon in my answer, so I just used "color" as a simple explanation.
@Athanasius As you can see, I edited my comment after doing more research. I heave learned something very cool today!
@SAJ14SAJ - Yes, I saw that after I commented. I think I should perhaps leave that explanation in comments, though, in case others have a similar question. Note that the radiative component of cooking materials is generally less important than the other thermodynamic factors we've talked about, but it does have an effect, such as in baking recipes that specify different oven temps or times for dark vs. light colored pans.
@Athanasius Definitely leave the comment. The bread-in-a-dutch oven is a special case where the additional radiative mode cooking is significant which is why I picked it. This also explains why almost all oven walls are coated in black ceramic. As I said, very cool. Science in the kitchen for the win!
According to the culinary textbook 'On Cooking' (ISBN 978-0-13-715576-7) page 310, you want a temperature higher than 300°F (149°C). Studies have proven that flipping a steak every 30 seconds will have a better effect visually and flavour-wise.
For completion, could you link these studies?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.036345
| 2013-01-10T12:19:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29948",
"authors": [
"1Littlebirdie",
"Athanasius",
"Brendan",
"Dtex",
"JCoder23",
"Jay Vince Arnaiz",
"Mien",
"Mike",
"PaulPhy",
"Rowan",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stefan",
"Toptenreview",
"gamma_sponge",
"gene t",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99346",
"penny cosentino",
"rumtscho",
"user99346"
],
"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
}
|
28535
|
How to avoid fluffy pumpkin pie
Possible Duplicate:
How can I make my pumpkin pie thicker?
The pumpkin pie of my childhood was very dense, not like almost all pies I find today. I have tried a few recipes that claim to make dense pumpkin pie, but they just don't seem right.
In a typical pumpkin pie recipe, what is it that keeps making the pie fluffy? What can I do to make it dense?
example: http://andreasrecipes.com/pumpkin-pie/
Is the recipe you linked coming out fluffy for you though it claims to be dense?
I don't know. I think it is the recipe I tried last year, but I'm not sure.
There are some good suggestions in this question from this site where they suggest draining the pumpkin puree before using it: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8713/how-can-i-make-my-pumpkin-pie-thicker?rq=1
Since nobody has answered yet, I took a shot at this one from the opposite direction: searching for solutions to a too-dense pie hoping to find some steps that were "wrong" for the questioner but would be right for your opposite goal of denser pie.
This is how one remedied his too-dense pie; in the link is the recipe from which he made his modifications:
This pie is just too dense. Not enough liquid. I will always add one
can of condensed milk which provides lightness, no extra fat and a
wonderful texture. Don't add the whipped cream to the pie use it on
the top.
http://www.landolakes.com/recipe/2923/classic-pumpkin-pie
Another one recommends whipped egg whites into your filling for fluffier pie – would whole eggs, and/or not whipped, have the opposite effect?
There are those who would say it's just not Thanksgiving without a
pumpkin pie - and those who can't abide the pie's dense texture. A
simple way to keep all of your guests happy: Fold two whipped egg
whites into the filling for an airier, soufflé-like consistency.
(recipe for starting point is in link)
http://shine.yahoo.com/shine-food/tips-were-thankful-225000108.html
This one seems to clarify that, suggesting three whole eggs and less evap milk for a denser pie:
The vast majority of people tell me this is the best pumpkin pie
they've ever had. It's light and fluffy - however... if you want a
heavy, more dense pie, use 3 eggs instead of 4 and 1 can of evaporated
milk instead of 1.5)
http://www.pickyourown.org/pumpkinpie.php
your answer is very creative. It's worth mentioning that the OP's linked recipe uses 3 eggs and 1 1/4 cup half & half so it's pretty certain that your examples weren't really Homer's problem but they might help someone else. :-)
@KristinaLopez: Good point, but he could always bump up to heavy cream from half and half, or even combine those to a desired ratio. I'd also actually wondered if adding extra yolks would have the opposite effect of how adding extra whites make it fluffier.
the egg yolk theory might be a good one. It's basically a custard pie so the eggs and cream are important, it's just a matter of proportions.
It looks to me like the "pick your own" recipe's answer for a denser pie is, at least in part, to use less custard: reduce the number of eggs, and reduce the quantity of condensed milk. They do reduce the quantity of milk by 1/3 and the quantity of egg only by 1/4, which also changes the proportions of the custard in favor of more egg.
Like @MargeGunderson I don't have a great answer to this, but I can perhaps shed a bit of light on what makes things fluffy:
Air: stiff egg white is just fluff containing air, which will expand when heated. Expansion makes things fluffy
Water: when water turns into steam it expands greatly. Unbeaten eggs are mostly water, and canned pumpkin is mostly water
Chemical reactions: baking soda is a base that reacts with acid, producing bubbles which make the mix expand. Not a factor in most pumpkin pie recipes, but I'm being complete here
Microbes: yeast is a microbe that eats sugar and O2 producing CO2, which takes up greater volume than O2, making things rise. It would be an unusual pumpkin pie that used this method!
The two that are a factor are air and water. Add more for more expansion (within limits of course), and remove them for less expansion. Canned pumpkin often has water added as part of the canning process (it adds weight giving you less for your money) and is pretty sloppy. If you want a really dense pumpkin pie then you'll need top open your can and dehydrate it a bit, possibly by pouring it into a baking dish and putting it in a very low oven 100F, ~60C for a couple of hours. I've never tried it myself so YMMV! You could also try putting it into a sieve and letting it drip, or putting it in a muslin cloth or jam bag and squeezing the water out.
Also try using ingredients that are dense themselves like sugar syrup, evaporated milk, etc. Let us know if you try and how it comes out!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.037575
| 2012-11-20T17:32:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28535",
"authors": [
"Caroline T",
"Grilled sandwich fan",
"Homer",
"Kathleen Meagher",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Lee Gildemeester",
"Luna Hawkings",
"MargeGunderson",
"Theodore Murdock",
"Tuna Machhli",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057",
"spacefluff432"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5584
|
How can I grow my own yeast (sourdough starter)?
I would like to always have my own culture of yeast (sourdough starter) in my fridge at home. Does anyone know how to grow yeast and keep it alive?
Most bakers refer to this as a starter and it is extremely easy to keep up. You will need a plastic bag or a jar to keep it in, a cup of warm water, and some flour. You can either grow some wild yeast or add a particular strain to the growth solution depending what you are trying to do with the yeast. Once you do that, just leave it someplace warm but not over 100 degree F. Then once a day, you feed the yeast by removing half and adding back a half cup of flour and a half cup of water. Once it starts foaming remove to the fridge and remember to feed once a week. It will be with you for the rest of the your time on earth.
Also, that half you take out when you feed it? Makes a great gift to other baking or cooking friends. Also, if you devolop a dark smelly liquid, just stir it back in, it is normal and nothing to worry about.
Hey sarge. I just happened to read this closer. I don't think "dark smelly liquid" is normal. Smelly liquid, yes. However, it should be a murky light color, the color of dough more or less. If you have something green, red, or brown - you've got something besides yeast and their friendly bacteria buddies growing.
I'm specifically talking about a discharge that is dark brown/amber. It often develops around day two or three, and will be clearer and not as bubbly as the rest of liquid in the container. It is a waste product of the yeast and doesn't add to the flavor but removing it is also a waste of time. The thing is, with a wild culture, yeasts are great competitors and will destroy other bacterial growth trying to take advantage of it's growth medium. Basically, I have always just mixed everything back in, and don't worry about it, unless you get that skunk beer flavor, then it's time to start over
@hobodave Although I might worry if I got green or red, anything that could be poured out of a beer bottle in color is safe to mix back in.
I recommend grabbing a copy of Peter Reinhart's "Artisan Bread Every Day" from your local library. Very informative, and has recipes for starting your own "mother" starter, also numerous recipes for use with the sourdough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.037983
| 2010-08-19T22:15:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5584",
"authors": [
"Asghar",
"BearMountainBooks",
"Courtney",
"Essential",
"Juju",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"ljgww",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5497
|
How to use pie weights?
Should something be placed between pie weights (whether using rice, beans, or metal/ceramic beads) and the pie dough?
Should the dough still be pricked with a fork?
How do you remove the weights?
I looked up various advice elsewhere, used beans as pie weights with nothing between them and the dough, and I tried to pour them out. I lost the crust. Help!
EDIT: How much material should I use as a weight? (what measurement of rice, beans, etc.)
Yes. You can either use aluminum foil that has been lightly sprayed with some Pam or rubbed with butter OR a piece of parchment paper cut into a larger circle than the pie. It will create an overhang that you can use to pull out the weights or beans.
If you try to bake it with the beans on the surface it will cook directly into the dough and your shell will be ruined.
I still prick the bottom of the crust because steam and air will still be trapped underneath the pie weights. When you remove the weights to finish the baking of the crust, if it has not been pricked you could still end up with pockets and air bubbles as that part of the crust is still a bit raw.
I use a large coffee filter. This allows the crust to "breathe" better. The beans go inside the filter and its easy to pull out once pre-baking is done.
Is there a risk of the filter catching fire or creating off-flavors?
There is and it depends on how hot your oven is. The auto ignition temperature of paper is 424–475 °F. If you are baking at temps below that range, it should be fine. I've never noticed any off-flavors.
Typical blind-baked pie instructions call for a 425F oven, and ovens can easily cycle 25F above the set-point, so that's cutting it pretty close. I'm sure the moisture and direct contact with the cooler shell help it stay under the ignition point, but still... I think I'll try poking a few holes in parchment instead.
As others have stated parchment or greased foil will keep your weights from embedding themselves in your pie crust, and make getting the weights out easier. I have had better luck with parchment. Waxed paper was predictably a disaster (I grabbed the wrong roll once).
It depends on the size of the pie crust a bigger pie takes more weights. When using beans I like to have about two beans deep all the way across the bottom (2-3 cups depending on the size of the pie shell). Ceramic weights are more dense, and only really need one layer.
I place a sheet of parchment paper between the crust and the weights. This makes removing them as straightforward as carefully lifting the paper out.
Re: amount to use - enough to cover the bottom uniformly.
An alternative technique is to freeze the pastry in the pie dish.
Then take the frozen pastry out of the dish and put it in the oven - it should bake before it defrosts and goes out of shape.
How does it bake if it remains frozen? Doesn't it need to reach a certain temperature for chemical reactions to take place involving the flour?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.038210
| 2010-08-18T22:08:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5497",
"authors": [
"ALLEN",
"Benjamin Horowitz",
"Chriseyre2000",
"Doktor J",
"Jason S.",
"Nezy",
"WW.",
"ansible",
"carmenism",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3401",
"mpoisot",
"user26306"
],
"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
}
|
7970
|
Is using treated wood safe for smoking meat?
I have some broken hickory drum sticks that I was going to throw out; but could these be useful for smoking meat? I would assume the wood is treated.
Sounds like a terrible idea, but maybe your meat would have rhythm? Mambo chicken?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.038496
| 2010-10-09T04:30:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7970",
"authors": [
"Michael Natkin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4045
|
Is time a factor in Caramelization?
A lot of cooking involves caramelization, and I want to get a better understanding it. Does caramelization happen instantly when each sugar molecule reaches the correct temperature, or does the sugar need to maintain that temperature for a specific amount of time?
If it needs to maintain temperature, is there any way to estimate the amount of time needed before cooking?
Caramelization occurs at the melting point of sugar. When a sugar molecule hits the appropriate temperature, it melts. This is similar to ice turning to water above 32 F (0 C). It will take some time for all of a given amount of sugar to melt, but this is relatively insignificant compared to ice melting due primarily to the vast amount of heat involved to melt sugar. Once melted there is no need to maintain it at a specific temperature.
However, time is a factor in achieving the desired temperature for your melted sugar.
For sucrose:
At 356 F (180 C) you have light caramel - it's a pale amber to golden brown in hue
From 356 F to 370 F (180 C to 188 C) you have medium caramel - this is a golden brown to chestnut brown hue.
From 370 F to 400 F (188 C to 204 C) you have dark caramel - this is very dark, bitter, and smells a little burned - this is used for coloring only
At 410 F (210 C) you have monkey's blood - it tastes like burning and the sugar breaks down to carbon
Another thing to be aware of is that caramelization is often mistakenly attributed to the browning of meats, nuts, or bread crust. This is actually an entirely different process called the maillard reaction which requires specific enzymes to be present, and occurs at different temperatures than caramelization.
Caveat: Wikipedia actually states that meat is browned via another process. This is the first I've heard of it. I was always told it was the Maillard reaction, but it's likely just a repeated misnomer.
I was thinking of things like sauces and onions, not meat. I guess the long time it takes is more related to getting all the water boiled off first.
Well, onions aren't truly caramelized. :) They are yet another maillard reaction. "Caramelization" occurs during the browning of sugar in the absence of a protein. When sugars or starches occur with proteins the browning is due primarily to the Maillard reaction, not caramelization.
But yes, the maillard reaction requires a low moisture and high heat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.038556
| 2010-08-03T01:10:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4045",
"authors": [
"Anuraj",
"Cass",
"H_7",
"Lessan Vaezi",
"Michael Hoffman",
"Nir",
"Tim Gilbert",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7603"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10689
|
Tips for cooking something "bacon wrapped"?
Whenever I cook something "bacon wrapped" the bacon comes out a little undercooked for my taste. Should I be half-cooking my bacon before I wrap it onto something that I'm going to bake?
Yes you can. The term is called par-cooking.
Just fry it briefly in a skillet, drain, and wrap your item.
You can par cook the bacon as hobodave said. I find boiling it for a few minutes works nicely, as frying can make parts of it too crisp to wrap effectively. You can do it but it requires some attention.
Another method is to use less or use a very thinly sliced bacon. This is not always readily available. I often use pancetta from the deli, which can easily be sliced thinly and gives the same general flavor, though often not as smoky as some bacons.
The intensity of the heat is important, also. If I am bacon wrapping something I usually plan on grilling or broiling it. The bacon crisps and the fat that renders out during cooking has a basting effect on whatever you wrapped.
If you are baking, I would use your ovens broil element at the end to crisp up the bacon.
I ran into the same issue with underdone fatty areas. I now cut the bacon strip in two and wrap so that the lean is to the outside left and right, and the fatty parts (where the skin used to be long ago) touching in the middle.
After baking, I cover the done lean ends with foil and stick under the broiler to crisp the middle, turning once. It's a lot of work, but well worth it!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.038762
| 2011-01-03T02:55:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10689",
"authors": [
"Cattalion",
"Donna",
"Katie",
"Ross Millikan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21923"
],
"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
}
|
17601
|
How long can I reuse this delicious bacon grease for cooking?
I cooked some bacon about a week ago and left the grease in the pan. I've used it the last two nights with great success for cooking other meals.
How long is it safe to reuse? I figure since I'm heating it up to a million degrees each time I use it it's probably pretty safe, but.... I'd rather not get food poisoning.
I don't know about leaving it just in the pan, they strain it and such - but Dyer's Burgers is still using grease from 1912 ;) http://www.dyersonbeale.com/
I don't plan on living for another 100 years so I think I'm set
Fat/oil will break down when overheated. If you are heating the oil to its smoking point, then it is too hot. If you want to keep this bacon grease for as long as possible, then strain it and don't overheat. Otherwise your food will taste like burnt oil, eww...
+1 for @Jake Robinson's comment... While delicious, bacon grease will smoke pretty early on... Watch out!
Possible duplicate of How do I know if food left at room temperature is still safe to eat?
I have a small glass jar where I save strained bacon drippings and store it in the fridge.
Is it safe? maybe. Is it recommended? No.
If you're going to save bacon grease (or other fats), I'd recommend:
straining it
putting it into a different container to minimize the surface area exposed to air
keeping the container in the fridge.
Although, the first one, I admit I don't do -- as I'm not cooking bacon every day, I've generally used up my supply by the time I've got more ... so I fill a glass jar, and let solids settle to the bottom ... then just use the stuff off the top as I need it, until I get so far down the jar that I hit the darker strata, when I then dispose of the whole thing. (I recycle jars for this, then pitch the whole thing ... you don't want to go washing bacon grease down the drain, it does nasty things to your pipes)
...
If you're going to do what you are, you'll want to make sure that you hold the pan at 250°F (121°C) for at least three minutes, preferably longer, to kill off botulism spores, unless you're fond of that whole paralysis thing.
You can also freeze it, which makes it much easier to work with (either as cubes, or chiselling it off when needed).
I reckon that as long as it doesn't start smelling bad (AKA goes rancid) , it's good.
In the olden days, people would store food by covering it with fat as a way of preserving when there was no refrigeration available.
And by the way, good for you for following the 3 Rs: reuse, recycle, and be a cheapskate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.039034
| 2011-09-09T03:52:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17601",
"authors": [
"Arjun J Rao",
"Brh",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Jake Robinson",
"Muhammad Ahsan",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Rikon",
"TFD",
"YumYumYum",
"debtitor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7303",
"jen",
"millie lev",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7394
|
How does the power setting on a microwave work?
In general, how does the microwave power setting work? Is it a straight percentage of the maximum wattage or is it something less precise?
For example, would the time to cook something in a 700 watt microwave be the same as a 1000 watt at .7 power?
Is there any other major deciding factor in how one microwave cooks compared to another besides the power? (Assuming it is actually running at its listed power. Is it even possible for a microwave to drift off its posted power due to age or some other factor?)
It may already be an implicit assumption, but I think that time to cook is probably not as important as how to cook. While the power setting does affect the time to cook, the importance of time is to control how hot the parts of the food get.
As with all cooking, there is a need to control temperature. Running the microwave at less than full power allows time for the heat to be conducted from the hot parts to the cool parts. It is similar to searing vs. sauteeing.
I think that the accuracy of most microwave oven's power settings are good enough (my own testing shows about 10%). I would be more concerned about how I wanted the item cooked. Some examples:
When I want to reheat things like a thick soup, I run the microwave at full power for a short period of time, stir, and run the microwave again. Stirring the concoction distributes the heat faster than the conduction process.
When I want to defrost frozen foods (think meat), I use the lowest power setting. This prevents the edges of the food from getting cooked.
The majority of microwaves cannot modulate their power output. The power setting in most microwaves simply turns the magnetron (microwave generator) off and in in cycles. So a power setting of .5 for 10 minutes would simply cycle the magnetron on and off every few seconds, with a total on time of 5 minutes. You can actually hear this occurring.
According to wikipedia, some newer microwaves can actually achieve a more or less constant level of reduced power using a technique called pulse-width modulation. I have never seen or used one of these though.
Microwave cooking is never very exact, so cooking something at 700 W vs 1000 W at .7 power would yield very different results. The only reliable way I've found in cooking things properly in different wattage microwave ovens is simple observation.
I did some testing on my GE 1000W microwave at a 50% power rating. It seems to cycle at a 30 second period... ~15 seconds on at full power, ~15 seconds off. I was quite surprised to find that the timings drifted by about 10%. Difficult to describe, but after 4 minutes, the cycles were off by about 3 seconds. Probably not really significant for general cooking techiques.
I agree. You can distinctly hear the power shifts in my microwave. If you put it on 5 (out of 10), you get 100% power for 50% of the time.
@erichui Now I'm curious: What happens if you put it on 50% power for 10 seconds?
@Yamikuronue I just did you test, 50% power for 10 seconds. The microwave was turned on for the full 10 seconds.
Note that the on-off cycles described are also pulse width modulation, albiet with a much lower pulse frequency.
The solution is to place a measured amount of water in a cup to reduce the power to the food. This is a trial and error method, but it is the only way to truly reduce the power continuously to a food you are trying to cook. I use this method for poached eggs in the microwave since they always exploded even if I reduced the power to 50%. I found that about 1/3 cup of water along with the egg(s) in the poacher reduces the power so they cook at the proper speed and do not explode.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.039301
| 2010-09-17T04:37:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7394",
"authors": [
"Billie",
"Dinah",
"Julie Ward",
"Spammer",
"Vaelus",
"Vicki Schneteger",
"Yamikuronue",
"erichui",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67946",
"user15163",
"user15165"
],
"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
}
|
4440
|
Is there a substitute for Dijon mustard and if so, what is it?
Can I substitute a small amount of say, hot english mustard for Dijon, or is there some other alternative. (Of course I will get some soon, but right now i have none, and was wondering if i can make do with something else)
Can you tell us what you are doing with it? That would make some difference regarding the best substitution.
Dijon has a strong taste from the liquid they use in it (it's not quite vinegar, not quite wine). I'd probably try a blend of some other mustard + a little white wine vinegar (not white vinegar; white wine vinegar) or champaigne vinegar or apple cider vinegar. (Maybe even a dry white wine, if you have that on hand).
If you have dry mustard powder, and some time to let it sit, you could also try making your own; most of the recipes online seem to use a dry white wine as their base, a few use white wine vinegar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.039610
| 2010-08-06T09:37:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4440",
"authors": [
"Cormac",
"Kiara",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mike",
"Till B",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8361"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1590
|
How do you figure out how much oil to use for pan frying?
How do you go about figuring how much oil to use for frying? Off the top of my head, I can think of a number of factors such as the type of food, how well you want to cook it, the type of oil, the size of the pan and how much food you are trying to cook. Which of these factors should I worry about the most and does anyone have any general rules for figuring out how much oil to use?
As you suggest, there are a number of factors, but the best rule of thumb I've found for pan-frying is to use just enough oil to cover the bottom of the pan by swirling it around. In general, you don't want puddles (you'll get splashed with hot oil), but if the pan isn't covered then your food might not get cooked evenly.
These days I mostly just eyeball it, and err on the generous side. Using slightly too much isn't likely to hurt your dish - unused oil just won't get absorbed - but using too little will result in under-cooked or inconsistently-cooked food and probably a lot of gunk stuck to the bottom of your pan. So if you're not sure, just add a little more than you think you absolutely need.
Unless you're like my neighbor, and insist that 2/3 of the way full is exactly how he saw it being on a tv cooking show, and he had no fry thermometer, and we've got every burner on the stove going; the oil boiled over, caught fire, we had to clear the stove to try to pull it out; my attempts to smother it with a lid didn't work as there was an air gap underneath that fed the flames, and the stove's electronics burned out (electric stove), and singed the wall before we got a fire extinguisher and got it under control. So -- maybe extra isn't bad for pan frying, but it is for deep frying.
Hah... noted! Yes, this appeared to be about pan-frying, but for deep-frying you generally want just enough to cover the food by about an inch (at least that's what I do, and I haven't seen any ggrease fires yet).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.039715
| 2010-07-18T01:25:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1590",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Complicated see bio",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Joe",
"NARKOZ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mirk",
"monkey_boys"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1628
|
Cracking an egg
How do you crack an egg?
Well, dropping it usually does the trick.
"It's all in the wrist"
Bullets work well. http://digital-photography-school.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/high-speed-photography-12.jpg
Have you tried using harsh interrogation techniques?
A similar question had an answer that points to videos on how do crack and separate eggs.
Crack sharply on a hard flat surface, and pull the halves apart on the break.
Use a flat surface so you don't shove shell bits into the albumen. When you pull, don't shove your fingers into the crack for the same reason. Most of the skill is in knowing how hard to hit the egg to get a crack without shattering the shell. Once you get really good, you can do it one-handed: hold egg in palm, smack on surface, and use your thumb and fingers to push it in half. It takes some practice.
I'm often messy so I'll the sink as my hard surface to reduce clean-up.
You need an edge to properly crack the egg, a flat surface would be fine for a hard boiled egg, but not a fresh egg.
A belated addition: I don't know if anyone else does this, but I learned from my parents to crack one egg against another (except the last one). That's pretty much a flat surface, and if you accidentally leak some egg, it goes on the other egg, not your counter.
I'm still undecided on the flat surface vs. an edge for breaking the eggs. The argument against using an edge is that you risk driving a chip of eggshell into the middle of the egg, but I find that a clean break is more significant for me, as anything less means that I have trouble separating the two halves, and end up knocking loose little bits of shell into my dish that I then have to go and fish out.
I will say that although I learned using the edge of a bowl, these days I use the edge of my counter -- it's straight, so I find it gives me a cleaner break ... just don't forget to clean and disinfect your counters afterwards. (I guess I could use a rectangular pyrex or similar container, too, but I don't know if the 90 degree angle vs. the edge of container would make a difference).
Crack on the lip of a bowl. You may need to practice a bit to get the exact strength needed, too much and it you break the egg completely dumping it into the bowl and on the table, too little and you need to try again.
Once cracked a bit, then pull two halves apart with your two thumbs.
Gently empty egg into your container.
And with practice look like a pro by doing this with one hand only (this is also faster). Of course if it fails you look like a fool :-). Doing this is all about practice...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.039898
| 2010-07-18T03:40:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1628",
"authors": [
"Amr Elgarhy",
"Cascabel",
"Dinah",
"Eclipse",
"Elzo Valugi",
"Ian",
"JustRightMenus",
"M4rk",
"Richard",
"Serge",
"Toby Allen",
"ceejayoz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/741",
"papin",
"ricbax"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4641
|
Should whole coffee beans be stored at room temperature, the fridge or freezer?
My coffee is normally used up within 1 week and is of unknown age on purchase, do I need to do anything extra to make it last a week?
If you use your whole beans within a week it's probably not worth storing it in the refrigerator or freezer. Coffee beans should be stored in a cool, dry place. They can last 1-3 weeks in your pantry. Ideally you should store them in an airtight opaque container. They degrade quickly in the presence of light, heat, or oxygen.
If you want to store them longer, then they will last 3-4 month in the freezer.
Source:
http://stilltasty.com/fooditems/index/16941
So if I'm keeping mine in the transparent hopper of my Rancilio Rocky grinder for a week or so, would I be better off blacking out the hopper to keep the light out?
@lukecyca: It would technically be better, but for only a week I'd say it's a negligible improvement, unless the grinder gets direct sunlight.
I have typically seen most rules of thumb for this being along the lines of buy only the coffee you will use within 1 week (kept at room-temp). freezing coffee breaks down the oils that make it flavorful, refrigerating it traps it with a bunch of other smells. storage of coffee is like that of produce, just have the right amount on hand; especially for high quality.
Basically, buy 1) appropriate portions and 2) keep it in a vacuum sealed container.
*note: if you buy locally roasted coffee/coffee with a roast date the peak flavor is typically within the first two days of roasting, and some (myself included) prefer the brown bag the coffee comes in to allow for the coffee to breathe during this period
I've never heard of freezing breaking down flavorful oils in coffee, and my experience of having done this countless times indicates otherwise as well.
From my coffee house training: It's not so much the cold that breaks down coffee beans' essential oils as it is the condensation that refrigerated or frozen coffee beans develop and absorb when they're removed from cold storage; moisture contributes to the decay of coffee beans' essential oils. Coffee beans can be placed in cold storage to preserve their freshness if they're sealed in an airtight container and aren't repeatedly removed from and returned to cold storage; for best results, coffee beans, once removed from cold storage, should never be returned to it.
I would say the taste of beans ground from out of the freezer is compressed, but i can only give a subjective answer, and based on the coffee shop down the street, they store theirs unrefrigerated; that may be also because they have a master roaster who roasts on site monday & wednesdays and they go through their beans pretty quickly.
i think that we could find a bunch of links supporting and debunking our claims so i think if you notice the difference then do(n't) freeze.
Peak flavor 3-4 days after roasting is what my local roaster told me here, plus I tend to read the same often on the big coffee forums.
@jontyc Sorry if the wording seems confusing: 'peak' being, for my practice, hold off the fresh coffee just roasted for the first one-two days, use within the week (i.e. 3rd-7th days, sweet spot being therein based on conditions of environment)
Do not store coffee in a refrigerator for daily use. The repeated opening and closing of the container at lower than room temperatures will cause condensation on the inside of the can and on the beans themselves, degrading the flavor. I echo the other responses about using an air tight lid at room temperature. This should keep whole beans fresh for longer than a week.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.040477
| 2010-08-09T15:01:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4641",
"authors": [
"Chris B. Behrens",
"Eric Peterson",
"Iuls",
"Kalamane",
"Marc Messing",
"Nay Min",
"TCLopez",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8919",
"jontyc",
"lukecyca",
"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
}
|
1610
|
How do you halve a recipe that calls for 1 egg?
How do you halve a recipe that calls for 1 egg?
Clarification: I do not want to have to make the full recipe just to use half and I don't have powdered egg substitute.
I have had the same problem; I don't want to waste the other half of the egg. I recently learned (on this site), though, that egg can be frozen and saved. I recommend following any of the advice below & then freezing the other half for future use.
Is half of a ~16 cent egg really that big of a deal?
Depending on the recipe, you might not even notice 1/2 vs 1 egg.
Crack the egg into a cup or bowl, whisk it, and measure out half of the contents. If you use eggs frequently, you could probably save the other half for a day or two – otherwise, it's like 8 cents out of your pocket.
Just mix the other half with 3 whole eggs and make an omelet.
Freeze the egg and carefully saw in half, end to end. Thaw and you're good to go :)
This brought back memories of college -- I had one of those small fridges with the little compartment inside that was the freezer ... the eggs got too close to the freezer ... I cracked an egg ... the shell came away, but there was just frozen egg.
@Nikhil try lengthways ;)
Now I'm gonna have to go try this. You people are evil. :)
-1, it's a funny answer, but in reality, if you freeze an egg, you can't do anything with it after you thaw it. (And no, I didn't try it because I read the answer :P I've frozen eggs accidentally when my fridge thermostat went crazy).
@rumtscho That's not entirely true: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5021/can-raw-eggs-be-frozen but certainly true enough for this answer.
@Jefromi even without bursting the shell, a frozen egg will have vastly changed protein structure when thawed - clumped yolk, weird white. I admit I haven't tried actually using such eggs, but they just seemed not up to the task. Who knows, maybe they work despite their strange texture.
Measure half by weight. Simply crack an egg into a bowl on a zeroed scale, note the weight. Beat the egg with a whisk or fork until combined. Rezero your scale with a new empty dish and pour half the egg by weight into it.
Depending on the recipe and number of eggs total, you can separate the white from the yolk.
This doesn't work well if you're dealing with just one egg total (throws the fat content too far off), but I've done this when going from 3 -> 1 1/2 with good success in baking recipes. I've also used it to fine-tune the amount of fat in the recipe if I didn't like the original consistency.
Depending on what you're making, there may be a good egg substitute other than that powdered stuff. e.g. if you are making some kind of baked good, I've had good results from using bananas or apple sauce. (bananas sometimes add a banana-y flavour though... which is often a welcome addition :-))
There are a wide variety of egg substitutes out there, and each lend themselves to different kinds of recipes... Perhaps one of these could solve your problem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.040820
| 2010-07-18T02:53:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1610",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"David Conboy",
"Fred",
"JMP",
"Joe",
"Jonas Schmid",
"JustRightMenus",
"KimbaF",
"Ludovic Chabant",
"Marti",
"Matt Krause",
"Nicolò Martini",
"Pavel Yakimenko",
"Rowland Shaw",
"beausmith",
"ceejayoz",
"cptloop",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/771",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
184
|
What knives are "required" for a serious home kitchen?
I consider myself a serious home cook. What knives are essential?
Protecting this question, as it's starting to pick up a few too many spammy, duplicate, and/or off-topic answers.
IMO, if you already consider yourself a serious cook, you have all the knives you need.
There are three core essentials:
Chef's knife
8" or 10" depending on your preferences
Paring knife
3" or 4" depending on your preferences
Bread knife
As long as possible, 12"+
Feel free to go cheap here, it's serrated and thus largely unsharpenable
You may want to check out Alton Brown's book, Alton Brown's Gear For Your Kitchen. He spends a chapter on knives and where to go past the essentials. He also suggests which ones are worth spending money on and which should be throwaways.
Cutco makes serrated knives that are phenomenal - and they can be sharpened. I use a long carving knife as my bread knife, and I wouldn't trade it for anything. I also use that knife for trimming meats.
Those three are the only ones I use on a regular basis. I occasionally use the others, but those are definitely the MUST haves. In fact, I have more than one Chef's knife because I use that one A LOT.
kudos on mentioning the bread knife. though perhaps not used as often in my kitchen, it's ridiculous how bad a Santoku blade is at cutting french bread!
@JustRightMenus Brands are highly subjective. I would recommend going to a place where you can lay hands on several different types of knives before deciding on which to purchase. A knife must first feel comfortable to the user.
Everyone's stressing the chef's knife, but I'd be even more generic; when starting out, you can do almost every task with:
A large knife (8" Chef, 7" Japanese Santoku, or a Chinese Cleaver)
A small knife (Paring or similar)
A bread knife (serrated, 10" or longer)
As you add to your collection:
A boning / filet knife
Kitchen shears (for snipping herbs without a cutting board or cutting the back out of a chicken)
A carving knife (for slicing meats and large melons or splitting a cake into layers)
A heavy cleaver (so you don't mess up your main-line knives when hacking up bones; heavy enough to use the back of the knife for cracking a coconut)
A utility / tomato knife (mid-sized, serrated)
A few people have mentioned a larger chef's knife, but it's going to be harder to control. Develop good knife skills first, then move to something larger.
I know a few people who do everything but bread with a paring knife (and no cutting board, in their hand, cutting against their thumb), and I'd consider them "serious chefs" (southern, over 60 for the most part, but also a few apartment-living Europeans).
kudos on answer completeness, sir. love the idea of building the collection. good mention of cleaver blade.. I've dinged up at least 2 santoko blades on bones when trying to trim a pork shoulder or beef rib steaks. horrible practice - comes about mostly when distaste for extra dishes overcomes good sense.
Add a vegetable peeler and you're set.
Definitely a cleaver. A serious cook will be making a lot of broth. And when you make chicken broth, you're going to have to chop up that chicken with a cleaver. Most people would say you don't need a utility knife but you do if you want to fillet fish. Also, you need scissors! I use them to cut chives. So much easier than a knife.
+1 for the last paragraph. A lot of Portuguese people have nothing but a paring knife and chopping boards aren't strictly speaking mandatory.
To me, the following are necessary:
A chef's knife (8 inch)
A paring knife
A bread knife
There are tasks for which other knives are more suitable, but these are the three I started with, and there's little you may need others for.
After the 3 that most of us agree on (chefs, paring, bread), my next choice would be a "tomato knife", which is a little longer than a paring knife, but serrated like a bread knife. Very handy for anything with tough skin.
Sorry, but I disagree. If you need a serrated knife to cut a tomato, all that means is that your regular knives aren't sharp enough. (That said, if one has knives that can't be sharpened. a serrated knife is the way to go.)
@Niel - indeed. unless you mean a super-ripe tomato with extra slick skin, and you're too lazy to re-sharpen your knife set just for a lunch sandwich. @Michael - but, yes, I've been using my serrated Henckel steak knives for tomatoes at lunch for years, and it does work well, helping to keep the good set in the block waiting for larger preparation jobs (ie: dinner).
+1 for tomato knife. Some people don't like their regular knives that sharp due to hands not co-operating with brain as well as we would like
In order of importance (for me):
Chef's knife (8 or 10 inches) - high quality
Paring knife - Get it at the checkout for < $5.00, and replace annually
Bread knife - I would go mid price on this one.
Honing Steel - Longer than your longest knife.
Carving knife - High quality.
Shears - Either go high quality and sharpen, or low quality and replace.
Boning knife (If you don't do much butchery, omit) - medium quality.
Fillet knife (Increase in priority depending on how much fish you eat) -High quality.
Peeling knife [a paring knife with a hooked peak]
High quality knives hold their edge, and will need sharpening once every year or two.
Medium quality - need sharpening every 6 months or so, will be ground down in 5 - 10 years.
Low quality - don't bother sharpening. The steel sucks, just replace it.
Generally, you need the first 3. Get the rest as need and finances dictate.
Has anybody mentioned a steel? Buy a steel before you buy a good knife. You could buy the best quality knife of the planet but it won't make a lick of difference if you cannot maintain the quality of the edge.
I use a 33cm wooden handle Victorinox chef's knife for most of my work. I steel it several times a day and sharpen it on a wet-dry stone about once a month. Every chef I have worked with who has picked it up has loved it despite being a cheap brand.
+1 because it's a good point that sharpening/honing tools matter more than the knife in the long run. I think a good ceramic steel/sharpening rod is the best choice, because it has a slight grit which sharpens the knife as it hones; in contrast a traditional grooved steel dulls the edge with repeated use.
A more modern set...
Disclosure: I'm on the board of directors for a high end knife company.
The traditional advice given to young home cooks has been to get something like:
8" chef's knife
4" paring knife
Bread knife (performs a common task that the other knives cannot).
However, knife materials and home cooking skills have improved quite a bit over the last decade or two so I now advise serious home cooks to use the following:
11" or 12" chef's knife - Serious cooks typically know how to handle longer blades, and this gives you more workable edge length for cutting large vegetables and meat blocks, and also allows for fewer and cleaner cuts. The difference in working edge between an 8" and a 12" knife is enormous!
Contemporary steel allows knives to be made at these lengths without sacrificing precision or rigidity because the knife spine no longer has to be thicker to accommodate a longer length.
A properly designed, modern 10" or 12" knife will have an edge profile which allows for good, western-style push/chop-cutting action with good rebound, but still allow the entire edge length to be used effectively for slicing strokes.
5" to 6.5" utility knife - For most home kitchens, a utility knife in this range is far more useful than a paring knife. It's long enough to cut apples, onions, garlic, herbs, and many prep and one-off items, but also short enough that you can accomplish most paring tasks. The utility knife size is much more maneuverable than a full chef's knife for simple/one-off tasks, and the length allows for a thin and very sharp blade which you will love. For couples cooking together, this also allows for much better knife sharing since the utility knife has far better task range than a paring knife.
Bread knife
The next few knives I'd suggest after the "modern trio" are:
Long sujihiki or slicing knife
Boning knife
My strong suggestion for those on a budget is to save money by not buying #4 and #5, buying a relatively cheap bread knife, and redirect the bulk of your budget to #1 and #2.
I'm glad I spent more money on my chef's knife, but the paring knife I bought at the dollar store (sorry) has always performed to my complete satisfaction. What additional benefits might I discover, if I were to invest in a high quality paring knife? — Also, do you have any advice about vegetable peelers? In addition to everyone's "top three" knives, it's the one cutting device I wouldn't want to go without.
@ElmerCat my counsel would be for a utility knife rather than a paring knife. A utility knife in the 5" to 6" range is great for slicing tomatoes, onions and fruit, deboning chicken and fish. WRT the peeler, I've been looking for about 10 years! I'm having my company patent a different design for a peeler because the retail designs are just awful!
I have a 5.5" utility knife and a 3" paring knife and I use the utility knife significantly more often than the paring knife.
+1 especially for the longer utility knife over a paring knife. As for long chef's knives, longer is only better if you have space for large cutting boards. Smaller boards fit into dishwashers better, so 8 or 9in chef's knives can be more appropriate for many people.
I use three:
Chef's knife - sharp, straight blade
Bread knife
Sometimes a serrated knife for tough vegetables
But then I'm a vegetarian, so I don't need to cut meat.
If you could only buy one knife, I would get a French Chef's knife or a Japanese Santoku, probably in the 8 inch size. These knives are both used differently (different techniques) so I would also research how to properly hold and use whichever one you go with.
While I use my Santoku significantly more, it's terrible at some things that the French Chef's knife is good at. Conversely the French Chef's knife is pretty good at everything the Santoku is good at. For a newbie, I think the Chef's knife would be less frustrating.
I have friends who do everything they need to do with a 5" Santoku. They cook regularly, but aren't professionals, and love their knife.
@PeterV: examples on what the pros and cons are?
I've got a 6" chef's knife that I find more useful than my 8" chef
I also love my 8" Santoku
... and on the other end of the spectrum, I work in a professional kitchen and use my 8" Victorinox chef's knife more than my paring knife. A bigger knife lets you handle larger items comfortably, and in the end whichever knife you use most will become a natural extension of your body.
Poll-be-poll, so here goes (vegetarian and not formally trained perspective, too):
Essential:
-One (or a couple of them) that is medium sized (~15cm), thin and can be made really sharp, and has a sharp tipped shape that supports rolling/piercing/slicing (Chef/Gyuto, Kiritsuke, labelled-Santoku-but-actually--more-Kiritsuke-like....). Best if no bolster, having a second piercing/scoring tool available in that spot is useful. Second, stainless one recommended if your primary one isn't. Huge isn't better because then it will be awkward to use for paring too, and will make more of your cutting board space unusable for storage or hand placing.
-One medium to big one that can stand abuse (hacking through an inch of something frozen, dealing with winter squash skin, cutting HOT materials... and damn, the can opener just packed it...) - medium-thick cleaver, inexpensive thick santoku or chef....
-A peeler
Nice-to-have knife block filler:
-Something ceramic for really reactive stuff (salsify, acidic fruit...)
-Selection of utility/paring knives (I don't like much off-board cutting so these get used rarely)
-Something really long
-Nakiri (see motivational clutter :)
-...yeah, bread and tomato knives if you happen to eat lots of these. A Chef knife can cut these things adequately too :)
Nothing is essential, I guess. I think all those knives are really marketing. Even profs often choose a (cheap) favourite knife, and use for almost anythin they do, is my experience. But it depends what you cook, and what you cook a alot, really. For home cooking, one large-ish knife like a chef's knife (I use a Deba, easier to filet fish) and a thin peeler gets you a long long way. I think having a good sharpening stone and knowing how to use it is far more important then having multiple knives.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.041145
| 2010-07-09T20:27:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/184",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alaina",
"Alan Munn",
"Amy Neiger",
"Anna",
"BobMcGee",
"Brandon Jewett-Hall",
"Catija",
"Dan Esparza",
"Danny Rodriguez",
"ElmerCat",
"Erik Schoster",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"JoséNunoFerreira",
"Judy Brown",
"JustRightMenus",
"Max",
"McLeopold",
"Michał T",
"Nick",
"Peter V",
"Richard",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"TFD",
"Viktor Mellgren",
"esm",
"goblinbox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/982",
"justkt",
"sarah",
"tohster",
"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/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2570
|
What's a good vegetarian substitute for Worcestershire sauce?
The only thing I really miss since I started the whole rampant vegetarian thing is the taste of Worcester sauce in all sorts of dishes.
Is there a way to get close to the flavour without doing anything rude to any anchovies?
I have found a few recipes on the web:
Vegan Worcestershire sauce
Vegetarian oyster sauce
There are also a few hard to find ready-made vegan Worcestershire sauces on the market, such as Annie's.
When I read these recipes (which I have never made) I can tell that their flavor profile is missing some key aromas present in the original Worcestershire sauce. As strange as it may sound these sauces could use some of the aromas found in Parmigiano-Reggiano and in broccoli. Whichever recipe works out, someone should write a blog post on this topic.
I'm going to try both of these.
On the other hand, I'm also going to see if I can get Henderson's Relish shipped to me somehow.
I'll post results, but it might be a few weeks.
I suggested the Parmigiano because it shares aromas with anchovies and fish sauce, but I have no idea how to make it liquid. I'm very curious how it works out. Please let us know.
+1: agreed completely! I’m a not-terribly-strict vegetarian, so I keep the vegan Worcestershire at home but often have the real thing when eating out, and there is definitely a difference along the lines you describe. Agreed that an investigation into replicating this would be fascinating. On the other hand, in some recipes that call for it, I think the veggie one actually works better — often it’s just the salty-fruity-sweetness that’s really wanted, not the anchovy aromas.
I had to do the same last year when I was making an egg-mayonaise salad, and found out too late we didn't have any Worcestershire sauce anymore.
What worked nicely for me was combining HP brown sauce (bought while on holiday in the UK) with a smoke-flavoured barbecue sauce. It was two teaspoons of one (probably HP, but I'm not sure anymore) and one of the other.
While the mixture itself seemed to resemble Worcestershire sauce only approximately, there wasn't any way to make out the difference in the finished dish. I did ask people who knew the recipe if they thought it was any different than usual, and nobody did.
Both ingredients say "suitable for vegetarians" on the bottle, so I guess this should do...
If you can find it, Henderson's Relish is an excellent vegetarian substitute.
Sadly it is only well-known in a small area around Sheffield where it is made, and it is difficult to find it once you get some distance away.
+1 Thanks for this ... something I need to buy when I'm passing through Sheffield next year ...
I use miso as a substitute. It adds some of the same type of depth that worcestershire sauce adds.
If there is a Trader Joe's near you, I've found a vegetarian Worcestershire sauce there and it has been pretty good.
Also a quick Google search finds a few other options.
You could try experimenting with vinegar, sugar and tamarind, you should get a close approximation.
as the anchovies contain umami, maybe you could try miso mixed with vegan 'Parmesan' cheese as an alternative. I've not tried this, I'm just making an off-the-top of my head suggestion.
Parmesan? Strange, but I'd try it.
Try Hoisin sauce mixed with Soy sauce and a bit of vinegar. That'll get you close.
There are quite a few vegan Worcestershire sauces on the market already. I've used both Annie's and The Wizard's lately, and both are adequate (I think I prefer the latter; it has a more traditional flavor).
you can try to make the original recipe without any fish sauce added, and even replace that perhaps with pommegrenate paste or something similar
One of the best substitutes I've found is Mushroom Catsup.
Don't be fooled by the name, it is a thin, brown sauce with plenty of savory flavor, not really similar to the thick tomato stuff we are familiar with. Given the relative historical timing, it may be that Worcestershire sauce was a substitute for mushroom catsup in traditional cooking. I've tried several commercial vegetarian Worcestershire sauce versions - including cornet bay, bourbon barrel, and Annie's, and while they're all great I still prefer mushroom catsup.
The recipe I've used can be found here
https://savoringthepast.net/2012/08/01/did-george-washington-use-ketchup/, or bottles of the Geo Wakins brand can be purchased through the site's store or on amazon.
Marmite or Vegemite with a splash of lemon juice or soy sauce with lemon juice is also a good replacement. Marmite is my favorite replacement so far but you only require a small amount dissolved in some hot water.
You can get Vegetarian Oyster sauce which doesn't replicate the full Worcestershire sauce experience but does give some of it.
I have had Oyster sauce that is assured to be completely vegetarian. It wasn't easy to find and I have no idea what is used as a substitute.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.042224
| 2010-07-21T09:50:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2570",
"authors": [
"Carmi",
"Chandu",
"Colin Pickard",
"Geoff",
"HMage",
"Ian Turner",
"Ingo Mi",
"J Strouse",
"Marie Foley",
"Megan Walsh",
"PLL",
"Seesh",
"Tammy Tolsma",
"Walter A. Aprile",
"Wang Dingwei",
"greg snyder",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80485",
"keturn",
"madisoneveelyn spam",
"papin",
"takrl",
"user80449"
],
"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
}
|
3072
|
Is sweetened condensed milk a substitute for evaporated milk?
I have a recipe for Thai Green Curry that calls for evaporated milk, which I don't have. I do have sweetened condensed milk, will that do?
No.
Sweetened condensed milk has a 40% sugar content. It is very sweet, suitable for desserts and such. It is entirely too sweet to substituted into a curry.
The consistency is drastically different. Evaporated milk is about the same consistency as heavy cream. Sweetened condensed milk, because of its high sugar content, is more the consistency of a warm caramel.
Also, they are different colors, evaporated milk is white, sweetened condensed is light brown.
(not directly answering the question).
As others have said, it's not a good substitution.
If you had asked what I would replace it with, I'd personally use coconut milk, because that's what I have in my pantry, and I like how it works in curries.
A closer substitution would be half-and-half or light cream, but they would just have a closer fat ratio as evaporated milk, they wouldn't have the sugar and such concentrated as well.
The two are similar, obviously the sugar in sweetened condensed milk is the big difference.
They both start the same way, about 60% of the water is removed from milk by boiling at reduced pressure and temperature. Evaporated milk is then sterilized by heating it which gives it a caramel flavor. Sweetened condensed milk isn't sterilized the same way, instead sugar is added and that keeps bacteria from growing in it. (There are other steps for both that I've left out, see Wikipedia and this book excerpt.
They are nearly identical, if you don't count the sweetened bit, it's around 40% sugar, while evaporated milk is just milk with around 60% of the water removed. You might be able to substitute it in that particular recipe, if you were planning on making it sweet, and use a bit less than the recipe calls for.
I don't think a sugar content of 40% constitutes nearly identical.
they arent identical at all
sweet, sorry guys, no more sarcasm, I get it...
@dbonomo: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sarcasm%20on%20the%20internet
+1 because they are almost the same, except for the ruddy huge bunch of sugar dumped in condensed.
Beer is almost the same as water
It's going to be really, really sweet. If you don't like that, then no, you can't.
If, however, you have my vicious sweet tooth, it can be a neat variant. I personally love to switch condensed milk for evaporated in a potato soup and add ham. The final soup is sweet enough to be a dessert, but still quite tasty.
....I now want to try it in a curry, actually.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.042648
| 2010-07-24T05:07:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3072",
"authors": [
"Amplify91",
"Erik",
"Nachshon Schwartz",
"Seth Johnson",
"Ward - Trying Codidact",
"crtjer",
"dbonomo",
"hizki",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"mwolfe02"
],
"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
}
|
3428
|
How do I keep my enchiladas from getting soggy when they cook?
I love enchiladas. I almost always order them at a Mexican restaurant. I've made them at home a few times with a recipe that's delicious, but it's not the same as what I'm getting at a restaurant. The main difference seems to be that the recipes I've seen call for putting some sauce in a casserole pan, adding the enchiladas, and then adding more sauce and cheese before baking. This always comes out soggy. It's still good, but it's not the same as I'm getting in a restaurant (or on my recent trip to Mexico), which seems more like they just broil the enchiladas for long enough to melt the cheese.
I guess the question(s) fall a couple of different ways:
Is this the right way to be making enchiladas?
What are the restaurants doing that is different?
Are there different styles of this dish that explain the discrepancy?
do the restaurant ones have sauce on the top? Or do they just put some cheese on and whack it under the grill?
I've had them both ways, but I'm more interested in with sauce as it ends up being a more interesting and complex flavor.
Usually when I've made them I just put sauce on top, not on the bottom, and just down the middle so the edges are exposed. And I make the sauce on the thick side so it is not too watery.
I bake them in the oven too, and they are never too soggy, but you could just grill to minimise the sauce absorption.
I've heard that corn tortillas are more resistant to going soggy than flour ones, but couldn't comment from experience.
I do the same, just putting the sauce on the top, although it is helpful to lightly grease the dish that you are cooking the enchiladas in to avoid them sticking.
Two things:
(1) Pass the tortillas through hot oil first, for just a few seconds. That will soften them and also "waterproof" them. It is the traditional technique.
(2) Consider making them on a griddle instead of in the oven; preheat the sauce and the filling, soften the tortilla, fill, heat for just a few more seconds, place on top of the sauce on a preheated plate.
This didn't work for me at all. :o(
Which, number (1) or (2)?
For me the key is to use corn tortillas's, not flour tortillas. The flour ones break down and get very soggy, and the corn ones hold up much better in the casserole dish.
Source/brand matters a lot too: I recently bought some yellow corn tortillas without noticing an 'extra soft' label on the package.They basically dissolved when I cooked them. -Disaster.
I know this is a very old thread, but I'll throw in my 2 cents as I've been trying to solve this problem with mushy enchiladas for a long time!
I think it was maybe last year when I read America's Test Kitchen (they have a show on PBS) reviews of corn tortillas. One thing they mentioned was that in their testing of numerous brands, they found one that didn't turn to mush when making enchiladas, and the secret was that it was a corn tortilla, but it had added wheat gluten as an ingredient. This made all the difference in the world. Now, I can't remember the brand that it was, but I never did find it anyway. What I did find in months of searching was that both La Tortilla Factory and Trader Joe's make corn tortillas with added wheat or wheat gluten. I can buy the La Tortilla Factory white corn tortillas at my Kroger. These turn out fantastic enchiladas, with no mushiness whatsoever. I highly recommend!
The way I heat them is from a tip I saw somewhere online. I have a heated skillet that I spray with Pam, but you could use oil as well, and I first dip the corn tortillas in water for just a second, then throw on the hot skillet to warm and soften, one at a time. Works great for making enchiladas.
Hope this helps!
When I make enchiladas, I try not to soak the tortillas too much. I used to use do that, and it resulted in soggy enchiladas as well.
What I've done that has worked for me is to use just enough sauce to cover the tortillas barely, and then broil them for about 5 minutes to heat the sauce, and tortilla, and melt the cheese. This has resulted in more restaurant-esque enchiladas coming out of my own kitchen.
I've never had anyone complain!
Catbert (evil director of HR): "I haven't listened to a single complaint."
Authentic enchiladas are never made with flour tortillas, only corn! Running the tortillas through the hot oil is the traditional way of prepping them for the sauce, but I use a spray oil and set them on a griddle for a few seconds each side. Maybe a minute total. And yes, enchiladas are made differently depending on what region of Mexico the recipe comes from.
To avoid sogginess the restaurant that I worked at, and probably all others, avoid baking sauce on the enchiladas in a dish. Cook and heat you're assembled enchiladas in the oven but here's the key. Serve onto the plate DRY and scoop Hot enchilada sauce on top as your serving. That's what the restaurants do. Especially as there's no way to keep Mass amounts of enchiladas you plan to sell and serve all day in a casserole dish and it's impractical to cook Per order.
IF you want that homestyle, soaked in, cooked together flavor and texture use the TINIEST bit of sauce while baking them just a splash to keep them moist. But the more you add the soggier!
what works good for me (when using flour) is to fill the enchiladas roll em put in pan and bake (without sauce on top) till the tortillias get a little brown on the edges and just barely starting to crisp. Then sauce the top and put on the cheese and bake till cheese is melted. They always come out perfect.
With corn i do the same thing but lightly brush with oil before rolling.
Hope this helps. Either way you get enchiladas YUM!
I am Mexican American. I've been making these my whole life. I started by watching my mom who is Mexican.
First, if you want them to be authentic by definition, don't ever use any modern ingredients such as spray oil. It does make a big difference and also makes them modernized or Americanized and that is not authentic. Use lard or vegetable oil in a pan to firm up the tortilla and make a shield from moisture, but don't do 30 seconds, you have to keep them in there a little bit longer to where they're almost crispy up a little bit (but not too crispy). Make sure they can be rolled without making a crunch sound, that is too long.
I recommend to go to either one of these three places to get tortillas, where they are made fresh daily:
a tortilleria
a panaderia
a taqueria
Get thicker ones, but don't get Salvadoran ones as they are too thick.
Also you can use flour tortillas it won't hurt not but those fry much less time wise in the oil but if you like flour tortillas I recommend ''flautas'' they are so good!!
I'm amazed nobody has brought this up, but... another issue is you are not really making enchiladas, you're making an "enchilada casserole" or "bake" or some other thing.
Original enchiladas began with warmed tortillas, which were then either A) lightly fried in oil then dipped in the sauce or B) dipped in a sauce and then lightly fried in oil and then stuffed, plated, served and eaten with accompanying typicals (rice, beans, onion, cilantro, salsa)... When you do it this way, there is way less time for things to get soggy, and no baking involved whatsoever.
Tejano here.
My top recommendation is that you get a masa mix from the local super market and try making your own corn tortillas from scratch. The final result is incomparable.
My second recommendation is that you try Sonoran style enchiladas. I grew up on the rolled style of enchiladas, and I have to say that I personally feel the Sonoran style is superior.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.042901
| 2010-07-27T13:26:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3428",
"authors": [
"CHRISTINE ANDERSON",
"Chrystal",
"GalacticCowboy",
"Gale Michel",
"Ian Turner",
"Michael Natkin",
"NANCY CRAIG",
"Nick",
"Pat Phipps",
"Puma Girl 13",
"Sam Holder",
"Siva Arunachalam",
"Tory Netherton",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7324",
"ion",
"j bro",
"metaforce",
"terrryw",
"user6265",
"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
}
|
14867
|
Cracking coconut cream
I have several recepies which call for cracking coconut cream (Thai curries).
I used to just fry the curry paste and add coconut cream (or coconut milk) which produces reasonable results, but on reading the recipes again I realized that I was not making it correctly.
My more recent attempts at starting with coconut milk have resulted in it being more poached than fried, still nice but I feel that I am missing something.
As far as I can tell if you simmer the cream for long enough the oil should separate out and you are able to fry in it. But I can't seem to get this to happen. Am I being impatient or am I doing something fundamentally wrong?
This is related because it gets into cracking: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44391/why-does-my-coconut-sauce-lack-a-strong-coconut-taste/44406#44406 BTW, I've "cracked" many different brands in the name of science. This brand is by far the best of those I've tried: https://www.amazon.com/Chaokoh-Coconut-Milk-13-5-Ounce-Pack/dp/B00473PVVO/ref=sr_1_11_s_it?s=grocery&ie=UTF8&qid=1495728973&sr=1-11&keywords=coconut+milk. It's also, probably not coincidentally, highest in fat.
Andy Rickers Pok Pok cookbook has some advice: he says boxed coconut cream (UHT) is best, bring cream to boil the. Simmer for 3-10 minutes. So I tried this and faced the same issue you did the first time I tried to crack coconut cream. I was staring at it for like 15 minutes waiting for something to happen.. Short answer, I wasn’t cooking it hot enough. You don’t want “high heat” but you I needed to go well into medium-high (7 out of 9 on my crappy electric stove). Make sure it really simmers. You want bubbles. You will need to stir often (I stirred almost continuously but I think this was nerves). You’ll know it when it starts to work.
Welcome to the Stockpot, Thanks for the tip I'll give it a go.
Two things I know can make this difficult: using low-fat coconut milk, or using coconut milk that has had an emulsifier added to it (check the ingredients). Also, you may just not be cooking it long enough or at high enough of a temperature. I think you will really like the results when you get this to work, the curry comes out less gelatinous and more flavourful.
Most "coconut cream" is full of emulsifiers, particularly polysorbate 60 and also - this is really fun for high-temp frying - some type of methylcellulose. I've found that stuff to only really be useful for (a) cocktails and (b) cream fillings. Coconut milk would seem to be the way to go, I think standard is 18% fat.
Thanks for the tips, I tried organic coconut cream with no emulsifiers and still no luck cracking, perhaps I wasn't heating it enough.
Cracking coconut cream does indeed refer to the technique of separating the oil from the solids contained in the cream.
I have posted an authentic curry method that uses the cracking technique in another post. It is based on the technique of David Thompson.
It's possible that your recipes mean creamed coconut, which is different to coconut cream. It's the dehydrated meat of the coconut and is extremely oily. It comes in a crumbly block and it melts like butter over heat.
This wouldn't surprise me; a lot of people get those confused, and I've never seen coconut cream in a Thai recipe but I do often see creamed coconut.
I checked definitely coconut cream, but thanks for explaining the difference.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.043532
| 2011-05-17T15:21:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14867",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ahaan S. Rungta",
"Jeremy French",
"Jolenealaska",
"MrChefDave",
"Mradul Verma",
"andersonvom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41"
],
"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
}
|
86516
|
Considerations for prepping breaded chicken for freezing
I have chicken breasts. I want to cut into strips, bread, freeze and later bake or fry. The binder will be egg. The breading will be semolinia bread crumbs. There will be parmesan and italian herbs in the breading. Any special considerations compared to breading with the intention of cooking immediately?
I don't think there are special considerations for the actual breading procedure. I think the most important considering is to individually freeze the breaded chicken strips. I'd place them on parchment, on a sheet pan, and freeze them. Then after they are frozen, bag them for later use. IQF (individually quick frozen) pieces are less likely to stick together. This is particularly important with breaded chicken, where the breading will fall off if it sticks to another, leaving you with inconsistently breaded chicken strips.
I would freeze the chick first, individually. Egg & Bread them after freezing will make the stuff stick and it will generally freeze quickly. Then you can place them back in the freezer. It should be a quick process so you won't thaw the meat while doing this. And what Andy said. I do this with my poppers, freezing them makes the breading stick better.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.043933
| 2017-12-18T15:29:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86516",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2509
|
Stir fry rice clumps
I love stir fried rice but can't get close to restaurant quality. Mine seems to clump or turn almost gummy.
What can I do to improve the texture?
Take rice that has been cooled/refrigerated. Use your hands, wetted with cold water, to separate the rice, and use the pile of non-clumped rice when making the fried rice.
You want your rice to be fairly dry for stir frying. If you cook some rice specifically to fry, put in the minimum amount of water for whatever method you're using. As others have mentioned, it works well if you use leftover rice that's a day or two old.
Then, when you're actually frying it, it helps if the rice isn't clumped together (as it usually is when you use a rice cooker), so break it up before putting it in the pan. Use very high heat, a good oil (I like grapeseed), and be sure the oil is very hot before putting the rice in.
If you want that nice yellow colour, when the rice is almost done, make an opening in the middle of the pan, crack an egg into it, and very quickly stir the rice into it.
The easiest fix for this problem is to use rice that was made up to 3 days ahead.
I will plan the menu to have a meal with rice on night 1, make extra, and then use that leftover rice for SF rice on night 4.
If you are making it fresh, use less water so the rice will be a bit dry.
Use high heat, and cook the rice in a wok. This also helps.
If fresh you still need to let it cool down to room temperature otherwise you'll have too much moisture in the rice. Observing a local Chinese restaurant with an open kitchen they have a large bowl of pre-cooked rice on/under the counter so the frying process is quick too.
That's the same method my Indonesian friends use. Good answer!
I would recommend washing the rice prior to cooking. Just grab a sieve, or strainer, and run cold water over the grains until the excess starch has washed away. (This will keep the rice from being mushy, and sticking together.) Then just shake off any extra water, and cook the rice as you normally would.
A couple of other suggestions...
Use long grain rice. This is where
you want to use the Uncle Ben's
par-boiled rice. There's very little
residual starch on that stuff.
Quickly cool the rice after steaming it by
spreading it out on a large sheet pan
and put in the fridge for an hour or
so.
If you must used just-cooked rice
then try mixing a well-beaten egg
into it and stir furiously until each
rice kernel has a slight coating of
egg on it.
Cook in a very, very hot
pan, preferably a wok, with a
generous amount of oil.
One trick to try is to mix part of the oil into the rice before putting it in the pan, and massaging the oily rice until grains are reasonably separate (bonus: how badly it sticks to your fingers tells you how a semi-nonstick surface will react :) ). You will need to exercise caution with the total oil amount in the dish though, it is easy to end up too oily.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.044069
| 2010-07-21T01:20:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2509",
"authors": [
"Adam Thomason",
"Alinium",
"Boetsj",
"IanVaughan",
"Jeff Swensen",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/744",
"michael",
"scetoaux",
"tonylo"
],
"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
}
|
47509
|
baking time versus number of items in oven
I doubled a recipe for apple cake, and filled two 13x9 pans. Into the 350F wall oven they went. Recipe estimates 50-60 minutes.
60 minutes later, probe comes out pretty damp, and cakes are more than a bit jiggly. Easy enough, bake a little longer.
What's going on here? Do two room temperature cakes depress the initial temperature for a lot longer than one?
p.s. Oven calibration recently checked, so it's not that.
I was baking these cakes one atop the other, with a few inches between, in an electric oven. I did not have convection turned on.
(1) Are you baking them upper/lower or side-by-side?, (2) Is your oven's outside width 24" or 30"?, & (3) Gas or electric?
My guess would be that either you have a 24" oven and you're baking upper/lower or you have a 30" oven and you're baking side-by-side. Either way, I think the ultimate culprit is heat circulation - certainly you wouldn't be having this problem in a convection oven, right?
If you're baking them upper/lower in a small oven, I believe that heat absorption would probably create areas of lower temperature above both pans that wouldn't even out well without convection. If you're baking side-by-side in a larger oven, I believe that the total area of your pans would create a heat block and a temperature differential between the top and bottom of your oven that would not dissipate well without convection. And while I think the circulation problem would be less of a problem with gas, I'm pretty sure it's going to present a problem in either type of oven you use.
Being the owner of a 24" electric oven myself (so the interior of my oven is 18" x 18", not including the ribs that support the racks), I can't even bake two 9" circular cake layers at the same time (either diagonally or upper and lower) without grotesque deformations in the tops of my cakes. And two 9" round pans with a thin layer of cake batter are going to be less of a heat magnet and obstruction than a thick layer of apple cake batter in two 9" x 13" pans.
Ultimately I think the problem is not one of time but of maintaining temperatures above and below your pans - and adding time to the bake won't resolve the problems caused by such a differential. Alas, I believe that your best option is to give each cake its own space and time in the oven. Whether it's a heat conduction issue or a circulation issue or some combination of both, I think the variables involved are WAY too complicated to ever lead to a general baking time extension guideline when doubling-up a recipe.
Bake them separately - and, yes, I realize that's not a very satisfying recommendation.
Well, I swapped the cakes, turned on the convection feature, and baked another 30 minutes. As far as we've cut into one of them, it's quite satisfactory. Next time I'll convect to begin with or use two ovens. I don't often make this much cake :-)
Yes, two cakes will take longer than one, but only by a tiny bit. The second cake is an additional heat sink, but it shouldn't be enough that you'd notice it if they're on the same shelf. Did you open the oven to switch the places of the two cakes? If not, you should have, and that would definitely increase the cook time. If the two are on different shelves, one would block some heat from the other.
In an oven with a thermostat and temperature control, does the heat sink effect still matter? Or does the oven compensate for it by increasing the on time to keep the temperature setting?
Do not put one cake on top of other..Always, if you have to put side by side with inches between or one to left and one to right on diffrent racks but never over each other..
You should never cook 2 cakes same oven, same time=problem! Easy fix, cook seperately!
Sure, that's the easiest fix, but there must be some way to calibrate a workaround. Say you're pressed for time and you simply don't have long enough to bake one cake, then the other - what then?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.044349
| 2014-09-28T16:28:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47509",
"authors": [
"Dave Gasper",
"David Powell",
"EZ Locksmith",
"Ebony Nicholson",
"Jason C",
"Julian Kelly",
"Kez newell",
"LEORA STIRRAT",
"Ste Barker",
"bmargulies",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28937",
"logophobe"
],
"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
}
|
996
|
Less salty sauce based on soy
Basic ginger soy sauce:
Mostly soy sauce, grated ginger, scallions, some rice wine.
Some people find it too salty. What other liquids could I combine with the soy to end up with something a bit less salty in the same space? Just cranking up the rice wine isn't very attractive.
Much of the commercially available mirin has little or no alcohol in it, so you may try boosting volume with this, although it is sweet.
Does it have to be soy based for vegetarian or other specific reasons?
No, I'm just trying to produce a basic Chinese/Japanese ginger soy dipping sauce.
I may be jumping the gun here and making unwarranted assumptions about what this sauce is being used for, but assuming it's something like a marinade, rice, stir-fry, etc... I usually use some combination of the following:
Soy or teriyaki sauce (or both)
Toasted sesame oil
Honey or brown sugar
Chili oil (small amount, obviously)
Grated ginger
Grated garlic (very small amount, that's strong stuff)
Rice wine (usually I skip this, actually)
Water!
Sometimes the combination of oil and water doesn't hold together so well; if you add a little tapioca starch and heat it up, it will thicken and bind. I use this all the time in stir fries.
Also, if you happen to have any prepared oriental sauces like hoisin or black bean or chili garlic sauce, those can be used in a pinch to cut the salty taste of soy sauce. Fine-tuning with pure ingredients to get the exact taste you want is always better, of course.
Water may be the magic missing piece here.
@bma: In my stir-fry sauces, water is actually the main ingredient. I'm not sure if that's "right" or not - it's just how I learned it - but I'm always happy with the resulting taste. Usually something like 3-4 parts water to 1 part soy sauce and 1 part "other". Although, with that much water you really need the "other" too, just the soy won't have enough flavour.
looks like I didn't read carefully enough or the right stuff.
@bma: Read what carefully enough? This answer, or the recipes you tried?
I'm suspecting that my cookbooks agree with you and I didn't remember what I read very well.
Use less soy sauce. It's salty - it has to be salty - and you can't really avoid that (even the low-sodium varieties still have a fair bit of salt in them).
I recommend using a good strong soy sauce in moderation, and perhaps a bit of black vinegar to augment the flavor.
See edit please.
Reduced sodium soy sauces taste great. I love salt but I prefer the lower sodium varieties of soy sauce. I generally buy Kikkoman Lite Soy Sauce just because I can get it cheaply. It is much, much better than Kikkoman original. I'm not particularly concerned about sodium content for heath reasons, I just don't like being overwhelmed by saltiness. Reduced sodium soy sauce is still salty, but you can taste flavors other than salt. My favorite sushi place even puts Kikkoman Lite on the tables, if you want the full-salt stuff you have to ask for it. For even more flavor for each mg of sodium, you might try this. Yes, it's Hawaiian, but it works very nicely in Japanese and Chinese recipes. Aloha Brand Lower Salt Shoyo
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.044702
| 2010-07-14T22:53:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/996",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Dan",
"Deborah Jones",
"Jan Mae Ferolin",
"Kieranmaine",
"bmargulies",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93583",
"jesterhooves",
"joshwbrick",
"kevins"
],
"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
}
|
2
|
How should I cook bacon in an oven?
I've heard of people cooking bacon in an oven by laying the strips out on a cookie sheet. When using this method, how long should I cook the bacon for, and at what temperature?
FWIW this is the best way of cooking bacon I've found. It's hassle-free and tastes great.
@Herb: Better tossing in the deep fryer? If so, I must give it a try.
@derobert: Oven and deep fried bacon are both great, advantage with the oven is you get long flat pieces. Whenever I've deep fried it curls up like mad. So can switch cooking application based on what result you want, both have their uses.
I've always cooked it on top of aluminum foil, at 350°F (~175°C) for 20 minutes. Flipping it once at about the half way point. If you prefer crispier, go for 25 minutes.
You can speed up the bake time by using convection bake if your oven has that option.
I don't find it necessary to flip the bacon - I just turn the cookie sheet around, front to back, so it cooks evenly.
@herb, I'll have to try that out next time. Keeping the potential of grease splatter to a minimum would be nice.
What do you do to avoid spattering grease all over the oven? Or is there not spattering with this method? I don't want to have to clean the oven afterwards.
I think this is closest, but @Herb is right. I also vastly prefer parchment though. check similar: Cooking Buffet-Style Bacon
I set the oven to 400F, line a half sheet pan with aluminum foil, place a cooling rack inside the pan, and then put the bacon on top of the cooling rack. It takes between 20 and 30 minutes to reach the point that I like it, but you may want to stop it earlier.
Also good, blend some brown sugar and pecans until the pecans are well mixed with the sugar and then sprinkle the mixture on top of the bacon half way through cooking.
I find that it's tastier to let the bacon cook in the grease, and then put it on paper towels to remove excess afterwards.
@Herb Caudill I don't disagree about the taste, but my wife prefers it not to soak in grease.
I use the cooling rack so it is easier to save the bacon fat.
Put on a cookie sheet. Use a high temp (375F+) for 10-20 minutes depending on desired crispness.
For easier cleaning of the cookie sheet, line it with aluminum foil.
To let the grease drain, corrugate the foil. (This is by far what I prefer.) If you do this, remember before you tear off your sheet from the roll, you'll need ~2x as much foil for the same area.
@Flimzy: What is "baking paper"? Is that parchment paper, wax paper, or something else?
Yes, parchment paper. Sorry, I should have used the more proper term.
Parchment paper is even easier than aluminum foil... the bacon doesn't stick to it, causing it to tear into shreds.
I place the bacon in a cold oven and then turn the oven on to 400F. It takes about 15-20 minutes to get slightly crisp bacon.
The short answer is "throw it in the oven, and make sure it doesn't stick."
You can use aluminum foil or silpat to accomplish the non-stick part.
Regarding temperatures, a lot depends on what you want. This is pork remember, a meat that cooks beautifully at low temperature, and fries nicely too when salt-cured.
So, if you want delectably smooth soft bacon that melts in your mouth, try it at 225 for a few hours. This is like slow cooking a pork shoulder.
300 and up will more quickly cook it; at that point you're aiming for crispy bacon. The hotter the heat, the faster it will get there, and the greater the danger you're going to burn it. I usually do mine at 375 for the family, it takes roughly 20 minutes.
I place the bacon on a cooling rack set inside a baking pan, to keep the meat above the grease.
Generally speaking, lower temperatures result in less bitter compounds forming than higher temperatures. But you'll have to wait longer for your delicious, delicious bacon. If you're baking something else, then just put the bacon in at whatever temperature the other dish requires. It should be fine, anywhere from 325 to 425 or 450.
The bacon is done when it looks and feels delicious. You can judge by color. If you like it crispy, it should be dark but not burnt--it will still be a little soft until it cools a little.
I bake mine on a cooling rack (to drain excess fat) on a cookie sheet that has been lined with foil for easy clean up. I start in a cool oven, 400 degrees for about 20 minutes for crisp turkey bacon.
I just cooked a pound of bacon yesterday....to make Blt Bites in cherry tomato halves. Not knowing any better, I spread it out in a single layer on a rimmed baking pan. And I cooked it for about a half hour at 300 (PRE=HEATED). It was perfect. No spattering. Easy clean-up. If you like it crisper, just cook it longer. If it smells done, it is.
I use tinfoil (non-stick kind works well) on any old baking sheet and for an added boost sprinkle dark brown sugar and coursely ground pepper on top side first. Cook at 350-400 for 10 min - no need to flip - watch at end it doesn't burn. My family / guests can't get enough of this candied bacon.
I have a special pan which has a second bottom with holes in it that allows the excess fat to drain away. With that I put it in about the middle or lower of the oven with the broiler on 500F on.
Use a baking tray with a decent lip to stop fat running away. Don't use foil or anything extra
Lightly rub required tray surface area with Olive oil
Roll each piece of bacon up into a tight tube (slight larger than a thumb) and place on tray. You can use a pencil sized dowel as a former
Balance each roll against the next to hold in place. Use a toothpick or similar to hold the rolls on the ends
Grill at medium to medium-high until done, around 20 to 30 minutes
Nothing gets burnt, and they are easy to handle once cooked. And a nice tidy look on the plate too
Because nothing got burnt, cleanup is simple. Just soak the tray
You can do more than 50 slices of bacon on one tray!
I have found the best method is to use parchment paper, put bacon on a rack that will fit in the pan to hold the bacon above the dripped fat, baked in a convection oven so no need to rotate or flip. about 20-30 minutes depending on thickness....thick sliced bacon works best.
Welcome to the site, babyduckmom. I see what you are trying to do, but the answer, as it stands, is not very good. Where do you put the parchment paper, how hot do you have your oven...
use silicone mats instead tinfoil or parchment paper. much easier cleanup
Can you explain how that's easier to clean up? Seems like it'd be more difficult seeing as before, the most you had to clean was the baking sheet... with silicone mats you have the baking sheet and the mat...
@Catija If the mats cover the entire pan, then you don't have to clean the baking sheet. If you're really careful, the same is true for foil, but it seems like in practice it gets a hole somewhere pretty often.
@Jefromi maybe it's my bacon... I've never baked it but in the pan there's so much grease that I can't imagine the walls of the pan not getting greasy. Or maybe baking releases less grease?
@Catija You can use a mat larger than the pan. I dunno if I'd do it with bacon, since you don't want to have a chance of spilling. Maybe with a deeper pan and possibly something to weigh it down?
Take two cookie backing trays that can be stacked into one another (just buy two non stick identical cookie trays):
lay the first one's bottom with baking parchment.
lay the bacon flat on it.
put another sheet of parchment on top of the bacon
stack the second tray on top and apply a good pressure to make sure the bacon is flat.
you should have from bottom to top tray-parchment-bacon-parchment-tray. (just to be clear)
bake at high temperature for 15 minutes (or until of the color you like it, raise tray to check and be careful of grease splashes).
After baking absorb excess fat by laying on paper.
This will guarantee that your bacon strips will be cooking book picture perfect, crispy and delicious.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.045016
| 2010-07-09T19:08:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"BillN",
"Bryant",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chas. Owens",
"Dinah",
"Emmett",
"Flimzy",
"Gregg Kreun",
"Heather Fitz",
"Herb Caudill",
"J Wynia",
"JesseW",
"Jim Puls",
"Joe Schmoe",
"Kevin Montrose",
"Kyle Cronin",
"Laura Thomas",
"ManiacZX",
"Restore The Data Dumps Again",
"Rhyven",
"SDGator",
"derobert",
"dunia drakor77 spam",
"home scratch can-am",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96191",
"marta",
"moonshadow",
"pete",
"statenjason"
],
"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
}
|
4387
|
Uses of Horse Meat
What (roughly) does horse meat taste like?
What kind of dishes can I make with it?
Back in the late '90s, biologist Joe Staton did a comparative study of the tastes of different animals for the Annals of Improbable Research. His hypothesis was that the relatedness of tastes of animals is correlated to their evolutionary ancestry. You can read an abridged version of his article here. Looking at the phylogenic tree at the bottom of the article, horse meat has the general flavor of beef and is most closely related to deer (venison) and American buffalo (bison). In my experience, horse meat is like a cross between venison and beef.
Edit: In case anyone was wondering, human apparently tastes like pork.
Memory from somewhere - cannibals in Australasia used to refer to cooked human flesh as "long pig"!
One nitpick... Annals of Improbable Research isn't a journal that you can write an article for. It's the winners of each years' Ig Nobel prizes. It would have been published in some other peer reviewed journal first. (I can't remember, but there's a name for journals where they just collect or point to other journal's articles. Like a college putting out a volume collecting all articles published by their faculty in a given month)
Loose term in the S Pacific. Was Bay Boy. Had double meaning. { Bay} white. {boy} pig. Was in reference to the white pigs the Spanish brought in. Could also be used in reference to light skinned persons. While the fire was being started. But I am told that people taste more like monkey than pig. My source for this was a older lady. A Grandmother. Who said I remember white man taste good. & smacked her lips. In a remote area. So maybe a miss interpitation here on the person thinking people taste like pigs. Monkey is a sweet tasting meat. Not like pork.
@Joe That's not true; AIR also accepts submissions of previously unpublished articles: https://www.improbable.com/about/SubmissionGuidelines.html
Horse meat is dark red and usually quite lean. The risk is to overcook it and end up with tough meat. This probably has to do with the fact that most horse meat is "recycled" animals, that's to say horses that were not bread for meat and that spent a part of their life working.
In my part of Italy (Parma), we also eat it in its raw ground form (like a steak tartare). The traditional presentation is ground fine, spread on a white bread, salt, pepper, lemon juice and a drop of olive oil. Garlic also goes well with it. Horse meat is less likely to host parasites that are harmful to humans, so I wouldn't be too disturbed by the thought of eating it raw - and it does taste great. A filet americaine with horse meat would probably taste very good too.
Here is a recipe for picula 'd caval, a sort of horse chili from nearby Piacenza http://italianfood.about.com/od/furredgameetc/r/blr0881.htm although I would not cook it for quite that long, to avoid having tough rubbery bits at the end. For the same reason, reheating horse meat is usually a bad idea.
Here is also a discussion about the true recipe, but it is in Italian http://www.coquinaria.it/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000843;p=0 of course every family has their own version and of course it is a point of religious faith that that one is the only true one - after all it is Italy.
Like a filly cheese steak. I'd hate to saddle you with a bunch of recipes. Good with stallio-- scallions. Careful, frying it, since it tends to be a bit tempermental. Leaving now.
Quit horsing around. This is no time for mare-ement.
"If wishes were horses, we'd all be eatin' steak" - Jayne Cobb
I've had it in Italy as a child - I was actually told it was beef so that I wouldn't ask questions. The big differences are that it is leaner than beef, and has a coarser texture.
Horse is a much cleaner animal than a cow. A lean meat. Ground great in chili. Or soups. I think mule is better eating than horse, Many years ago on some job sights. When still used. Horse or mule if injured went in the stew pot on some job sights. Never had a horse steak.
It tastes like whale meat :)
It's a red meat, with a characteristic texture. Personally, I like it a lot, but it's difficult to find if you are outside of Italy and France (as far as I know).
You can use it as a regular steak, instead of pork, for example. Pork is more delicate as a taste, horse is more intense.
Horse is also eaten in Japan (and Tonga, apparently).
It's also available in Belgium and the Netherlands.
Horse meat is fairly common in Denmark as long as you go to a regular butcher instead of a supermarket.
I am not sure if you were joking, but in my experience horse meat does not taste like whale meat.
@esultanik: I'm not joking. I had whale meat in Norway, and the closest thing it recalled me is definitely horse meat.
@Stefano: I had whale meat in Iceland and it reminded me of a cross between beef and tuna. Or maybe they just served me some tuna! I had never had whale before, so I wouldn't have known the difference.
Horse meat is often consumed in Mongolia, especially during the long cold winter periods; it contains a lot of nutrients suitable for winter. It is very lean so its good to consume when cold, meat is quite smelly while you cook it but once it's done it is a good substitute for beef, and of course it contains a lot of collagen.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.045730
| 2010-08-05T22:17:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4387",
"authors": [
"Amerie",
"AndreiEzhov",
"ESultanik",
"J Bergen",
"Joe",
"MGOwen",
"Michael Hetton",
"Rex",
"Sneha",
"Stefano Borini",
"Tim Gilbert",
"cyberzed",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"eneepo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8351",
"issy",
"jeff porter",
"paul",
"whaley"
],
"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
}
|
6817
|
Making Dumpling Conserve Better
When I make Chinese or Japanese style dumplings I often make too many and then store some for the next day
When I reheat them, they always go a bit strange and seem to taste worse then when they were fresh
Are there ways to store or re-heat the old dumplings to make them conserve better?
Dumplings should freeze very well. If you freeze the uncooked dumplings immediately and then cook longer the next day, you should have a similar result to your freshly assembled dumplings.
Yep; when you freeze them, set them on a plate, not touching, in a single layer until frozen hard, then you can transfer them to a bag. This freezes them faster and prevents sticking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.046275
| 2010-09-06T11:25:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6817",
"authors": [
"Michael Natkin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24137",
"jagguli"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109
|
Why does a brown paper bag speed ripening?
I often see this technique suggested as a way to speed ripening. Why does it?
Also, is there any data available on how fast it ripens comparatively?
The ripening itself is caused by ethylene gas released by the food, which is trapped by any kind of bag.
As far as I know, there's nothing inherently special about a brown paper bag, other than the fact that it's porous and thus still allows some air to get in and out. Plastic ziplock bags have no ventilation, so they don't work nearly as well.
Placing fruit in a bag will help hasten the ripening for only a few fruits. Most fruits will not ripen (ever) once they have been picked. The only fruits that ripen once they're picked are bananas, avocados, pears, mango, and kiwifruit. Ripeness in fruits is based on sugar content, not color, thus most tomatoes in grocery stores have no flavor because they were picked green and exposed to ethylene gas to induce color change. Tomatoes are what are known as a "climacteric fruit" which means they'll change appearance based on climactic conditions but they don't ripen. Yes, they continue to soften but that's simply the process of cell deterioration know as decomposition.
Some fruits such as peaches, plums, etc. will seem to develop more sweetness as they sit on the counter but that's because they're also losing moisture and the residual sugars are concentrating in the cell walls.
Placing fruit in a paper bag helps to concentrate the levels of ethylene gas which is what helps induce the ripening of the above mentioned fruits (bananas/avocados, etc.). In fact, avocados and pears must be picked in order to ripen. Pears that are left on the tree will simply rot. As mentioned previously... brown paper bags used to be something everyone had around their house so it was a commmon item before the switch to plastic bags.
Have you ever noticed some people like red bell peppers and not green ones? The reason is due to ripeness.
If you're going to make the statement that only bananas, avocados, pears, mango and kiwi ripen after picking you should provide some reference. Everyday experience, a quick google and check of reputable sources, and common sense indicate otherwise.
@Hobodave:
Reference re: Ripening "On Food & Cooking" by Harold McGee, Scribner, revised edition 2004, Chapter 7, page 350-353.
Page: 353
"nonclimacteric fruits like pineapples, citrus fruits, most berries, and melons don't store starch or improve markedly after harvest, so their quiality depends on how far they had ripened on the plant."
"With just a few exceptions (pears, avocados, kiwis, bananas), even climacteric fruits will be much better if they're allowed to ripen on the plant, from which they can continue to accumulate the raw materials of flavor until the harvest."
Interesting. I'm finding conflicting information all over the place. http://seasonalcooking.suite101.com/article.cfm/fruit_ripening_stages has a list of fruits that fall into different categories (it has it's own references). Yet http://lancaster.unl.edu/food/ciqaa.shtml seems to conflict with the first source by saying peaches and apricots ripen. :-\
I guess it's just one of those things that involve a bit of hand waving even by experts. :) I'll remove my down vote, thanks for providing the reference.
Re: the listing showing Apricots as ripening..
"On Food & Cooking" 2004 edition, p. 352 Howard McGee offers a chart highlighting Fruits and their potential for improvement after harvest.
the only ones that he lists for improving on sweetness are: Apples, pears, Banana, Mango, Kiwi but he does list others as improving in Aroma and Softness (which again softness is part of deterioration anyway). Among those listed as improving in aroma and softness: apricot, peach, plum, blueberry, raspberry, cantaloupe, honeydew, cherimoya, guava, papaya, passionfruit, avocado, persimmon, tomato.
@Darin It would be good if you could edit a summary of these comments into your answer itself.
The paper bag trick didn't work for an unripe mango I had. After a couple days in the bag, it developed dark/black spots where it was starting to rot, and the rest of the mango was still unripe.
The secret is that the fruit produces ethylene (a hormone found in plants), and ethylene promotes ripening. By placing fruit in a paper bag the ethylene collects (rather than dispersing in the room), increasing the concentration around the fruit and speeding ripening. About.com has an interesting article on ethylene and fruit ripening called Fruit Ripening and Ethylene Experiment.
This part I knew. But, why brown? Why paper? Why not a white paper bag? or a plastic bag? or a bread box?
As a clarification, paper bags are better than plastic because they allow some airflow. More info here - http://www.state.nj.us/jerseyfresh/howtoripen.htm
To the best of my knowledge it's really just tradition. I've used cloth bags before as well. The keys are to keep the ethylene near the fruit, but not to seal it up too tightly (such as in a plastic bag) so that it can still breath and doesn't sweat.
@hobodave : white paper bags are more likely to be treated to make them smooth to the touch (I think they use clay?), which can make it less easy to allow air through. Also, brown paper bags used to be a pretty commonly available thing, before most grocery stores switched over to plastic bags.
@Joe - to get paper white, it also has to have been bleached, which alters its fiber structure
More importantly, brown paper bags allow moisture to pass through, so you don't get condensation that will accerate mold growth. Just leave produce on your counter in a plastic bag and witness the flexible petri dish!
White would probably work if it is porous enough.
Some types of fruit ripen with increased ethylene production and a rise in cellular respiration (the ripening fruit draws in oxygen and gives off ethylene). This happens in "climacteric fruit": Apples, bananas, melons, apricots, and tomatoes, among others (citrus, grapes, and strawberries are non-climacteric--you can do a search for "climacteric fruit" to see which are and which aren't).
The ethylene produced during respiration enhances the ripening process so when we put climacteric fruit in a paper (or plastic) bag, "none" of the ethylene can escape, thereby exposing the fruit to more and more ethylene as it continues to ripen. Paper bags only restrict oxygen flowing in/out of the bag while plastic prevents essentially all oxygen flow. Since climacteric fruit need oxygen for respiration, closed plastic bags will limit the amount of respiration to that allowed by the oxygen trapped in the closed plastic bag. Opening a plastic bag will allow some oxygen in (while letting some ethylene out)...in that case fruit will ripen faster with an open plastic bag than fruit just sitting on the counter but will ripen slower than in a paper bag because the paper keeps more ethylene in while still allowing oxygen in.
The short answer is that paper bags keep the ethylene trapped in the bag which enhances the ripening process while at the same time permitting some oxygen to enter the bag, allowing the fruit cells to respirate and produce more ethylene. Assuming brown paper bags are the same as other paper bags, then this should be true for brown paper bags as well.
I've never heard this, but ripening is usually sped up by various airborne chemicals functioning as plant hormones. This is why one bad apple will cause others to go bad - it is signalling them. So I suspect it is either a matter of enclosing the airborne chemicals, or that paper bags release some such chemical.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.046636
| 2010-07-09T19:46:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109",
"authors": [
"Brett White",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Ed Brannin",
"Guildencrantz",
"Himanshu Agnihotri",
"Joe",
"Jonathon Watney",
"Ken Pespisa",
"Kiesa",
"Mike Akers",
"Nick",
"Vaccano",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pacoverflow",
"spaetzel",
"starsplusplus",
"warren"
],
"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
}
|
154
|
How do I ripen unripe oranges and grapefruits?
Sometimes when I buy oranges or grapefruits I find out that they are rather unripe when I get them home. How do I ripen them?
I had this question myself long ago. Asking & answering here for the record.
You don't.
Citrus fruits, unlike most other fruits, do not ripen after being picked from the tree.
The only solution is to be proactive and not buy unripe citrus.
I agree with the suggestion that it is best to buy ripe citrus fruits. I respectfully disagree with the assertion that they don't ripen after picking.
I stumbled across this ancient question today and looked at it because I have a lot of very immature oranges that I thinned off my orange tree a few weeks ago, and I wondered what gems of wisdom might have been suggested in the past for hastening their ripening, and was surprised that the answer was quite definitely wrong, at least, for untreated citrus. It is possible that a wax coating might affect this.
I'd like to clarify what happens to the citrus I have picked unripe and left to ripen (generally when pruning the tree). My experience is mostly with lemons and oranges, but it should carry over to other citrus. My experience is mostly with fruit from my own trees but also fruit from local farmers markets that have no wax coatings.
They do continue to ripen.
The skin will continue to develop color from green through mottled green-yellow on to the final color.
The scent and flavor of the skin and oils will change from a very
"green", slightly bitter, citrusy smell and flavor (very generic, the
lemons and the oranges at this stage smell and taste nearly the same)
to a fruitier smell/flavor. The lemons will start to smell more lemony,
the oranges will start to smell and taste like oranges.
They will eventually lose a lot of moisture, unless they have been waxed. Citrus fruits have a porous, moist, spongy skin and they are full of water. Unripe citrus tends to be dryer to begin with in my experience -- they continue to fill up with water as they ripen and grow on the tree.
They can ripen faster if kept with ripe apples and pears, but they also can become moldy if there isn't good air circulation. Check them periodically, remove any that are becoming squishier -- those are spoiling, not ripening.
In summary, as the unripe citrus ripens, the flavors and colors of the flesh will develop, but it will also dry out. It's a bit of a race, will they ripen enough to be pleasing before they dry out too much to be used?
Here's a picture of some unripe oranges before I picked them, tiny and green:
And here they are now, several weeks later, in a box next to where I'm sitting:
Unfortunately I don't have any really green ones left on the tree (and the green ones I picked ripened) so I can't show that comparison. But for oranges, they start off green outside and in, then go through yellow and on to orange or even red. I just cut some open and the ones that have been ripening in the house are mostly a little less juicy than the green and yellow ones I just picked, but they look the same.
Front-right are picked a few weeks ago and ripened in the house (I chose the most ripe and the least ripe I could find in my box). Back-left are picked today from the tree (I chose ones that were splitting and needed to be picked anyway, but cut and photographed the most and least ripe again).
When I picked them, I tasted the skin and found it to be too bitter on the ones that were still fully green, although the ones that were a bit yellow were edible. Tasting now, the same is true. For the fruit picked today vs the fruit picked a few weeks ago, it really just follows the color scale. You can see the difference here between the paler (not quite as ripe) skin and the one that was pretty much ripe that I picked today. Both taste nearly identical, with the riper one tasting just that shade riper, but essentially both taste like the skin of a reasonably ripe, fresh orange.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.047224
| 2010-07-09T20:08:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/154",
"authors": [
"Alexander Gladysh",
"BaffledCook",
"Chris Simpson",
"Joani Blaisdell",
"Sathyajith Bhat",
"adambox",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7170"
],
"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
}
|
101
|
What are convenient and reliable ways to make the starter for rye bread?
The biggest issue with make good rye bread is to make the starter since it needs to rise in a very controlled temperature for some time. What are good and reliable ways to achieve this?
I've received some portions from friends and family, which have always worked well. :-)
When I'm creating it from scratch, I mix 200g of rye flour, a little bit of yeast (which you can leave out), 1 tsp of salt, 1 tsp of honey, 1 dl of organic yogurt and 2 dl of water. I leave this mixture out on the kitchen table (at around 20C) for a day with a piece of wet cloth on top. After that I add 2 dl of rye flour and enough water to make the dough soft. This sits on the kitchen table for yet another day, after which is should look like a pool of lava and smell a bit acidic.
The honey and the yogurt is the magic touch that makes this starter work, according to my books and research. I've never done anything special to control the temperature or anything else.
Thanks, I will try this. How much can the temperature fluctuate? How close to 20C does it need to be?
As I said, I haven't ever controlled the temperature, but within a few degress should be ok. I think that the higher temperature would cause the starter to rise faster.
As a side-note, I've kept starters alive in the fridge for up to a month by adding extra rye flour, yogurt and a touch of honey 1-2 times a week.
What is “2 dl” in “2 dl of rye flour”?
BasilBourque 2dl = 2 deciliters = 85% of a cup
I've had good results with the procedure from 'Secrets of a Jewish Baker' (page 163). I don't think it's appropriate to type in copyrighted recipes here, so I'll leave you with the reference.
I do not believe that recipes are copyrightable in the US: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42/copyright-quoting-cookbook-versus-referencing/46#46
Get some organic grapes with a white cover (natural yeasts) on them
Wash gently
Wrap in a cheese cloth
Get 1 cup of lukewarm water in a glass jar. 1 tbsp of sugar in it won't hurt
Squeeze grapes in a cheese cloth into the mixture and leave cheese cloth in mixture as well
Stir in 1 cup of not-so-fancy wheat flour
Cover jar either with cheese cloth or paper towel and a rubber band
Let it sit on top of the fridge for 5 days or so shaking occasinally
Discard first batch, i.e. start the new one with some stuff left on the walls of the jar
I usually maintain 1 cup of flour vs 1/2 cup of water.
As a side effect, you first few batches will have a nice light hint of grape flavor :-)
The key is not to add regular yeasts in it unless you want to grow that strain.
What I had done to start mine was to start with regular wheat starter and just start feeding it rye flour.
Please could you add some details: is the starter fully established when you switch to rye flour? Do you vary the amount of flour/water after the switch?
It was fully established. I always just used 1/3 or 1/4 cup to dose both the flour and water (I put in a full measure of flour and "a little bit less" of water) once a day.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.047554
| 2010-07-09T19:42:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/101",
"authors": [
"Aaron",
"Basil Bourque",
"Dinah",
"Filip Skakun",
"Jacob",
"Mark Wildon",
"Maxim Zaslavsky",
"Vicky",
"bound008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/869",
"jumoel",
"txwikinger"
],
"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
}
|
5347
|
Blanching time for different vegetables
Well my rule of thumb is to boil the following vegetables for that time before putting them in the ice bath:
1 minute for broccoli
3 minutes for carrots
2 minutes for beans
1 minute for flat beans
4 minutes for cauliflower
Is there a master list out there for the amount of boiling before bathing that will perhaps have better timing and more vegetables on it?
I'm surprised that cauliflower is 4 minutes while broccoli is only 1. Is it because cauliflower is much denser and more tightly packed?
@Chad - yes and no. I also like the cauliflower a little bit softer than crunchy. I actually add salt, lemon to it with a side of ketchup as an appetizer
When you intend to stir-fry the vegetables further, say with noodles, scrambled egg sauce or fried rice, these times seem a little long... Even carrots which seem quite hard need less time (in my opinion) than those listed. Then again, the way in which the vegetables are first cut would affect the amount of blanching time... Say the difference between quartered, coined and matchstick carrots.
Here's a few lists:
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/kovach59.html
http://www.ochef.com/617.htm
http://www.gardenersnet.com/recipes/blanchingvegetables.htm
I don't think it is really possible to name exact times. It depends on the age and toughness of the particular batch of vegetables, how thick they are and how you've cut them. The way I do this is to make my initial judgement based on color change, and then start poking at them with a cake tester every 30 seconds or so until they reach the perfect degree of tenderness, then shock them in a bath with plenty of ice immediately.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.047816
| 2010-08-17T15:45:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5347",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"Chad",
"Rose",
"amatusko",
"cytinus",
"dassouki",
"guru",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"iLearner",
"jeet"
],
"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
}
|
8301
|
Technique to bake donair meat in an oven
Every time I cook Donair at home, it seems to dry up a lot faster than when I do it in the restaurant. Granted I use the same spice mix and meat mixing method.
The difference is that at the restaurant, I bake the donair in a 600 degree oven where at home I do it in a 375 oven
I suspect the reasons for drying are:
Overcooking
Low fat content at the meat, perhaps I should use a higher fatted meat.
What suggestions would you give to cooking Donair at home?
What is Donair? Is it this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donair? Basically a döner kebab with a different sauce?
When you say 600°, do you mean 600° C as in an industrial high-temperature oven? Or 600° F (about 300° C)?
@Aaronut - It's a concrete 600 F oven
@Sobachatina - Think of it as Ground beef + spices + a bit of fat + some form of a juice
Disclaimer: I have not made Donairs at home. However, I think the same principles apply to döner kebabs, gyros, shawarma, and really almost any fast-food meat.
I rather suspect that the problem is that you're using an oven. Donairs, döner kebab, gyros, are all similar and are all intended to be cooked on a vertical spit that puts out upwards of 50,000 BTU. Although that cumulative heat is usually spread across a few individual broilers and designed to cook a very large amount of the stuff at a time, the fact remains that this type of meat does best with quick, high, direct heat.
The grill on a gryo machine is much closer to a BBQ or stovetop than it is to an oven. Ovens impart heat very gradually by comparison, giving the meat plenty of time to dry out. And the oven does dry meat out; so much so that it's actually possible and relatively straightforward to make jerky in an oven, but that's a topic for another day.
Meat starts to release all its juices at 130° F / 54.5° C. If you hold it in an oven at 375° (F or C, hardly matters at that point) for an extended period of time then it is, quite literally, going to turn into jerky. By the time it gets above 150° F it is way overdone. Note that at 180° F or 82° C, the collagen breaks down and converts to gelatin, which gives that really succulent and tender texture found in slow cooking, but in order to accomplish that you need to find a way to preserve moisture while the temperature rises (i.e. by brining, braising, or steaming). More on this at the Science of Slow Cooking, if you're interested.
But, I suspect that you're not shooting for slow-cooking, so I'm going to suggest the next-best thing, which is to grill the meat instead of baking/roasting it. Just don't use the oven. When you grill it you are just searing the outside; the inside will not have a chance to get overdone or eject too much moisture (although you will still lose some, but gyros/donair meat is supposed to be a little dry). The cuts tend to be so thin that it should only require a couple of minutes on the grill.
Grilling the meat should get you very close to the kind of consistency you get with a high-heat spit. Most "street meat" I've eaten (not that I eat a lot of it!) has the consistency of grilled meat; well-done on the outside, medium or medium-rare on the inside.
If you insist on using the oven then use the broiler, which is also very similar to the vertical spit (although it won't broil the meat as evenly). And if you insist on using the oven but not the broiler then I can only recommend that you use the highest temperature possible and take it out a few minutes before it reaches the desired tenderness, because even thin slices of meat will continue to cook and dry out for a few minutes afterward.
You can have great sucess cooking the donair as a loaf without having to have a spit that's used in pizza and donair shops. You just need a little prep time. In order to get the loaf to the consistency of the donair meat at the pizza store, i use a food processor. run it in there for about a minute, then form your football shaped loaf, patting and squeezing it to get all the air pockets out. Cook it on a cookie sheet in a 350 degree oven for about 45 min to an hour...just depends on the size of loaf you made. The goal is not to cook it completely through, cause if you do you will lose a lot of moisture. I judge it by the color of the outside. When it looks nice and brown on the outside, take it out. Let it sit for about 15 to 20min. To make slicing even easier, put the loaf in the fridge for about an hour, or wrap it in tin foil and leave it in the fridge overnight. When you take it out, use a long skewer to go through one end to the other(i use the knife sharpening tool in the knife rack) to be able to stand the donair on its end, and allow you to shave off slices the thickness you want. Then quick fry the meat before putting it on your pita. The additional cooking will make sure there is no pink left in the meat, and allows you to crisp up the meat if you like it to have a little crunch to it! If you want to make thick tasty donair sauce, Youtube search "Greg's secret to home made donair sauce!!" Happy cooking!
I have had great success with cooking it at 400 degrees in a large 1 inch thick rectangular slab suspended above a cookie sheet with a drying rack that is almost the size of the cookie sheet. I watch in closely and nearly broil the top. Half way through I flip it over and brown the other side. If it's not cooked all the way through I turn the heat down a bit and let it cook all the way through.
sliced thinly the final product closely resembles meat sliced from the vertical spit.
I have used chicken thigh meat or a leg of lamb. Very finely ground, I run it through my meat grinder multiple times or small batches in a food processor might work. the meat really sticks together nicely this way and wont break even when you have a slab the size of cookie sheet.
I typically line my cookie sheet with aluminum or silicon paper for easy clean up...
Again, Great success with this! Hope it works for you! let me know if you have any questions!
I cook in the oven and make sure to use a cooling rack over a roasting pan filled with water. It maintains the moisture and it cooks long enough to allow me to slice and grill it to the finished temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.047989
| 2010-10-19T18:12:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8301",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"B_L",
"Chef Gina",
"Edward",
"Sobachatina",
"dassouki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"laslow",
"user71021"
],
"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
}
|
4239
|
What to do when curdling occurs?
Are there any methods available to "fix" a sauce that has curdled?
Or, if I can't fix the curdling, is there any way to still use the sauce? What can I do with it?
I made it into a question. But unfortunately it's true that there aren't really any good answers.
What type of sauce is this? Depending on the type of sauce, there are varying methods you would take to uncurdle it
I am closing this old question, because, as the answers make it obvious, the chosen strategy will be different from every type of sauce.
If you're making a sauce that isn't supposed to curdle, and it does, you throw it out and start over.
That's not always an option really
That doesn't make it any less true of an answer.
A better question to ask would be how to prevent curdling. To that I could contribute much more.
Yep, Dave's right. Don't even think about trying to blend it or strain it, you'll never get the correct texture back.
Add 1/4 cup boiling water to the curdled sauce, wisk gently, and repeat until sauce is smoothed out. Re-season and serve promptly. This isn't a 100% cure but if throwing out the sauce isn't an option then boiling hot water is the closest thing to a fix you can get.
I just had this problem...
The sauce with milk turned into Curds and oil.
I was cooking it in a crockpot with chicken.
I added a bunch of Quinoa, and let that cook. The quinoa soaked up the oil, it made everything look much better, it tasted great.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.048614
| 2010-08-04T16:47:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4239",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Anne Hunt",
"Daniel Chui",
"Eliah Kagan",
"John Lutz",
"Michael Natkin",
"Patricia Mothershed",
"Wanda Raible",
"dassouki",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9960",
"rumtscho",
"stephi"
],
"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
}
|
5756
|
Is there a way to make jam or chutney without Gelatin / Pectin?
I was wondering if there is a way to make jam without going through a gelatin type product. There is no real motive behind that question, except for curiosity
I personally just add dehydrated dry-frozen fruit to the jam to absorb excess water, add flavor, and add pectin. Just keep a bag in the freezer and throw a handful in your jam to thicken it.
From the National Center for Home Food Preservation:
Making Jelly without Added Pectin
Making Jam without Added Pectin
Use a mixture of 3/4 ripe and 1/4 under-ripe high-pectin fruits. Under-ripe or just barely ripe fruit contains the most pectin.
Cook the fruit with cores and peels to add extra pectin (but do remove stems or pits). Put through a sieve before adding sugar and spices.
Citrus peel contains lots of pectin, so consider adding some of it to your mixture.
Fruits low in pectin: apricots, blueberries, cherries, peaches, pears, raspberries, and strawberries. That's not saying you can't make jam/jelly/butter from these without added pectin. It just may be a little more difficult than, say, using apples. In fact, as an example, here's a pear butter recipe w/o pectin.
I'm not sure if you can with all fruits, but some fruits, like fruits like apples, blackberries, gooseberries, crab apples, cranberries, and grapes are naturally high in pectin and might produce the desired effect without extra help.
Exactly - I make apple butter every fall, pectin free.
This might be semantic nitpicking on my part- but it isn't "pectin free". It's "free pectin". Apples have a TON of pectin- you just don't have to pay extra for it.
You can simply simmer off enough liquid until any fruit is thick. For example, I make a blueberry sauce for pancakes and blintzes by just putting some blueberries, sugar, and a pinch of salt in a saucepan, bringing to a boil, and then reducing heat to low until it is as thick as I want. When cooled in the fridge, it will be pretty jammy. (This isn't a canning recipe, it only keeps a few days).
A friend of mine used the same basic recipe when he brought into work crepes on Bastille Day this year, except he added a little fresh lemon juice to the mix as well. Got a really nice thick consistency out of it and it was delicious!
I add juice of one lemon as well, just 10 minutes before cooking is over.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.048807
| 2010-08-22T13:02:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5756",
"authors": [
"Deafdan",
"Drunken Code Monkey",
"James",
"Joe Flateau",
"JustRightMenus",
"Mary Okel",
"MissesBrown",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8120",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5249
|
What is the formal definition of savory?
What is the formal definition of "savory" when used in cooking? I hear a lot about things coming in either sweet or savory forms — e.g. crepes — but in context it doesn't seem that savory is the term for all things that are not sweet. Does it have to do with preparation methods? Ingredients? Taste of the final product?
I have been assuming that "sweet" means something like "sugary," as it does in common usage; please correct me if that's not the case here.
In cooking, "Savory" does generally refer to a flavor profile that is anything other than sweet.
"Sweet" doesn't have to necessarily be sugary sweet...basil, tarragon, fennel, carrots, beets, etc. have sweet flavors that are not excessively sugary sweet.
The term "neutral" is typically used for things like crepes and choux paste (eclair paste) because when made in their traditional style they are neither savory nor sweet and can work with either flavor profile.
The middle paragraph of this is a little confusing; if someone were to make say a carrot, beet, and tarragon salad, without adding any sugar to it, I can't see that they would call it sweet. That would traditionally be thought of as savory. (The rest I agree with).
Carrots, Peas, and lots of other vegetables have sweet flavors to them. Have you ever had a stock made with too many carrots or one where the carrots broke down to mush...it produces an overly sweet tasting stock. Sweetness as in all flavor profiles comes in varying degrees and does not always mean "sugary/cloyingly" sweet. Why is unsalted butter labeled "sweet butter"...it doesn't taste sweet but it's because it isn't salted.
I totally agree with you, those things do have a sweet taste with no added sugar. The original question is about the distinction between sweet and savory in common usage. In general, a dish made with carrots and peas will be part of the savory courses, not a dessert - so they will be thought of as savory. For example, if one were to make a buckwheat crepe, filled with peas, carrots and cheese and a bechamel made with sweet cream butter, and ask most people if that is a savory or sweet dish, they will say it is savory.
@Michael: Lord Torgamus asked if "sweet" necessarily meant "sugary" as he was inclined to believe. My original point was in reference to the fact that individual items can have sweet flavors and taste that is not directly linked to intense sugariness. I did not make mention specific dishes (such as your salad and crepe examples) where they would be functioning in a savory role.
Counterexample: american-chinese sweet and sour sauces (think spring roll sauce as an extreme example) ... very sweet, yet definitely in the savory realm...
There isn't a formal definition, but you have the correct basic idea. Sweet means something you would think of as sugary enough to qualify as dessert, or at least like a breakfast muffin - any case where sweetness is the most dominant of the basic tastes (sweet / salty / sour / umami / bitter). Savory is everything else.
There are plenty of cases where this line can be quite aggressively straddled to the point where which category a dish fits in would be debatable. This is especially true in the sort of hypermodern 30 course Alinea / El Bulli type menus, where there are often specific courses that act as a transition from the savory to the sweet world.
Savory, called Umami in Japanese, implies the presence of Glutamates, the carboxylate anions and salts of the amino acid glutamic acid. The identification Glutamate receptors on the tongue only took place in the past decade, although the ability of the tongue to detect glutamates has long been know. In the early Twentieth Century, a Japanese scientist isolated monosodium glutamate (MSG) while researching the savoriness of seaweed broth.
In short, just as saltiness signifies sodium ions, savory signifies glutamates.
This is a correct explanation of umami, and indeed umami can be thought of as the "savory sensation". But this question appears to be about the distinction between sweet and savory, which is a different use for the word savory. In that context, which is how it is broadly used in distinguishing sweet from savory dishes, savory simply means any dish that isn't primarily sweet. For example, pasta with grilled eggplant, olives and mozzarella has very little umami, but would definitely be described as a savory dish, not sweet.
Sweet and savory are not opposite flavours or tastes. They can and do coexist to some degree in most food ingredients, example the tomato. Beef is savoury but contains some sugars. The only tastes that are opposites are sour (acidic) and bitter (alkaline), these cannot co-exist for long as they react together to form new flavours. So its not the absence of sugar but what the dominant taste is. The ancient romans put honey with virtually all meats and fishes. Weather the dish turned out as a sweet or savory depended on how much honey they added.
Savory means any food stuff that requires the addition of salt and pepper.
Almost all baked sweets also call for salt, so that's sort of a wash. Fewer call for pepper, although I can still think of a handful of spicy "sweets".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.049035
| 2010-08-15T18:08:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5249",
"authors": [
"Andrew Christianson",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Eric Nelson",
"Erica",
"Erick",
"Jacxel",
"John",
"Le Curious",
"Michael Natkin",
"Nguyet Le",
"Papamike",
"Tacroy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5056
|
What are some suggestions for cooking tools/techniques for people that have arthritis?
I've recently been diagnosed with Rheumatoid Arthritis, and my grip is VERY poor. I can't even make a fist anymore. A few days ago I found that cutting up a left-over, cooked chicken breast was VERY difficult. Not only the knife grip, but using my left hand to hold the meat with a fork was probably worse than the knife int the right hand.
I've seen sites mention those rocking knives and tools with wide handle. I'm more interested in wide-handled tools as the rocking knives look like they would be unable to be honed.
You should certainly look at the OXO Good Grips brand of tools, they all have fat grips that are easier to use.
I've heard lots of recommendations for this. I'll have to check them out.
Seconding the Good Grips line, at least 50% (pushing 75%) of my non-knife kitchen tools are OXO and I have nothing but good things to say about them.
I imagine a Slap Chop would be useful.
"You're gonna love my nuts" - Vince
Haha, "We're gonna make America skinny again, one slap at a time!"
Real funny advertisement, and if it does what it says, definitaly something for someone with arthritis. +1
An ulu can definitely be honed and is probably the ancestor of the rocking knives you have seen. As you control them mostly with your palm they can work very well. Wikipedia article on Ulus
I was just going to say that! To anyone who might be interested in an ulu (I love mine) two caveats: They take some getting used to, go slow at first and save your fingers. Secondly, beware of cheap knock offs made in China for sale to gullible tourists. An ulu should be made in Alaska! an inexpensive genuine ulu
Agreed on the OXO Good Grips - I've purchased some for a relative with Parkinson's. Even for people without mobility issues, I think they exhibit well thought out design anyway.
The other thing I got was an electronic potato peeler, as they found peeling vegetables to be problematic with limited hand strength.
You might also want to look at electric carving knifes - I don't think they are as good as traditional knives, but my grandfather was able to carve a roast well into late 80s using an electric knife.
Nice, thanks. I do have an electric knife, but I hardly use it...only at Thanksgiving. I should cook more roast/brisket! :)
OXO Good grips, definitely
Canned or pre-cut vegetables
Electric can opener
Really sharp knives
Magic Bullet or Ninja modular food-processors. Gimmicky, but they might work for you.
Some of the ingredients in your kitchen might help relieve symptoms
Really sharp knife is an important suggestion. You will significantly reduce the amount of pressure you need to use just by upgrading your knife. Also, I have friends with the Magic Bullet who swear by it - never got the chance to try one myself yet, however.
Great comment, Stephen. An answer on how Ocassi can sharpen knives might be even more helpful, if anyone has brainstorm on that. (I assume that using a sharpening steel is out.)
Try using a ceramic knife. The lighter weight won't require as tight or as firm of a grip.
As for making bigger handles on tools, you might try cutting pieces of pipe insulation (available at home improvement stores) and slitting them down the length to wrap around the handles of your current tools.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.049463
| 2010-08-12T21:43:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5056",
"authors": [
"Aidin",
"Cheri",
"Duston",
"Eiyrioü von Kauyf",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Jakub Jenis",
"Jolenealaska",
"JustinP8",
"Kimberly",
"Lislebargain",
"MozenRath",
"Nutri Girl",
"Ole Henrik Skogstrøm",
"Sam Lisi",
"Schoon",
"Sorax",
"Suchi",
"Vandell",
"Yamaneko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9862",
"martiert",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7529
|
What should I look for in a cooking pan for Risotto?
I just moved across country and basically sold everything I own including my cooking pans. I used to use a medium-high sided two handled pan that I cannot find an image for to show you. It worked for my purposes but I am generally cooking risotto for six and it never held enough and I would end up with some of my grains still on the crunchy side. I tried a larger around pan and it would not heat evenly enough on a conventional range. In a moment of desperation I tried using a wok, that was not a good idea. In any case I find myself on the hunt for a good pan to use that will handle six servings and heat evenly, I know I could cook in batches but I am generally just trying to get dinner on the table.
I am also aware that pans are subjective but with such a price range difference out there I don't have the money to experiment.
I suggest getting a quality stainless clad saute pan or saucier. For years I made risotto in the All-Clad 3 qt. saute pan shown here:
Unless you're serving huge portions this is plenty of room for 6 servings of risotto. There are larger options available though, including a mammoth 14" 6 quart one.
This pan easily does 90% of the work in my kitchen, so at any price it carries its weight in the kitchen.
That said, this past Christmas I got the All-Clad 3 qt. copper-core saucier shown here:
It's a very close matchup, but this pan is perfect for making risotto. The higher sides are a definite benefit, but you don't sacrifice much in flat surface area. The copper core is amazingly responsive, noticeably more so than aluminum. It's obviously rather expensive, so if you're uncomfortable spending that much on a pan I'd suggest getting one of their regular 3 qt sauciers -- you'll spend at least half as much.
If I only had one pan in my kitchen though, I think I'd still go back to the saute pan above. Its versatility is just unmatched.
Regarding your concerns that a wider pan won't heat as evenly, this is generally true for a cheaper pan. However, All-Clad pans use magic to bond a layer of aluminum (or copper) between a layer of magnetic stainless (exterior) and 18/10 stainless (interior). The end result is a very even heat which you can actually confirm with an infrared thermometer.
The important part of a good pan is the bottom. It has to be thick, so it heats evenly and doesn't deform easily. The material is less important, but going from good to excellent (cheaper to more expensive) you should look at:
Seasoned cast iron.
Aluminum sandwiched between layers of stainless steel.
Heavy copper top-coated with stainless steel.
Look at what the Curious Cook has to say.
I have an enameled cast iron stockpot that works very well. Need to make sure to start it on low heat and give it time to warm up otherwise the pot will get too hot.
This is the best thing for risotto. It provides a nice steady heat with minimal fussing. Also perfect for gumbo and stews. The Le Creuset french oven pot is the "gold standard."
I usually just use a 5-6 quart stainless steel pot. Your cook time will go up (it pretty much has to when you're cooking in quantity), but it should fill the need. If your rice is still crunchy, keep adding liquid. Rissoto doesn't really have a definite cooking time.
If you get something with lower sides and a wider bottom, you're going to end up with cool spots (as you discovered).
More and more, I've taken to using heavy cast iron cookware. It holds heat far better than anything else, guaranteeing a constant temperature. Of course, this is because of cast iron's mass, which means the pots are heavy - possibly a deal-breaker for some. I like Staub's products best, though they're expensive. They're attractive, and can go right on the table. I use one like this for risotto: (comes in sizes from 2.75 to 9 quarts)
I have already selected an answer for this question but I came across more information and thought I would share for the sake of completeness. I picked up a book at the library called Things Cooks Love, Here on Amazon. And it is a book written by the people at Sur la Table, which is from Pike Place Market here in Seattle, WA. That is the background now here is the relevance.
Apparently there is a Risotto Pan, here is the definition from the book: The traditional copper risotto pan has a thin tin lining and a removable steel bale handle that in the past was used to suspend the pan over a cooking fire. The straight sides and broad cooking surface provide ample room for stirring and even heat distribution.
There is also a page dedicated to the pan and possible pan substitions, that I will not include here, but it is on page 287 if you have the book. Apparently there is also a special wooden risotto spoon that has a pointed tip and a hole in the bowl.
For years I have used a 3 quart non stick saute pan by Calphalon (in fact I made lobster risotto last night). I always had great results using this pan, and use it exclusively for making risotto. However, I recently upgraded to a conduction cook top, and the Calphalon pan will no longer be an option as it is aluminum. I recently purchased an All Clad stainless steel cookware set that comes with a 3 quart saute pan. Although it is NOT non stick, I am sure it will do well for risotto. As mentioned in previous posts, when making risotto you should heat your pan slowly and take your time. Risotto is a work of art and the best part of making it is enjoying a great glass of wine with your guests while stirring (I often encourage my guests to help with stirring while I see to other parts of the meal). Cheers - Gerard
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.049804
| 2010-09-22T15:25:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7529",
"authors": [
"Angelo",
"Bryden hudson",
"Freqout",
"Jared McLean",
"Jolly Party Give",
"Patricia",
"Rohit Choudhary",
"Shackrock",
"hairyhenderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75766",
"user15555"
],
"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
}
|
227
|
For Pizza cooking at home. What is the best alternative to the pizza stone?
For Pizza cooking at home. What is the best alternative to the pizza stone?
If it is the price of the stone you just have to look around. I got mine for $10.00 at Benix & Co.
I think the temperature of the oven is far more important! Pizza needs to be baked with a very high temperature!
FWIW, I picked a pizza stone up at Walmart for something like $6 a while back. You can find them cheap (as they should be...)
@txwikinger: which, if you don't already cook in a brick oven, can be hard to maintain while opening the door to put pizza in it...
Also, if you don't use a stone and put the oven at a high temperature the toppings can be cooked to a crisp while the base is still very flexible and not at all crispy.
My stone eventually got sealed with olive oil with drips. useless as a cookie sheet. Find cheap ones...
Unglazed quarry tile. Preferably 3/4" to 1" thick.
+1 for this suggestion. I use a granite countertop offcut that I got at a Habitat for Humanity ReStore for next to nothing.
@lukecyca: Thanks for the tip about the ReStore, I'll check it out.
@uncle: It's actually quite common at home improvement stores. People commonly seek alternatives to pizza stones for reasons of cost. Where I live you can spend $30-40 for a wimpy 1/4" pizza stone from a kitchen store, or spend $8-12 for a 1" thick quarry tile from a home improvement store.
And for our grill, we spent that $8 for an entire box of small tiles - probably enough for three or so people to share. The nice thing about buying the little ones is that you can make it fit any space. (Great for the grill, maybe annoying for the oven.)
Bingo. Mine are actually only 1/2" thick, but it still does a great job. Thicker is better, though.
@unclebrad - it IS much more common than a pizza stone. Any home improvement/lumberyard is going to have an unlimited supply of them. I bought enough to cover the entire surface area of my oven rack, plus another 50% for backups in case any get broken or to crud-infested, for under $6. Buying the tiles gives you the flexibility of covering the entirety of any-sized oven, as well.
Heat up a cast iron skillet and the broiler on your oven until everything is as hot as possible. Flip the skillet upside-down, put the pizza on top, and put everything under the broiler. The goal is to cook with as much heat as possible as quickly as possible. You can also try it over the barbecue, which is a bit easier to manage.
Use Your Cast Iron Pan as a Pizza Stone
upside-down on the skillet? broiler? Am I missing something here? How could that turn into a pizza? I've never seen a pizza broiled, nor cooked upside down.
The upside down skillet is a substitute for the pizza stone and the broiler is to cook the top.
Exactly @ManiacZX :) (answer edited to be a bit more clear)
Pizza Hack: Broil Your Pies
Heston Blumenthal did something similar on on of his "In Search of Perfection" programmes. As I recall he heated the pan for a long time on the hob then flipped it over, dropped his pizza on to it and then put it in an oven that had been pre-heated to it's maximum temperature.
Good answer. And if you are making a pan pizza, you can use an aluminum sheet pan, put it on the 500 degree iron skillet, and the conduction of heat will give you a nice crispy crust. Much better than just a 500 degree oven on its own! For folks without a top broiler, this technique combined with a well-preheated oven maxed-out gives pretty good results!
they DO make cast iron pizza pans, too. just thought i'd mention that.
@franko True. But I don't really need another thing in my kitchen.
Peter Reinhart, in his book American Pie, My Search for the Perfect Pizza, has a great break-down of different home-baking situations and his advice on how to bake the best pizza in each situation. The first situation he addresses is Standard Home Oven with No Baking Stone. You can read it in full at the link above, but here is my summary:
Your problem in this situation is lack of thermal mass. There are three solutions:
Lightly oil your pan before building your pizza. Bake on the lowest shelf of oven, closest to the heat source. The hot oil will essentially fry the bottom of your pizza. Experiment with placement to balance baking of crust and toppings.
Create a thermal mass by preheating a thick inverted sheet pan or inverted large cast iron pan (or a cast iron pizza pan). Start on the middle shelf. Do not oil this beforehand as it will smoke, but just before placing your pizza on this, give it a quick squirt of cooking spray.
If the bottom of your pizza is baking too fast with method #2, switch your oven to broil for five minutes before placing your pizza onto the makeshift hearth. As soon as you slide in your pizza, switch back to normal bake. The residual heat from the broiler will even out the bake.
Regardless of which option, he says, be sure to preheat your oven for 45 minutes instead of the usual 15 for most baking.
Jim Lahey, in his beautiful new book, My Pizza, has an added trick for the electric home oven that is designed to work with a pizza stone, but could be adapted for the sheet or cast iron pan method above. He points out that most home ovens are set to shut off when they reach a certain temperature. He's devised a method to trick the oven for maximum heat:
. . . place the stone [or makeshift "hearth"] on a rack about 4 inches from the top heating element and preheat, on bake, at 500°F for the usual 30 minutes, Then to boost the heat of the stone without the oven's elements shutting down, open the oven door a few inches and leave it ajar for about 30 seconds. Some of the ambient heat will escape, but the stone will stay just as hot. Now close the oven door and switch to broil for 10 minutes to heat the surface to the maximum. Open the door and slide the pizza in to broil. (...) With the door closed, broil . . . until the crust is adequately charred but not burnt and the toppings are bubbling.
A wood-fired brick oven at 900°
You should buy a pizza stone, but if you don't have one you can bake it directly over the grid. This way will be more crispy than over a iron baking pan.
In addition to using floor tiles (I have tiles of about 0.75 cm thick, which isn't enough), I cook my pizzas in two cycles in an electric oven that has a grill function.
I put the oven at the highest temperature with the grill function on. Then I place the shelf with the floor tiles as close to the grill/heating elements as possible. I let that heat up until the oven is at the right temperature (~235-250 C)
I then quickly put the shelf in the middle and turn off the oven and let the pizza sit on the tiles for 5-6 minutes.
Then I take the pizza out and reheat the tiles at maximum temperature (put them close to the heating elements again).
I relocate the shelf with the tiles to the middle and put the pizza in again (this time with the grill function turned off). Let it bake for 5-10 minutes, although I just monitor the pizza visually as the crust can char very quickly.
Update:
Another way of doing this is taking the first cycle I described above, but without toppings. Bake the dough until it is almost starting to brown (look at the edges specifically, because they will stay exposed in the second cycle) and then add toppings and continue with the rest. This is now my go-to way to ensure a good crust. No soggy pizza ever again!
You can then bake a few extra bases and put them in the freezer.
I'm using this wonderfull pizza oven at home:
It heats up to 400°C (750°F) and is specially designed for baking pizza. It costs about $100, but I couldn't find any reference in the US for it. (I'm from germany)
I am in China and saw it on a New Zealand cooking show (the food truck). Has only gotten great reviews. Must Have It. Where is it manufactured?
@PatSommer: Similar product reviewed here. Some links follow the article.
yup, identical to http://www.newwavekitchenappliances.com.au/catalogue/products/pizza-oven/just-pizza-oven but who/where actually manufactures? Hmmm must dig deeper now
I use marble with success. It has to be veinless though.
@Recap - Interesting. Why does it matter if the marble has veins or not?
veins are weak points in a marble, a marble with veins will not endure as long as a veinless one
I usually bake it in the oven over the grid, but you should use an iron baking pan if the dough is too soft. Absolutely avoid microwave, even with the crisp plate.
Any reasonable pizza stone you can buy on amazon that will fit in both your oven, and more importantly, on your grill, will be fine. The heat matters far more than the fanciness of the stone (and as others have said, a cast iron skillet flipped upsidedown works great as a stone).
I would highly recommend grilling your pizza as you can often get the grill to higher temperatures than your oven and this heat will pay off in perfect thin crust.
I wonder what kind of stone you used or how you built your fire. I shattered two over charcoal before giving up on the idea.
A pizzaiolo's preferred baking surface may depend on many variables, not least of which are the style of pizza to be made and the oven into which the surface will be inserted. After four decades of mostly uninspiring results with a conventional electric home oven and many different surfaces, I have arrived at a system that consistently delivers Neapolitan-style pizza with a leopard-spotted bottom and slightly charred top crust. In other words, "perfect," to my personal taste.
The system comprises two Baking Steels in an electric oven set to 550F, the highest temperature of which my oven is capable (important note: the convection action of the oven is not enabled). One Baking Steel is placed on the oven's topmost rack; the second Baking Steel is placed on a rack just far enough below the first to allow a pie to be easily peeled onto and off of the lower Baking Steel. In my oven, I place the lower Baking Steel two levels below the upper. A 10-inch pie typically bakes in 8 to 10-minutes, with one rotation halfway through the baking.
Whether baking a saucy pizza Margherita or a "white" pizza interspersing flavorful vegetable purees with chunks of fresh mozzarella, this method affordably and reliably provides results that make it unnecessary for me to visit even our best local shops.
I use a baking pan, and a dough recipe that results in more Sicilian type pie. The crust is not too crispy, and the dough is nice and thick.
I use two layers if soapstone tiles that were left over from our bathroom renovations.
I let them heat up properly for at least 1/2 an hour at my ovens max temp (250 C).
I checked with the supplier and they are approved for food purposes. Very common in Finnish wood ovens apparently.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.050323
| 2010-07-09T21:08:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/227",
"authors": [
"Aashvin Kumar Das",
"Angeline Hargreaves",
"Brian K1LI",
"Callithumpian",
"Christy Groner",
"Danielle Lumpkin",
"Dave",
"Emil",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Harlan",
"HoLyVieR",
"James Moore",
"Jim OHalloran",
"Kyra",
"MJeffryes",
"ManiacZX",
"Michael Mior",
"Pat Sommer",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Recep",
"Rich Damboise",
"Shog9",
"Stacie Clark",
"Wookai",
"ci_",
"colethecoder",
"franko",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9323",
"intuited",
"johnsyweb",
"lukecyca",
"michael gannaway",
"robintw",
"sarge_smith",
"tim",
"txwikinger"
],
"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
}
|
4994
|
cooking with cherimoya
Cherimoya is an amazing delicacy that I highly recommend; however, I haven't found much culinary use for it other than eating it raw.
What's your experience on cooking with this fruit?
and on a side note, it sucks that I can't find it here in Canada :(
I suggest making this community wiki.
There are some recipes available on a rare fruit website, it also offers a link to an organic cherimoya orchard in California where you can order the fruit.
http://www.rain.org/~sals/eat.html
Cherimoya ice cream is delicious. I've also had cherimoya in pancakes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.051389
| 2010-08-12T13:40:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4994",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Bonnie",
"Gale Jourdet",
"Nate",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9705",
"s0rce"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2045
|
How to Make the perfect French Custard?
I've tried numerous recipes, watched different videos, and adopted different techniques, but to this day I can't make good plain custard.
Some of the issues with previous custards:
Egg taste ( I realize this is probably due to me pouring hot over eggs, but I assure you it's not, I do it very very slowly)
Deflation (the custard deflates in the middle) I'm assuming this is due to me over mixing, or not adding flour / baking powder.
Texture ( sometimes the taste is frigging amazing, but it's either too runny or too hard.
I've given up on making custard and by mine "fresh" from a local baker.
Recipe I use:
3 beaten eggs
1 1/2 cups milk
1 1/3 cup of sugar
1 teaspoon vanilla
Method:
Combine until not foamy
bake in a water bath until stiff
Have you asked your baker?
@hobodave - yes, she said with a thick accent "itz a seecrut"
Lame. My baker shares "secrets" with me all the time.
@hobodave - Ask your baker how they make custard. I'll be waiting here
Well if this isn't answered by next weekend I'll let you know. :)
Are you trying to make Crème Anglaise or Crème Patisserie?
@codeinthehole - crème moulée
eh, @roux - why not add that to your answer?
@roux, you can always edit your answer - but it's usually a good idea to make the edit clear, to make sure people know what's changed. This just makes sure people aren't confused unnecessarily.
Is the milk / cream too hot (/or cold) when you whisk it with the egg yolks? Do you return the mixture to the pan and cook it for long enough (slowly enough?)
Which recipe are you using?
EDIT
As roux mentioned in the comments to your question, the recipe you're using doesn't sound like it's up to the job.
I've used this recipe for Crème Anglaise with success in the past. Maybe it could be adapted to your requirements?
http://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/Creme-Anglaise-4984
I included the recipe
First, do not use exclusively whole eggs, you got to have more yolk than whole eggs in your mixture otherwise the texture is compromised.
Never forget that you're dealing with a specialization of a base mixture. The ingredient you provided would make a somewhat eggy crème anglaise, whereas you're seeking the perfect crème patissière.
Crème anglaise is simply eggs / yolks mixed with vanilla extract and a bit of sugar on which you pour milk and heat slowly until the yolk starts to thicken the sauce, you have to take it off the heat as soon as it thickens and immediately cool it off, it would be wise to have a batch of ice in the sink to lay the saucepan on it, dont forget to stir rapidly so the heat will evaporate thus preventing the egg yolk to coagulate more.
Crème patissière is a variant of crème anglaise as you need to add a little flour either with a roux or a technique called singer, which is basically pouring flour lightly over the mixture as it heat. This preparation requires less care as the flour will prevent chemically the yolk from forming lump as you stir and the sauce thickens.
From crème anglaise you can cook crème brulé, crème caramel and serve it on dessert / breakfast items.
From this base recipe you can derive it and add flour and it will turn into a creme patissiere, which is basically the ultimate custard item, it is rather simple to execute , you just gotta make sure you dont use whole eggs exclusively and don't overpour flour in the mixture.
Downvoter would like to say something ?
Not sure, but I guess because you are talking about crème pâtissière, and the OP is not asking about that.
Custard is creme pâtissière.
@Mien, you are wrong to think that Crème patissière isnt custard, and the OP was specifically asking about how to make the perfect custard, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custard, a simple google search prove you wrong: Custard is a generalization of Creme patissiere / Creme anglaise. Please undo the downvote.
I did not downvote you. 2) He asked about crème moulée, which is a type of custard indeed, but not all custards are crème moulée.
There is no such things as "crème moulé" he asked for "crème brulé" which is a derivative of the base apparel used in crème patissière, crème anglaise, basically a crème patissière is a thick crème anglaise, a crème brulé is a cooked crème anglaise.
If you want to try another recipe, here's a great one from Delia Smith (author, food critic and British institution).
http://www.deliaonline.com/recipes/type-of-dish/sweet/traditional-english-custard.html
PS. Interesting to note that in America you call it French custard, while in France its known as Crème Anglaise (English cream). Here in Britain, its just 'custard' ;-)
Ah ok, you mean like the custard in an egg custard (e.g. http://www.goodtoknow.co.uk/recipes/260241/Baked-egg-custard).
PS. You might want to look at a typo in your comment - you wrote 'good side' of the Channel. Surely, monsieur, you mean the 'crappy side' ;-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.051498
| 2010-07-19T16:42:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2045",
"authors": [
"Benjol",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Melinda Armstrong",
"Mien",
"Shog9",
"codeinthehole",
"dassouki",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/968",
"immutabl",
"kokbira",
"lavinio",
"maximegir",
"murrekatt"
],
"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
}
|
7038
|
If dark pans brown food faster, do I need to make adjustments to baking when I use a light colored pan (and vise-versa)?
Would lining a dark pan with foil inhibit the browning significantly?
where do you get the notion that dark pans brown better? I've never heard that...
do you mean in baking? @Sam - for baking purposes glass and dark metal are considered to brown baked goods faster than light metal
I have a cake tin (dark metal) which has started to leak. As a consequence I lined the tin with foil last time I baked a cake, and I can't say that I noticed that the cake was less brown, but there again I wasn't looking for it. The cake was brown on the bottom though.
For metal pans, lining them won't significantly affect the cooking time -- the reason they cook differently is because of how much radiant heat they reflect. (dark absorbs, light reflects).
For a glass pan, however, I would think that if you use aluminum foil, or something light and reflective, that it could make it cook more like a light metal pan, as the issue in the glass pan is that it allows almost all of the radiant heat through without reflecting it. I've never tested it, though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.051924
| 2010-09-09T23:13:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7038",
"authors": [
"Andrew Gorcester",
"P.T.",
"Sam Holder",
"Steve Rathbone",
"Tyler Trafford",
"gunjan kumar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"justkt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10591
|
What to do with Pickled Figs
I have a jar of pickled figs bought for me as a present, and would like to make good use of them. Any ideas??
I think the two most likely things to do with this are to serve it as an accompaniment to a cheese plate (preferably with a triple cream / brie type cheese or an intense blue cheese), or in a dish with a gamey meat.
yes, this sounds like it is the best use - now to find a good brie. I might melt try melting it a little on toast.
I would stuff one inside a quail before cooking. You should get a really nice gamey-figgy gravy out of it.
Iread that they can be used in a casserole. I have some Spanish ones preserved in vinegar.They did not go down well as an apero / cheese accompaniment so I'm stuck with them. Would like some ideas.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.052077
| 2010-12-29T23:51:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10591",
"authors": [
"Celsius1414",
"Gokotai",
"Richard Venable",
"dafox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21722",
"mamadalgas"
],
"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
}
|
11757
|
Safety of Egg Yolk Glaze
Yesterday I baked a special loaf of bread with an egg yolk glaze. After it was mostly cooled I covered it with plastic wrap and set it on the counter to be served today. I am now concerned that I should have refrigerated it, because of the egg glaze. There is some condensation that formed and the crust is a little damp. Is it safe to eat?
The safety issue isn't so much the egg glaze, it is the fact that your bread was not cooled properly before covering it. This left a warm, humid environment for bacteria to grow. Because of this, I would not serve it. However, the best way to judge whether there is a problem or not is to use sight and smell. If you weren't the one to make it, would you want to eat it?
The solution would not necessarily have been to refrigerate it, but to make sure it was cooled before wrapping. Refrigerating would have also caused condensation, although it would have reduced the amount of time the bread was warm. Next time, allow the bread to cool uncovered inside or outside of the refrigerator. You could partially cover it, leaving a hole in the top for the humid air to escape. When you think it is cooled and OK to cover, check back in a half hour to look for condensation. If there is condensation, uncover it and allow it to cool a little bit longer before rewrapping.
thanks! I will try again - I don't like to take any chances.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.052183
| 2011-02-02T14:43:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11757",
"authors": [
"Marco Leogrande",
"Rob Barreca",
"bill kohl",
"cyang",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24175",
"mamadalgas",
"user3492716"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7239
|
cabbage - volume to weight conversion?
I am making sauerkraut, and don't have a handy kitchen scale. What is the approximate volume of 1 lb of cabbage? Also, any advice on saurkraut making would be appreciated. This is my second batch. The first one turned out very good, but I had to throw away that last of what was in the crock as it had mold on top. I am using a Harsch Crock.
3 pounds of cabbage should net you approximately (source) 1 pint of canned sauerkraut. Otherwise, 1 lb. = 2 cups cooked; 1 lb. = 4 cups shredded. I would recommend you just weigh the cabbage when you buy it so you can have an idea of how much it will yield.
I did find my little scale, I think I need a bigger one, maybe a five or ten lb. model. I didn't buy the cabbage - grew it. Thanks for the conversions!
A medium-sized cabbage weighs around 2 to 2.5 pounds. (Assuming we all mean the same thing by "medium"...) I think you'll probably be better off guessing based on fraction of your whole cabbage than volume, since once you shred the cabbage, the volume's going to vary wildly depending on how fine you shred it and how fluffed up it is when you measure it. My best guess for volume would be 10-12 cups.
Of course, you can always go to the fallback and find something else in your kitchen that weighs a pound (I tend to have pasta) and try and lop off a hunk of your cabbage that weighs the same.
Edit: I did find something on about.com suggesting that a medium cabbage is two pounds. Unfortunately it claims that a two-pound head of cabbage makes 10 cups shredded, but that a medium head makes four cups. I think the ten cups is way, way closer to correct, based on experience. If you do want a volume, that would probably be a good estimate.
I'd say a scale is the only reasonable option here - In desperation I suppose you could fill a container to the brim, float the cabbage, and measure the water that overflowed (you'd be building a crude scale, really), but a scale is far more convenient, and allows getting the salt content right (2% or 2.5% weight of salt are typical aiming points, relative to the weight of the cabbage or cabbage and other stuff.)
In the course of an hour making sauerkraut the volume of the cabbage is all over the map from the original head, to the fluffy shreds (huge volume), to the salted and wilted shreds (most compact form, when compacted.) The weight is invariant unless you throw some (a bad spot) away.
If your available scale is too small for the job, measure within its capacity, multiple times.
Very important to get the salt content right or you end uo with spoiled cabbage (yep not sauerkraut). According to my google search the avg Cabbage 1 pound = 4–½ cups shredded. I'm assuming that's a medium?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.052335
| 2010-09-13T15:29:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7239",
"authors": [
"Dolores",
"Inez",
"Martha Gund",
"Metta World Peace",
"Olen Soifer",
"Sid Holland",
"chris",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87998",
"mamadalgas"
],
"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
}
|
9280
|
Why did mold develop on the top of my sourdough?
I made some sourdough starter from scratch, using garden grapes, flour and water. It was wonderful for the first few batches. Today, I was going to get another bread batch going, and when I looked at the refrigerated starter, there was a good layer of fuzzy mold on top.
Of course, I threw it out. But was it exposure to unwanted bacteria, or the temperature of my fridge (I kept it in our beverage fridge, which is warmer than our main fridge), or the length of time (two weeks) I let it sit unused that did it in? Or does homemade sourdough keep less well than what you can get commercially?
There shouldn't be any significant difference between an established homemade sourdough culture and one that's seeded from something you bought (I'm assuming like the culture that King Arthur Flour Co sells online). In fact, no matter where you bought your starter culture, over time the local bacterial flora would crowd out the bacteria that was in the culture you bought. But, I'm sure the mold infection had nothing to do with rogue bacteria. (Bad bacteria can spoil a starter too, but that would be a different set of symptoms from the green carpet on top.) It could be that your starter didn't get well established, but it doesn't sound like that was the problem if you successfully made some bread from it.
In a sourdough culture, the acid produced by the bacteria and alcohol produced by the yeast make an environment that's somewhat resitant to bad bacteria (like salmonella) or mold. But the culture needs to be fairly active to maintain its resistance. After two weeks in a warm fridge, your yeast would be dormant and the bacteria would probably have run rampant for a while (after the yeast went dormant) and then started to also die off.
In a warm fridge you could maybe go a week without feeding the culture. At room temperature it's one day optimally and two days max. The best way to avoid infection is to have two small covered containers about 1½ to 2 cups in size. To make a new generation of your starter, begin with a clean container, add equal parts by weight of the previous generation of starter, flour and water. So for example, 25 grams of starter, plus 25 grams of flour and 25 of water. Mix it up and put it in the fridge. In one week, get the other container, clean it out, and do the same thing over again.
I always keep the old generation in its container as a backup (in case of a mold or other infection). You just need to keep track of which container has the fresher starter, so you can clean out the old one when building the next gen. I did this for more than 3 years with no infections of any kind.
Though, really, it should be fine w/o using a cleaned container each time. Just wipe off the sides, and switch containers every once and a while. Saves some washing.
Good point, I didn't ever wash mine with soap and water. I just dumped the older starter, rinsed with water only and wiped it out with a paper towel. I suppose even that could have been overkill.
My understanding is that while sourdough starter is somewhat mold resistant thanks to the yeast and the bacteria that make it acidic, it's still vulnerable to mold.
My thoughts are that if you're finding that your homemade starter is going moldy faster than a bought starter, perhaps yours was a little weak in the bacteria department. That would leave it less active and less acidic, opening the door for the mold. It might also be underfed, since lively yeast action should help with mold too.
I haven't even tried to keep a starter alive for more than a little while (I invariably forget about it and throw it out after months), so it's all kind of theoretical for me.
Just scrape the molded bits off. It's sort of like cheese in that way. The mold doesn't get any further than the surface.
It does mean you've got a bit of a weak starter though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.052583
| 2010-11-19T19:27:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9280",
"authors": [
"Cold Oatmeal",
"David Duman",
"april26",
"davorb",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4047",
"sashkello"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8053
|
What is the difference between roasting, baking, and broasting?
For example, when making a turkey for Thanksgiving, I generally place it in the oven (covered in foil or a turkey bag), and cook it for many hours at the recommended heat setting.
I can crock-pot a "roast" cut of meat for many hours, or put it in the oven (again covered) for several hours at a low temperature.
How is that different from "baking", other than when baking the top is generally not covered?
pot roasts are actually braising (cooking partially submerged in liquid), even though the cut is a 'roast', the process is not roasting.
Traditionally roasting used radiant heat to cook meat. This would have taken place over an open flame, typically on a rotating spit. In modern times this method is now called Rotisserie. Modern roasting refers to dry heat cooking that takes place in an oven, the food is cooked by convection. Until the late 19th century this method was referred to as baking.
Baking is essentially the same as roasting in modern times. Baking most often refers specifically to the cooking of "baked goods" (breads, pastries, etc.). However, the terms baking and roasting are often used interchangeably (baked chicken, roast chicken). There doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule here as to which term is used. For example, you roast asparagus, turkey, chicken, but bake lasagna, casseroles, and also chicken.
Braising uses a combination of moist and dry heat to cook the food. This is what occurs in a crock pot, or in dutch oven/stock pot in the oven. Your meat will be cooked in an ample amount of seasoned liquid such as wine and/or stock.
Broasting I had never heard of before. According to Wikipedia it's a trademarked method of pressurized deep frying. I doubt this is what you were referring to.
The context in which I had heard of "broasting" was not under the trade-marked form - but that could just as easily have been sloppy usage on the part of those I've heard it from :)
Roasting - cooking with dry heat
Baking - cooking with dry heat
Broasting - a trademark of Broaster, Co. as a special method of cooking chickens by frying under pressure. Preceded by a special marinade process (source for this definition).
According to ochef these days baking and roasting are the have become synonyms, although they were not always so. Broasting, as you can see from the definition, is not a dry heat application and is therefore different.
For everyone who says roasting involves meat and baking is everything else, you can point to all the roast vegetable recipes (although I have yet to hear about a roast cake, pie, or cookie recipe). For everyone who says roasting is a higher temperature than baking, you can point to slow roast recipes that cook for a long time at a low temperature. The best way to determine the difference is convention - if an item is normally roasted, call it roasting. If it's normally baked, call it baking.
for me, roasting implies adding oil in some way, even if this only comes from the oil present in the cut of meat, and not emulsified oil, like the butter in a cake.
baking implies dry heat and no 'loose' oil.
roasted veg would have oil on them, baked potatoes do not. A pie or chicken kiev would be baked as no oil is added, a whole chicken would be roast as it would release fats as it was heated, even if no additional oil or butter was rubbed in.
Update - after talking it over with a friend the actual temperature might come into it. Things seems to be baked at a lower temp say up to 180C and roast above say 200C, but its not a hard and fast rule.
Broasting is generally used for deep frying using oil in the pressure cooker instead of water. The word is probably a portmanteau of "boiling" and "roasting".
While it used to be a common trick with vintage pressure cooker manuals, all modern home devices warn against the practice. Please do not attempt at home unless you have the restaurant grade equipment that says it is specifically for broasting.
KFC cooks their original recipe chicken (not their spicy crispy recipe) this way. They use an industrial cooker and heat the oil up very hot to start, and then they add a weighed batch of chicken and seal the lid. The hot oil rapidly crisps the outer coating while the chilled chicken drops the temperature of the oil downward as it cooks.
Simply roasting is shallow frying and broasting is deep frying
Roasting doesn't require oil. Frying does.
Broasting is also distinct from standard deep frying in that the fryer is pressurized, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broasting
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.053135
| 2010-10-12T15:42:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8053",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Not a Toy Camera",
"Preston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88000",
"logophobe",
"warren"
],
"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
}
|
9379
|
What is the difference between sorbet and sherbet
From my [limited] exposure, it seems like sorbet is merely sherbet with a higher price tag.
Is that a fair understanding?
If not, what is a better way of understanding the difference(s)?
Actually, they are not quite the same. Sorbet is ice sweetened with fruit, wine, or liquer. Italian ice, which is similar, does not contain ice but contains frozen fruit purees or similar. Sherbert contains a small amount of dairy, but the milkfat content is less than 3%, differentiating it from ice cream.
In the U. S. what is commonly called sorbet is most likely an Italian ice. The difference is the lower milk fat content.
cool - and that's the difference I couldn't find elsewhere :)
In my experience, the definition of sorbet vs. Italian ice is exactly reversed: sorbet is frozen fruit puree, and Italian ice is, like the name suggests, ice with flavoring syrup (different from a slushy in that the flavoring is added prior to freezing, instead of after).
My experience is more in line with Marti's. For instance, Ciao Bella makes an incredible coconut sorbet which was clearly not ice with flavoring.
Apparently, my usage of sorbet is an Americanism. (At least per Wikipedia.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_ice Note that in all definitions, a sorbet contains no dairy whatsoever.
The words are used rather widely depending on where you are, so definitions are tricky without restricting to a locality. This applies to food words in general.
When I was a child in Britain, sherbet was a fizzy powder. Sorbet is definitely water, sugar and flavourings: no milk.
+1 Sherbet as the fizzy powder is a very British use of the word, especially if you tell people there should be a liquorice stick in it. ;-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.053599
| 2010-11-23T14:05:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9379",
"authors": [
"Anna",
"Joe",
"Jonathon Geenevasen",
"Josh Diehl",
"Marti",
"Orbling",
"Zack",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"warren"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14287
|
Are refrigerated hard boild eggs really unsafe after a week?
Most sites that I've googled (such as http://www.ochef.com/1009.htm, and http://whatscookingamerica.net/Q-A/eggs2.htm) say that refrigerated hard-boiled eggs need to be eaten within one week.
I'm a little skeptical, and I know that many are very conservative where eggs are involved.
Can anyone point to an authoritative source that explains why, say 10-day old, refrigerated hard-boiled eggs would be unsafe?
Fascinating. In super markets here hard boiled eggs are sold without refrigeration around Easter. And surprisingly they don't usually go bad for at least two weeks without refrigeration. Unpeeled, of course. But that seems to be quite contradictory to the advice given in the answers to your question here. As far as I can remember from my childhood we ate hard boiled eggs from Easter even three weeks later without any issues.
Yes, they really are unsafe after a week.
According to the USDA (similar information can be found from other food agencies):
Why do hard-cooked eggs spoil faster than fresh eggs?
When shell eggs are hard cooked, the protective coating is washed away, leaving bare the pores in the shell for bacteria to enter and contaminate it. Hard-cooked eggs should be refrigerated within 2 hours of cooking and used within a week.
Simply put, you're damaging the shell, and that expedites spoilage. Some secondary sources such as StillTasy (who use the agencies as their primary sources) are more liberal and say up to 2 weeks, but I'd at least give it a very thorough sniff test before eating hard-boiled eggs that old. (And note that the sniff test will not necessarily alert you to bacterial contamination, only the more conventional forms of food spoilage like rancidity).
Shouldn't we rely more on the sniff test anyway rather than throwing out perfectly good food just because it's over the "best before" date?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.053770
| 2011-04-23T14:21:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14287",
"authors": [
"0xC0000022L",
"Peter Were",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5092"
],
"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
}
|
3540
|
What sauce / spices can make a tofu steak taste like a beef steak
I had an unbelievably good tofu steak in a restaurant in Tokyo many years ago. I have never been able to reproduce it.
It tasted uncannily like a beef steak.
What sauce / spices could I use to mimic the steak flavour?
Ross j: Hi and welcome to the site. To differentiate ourselves from other sites we prefer to have questions which can be answered, and not just a listing of various recipe suggestions. An example of question which, though asking for a recipe is providing some objective criteria of what the recipe should provide: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3047/how-do-you-make-general-tsos-chicken-as-generally-found-in-the-eastern-usa please refine to specify similarly objective criteria for providing a recipe to your liking, not just 'good', otherwise I'm afraid I'll vote to close as well.
Please don't be put off by this, its just that we have a slightly different focus here, which hopefully in the long term is something which you will come to appreciate. a discussion about why these sort of questions are considered off topic here can be found on the meta site: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4/should-i-need-a-recipe-for-x-questions-be-off-topic
Another option is to show us the recipe that you have tried and explain what didn't work about it (the sauce wasn't thick enough, the tofu fell apart or wasn't crispy enough etc etc) and maybe someone can help with some advice which may give you the results you are after
What if the questioner has just said: What technique and flavorings are best for making a tofu steak? Then we'd answer without so much parsing...
@Ocaasi, I'm not sure that's true, it would still seem subjective and argumentative then...
'Even' if it was community wiki?
Ok. I actually appreciate the tips on technique, however I acquiesce to the popular demands and have edited the question to be less general.
I don't know anything about cooking tofu, so this is purely addressing the beef flavor part. If you want to make something bland taste more like beef, one the largest issues is going to be adding umami flavor. It is present to some degrees in meats, cheeses, mushrooms, soy sauce, and tomatoes. I'd start with a sauce containing several of these items, and then add some complementary flavors (peppers, citrus, sugar, etc).
One thing in particular I've been experimenting with is roasting shiitake mushrooms down until they resemble slightly over-cooked bacon in taste and texture. I imagine if you then ground them into a powder and added some soy sauce, they would make a great start to your sauce.
The "tofu steak" I know of in Japan (豆腐ステーキ) is generally not vegetarian. However, there are a number of variations that could be adapted in that direction.
Most versions I've seen start with momen-doufu (medium firm, but this is often softer than tofu with that description in the US). A marinade is highly unlikely. Often, the tofu will be grilled on a hot griddle, sometimes with a dusting of cornstarch, katakuriko, or flour, which can create a charred aroma that will be reminiscent of steak. Sometimes roasted sesame oil is used to augment this perception, but keep in mind that it has a low smoke point.
The tofu will either be topped with or briefly simmered with some sauce, often consisting of some combination of shimeji, enoki or other Japanese mushrooms, and ground pork, simmered in katsuo-dashi (dried skipjack-tuna based soup stock) usually with some additional starch. Leeks or shallots may be added. Generally, there's some soy sauce, mirin (sweetened shochu or sweetened rice wine), and sugar added to this mix. Pork and mushrooms aren't present in all versions of this dish, but one or the other is common. Other than black pepper and salt, it's unlikely that any uncommon spices would be used. I would expect that a somewhat heavy-handed use of freshly ground black pepper will be closest to what you seem to be looking for. Some people might add a touch of butter to the sauce (and by some people, I mean me).
The soup stock is important (for umami and aroma); if you want a vegetarian alternative, consider simmering dried porcini and kelp gently for a while after soaking.
There are a ton of variations of this basic set of steps will give you some place to start that's at least somewhat in line with Japanese conventions. It's quite possible the restaurant you went to did things differently, of course.
Tofu comes in different grades depending on their water content, firmness, and texture. Silk tofu is great for smoothies but won't hold up to cooking in a pan or on a grill. Hard or firm tofu is, as it sounds, more rigid and easiest to keep solid. You might get the best results from a medium grade that has some of the smoothness of silk but enough of the structure of firm. Also, firmer tofu will take on flavor better than silk, since the silk type is so fine that it's virtually impenetrable as a solid.
Wrap the tofu in paper towels and press under a plate for 5-10 minutes. Then marinate the tofu like you would a barbecue dish. Put it in the fridge for 2-3 hours (or 20-30 minutes) before cooking. Teriyaki sauce would work great. Barbecue sauce might be nice. Any combination of soy sauce, honey, lime juice, sesame oil, fish sauce, red pepper, black pepper, garlic, salt... you really can't go wrong. Just don't forget that tofu has virtually no flavor except what you put in/on it.
Take the tofu out (a few minutes ahead wouldn't hurt). Use a knife to wipe off excess marinade, and pat dry with a towel again to enhance browning. Heat some oil in a pan and carefully put the tofu slab into it. You want it around medium-high, since that will brown the tofu but not require constant flipping to avoid burning. Leave it for 2-3 minutes, then carefully flip it over. A bigger spatula will be helpful. Brown the other side, using your leftover marinade to glaze the tofu, and pouring the rest into the pan to reduce into a sauce. Pull the tofu after 2-3 minutes, leaving the sauce to reduce further if necessary.
Let the tofu sit for a few minutes to cool.
Serve with whatever complements your seasoning: sauteed onions/mushrooms/toasted ground peanuts...
Solid advice, especially the all important step of patting dry before frying, which I prefer to do in a well-seasoned cast iron skillet. The one place I differ - I don't find the marinades really penetrate tofu very well (cut open a piece and see for yourself). So I just cook it unmarinated and then make an intense pan-sauce to serve on it.
I'm pretty sure I stole it from one of your answers. So, thank you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.053953
| 2010-07-28T06:47:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3540",
"authors": [
"Dacto",
"Hugh",
"Johnny Mindlin",
"LueTm",
"Maarten van Beek",
"Michael Natkin",
"Ocaasi",
"Sam Holder",
"Seitaridis",
"Tim Gilbert",
"cabanaboy",
"dpatchery",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7529",
"ross j",
"stevehipwell",
"user247245"
],
"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
}
|
21733
|
What to add to the batter of the cake to avoid hardening when the gluten formation can't be avoided?
So, over mixing batter forms gluten, which in turn hardens the cake. Fine.
The problem is that I don't want lumps in the cakes, and the above statement prevents me from fine mixing the batter. So, is there something which I can add to the batter (more milk?) to make the outcome soft despite Gluten?
Instead of diving right into recipe development, you might try some proven cake and pastry recipes first, such as what you would find in the Joy of Cooking. As you follow the instructions, think about why the choices are being made. Eventually the reasoning behind the techniques will start to become apparent, and you can fill the details in with the science.
@SamLey Please read my comment on Aaronut's answer. Internet is full of cake receipes, how to know which is proven? :( Ah? Joy od cooking is website's name?
Joy of Cooking is a very widespread general cookbook in the US. And finding trusted recipes can be tough, but general methods are: buy well-known cookbooks with tested recipes, find food bloggers you like (pictures generally provide some evidence the recipe works), or go with well-reviewed recipes on big sites like allrecipes. From what you've said, I'm not sure exactly what your problem was, but if you carefully follow a good recipe, you should be fine. If you want to try to diagnose this failure, maybe show us the recipe and describe what happened in another question?
@Jefromi Actually, the recipe said - do NOT mix finely, so I made very less efforts in mixing.
@AnishaKaul I would urge you not to get frustrated - part of cooking is experimentation, and part of experimentation is failure. I've certainly had my share of them, and each is an opportunity for learning. Trusted recipes are a hard thing to find - I recommend Joy of Cooking (http://www.amazon.com/Joy-Cooking-75th-Anniversary-2006/dp/0743246268) because it is a common standard in the US - the recipes may not be the BEST, but they are highly consistent and well tested, which is a great place to start.
It sounds like you barely mixed the batter at all. Yes, you should see lumps in the batter, but pea-sized lumps, not golf balls. When the recipe says not to overmix, it just means don't mix it all the way into a smooth slurry.
@Aaronut any idea why this que is getting downvotes? Just curious. :)
Downvotes might be because it sounds like the actual issue you face is not gluten development.
Downvotes are anonymous, and I have no special insight into them either as a contributor or moderator. It may be because, as @Jefromi says, your real issue turned out to be something completely different from what you originally asked. But the question, as it stands, is fine, I have no problem with it.
@Jefromi I couldn't have known that without this question. ;)
Sure, I didn't downvote it either; it's a reasonable question. You could've asked about the actual recipe failure though, and figured it out a little more quickly :)
Milk won't help you - it's mostly water, and gluten develops from flour (more accurately, specific proteins in flour) and water.
The way to reduce gluten development is to incorporate more fat into the batter. Lipids are hydrophobic and will prevent further hydration of the glutenin.
Using a lower-protein flour will also help. If you're not already using cake flour, the reason it's called cake flour is because of the lower protein content.
That being said, have you actually tried leaving the batter coarse? Just because the batter is lumpy does not mean that the cake will have big lumps. The entire mixture is wet, so unless you leave huge lumps of dry flour in the batter, you won't end up with a lumpy cake. There's a difference between "don't overmix" and "don't mix" - you're supposed to mix enough to incorporate, just don't try homogenize it.
Cake flour is also more finely milled. Also, beware that different types of flour have different densities (so you'll get a different weight of flour if you switch from AP to cake and measure by volume)
Thanks for the helpful answer Aaronut. Wasn't aware of the gluten tag. Secondly, the problem is NOT lumps. The problem is that I get a some kind of "wet" parts as a result of not mixing properly. I tried that yesterday, had to throw away the cake. Some parts of the cake were wet. I want a soft cake indeed but not wet for sure. I left it for 25 minutes, other parts were cooked well, but some parts were wet. yuk.
@AnishaKaul - pictures would help.
@rfusca I have thrown away the cake - but all I can describe is that the cake "was" indeed well cooked on many parts, but some parts in the middle were wet. I didn't mix this "well" at all. Now, I don't know is it the time which cause the glutten or is it the speed? If I mix the cake fast enough will the gluten still be formed?
Gluten would cause the cake to 'chewy' not wet. Not, you don't need to mix it fast to avoid gluten, just mix it till its incorporated like that said.
@rfusca so, if I don't want the cake to be wet, I should allow the gluten to form? While replying do write @ Anisha, please.
@Anisha - gluten and wet cake are unrelated. Wet cake would come from vastly undermixing or underbaking.
@rfusca Undermixing means not mixing properly? Then you are coorect - I did NOT mix properly (as the recipe told me to not to mix the batter finely, leave the lumps as they are)!
@Anisha - you can leave some lumps, but you still have to mix some. Try watching a video online of somebody mixing a cake.
@AnishaKaul: Overmixing, like overbaking, will give the cake elasticity due to gluten development, much like a regular bread texture. Cakes are supposed to be moist, and increasing the fat will generally make it more so. If you prefer a completely dry texture, I guess that's fine, but most people don't, and most recipes are geared toward not drying it out. However, if you have actual "wet" spots and "dry" spots then you probably misinterpreted the phrase "lumps" and didn't actually incorporate the ingredients properly; a cake is supposed to be moist, but still uniform.
Sugar has a similar effect as fat, as @SamLey says, but it must be added to the wet ingredients, not dry.
@Aaronut I too like moist cake not dry for sure, but my cake was "wet" in some spots. The wet mixture was sticking to my tongue, I could feel it. I didn't mix the batter well at all. It had walnut sized lumps in it. Is that size normal?
@AnishaKaul: No, that's excessively large, see my comment on the original question. Some sources will actually say that they should be smaller than peas, but that would be the maximum for sure.
Thanks for the confirmation. :D You can now visualize that why I had to throw that cake. ;)
Acid inhibits gluten formation, so it's possible that incorporating an acidic ingredient such as buttermilk, vinegar, or lemon juice will tenderize the cake.
This will definitely force you to experiment and adjust your recipe, however, since the acid will also interact with other ingredients, most notably leavening.
More acid means more reaction with baking soda/powder, which might lead to a collapsed cake (if too much carbon dioxide is produced before the batter has time to set up in the oven).
It will also, obviously, have an effect on flavor. Given enough of the acidic ingredient, its own flavor might even become too prominent.
It should be noted, though (as Aaronut already mentioned) that cake batter just needs to be mixed until all the ingredients are combined. As long as you have no pockets of dry ingredients, your cake should bake perfectly well.
btw, your answer was quite helpful. Can't select two answer unfortunately, but.
Time. You can try adding time.
So, one of the things mixing really needs to do is equalize the moisture - mix the dry into the wet ingredients, so the batter is (mostly) uniform instead of pockets of drier flour in swimming in liquid. Mixing the ingredients about does this quite well, but it can also develop gluten if you mix it too much or too fiercely, which seems to be the problem you're having.
Letting the wet ingredients sit with the dry should let everything get moist and hydrated before you finish mixing it, and so the same amount of mixing should end up with a more uniform product - especially if you stir together roughly, let it sit for the lumps to moisten, then finish mixing into a fairly smooth batter.
It is also a lot easier to mix ingredients if everything is closer to the same consistency, like adding two dry or two moist ingredients together - and after absorbing a bit, the flour should be looser and moister, the liquids should be thicker because some has absorbed into the flour, and everything should stir together much more smoothly instead of sliding past each other. You may still get little lumps, but they should be little wet lumps of batter that will smooth out with heat and time while baking, not big pockets of dry flour that would leave the finished cake lumpy and wet and undermixed... and certainly not overdeveloped gluten to make the cake tough.
It's worth noting that gluten is not the enemy, by the way. It gives some structure and helps catch the bubbles that make your cake rise. You don't want a lot, granted, if you want a cake that's soft instead of chewy - but if having none was better, cakes made with actual gluten-free flours would be so much more popular than (wheat) cake flour. Also, it actually takes some doing to develop serious gluten (lots of proteins sliding past each other and snagging), so smoothly mixing your batter to a mostly uniform consistency and avoiding lumpy cake shouldn't be a problem, spending a lot of extra mixing time furiously trying to smooth out every little lump may be too much.
Heat can also denature the proteins that form gluten. Toasting the flour and/or adding boiling hot liquid at some early phase of mixing are both known to have a perceivable effect (not AFTER the gluten is developed - heating that will cook the finished gluten just as it will happen in a bread).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.054494
| 2012-02-26T01:24:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21733",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Aidan Beaumont",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Bob B.",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Abela",
"Mary Jo",
"Raestloz",
"Sam Ley",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9091",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7241
|
Why do you need to peel peaches to can them?
I am going to be canning a bunch of peaches tonight, and I know that you have to peel them first (and I know how to do it easy), but I got to wondering, why do I have to do it?
I have always done it. That is the way it was taught to me by my mother, but why?
The inside is the part that wants to rot, the out side is the protective coating (or so it seems). Why do we need to remove it to can the peach?
My opinion- I haven't done rigorous testing:
Canning softens the interior of the peach but when I have (in my laziness) left the skins on they stay tough and quite unpleasant tasting.
I doubt it has any effect on the longevity of the product but it would make it a little less pleasant and versatile.
You don't HAVE to peel the peaches to can them, that's just how most people prefer them. I've canned them with the peel on and it turns the syrup a lovely pink colour, and as far as I could tell, didn't affect the taste of the peaches.
The last few years, I've canned both peaches and pears leaving the skins on. They are a bit tough after canning but I love them both that way. I also don't add sugar to the water unless I'm canning them for someone else. If the peaches are ripe, they taste fresh off the tree. Awhile back, Dr. Oz told his audience the 5 fruits that are high in sugar content and two of them were peaches and pears. The juice from canning them without sugar tastes great, I think, and if a person can save a little money by not adding something that's not needed, then why not.
Here in South Africa we bottle/can yellow peaches(Geelperskes). They are covered with thousands of tiny hairs if you would call them that. Peeling them is definitely required as you would not want those hairs inside your syrup and sticking to your peaches.
Really unpleasant to get those hair in your throat. Haven't tried bottling the smooth skinned type though
Note that in most varieties of English, peach = fuzzy-skinned, and nectarine = smooth-skinned. In other words, you wouldn't call it a peach if its skin weren't fuzzy.
I can peaches with the skin on the skin completely desolves and the syrup is a light pink super tasty i also use less sugar then what is called for in a light syrup recipes
jo
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.055224
| 2010-09-13T15:32:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7241",
"authors": [
"Ava",
"Joseph Pérez",
"Marti",
"Mudassar Bashir",
"The Alchemist",
"cherry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59231"
],
"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
}
|
21104
|
Why are stone ware and dutch oven items exempt from bacteria?
As I am doing the dishes, I come upon my wife's stoneware "pans". These pans, I am told, do not need soap. "Just like a dutch oven". In fact, soap will ruin them.
Now I did this with dutch ovens when I would go camping as a kid. I loved it because cleanup was just that much easier (no soaping).
But it has always confused me how this works. How does the seasoning on stone ware pans and a dutch oven combat bacteria?
Or is soap just overrated? Can I really just give all my pots an pans a good scraping and then rinse under hot water? (Bacteria bactsheria, like it will hurt me.)
Or, is my wife wrong? When we cook off those pans next time, am I enjoying a smorgasbord of bacterial offerings? (Mmmm, love eating that aged bacteria!) NOTE: I have never gotten sick from my wife's cooking.
Also, see the related http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16665/is-it-really-necessary-to-wash-a-skillet-that-will-be-heated-up-again-soon
I'm not sure what you mean by a "stoneware pan" in this case...but some pottery used for cooking shouldn't be washed with soap.
If it's glazed, then you should certainly clean it with soap, there's no reason not to.
If it's unglazed, and it's really stoneware, it should be safe to wash it with soap; since stoneware is watertight, the soap will stay on the surface, and you'll be able to rinse it off, so using soap is fine.
For water-permeable baking stones, like a pizza baking stone, or some domes used for baking bread with a french-style crisp steamed crust, then using soap is a bad idea, because you typically can't rinse the soap out afterwards. I've never tried washing one with soap, but the instructions that came with my pizza baking stone say that a soapy pizza baking stone is ruined and unusable for food.
For unglazed earthenware used for pizza, bread, or similar, you clean it with water and/or heat: if it gets dirty with something you can't wash off without soap, the remaining option is to burn it off by heating it to a high temperature in the oven, and then brushing or rinsing off the ash. This removes the "food" from derobert's list of things needed for bacteria to grow, by turing it into less nutritious ash.
It's not special to a type of cookware. Its explained by “FAT TOM”, the things bacteria need to survive and multiple to dangerous levels: Food, Acidity, Temperature, Time, Oxygen, Moisture.
Food, proper acidity, temperature, time, and oxygen are all present. Moisture isn't.
When you clean cast iron, you typically scrub it with hot water, and often deglaze it. Deglazing it requires bringing it to sterilization temperature, so that kills anything there. Then, you drain that water out, and immediately dry it—often by throwing it back on the burner, bringing it well over the temperature required to kill pathogens.
Then you keep it dry, so nothing can start growing (no moisture).
If you instead kept the cookware damp, not only will rust form, but so will mold and bacteria.
(I'm not sure why you wouldn't use detergent on stoneware. There isn't normally a seasoning layer on that, unlike iron. I use soap on my stoneware. Sometimes I even throw it in the dishwasher.)
The are not exempt from bacteria, and there is no reason why you should not use soap
Dutch ovens are often made from cast iron, which has then been seasoned by coating it with cooking oil, and heating until the oil polymerises into a hard coasting. Using hard set oils such as linseed make for generally better coating, but nearly any oil will do
Harsh detergents and harsh scrubbing will remove this polymer and require it to be reformed to ensure pitting and rust does not occur
The polymer layer will also reform over time by cooking with oil and high heat
Any metal pan that is heated sufficiently will not require much cleaning other than a quick wipe out to be reasonably bacteria free, but this is hardly the recommended method
Normal safe cleaning would be to use a hand wash detergent, and a cleaning cloth to remove all food and non polymerised oils from the pan
From the Pampered chef website:
Q: Without soap, how can my Stoneware really be clean and safe from harmful bacteria?
A: The surface of the Stoneware is virtually nonporous, so no food particles or juices can be imbedded in the Stoneware. Stoneware is safe to use as long as all food particles are removed from the surface and it is dried thoroughly before storing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.055452
| 2012-02-07T04:25:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21104",
"authors": [
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160"
],
"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
}
|
7920
|
What's an acceptable substitute for Pandan Leaves?
When preparing Sri Lankan cuisine (especially curries) one of the key components is the Pandan Leaf (also known as a Pandanus Leaf).
These aren't readily available where I live so I was wondering if anyone could suggest an alternative?
If you have an indian market nearby, you can get kewra extract/essence. Kewra is the indian name for pandanus plant and kewra essence is featured in a number of indian desserts. I don't recall seeing kewra leaves in my local indian market, but I use kewra essence regularly. (Careful, sometimes it's sold as a very concentrated oil extract and sometimes as the more dilute kewra water; so how much you need to add will depend on which form of kewra you buy).
Not too long ago, I made a Thai custard (usually served with sticky rice) that called for pandanus extract. It was researching where to purchase that when I discovered that I already had it in my cupboard. Great stuff.
Very useful info!
While they're both from pandanus species, the two are entirely different products and do not substitute for one another — kewra is made from pandanus blossom while pandanus leaf is, er, leaf, and their flavor and behavior is nothing alike. If one is reaching for extracts to replace pandan, "pandan extract" or "pandan flavoring" would be the far better choice.
There are enough Sri Lankans live in UK. Therefore, you should be able to find this in a Sri Lankan store (or in an Indian store). This is known as "Rampe" in Sri Lanka. Ask for "Ram-pe" when you visit such a store.
They can also be in many chinese and south-east asian supermarkets, sometimes frozen
If you plan more of this cooking in the future, you can order extract. The aroma is subtle and savory. It is similar to that of jasmine rice or fresh-baked white bread. The leaf is frequently used in combination with coconut milk for sweet curries and desserts.
The Pandan Leaf (Pandanus amaryllifolius) is actually used in a wide range of Southeast Asian and South Asian cuisine. The flavor seems to derive from one specific aroma compound (abbr. 2AP). Interestingly, the Maillard reaction that is responsible for browning during baking produces an analog of the compound.
I replaced some of the stock in my recipe with jasmine tea and a dash of vanilla essence. It seemed to work - gave a slight flowery taste, which I think is what the pandan leaves do.
Perhaps flavors similar to Indian curries and Asian dishes, such as cilantro, Thai basil, kaffir lime leaves, or celery leaves.
I also just read a recipe that suggested bay leaf would be an appropriate substitute.
Pandanus (a.k.a Kewra) has a rather sweet/flowery smell. I would not recommend substituting bay or celery leaves. I would not recommend any of these substitutions for sweet desserts that rely on pandanus/kewra (to be fair, I haven't used kaffir lime leaves, so maybe those could work). Rose essence will get you closer to the flowery notes of Kewra. Making your own saffron extract may get you something with a (vaguely) similar sweet/flowery note.
tried several attempts to use jasmine tea and vanilla this just doesn't work.First time - No. Second time - No. Third time - more fool me, you guessed it - No!
Instead I used with great success some Rooibos tea with vanilla. This is already balanced to suit adding to hot water to drink and as the ratio of leaves / vanilla is done the taste just works. Strange I know but just try it - you'll become a convert like me. Also its readily available in most supermarkets and guess what? You can use the rest of the packet to drink as tea! Winner.
Pandan leaf is sometimes sold dried, as a tea. I don't know if its available in your area as such, but you may be able to buy it online more easily - as it is both shelf-stable and lightweight, it may ship and store more easily than, say, buying fresh leaves or extract. I've purchased the tea relatively cheaply, even including overseas shipping, and gotten a fair quantity as well.
You may be able to add the leaves as a garnish, soak them and some water to balance moisture, or else make a tea and just add that, to get the flavor into your final dish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.055916
| 2010-10-07T18:02:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7920",
"authors": [
"David Shakespear",
"Dunja Lalic",
"S. Burt",
"canardgras",
"colinm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78624",
"manu muraleedharan"
],
"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
}
|
6619
|
Are there any vegetarian applications for transglutaminase ("meat glue")?
Transglutaminase is an enzyme that is popular among modernist chefs for two main purposes - to glue different meats together for special effects (like a modern turducken), and to create consistently shaped and sized portions for even cooking.
My question is whether there are any known vegetarian applications for this enzyme? Has it been used with (say) tofu, eggs, or cheese? Is there a way to combine it with another protein to get it to glue lower protein things together like most vegetables?
As a matter of fact, here is a link to a PDF of a technical article that talks all about using microbial transglutaminase on vegetable proteins. This article is not for the scientifically faint-of-heart, and it does not contain recipes, but it does review ways industry has found to use transglutaminase in making vegetable-based food products, using things such as soy, wheat, rice, pea, sunflower, and sesame.
I have never tried using it to mix vegetable proteins with animal proteins, but chemically speaking it should work. Unfortunately, I have no source of recipes; you might just have to experiment.
As far as I know, most transglutaminase on the market currently is of microbial origin. That is definitely true of the "Activa" brand transglutaminase formulations, manufactured by Ajinomoto.
Transglutaminase crosslinks glutamine and lysine amino acids, which are found in almost all proteins - not just in meat, but also in eggs, nut or bean based proteins, etc. In fact, you can use transglutaminase to coagulate nut milks to make a vegan cheese, as demonstrated by Cashewbert:
http://www.cashewbert.com/en/transglutaminase-ti.html
For more info, Dave Arnold's primer on transglutaminase on the Cooking Issues blog is a wonderful resource on all things transglutaminase:
http://www.cookingissues.com/transglutaminase-aka-meat-glue/index.html
To answer my own question, years later, it turns out that Activa RM can be used to make a phenomenal veggie burger: https://www.chefsteps.com/activities/hi-tech-mushroom-burger. Full disclosure, I work at ChefSteps, but I didn't when I asked this question!
Oh, by all means. Take a peek at the two different veggie burger options at ChefSteps.com. Unfortunately everything I read states the enzyme is derived from meat or vegetable products nad I can't find "vegan" Transglutaminase. If anyone knows of a strictly plant based extract of said enzyme, please pass it on!
In Michaels' comment to Daniels' answer, he mentions that "Activa GS, is from a microbial source", which I would assume would be vegan.
Likely vegan but unless the manufacturer states so, not guaranteed: The growing medium for the microbes might be animal product derived, and once a defined amount of an animal based ingredient is intentionally consumed for a defined amount of product made (if closer to the product than, say, the factory worker's ham sandwich lunch, or manure used in agriculture), most vegans will not consider the product OK.
Transglutaminase is standardized with several other additives that are non-vegan (such as gelatin and sodium caseinate). While true that TG is derived from microbial fermentation, the only truly vegan variety would be called Activa TI or MooGloo TI, which is standardized with maltodextrin. Both lack a helper additive that enable more thorough binding to proteins, so it relies on natural glutamine and lysine content of the food you're binding.
Welcome to SA! You are answering a question which is over 10 years old. When answering old questions, it's only useful if your answer supplies unique, new information not already in the answer pool. Unfortunately, your answer is repetitive of some of the other answers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.056260
| 2010-09-02T20:23:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6619",
"authors": [
"Fufstar",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"LeHill",
"Ronald de Block",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"lee moss",
"rackandboneman"
],
"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
}
|
4012
|
Storing Pizza Stone in Oven
I have heard that you can leave a pizza stone in the oven all the time, essentially storing it there. What are the considerations to keep in mind when doing this (type of oven, placement of stone, etc.)? I currently have a gas oven with the element located inside the broiler drawer below. Can I put the stone directly on the bottom of the oven, or should I keep it on the lowest rack? Are there reasons to remove the stone from the oven, if you're cooking certain things?
Actually I do this, and I do it because my oven is old and tempermental.
Adding a heavy heat-sink (like a pizza stone, or a half dozen fire bricks) to your oven will increase your pre-heat time, but it makes your ovens temperature much more stable. It's a good thing to do if you're planning on cooking anything that is really temperature sensitive.
It is supposed to help in 2 ways regarding stabilizing the heat. 1) it helps distribute the heat more evenly through the oven (the heat from the heating element goes into the stone, then the heat radiates from the stone to the rest of the oven). 2) it is supposed to help with heat retention, key benefit here is recovery from opening the oven door. Normally most of the heat is just in the air and goes rushing out when the door is open, having to heat up new air when closed. The pizza stone doesn't hop out of the oven and instead stays inside helping that new air get up to temperature faster.
@ManiacZX: The biggest problem with mine isn't recovery, it's that the thermostat is old, and causes the elements to kick on more often than normal. For the most part, it's not a big deal, but for bread or muffins, or whatever, I make sure to keep the stone in the oven.
true, keeping the heat curve tighter is another benefit. I figured you knew the benefits, was just trying to toss in some more detail for OP and others beyond "more stable".
I also have an old oven and I use the pizza stone for heat storage and to protect my dishes from the direct radiation of the exposed coils in the oven. (shameless plug) After I started using the stone, my biscottis no longer burn and baked dishes work out as recipes claim.
If you're cooking something that is likely to spill over, you might want to remove it. They can be difficult to clean.
Otherwise, just make sure it isn't blocking airflow (possibly a problem with the very bottom of the oven, but depends on the design). I leave mine on the bottom rack all the time...
See also: What are other uses for a pizza stone?
I keep my pizza stone on the bottom rack all the time, as well, and I lay aluminum foil over it when baking something that might spill over.
Note that storing a pizza stone in your oven permanently will rack up your energy bill. As Satanicpuppy says, it's a heat sink that you need to heat up every time.
I wonder how much this is offset by the faster recovery time, as mentioned by @ManiacZX in the other comment.
Recovery time is only relevant if you are baking multiple batches of something like cookies or if you open the oven door allot like if you are basting a turkey or roast.
I'm sure the "bill" consequence has to be insignificant. Increased kWh it's due only to net system specific heat increase and should only happen the one time a day, when most of us are likely to be cooking at home for dinner. Especially in light of mbyrne215's point.
I do this as well. It's a good idea for ovens which have hotspots, or which are small/cheap and may drop too much in temperature when you open the door.
For a gas oven like yours, you want to put a rack in the lowest position and put the stone on the rack. Do not put the stone directly on the bottom metal of the stove; it will get thermal shock from rapid heating and crack. The baking stone will get a lot of carbon on it from food dripping and burning on its surface; turn it over about once every to months to minimize carbon accumulation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.056556
| 2010-08-02T18:20:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4012",
"authors": [
"Doc",
"Iuls",
"Janelle",
"Leonardo",
"ManiacZX",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Vinodh Ramasubramanian",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7610",
"mbyrne215",
"papin",
"szympans",
"wnewport",
"woliveirajr",
"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
}
|
11531
|
Does cooking wine go bad like regular wine?
I bought some cooking wine last week and made a delicious meal with it. I only used half a bottle, so the other half is still in my pantry.
I know that regular wine goes bad after about a day where as regular alcohol (rum, scotch, etc) doesn't really go bad at all.
I looked on the bottle to see if it says "keep refrigerated", "expires after opening", etc... and there's nothing of the sort.
Will that wine go bad, and if so, how fast?
Thanks in advance!
There are some who will say that cooking wine is bad right off the shelf; I think the question really is, will it go sour?
Yeah, it was my first kick at the cooking-with-wine cat. My family absolutely loved the result, so I'm gunna do it more often. Maybe next time I can cook with something that will be ok for me to polish off the leftovers :)
By the way, a well-corked and refrigerated bottle of regular wine will definitely keep for longer than a day. I believe reds typically keep longer than whites; I've had wine in my fridge for a week or so and still enjoyed it. (You do need to let it warm up a bit, of course.)
@Aaronut beat me to the punch... I was going to say "it can't go bad when it already is bad" :)
Bought a nice Merlot today. Gonna try it with my chicken tomorrow night. :)
Generally... not as quickly. The salt content of the wine is much higher than drinking wine, which will preserve it longer. It will still "go bad" eventually. (Going bad is more a decrease in quality. It will still be edible, but unpleasant. It won't make you sick, except by the bad taste!)
See this from a Wikipedia Article: "Cooking wine typically available in North America is treated with salt as a preservative and food coloring."
So, it's safer than normal wine, but I'd try and use it soon. The sooner, the better.
Cooking wine is treated with salt to avoid liquor taxes.
Doesn't mean the salt will not preserve it too.
I've successfully frozen leftover wine and then later used it in stews. I've never tried it with "cooking wine" though, because, I prefer to only cook with wine that I'd actually drink.
+1 Freezing is a great idea, thanks! As a one-person household, this would be great for me. Seems obvious now, of course. I expect ice cubes should work especially well.
+1 for "Don't buy 'Cooking Wine' brand wine." I always use Vermouth: it's good, it lasts for months, and it tastes far better than any "cooking wine".
I would question the assertion that "normal" wine goes off after "about a day".
About the only thing that can go wrong with it is for it to oxidize, and let's face it, the amount of oxygen that's going to get through the small opening of the bottle neck, is pretty tiny.
Here's an idea: experiment. Get a mid-range, drinkable red wine. Pour yourself a small glass and drink it. Leave the bottle open at room temperature. The next day, pour yourself another small glass from the same bottle and taste it. I promise it won't make you ill. Is it as good as the first day? Revolting?
From experience, I believe you'll find the wine still enjoyable after a week -- even if it's not in the peak condition it was in when you opened it. It will last even better if you cork it.
(For white wine, of course, you'd keep it in the fridge, because you want it cold when you drink it. You could keep red in the fridge, but then you'd want to bring it back to room temperature for drinking)
Perhaps you're thinking that your palate isn't sophisticated enough to notice the spoiling. I say, if you can't sense it, you shouldn't worry about it. (I also say, if you can sense it, and it's not a super high-end wine, you're being too fussy :) )
For cooking, chefs tend to recommend that you shouldn't cook with a wine you wouldn't drink. I go along with that, although there may be economic reasons, depending on how much wine costs where you live.
Thanks for that slim. With regards to price, I'm in Canada. An entry level bottle of wine is about $12 - and the stuff that "we" take to dinner parties is about $25. Whereby a 1/2 bottle of cooking wine is about $8. We're not rich, so we steer clear of anything with a price tag > $40.
Cooking wines have extra preservatives added so they will stay good for longer, though you should probably put it into the refrigerator.
Related / duplicate question: How long can I store cooking wine?
I know it's not what you asked, but another way to get around this problem is to cook with drinking wine, and then drink the leftover with the meal. Since some of the wine is already in the meal it will go together perfectly.
Wine's "badness" is somewhat subjective. I once bought a cheap bottle of wine at Trader Joe's and was surprised to find that it tasted sour when I opened it. I didn't drink it, but rather than wasting it, I cooked with it since it was somewhere between wine and vinegar and adding acidity is a very common way to improve a dish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.056918
| 2011-01-27T19:52:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11531",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chase Florell",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Erik P.",
"Freek Nortier",
"James",
"Joe",
"Michael Natkin",
"Nananana",
"Olls",
"Satanicpuppy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4550",
"hummuslover",
"rackandboneman",
"tom"
],
"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
}
|
79398
|
how to fix a sharp carousel microwave after it has been used to heat a lot of food?
I was reheating food from the fridge that had to defrost a little bit. I had reheated about four types of food, the microwave made a sound, and it stopped working. I had taken the food out and touched the top of the microwave. It was hot so I had unplugged it and let it cool down. What do I do now to get it to work again?
If it won't turn on, don't do anything yourself. Microwaves use high voltage and you could get a severe shock if you opened the unit and fiddled with wires. If the sound was something on the circuit board, you can fix it. If the outside top was very hot, I'd be very concerned that it's couldn't safely turned on without risk.
@Dorothy Hopefully they will unplug it before fiddling with the wires.
@Paparazzi true, but you can still get a rude jolt even when it's unplugged. Microwaves are best left to the experts and, when they die, often much less expensive to replace than repair. Mind you, I just replaced the one I had for nearly 30 years, with never any problems.
@Dorothy. Do you mean the expert or the microwave dies?!
There's every chance it'll work again once cool and plugged back in. Like when a hair dryer over heats.
The main capacitor usually has a bleeder resistor built in for a good reason: to discharge it somewhat quickly after the equipment is turned off. I would not want to make assumptions on how quick it is (very quick would create an energy-inefficient device!). Don't rely on it, though - and the charge in that capacitor can destroy both a household voltmeter and you. The other thing that can bite you after the oven is unplugged: small switching power supplies built in to feed the electronics (often having a mains side rectifier and filter capacitor...).
Three possible things to consider: steam in the electronics (which should be sealed from that so it would be likely to happen again); sparking when heating the last item, which can confuse the electronics; simple overheating, again of the electronics.
In the latter two cases, leaving it unplugged for a few minutes before trying again should be fine. This is less likely to help if the control circuit has got wet. I assume here that you've got a sensible electrical system with an independent safety earth (ground) and circuit breakers, like I'm familiar with testing appliances on. If you don't, I can't recommend that you test it. I don't suggest that you remove any covers, and definitely don't open it up without it having been unplugged for several hours, or power it up with any covers off, even if you'd do this on other appliances.
It's also possible to spark or overheat badly enough to burn something important out, in which case waiting wouldn't help.
@Jefromi That's why I use the word "test". If it doesn't work after a wait, the exact failure mode doesn't matter: it's not a home repair, and unlikely to be economic to repair
Gotcha (it was the "should be fine ... less likely to help if" that sort of implied to me that you were suggesting it was likely to work) - maybe add that into the answer?
@ChrisH "it's not a home repair, and unlikely to be economic to repair" is to me the most important take away here
@Jolenealaska, if it doesn't recover after being unplugged for a while. It can take a surprisingly long time
The sound made can have been a reversible overtemperature switch (eg a bimetal switch) engaging. If that is the case, the device should work flawlessly again if given enough time to cool down.
If you want to make sure whether the device, IF it works again after cooldown, is safe for continued use, ask the manufacturer support.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.057324
| 2017-03-25T01:41:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79398",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Doug",
"Giorgio",
"Jolenealaska",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1250
|
How to cook fried chicken gizzards that are tender?
There is a local place that cooks amazing fried chicken gizzards. Somehow they are really tender, and yet the breading on them is still crispy. Every time I try to make them they turn out extremely chewy. What could their secret possibly be?
I have tried getting really fresh (never frozen) gizzards from local farms, but I still can't cook them right!
According to my grandmother, chicken gizzards should be parboiled before being breaded for frying. She suggests a 10- to 15-minute parboil (clean your gizzards, put them in a pot, fill the pot with cold water until the gizzards are just covered, and time the parboil from the moment you achieve a hard boil). She also suggests thoroughly cooling and drying the gizzards before breading them.
In order to get them tender as most restaurants, you would need a pressure cooker that will get them even more tender than boiling; also, braising then simmering works well.
After you either pressure cook, boil, or braise, I recommend cooling them in buttermilk for at least 2 hours; adding a little vinegar to the whole milk works. The milk and the vinegar will help break down some of the tough tissues, and pull out some of the gamy taste that things like gizzard, heart and other organs have.
Next, make your breaded seasoning, and toss them in breading and fry; 350° F is optimal frying temperature for almost everything.
My grandmother swore by the buttermilk soak, so it warms my heart to see it as an answer here at Cooking.SE.
Could anything be used a substitute for buttermilk? Heavy cream?
@mdeggas - cream + vinegar. The tenderizing magic in buttermilk is its' slightly acid pH
Chicken gizzards are pretty tough, and unless prepared correctly will almost certainly turn out a little 'chewy' My advise would be to use a combination of marinading and simmering in water for before coating in the crumb and frying.
For the marinade you can choose whichever ingredients you feel comfortable with, but as an idea, use salt, pepper, perhaps a herb mix, minced garlic, chilli sauce or soy sauce etc. You can marinade before or after simmering, I believe after is better.
To simmer, place gizzards in a pan and cover with cold water make sure the water is a least 2 to 3cm above the gizzards. Add an onion and bay leaf. Bring the water to a boil then cover and simmer for 2 to 2 and half hours. Add more hot water if needed. Once done, let cool slightly, add to the marinade and refrigerate for about an hour. At this point you're ready to fry.
Coat the gizzards in whichever bread mix you choose by shaking together in a sealed plastic bag. then fry in plenty of hot oil, in small batches.
The only true way to make tenderized deep fried battered gizzards is to steam them first before batter frying. Boiling only partially tenderizes and gives them an unpleasant texture. I added full recipe below. Nothing is as good as battered tender gizzards, you should fry some chicken livers with them.
UPDATE:
Sorry I didn't give full directions, the question was asked how to tenderize deep fried gizzards? My answer was (Steam them)
Someone asked recipe and cook times, So I will update this response.
Best batter for these is called Mies flour batter, I order mine from a company in Wisconsin. It's the best gizzard batter with browning agents and flavor enhancers, they sell this batter in bulk normally or to restaurants, but if you ask special they sold to me by the case.
Cooking and prep to fry 3-4 wet lbs gizzards:
Thaw the gizzards, then marinate them (this marinade will be washed off, no worries, you won't taste it). Take 2 cups of vinegar and 1 cup tomato juice and add 1/2 teaspoon Paprika and 1/2 teaspoon garlic powder then toss a few bay leaves into the ziplock bag with the marinade and refrigerate 30 hours or more. The vinegar and tomato juice break down the toughness, and the bay leaves take out the unwanted gamey flavors.
Strain the gizzards and rinse with cold water, and place in your household steamer (if you have one, if not get one, they're awesome to tenderize anything). Steam 15-35 minutes depending on your steamer, and rinse with cold water in your strainer again as soon as tender, test one every 15 minutes for perfection.
Add a prebatter in a bowl with a cup of water and 1/4 cup or so of Mies batter with some more Paprika, just thick enough to make the gizzards really sticky before you dip into the dry batter or shake in a bag of drye Mies, while you get 2 pots of oil heated to 400 degrees. You can improvise a strong dark ale beer instead of water if you prefer, (never ever make a batter with light beer, as it will give only an aluminum like taste, If you only have light beer to cook with, your best off using water instead.
When oil is ready, place gizzards in a lidded bucket or bag with your dry batter only after your oil has reached 400 degrees, shake into the batter, and drop as many as your oil pot fits without cramming them in to thick, give them room to cook. Let cook 3-4 minutes only in the 1st pot, then pull out and switch them quickly into the other pot that's still 400 degrees because the 1st pot dropped temperature from adding the cool gizzards in. Now in your second pot that you moved the gizzards to brown them fast, cook only 5 more minutes or until light golden brown because they are already fully cooked in the steamer. Don't overcook, these need to fry in 400 degrees to brown fast. Pull them and dump them out on fresh slices of bread to sop up the oil, and dip them in BBQ sauce and or your favorite hot sauce.
Now you have mastered perfect delicious deep fried tender melt in your mouth crispy deep fried gizzards. If you have a pressure fryer even better, but make do with what you have. Most people will not believe they were gizzards after they taste how tender and delicious. They will argue that its the best chicken nuggets they ever had, saying no way these are gizzards -- if you cooked them correctly! If oil temp is too low, and you overcook before browning, they will be chewy.
Also you should choose a good liquid creamy Shortening or lard, Beef lard from your local meet locker will make the best, or partially hydrogenated liquid shortening or partial hydrogenated soybean oil is the best if you mix with the lard. It's dirt cheap and creates the best homemade lard mix creamy liquid shortening. It will make any batter taste good and make the best french fries you will ever dream of. That oil will even prevent soggy batter, you can put your chicken leftovers in fridge and they will still be crispy the next day. Even a mix of beef lard and partially hydrogenated oil.
What does this answer add that other answers have not already pointed out?
@Aaronut, "steam cook". None of the other answers (unless one's been deleted between you commenting and now) mention steaming =)
@Rob: It doesn't bother to explain why steam cooking them is useful or necessary or what the outcome would be, nor does it say anything specific about what that would imply (for example, how long?), and the "batter and fry" has been posted in all of the other answers. The question was asking for facts, not favourites.
Thank's Rob, I SEEN YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STEAMING AND BOILING. I don't think Aaronut understood the answer or question, Anyway I updated and gave the full recipe and detailed instructions.
@Aaronut Like Rob stated The question was on how to tenderize deep fried gizzards. The answer I gave is steaming them first witch was not pointed out by anyone, and is not the same as boiling. However since you complained about my friendly post and advice, I now updated with full instructions that anyone can understand!
Oh lord, won't you give us some paragraph breaks?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.057648
| 2010-07-16T22:21:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1250",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Carla Mendez",
"Christopher_G_Lewis",
"Graham T",
"Jocelyn Bailey",
"Joe",
"Marti",
"Rob",
"Sanchises",
"Tad",
"Tom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9545",
"jsmith",
"mdegges",
"wanderingscribe",
"ΤΖΩΤΖΙΟΥ"
],
"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
}
|
1283
|
How do you cook pork chops without drying them out?
Every time I cook pork chops, they come out dry even though I only cook them to 150 degrees. I broil them btw, like they said to at the store. Is there a way to prevent this?
First, the recommended minimum cooking temperature for pork is 145 so you can cook them a little less than you already are. Also, keep in mind that meat continues to cook after it is removed from the pan/cooking element. The residual heat will produce what is known as "carry over cooking" which can range from 5-15 degrees, depending on the size of the item and how long it sits. Pork chops aren't going to continue rising as high as a large roast that has a greater amount of residual heat built up.
Also, it is very difficult to get an accurate reading on temperatures for chops and steaks with a thermometer so it's really best to learn to determine doneness through touch. For pork you're looking for a medium doneness so touch your middle finger to your thumb. That will contract the fleshy part between the thumb and index finger on the same hand. Poke that with the index finger from your other hand. It should feel somewhat springy with just a little firmness. That's how your pork (or medium-done steak) should feel when it's ready to be removed.
As for other things you might consider....Brining will pull moisture into the pork so that it's less likely to dry out during the cooking process. A brine is a mixture of water, sugar, and salt. Additional flavors may be added but this would be a basic moisturizing brine. Through osmosis, the liquid is pulled into the cells of the meat. As the meat cooks it retains it's juiciness due to the fact that salt helps to retain water. The flavor is enhanced through any seasonings that were also introduced to the brine as they will be carried into the cells of the meat as well.
Basic Brine: 1 qt. water, 1/2 cup kosher salt, 1/2 cup sugar. Add the sugar and salt to the water and stir until dissolved. Submerge meat in brine and refrigerate if brining for an extended period of time. Plan on about 1 hour per pound of meat.
When you're ready to cook, remove the meat from brine, pat dry and then season as you normally would and rub with a little oil before broiling, grilling, searing, etc.
I hope that provides some help!
I've found that a thicker pork chop retains moisture better than a thin one. The standard thickness in a supermarket seems to be a 1/2" cut. Go for 3/4" to 1" cuts. Another trick is giving them a good buttery/oily sear in a pan prior to roasting. This crust helps to keep the juices in while in the oven. Low and slow in the oven is the way to go with a seared pork chop.
I don't know what 145 equates to in pork, but I go for a medium to medium-well pork chop. Well done pork is worse than well done steak.
Also, just like steak, let your pork chop sit under a tent foil for a few minutes after it comes out of the oven. If you go hacking into it immediately you'll be letting a lot of the juices escape.
Brining and other marinades as others have suggested are also good methods that can be used in combination with my suggestions.
Finally, a thicker cut pork chop opens the door to a wonderful little piece of gastronomic bliss, the stuffed pork chop. You can really go wild here, but further details belong in the answer to another question. :)
I have had ok luck with thin pork chops, you just need to be really careful to not over cook them. It is so easy to over cook a pork chop.
I typically pan fry my pork chops.
Heat some olive oil in a pan and put chopped onion and garlic in, put on med heat.
After about 2 mins, put the pork chops in on top of the onions and garlic.
Let cook for about 10 mins, flip the chops and put some dashes of soy and Worchestershire sauce on the chops.
Keep flipping every 5 mins until the chops are cooked through.
Tender pork chops depend a lot on cooking method. They are a very lean cut of meat, so they have a tendancy to dry out very quickly. Brining will work very well, and you could also try placing them in a deep sided dish with about a 1/4 inch of liquid in the bottom (any liquid, but I normally use some thing that has a little fruit to it, like a cheap white wine) and cooking with some tinfoil over the top. It makes a sort self regulating braise. Cook in a 325 oven for about thirty five munutes.
Also, you can head down south and bread and fry them. A well seasoned flour breading and a quick pan fry will come out really amazing.
I'm using Cook's illustrated Meat book's recipe. I says to bake seasoned, room temperature chops, at 275 degrees until the digital meat probe reads 120 to 125 degrees. Then you take them out of the oven and fry each side in an oiled, heated to smoking, frying pan until the outside is crispy. Lift them halfway through the frying to distribute fat underneath each chop.
Searing the chops before baking tightens the meat and forces the juices out, rather than keeping them in. For thick chops seer (fry the sides too. It's not necessary to cook all of the pink out of the middle of the chop. That just drys the meat. Browned chops should register 145 degrees tops.
I never let my chops rest either. Who wants tepid meat?
What units are you using? Fahrenheit? Celsius? Please be specific, as users from all over the world use this website.
I love a good pork chop. Personally I have turned to just quickly browning them and then finishing them off by baking them in the oven. Takes a while longer, but produces excellent, succulent results.
Here is a tried and tested recipe for oven baked pork chops with a porcini topping if you want to try.
Use a thick cut, cook to 138 and the second it hits 138, remove and cover for 5 min. It will hit roughly 143.
Regardless of the method of cooking, the reason that pork is too dry 99% of the time is overcooking because people think it has to be cooked to 150.
While I agree with Darin that a thermometer can be difficult to use with chops, you should still use one (although, you need an evenly cut chop, and should test in two places, one near the bone). A thermometer is still the safest way to tell if the chop is done.
-Adam
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.058391
| 2010-07-17T02:31:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1283",
"authors": [
"Brettski",
"Dayton Brown",
"EEAA",
"Neetam Singh",
"Paul Proverbs",
"Richard Gadsden",
"Rob Olmos",
"Tyler Gillies",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/328",
"lemontwist",
"quanticle",
"weiji"
],
"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
}
|
18024
|
Why do organic eggs seem to be spoiled right after purchasing?
I find that the organic eggs are on the verge of inedible/B-grade. They are too runny the very day I purchase them often, let alone after a few days in my fridge. I buy organic whenever I can but I find that my experience here with the ones from Whole Foods/other grocery stores is always poor. I always buy the Grade-A eggs (I can never find AA organic). Can anyone else suggest good brands?
Are you checking the dates on the eggs? It may simply be that you're buying product that's been on the shelf much longer because of lower volume sales.
What do you think an egg is meant to be like? Runny is not 100% a sign of spoilage? It depends on what the chicken ate
@rfusca: Haha, of course. It is such bull because they have a sell by date 1 and a half months from now, yet the are practically dripping when broken a week later. I don't understand why the FDA/USDA can't ensure that grade A really means Grade A.
@Zombie - they must surely be getting improperly stored at some point then. It could be that you've found a particular store that isn't adhering to good food safety rules. I've never had that problem at all with eggs that far out.
The proteins in the egg white and around the yolk degrade over time. They degrade much faster at room temperatures than in the fridge. I have read that a day on the counter is equivalent to a week in the fridge. This matches my personal experience.
When the proteins degrade the white will be runnier and yolk will be fragile and not be as taught. Old eggs are better for boiling exactly for this reason. The shells come off more easily.
The diet of the chicken will play significant roles in the strength of the shell and the nutrition of the yolk but none at all in whether the egg is runny.
Similarly- the fact that they are "organic" (whatever that means) will not effect the runniness.
If the eggs you are finding are consistently runny then it is because they have either been sitting on the shelf too long or they spent too long at room temps. Either find a store that turns over its stock faster or a brand that handles the eggs better.
I suggest you find a local farm or a CSA. Occasionally, my farmer will say, "These eggs are warm because we gathered them this morning." It doesn't get fresher than that.
I'm going to go simpler...checking dates on your eggs goes a long way. The other answers have been totally correct, but I've found that even a high volume store like Walmart will sell eggs that are nearly expired.
I have a couple different brands of eggs that I buy and pick strictly based on the one with the furthest out expiration date. Look through the eggs and find one that is significantly far out. I've seen a cartoon of eggs that expires in 3 days sitting next to a carton of eggs labeled to expire in 3 weeks. It's craziness!
Checking the dates will get you a good chunk of the way there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.059004
| 2011-09-26T20:43:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18024",
"authors": [
"TFD",
"Zombies",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4086",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13475
|
Convert to tablespoons of whipped butter
Recipe calls for tablespoons of butter but all I have is whipped butter. What is the conversion?
It depends on the brand of whipped butter mainly. A common volume ratio is 4:1. To be exact though I would suggest comparing the fat and calorie content of your whipped butter to normal butter.
Normal unsalted butter has 100 calories and 11g of fat per tablespoon.
Whipped butter typically has either air or nitrogen whipped into it, increasing its volume four-fold. If you check the nutrition information of your whipped butter and see 25 calories and 2-3g of fat per tablespoon then you can be sure it is a 4:1 ratio.
Note however that if you're baking the air whipped in can have a significant effect on your end result. It will likely be much airier and could even collapse.
You could also rely on any package marketing for an idea. e.g. 50% less fat than butter!
Using the package info. Regular: 1T = 100 cal, Whipped: 1T = 60 cal. So, close to 2:1.
I would expect this to vary by how much air the manufacturer whipped into their butter.
I would recommend going by weight. Butter weighs about the same as water (obviously not exactly the same as it floats but close enough.) It is about .5oz per Tbs.
Either use a scale or use the weight/serving info on the label to measure out .5oz.
I generally substitute about 1.5x whipped. No problems.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! We're a food and cooking site, not a health and nutrition site, so we stick to the food side of things. I've edited out the off-topic bits of your answer, and kept the rest, which is helpful - though it's really far from the 4:1 ratio in hobodave's answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.059612
| 2011-03-26T19:32:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13475",
"authors": [
"CW Holeman II",
"Cascabel",
"JoDena Dittman",
"Tucker Cassell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4935"
],
"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
}
|
21549
|
Can cheese be sculpted?
Could anyone offer some tips on how to sculpt or mold a large piece of cheddar into a knight of the realm. I have tried on a smaller piece but the cheese tends to crumple and doesn't seem sculpt in the way I expect.
Firm cheeses like cheddar can make excellent material for sculpting, which sounds like what you're after. If you really mean sharpening, well... you'll need a very hard cheese, like an aged Parmagianno Reggiano or Romano to get a good sharp edge, and even then it'll require frequent honing to keep the edge in good condition.
I once managed to sculpt a piece Wensleydale into a clog shape and as mentioned above the best approach is to keep putting the knife back in the fridge every 5 minutes to make it colder. The knife should always be colder than the cheese, that's the secret. Good luck musters.
In my experience it's possible to carve cheddar, but you need a sharp knife and you need to keep the cheese cold. Depending on your room temperature, you may only be able to work on it for about 15 minutes at a time before you have to put it back in the fridge.
Unfortunately, I've never had success with Knights of the Realm, have you tried starting off with Viscounts or something simple like that? If you are struggling with room temperature it may be prudent to carve outside in the back garden on a workbench in Scotland.
Thanks for your responses folks. The project I'm working on is to sharpen (or sculp) a large piece of cheddar into a knight of the realm. Therefore the comments about Parmagianno Reggiano, Romano, Wensleydale, clogs and Viscounts are interesting but a bit off topic. I do like the idea, however, of putting the knife in the fridge (or even freezer) every five minutes and I will try that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.059810
| 2012-02-21T13:47:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21549",
"authors": [
"Allan S. Hansen",
"CodeHawk",
"Mary",
"Nee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9224",
"justbourv",
"michael_timofeev",
"musters",
"sanky"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5364
|
How can I make sifting easier?
I'm at the point where I will completely avoid certain recipes simply because they require sifting and I find it incredibly tedious. Is there a better method? A better tool? A magic sifter?
Related thread: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5273/sifting-dry-ingredients
While the title of this question does use "Palatable" correctly, the word has connotations of "mmm, tasty!" Perhaps edit to say "easier"?
Use a food processor to aerate the flour and mix other dry ingredients in.
As a bonus for me, the food processor bowl can go in the dishwasher. I have to hand-wash my sifter.
I prefer to just get after the dry ingredients with a whisk for a few seconds; similar results without setting up my food processor.
Oddly my food processor bowl is not dishwasher safe, yet my sieve is...
I just use a strainer. Slap something over the top so your flour doesn't fly all over the place, and shake it. It's got such a huge surface area, that it takes much less time than a lot of special purpose sifting tools (those stupid little cups with the trigger handles? What the hell is that about? The crank ones are no better. What am I? An organ grinder monkey?)
The other alternative is to throw the whole mess in a blender or food processor. That'll mix and aerate it.
You don't need to shake it -- run a spoon through it, or take something and just tap the side of it, and I've never had a mess. Well, no mess that would've been fixed from putting something over the top.
I shake like a cracked out epileptic. Trust me, I need something on the top. I generally sift onto a flat silpat, and then shake that into whatever bowl I'm using to mix.
I wonder if your sieve is too fine. When I sift flour I only need to pour the dry ingredient into the sieve and shake the sieve over a bowl. It takes a couple of minutes at most which I wouldn't call tedious. Are you doing something different?
i almost never "sift," per se -- i just whisk it really well to break up lumps and aerate it a bit.
I also used to find sifting a pain, but got a sifter from Tupperware last year that is fabulous - highly recommended! See http://www.tupperware.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/AUS/website/productgallery/productcollections/bakebasics/bake+2basics+sift+n+stor for details.
You can probably just leave the sifting step out. I'm lazy when making food for my own consumption, and often just dump the flour on top of the wet mix in the bowl and sift the salt/soda/whatnot in by hand a bit.
Most recipes don't seem to mind, but some do (some also specify a volume of sifted flour, so that needs to be compensated for as well), so best to make an experimental batch ahead of time and see if it is acceptable.
I've seen people use a food processor, just dump your dry ingredients in the bowl and pulse a couple of times.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.060016
| 2010-08-17T17:15:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5364",
"authors": [
"Anin Smith",
"Belisama",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Jisang Yoo",
"Joe",
"JustRightMenus",
"Michael Natkin",
"Philipp Gesang",
"Rowland Shaw",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Y Dickinson",
"danseery",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/771",
"jjknowles",
"user1187968",
"uvesten"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5612
|
What uses are there for basil flowers?
I have tons of basil in my herb spiral.
However, this stuff is precious, and I always feel bad when I throw away the basil flowers when I make pesto sauce.
Is there a way to use the basil flowers when cooking?
If you pinch off the basil flowers as they start to grow, the plant will produce more leaves. (Yes, this is a horticultural answer, but it will help you make more yummy dishes with the leaves.)
I've also been told, and found through experience, that the more flowers are produced, the less sweet the leaves become. I definitely recommend pinching off the flowers before they actually become flowers. Bonus: where you pinch the stem, the two leaves will become main stems, so you can keep making the plant more bushy as you trim it!
Thanks for all the answers, this is indeed what I will do. (Basically turn the flowers in to more leaves by pinching the flowers).
If you wanted to use them in cooking, I would recommend putting them in a sachet (a small pouch made of cheesecloth/muslin tied with cooking twine), as I know some people who don't actually like to eat the flowers, but enjoy the bitter tang they'll add to a dish.
They are edible, however, so if it turns out you like them, they make a beautiful garnish for a salad. I'm not a huge fan, so I generally stick with Martha's suggestion and keep them pinched so the plant produces more leaves.
Once the flowers appear, the plants energy and resources become more dedicated to flowering, and the leaf growth suffers. As mentioned in my comment on Martha's answer, I find that when the leaf growth suffers, the flavor of the leaves suffers as well.
This site recommends putting the basil flowers in olive oil, shaking, and leaving on a window sill for a month to make a light basil olive oil. I've never tried this, and I'm interested, though I'm a little wary of leaving olive oil in a clear container in the sun for a month. The general idea seems cool, though.
I'd be worried about the food safety of leaving them covered in olive oil for a month. Doing that with garlic risks botulism. No idea why it wouldn't with basil flowers (unless they were fully dried first, I suppose)
@derobert, I believe garlic is especially prone to botulism as it goes bad, FWIW. If I were to try this, I'd probably store it out of the sun (or at least not in a super-hot spot) - tightly sealed.
I love basil flowers. They are so much fun and I use them all the time. I have noticed that different varieties of basil at different times of the summer/growth stage will result in more bitter or delicate tasting buds. You'll just have to experiment, but I have definitely had some really floral tasting flowers this summer.
I'll throw them into a pesto for a more complex, slightly bitter flavor - I just make sure to pick off any woody stems.
They are a beautiful garnish for just about any stonefruit (plums, peaches, nectarines) - how about roast some fruit, serve with ricotta and some honey...with basil flowers? They are gorgeous in salads or panzanella....anything with tomatoes.
Finally, my favorite thing to do is use them to make basil flower ice cream. Steep them along with basil leaves in a plain ice cream base and remove them once you have achieved the flavor you desire. Keep in mind the flavor will develop if you let the base sit overnight (which I recommend) and it will also continue to strengthen a tad as it sits in the freezer. This is generally not a problem if you are making a small batch at home, but more of tip for professionals.
Vinegar. Pinch off the blossoms and pack them in a jar, cover with white vinegar, seal and keep in the fridge for a few weeks to flavor through... Then discard the blossoms and use the vinegar for dressings or marinades. Delicious stuff... Use sparingly though!
Yes, you can use them just as you'd use basil leaves. They're generally milder tasting and more decorative in your dish.
Also - from flowers to seeds - a new harvest is also an opportunity.
You find them more mild tasting? I've always found them extremely bitter.
Interesting. Perhaps a species/subspecies thing?
Using basil flowers in my fresh tomatoes I'm cooking down to can is Excellent! Strong in flavour but I like that. If you don't dilute it! :-) ~
I love putting the flowers along with lavender, lemon balm and mint in some water and once it almost hits boiling point putting it on low then drinking as tea. Super yummy.
I've removed the implicit health question - this is an answer, not a question, and health is off topic here anyway. (We're a food and cooking site.) With that gone, I think this is actually a pretty reasonable answer - no one else suggested tea.
Basil flowers can be eaten, for instance in soup.
Hello, and welcome to the site! As you can see, I changed your answer a bit. Don't worry, this is pretty normal on the stack exchange sites! To clarify, I corrected your English a bit. I also deleted the link you posted, since I did not see the relevance. Why did you put that link there exactly?
I plant Basil along with my Tomatoes to deter insects. One Basil Plant every fifth Tomato Plant, and it really works quite well. I keep cutting the flowers off until near the end of the Tomato season, and then let them go. I have some African bushes that are three feet tall, and app. three feet in diameter. I usually give most away as either fresh, or I hang them in the shed to dry for people who like to preserve them. We do use some for flavoring, especially when we can Salsa or other Tomato products like juice, soup mix, etc.
I grow Queen Siam Thai Basil and Genovese Basil.
I use the flowers in soups and pesto mostly and I don't notice them being bitter or making the leaves bitter once the plants start flowering. The flowers do seem to have a condensed flavor. I do however snip the basil leaves while they are young and smallish since the taste seems cleaner and fresher when small.
Dry basic flowers can be used to make a awesome little potpourri pouch or a small sachet :)
Honestly, I use them as a sign that it's time to toss the basil plant.
@Ranieri - using Martha's suggestion, there's no need to toss the plant. Pinch them off and watch your plant flourish!
Basil that has flowered almost always drastically changes flavor, getting that hot peppery taste and losing the delicate taste it had beforehand. It's a matter of taste, but I would toss the plant too.
I leave them on the plant because the bees just love them. I grow basil mostly for the bees now. The bees need our help. When they go we go.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.060369
| 2010-08-20T05:56:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5612",
"authors": [
"Barranka",
"Bill Scudero",
"BioPipeRex",
"Carpe_Dracon",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Tarpy",
"HerbSpiral",
"Housni",
"Jaap Haagmans",
"Joanne Gregory",
"Matthias Michael Engh",
"Mien",
"Mike",
"Rob the Dad Cook for 6",
"Rory Molinari",
"Roy",
"Spammer",
"TheBlackBenzKid",
"Tim",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"Todd Chaffee",
"defhlt",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93161",
"hunter2",
"judith applegate",
"justkt",
"lillian joy",
"lona radebe",
"martin_joerg",
"stephennmcdonald",
"syntagma",
"treehugger",
"wlcrs"
],
"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
}
|
97
|
How can I improve my barbecue sauce recipe?
I've been trying to refine my BBQ sauce lately and I'm really curious if I can improve it, or if I'm mixing a sauce for a wrong purpose. The times I've made it, it have been used as a marinade for steaks, and a spread on the steaks while they've been on the grill, though if found the base of it as a ribglaze.
So far I have:
A dash of Jack Daniels
2 cups of ketchup
1/2 cup of brown sugar
1 cup of cider winegar
A dash of orange juice
2 teaspoons of Worcesthershire sauce
3 clovers of garlic
1/2 teaspoon of dry mustard
Am I using it "wrong" (debateble since you can't tell what's right and wrong anyway)...should I look more at a non-galizing sauce for a steak instead?
there is a lack of spice, as almost everybody else suggested, and you may also want some pepper and chili...
Just found this searching through closed questions. Not sure that this is really a good candidate for closing. The title needs to be juggled, but it can be massaged into a recipe improvement question.
I changed the title to reflect the body of the question. I think this got closed by some early day anti-recipe zeal. I think this is a great example of a well asked, on-topic recipe-based question.
I voted to reopen. Looks good to me.
I just cast the final reopen vote. This question has been reopened. I originally had voted to close during the early days when we were still figuring out what the scope of the site it. It seems to be on-topic with what our current understanding is: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110/what-should-our-faq-contain/126#126 and http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4/should-i-need-a-recipe-for-x-questions-be-off-topic and http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49/restaurant-mimicry-questions-allowed/70#70
I'm quite happy that it is open again, and found on topic with the new title :)
If you're marinating/glazing steaks with this prior to or during cooking, it must be resulting in a lot of the crust on your steaks being burned sugar, rather than maillard'ed meat. Are you happy with that burnt sugar taste? If not, have you experimented with grilling the steaks without sauce (just salt and maybe oil), then using the sauce for dipping, or a light brush near the end of cooking? It might be that you can get some improvement by changing how you use the sauce, rather than the sauce itself.
I use a similar recipe, unfortunately I don't remember the original source, but I've changed over time anyway.
Things I don't use that you have in your recipe:
Sugar
Jack Daniels
Cider Vinegar
Worcestershire sauce
mustard
Things I do use:
Lots of fresh ground spices. Typically 4 or 5 cloves, teaspoon of cumin seeds, tablespoon of fennel seeds, black pepper and salt.
Fresh herbs, including Rosemary, Bay and thyme
Balsamic vinegar - about half a bottle of inexpensive stuff
Orange zest - zest of one whole orange
Smoked Paprika - about 4 heaped teaspoons
Olive oil - about 4 tablespoons
grind-up the spices and place in the marinade tray. medium fine chop the fresh herbs (leave the fresh bay leaves whole) with the orange zest and a whole bulb of garlic, then add to the spice mixture. To that add juice from an orange, the Balsamic, followed by the ketchup and olive oil. Mix well.
Score the meat well and add to the marinade tray. rub the marinade mixture into all the scores so that the meat is well penetrated.
Cover the tray with foil and cook in an oven for about an hour (depends on the meat and the amount) once it's out of the oven it can be placed on the barby.
Last editon of the sauce was made with paprika and cayenne pepper, and the other people at the BBQ have been poking me for a recipe...more expiriments to come :D
So he removes half the ingredients in this recipe and calls that improving it. That's not an improvement. It's a new recipe.
I've only made a couple of bbq sauces, but they've always come out really well. I'd suggest you should add some spices to your recipe (or just add a bbq rub).
paprika
black pepper
coarse salt
garlic powder
onion powder
cayenne pepper
Another good ingredient is liquid smoke as it gives it a nice smokey flavor.
I think the basic foundation of your sauce is quite good. If it didn't come out the way you wanted it to come out, maybe the amounts of things you used were imbalanced. Personally, I wouldn't mind making your sauce and seeing how it works. But I'll see if I can "improve" your sauce by maybe mentioning a few add-ins. I'll put the stuff of your stuff included in this idea of your sauce with my additions.
A dash of Jack Daniels (1/2 cup of any whiskey, whether it be Jack Daniels or Evan Williams, etc.)
2 cups of ketchup (French's ketchup is what I would go with but really any ketchup is fine)
1/2 cup of brown sugar (personally I would use dark brown sugar because the light brown sugar isn't quite as successful in some sauces I've done)
1 cup of cider winegar (maybe you could try white vinegar instead to bring out more of a tang)
A dash of orange juice (try one cup of apple juice instead)
2 teaspoons of Worcesthershire sauce
3 clovers of garlic
1/2 teaspoon of dry mustard
1/2 cup grape jelly
1/3 cup brewed coffee (get a cup of coffee to go at your local cafe but don't add cream or sugar, go home and add 1/3 cup of the coffee in the sauce)
1 tablespoon curry powder
1/4 cup cocktail sauce
This is from my memory of using these other ingredients. I don't know if it will work for you but it's what I would suggest if you want to tweak your sauce a bit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.061085
| 2010-07-09T19:41:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97",
"authors": [
"A_S00",
"Aaronut",
"HurnsMobile",
"Jason Jones",
"John Burley",
"Mechanical snail",
"Mike Sherov",
"Orion Adrian",
"Owen S.",
"Paperjam",
"Rob",
"Shreela",
"bubu",
"cyberzed",
"denny",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99",
"jimioh"
],
"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
}
|
4267
|
Can you cook pickled onions?
Can you cook hot dishes with pickled onions? I've never seen a recipe which uses them hot, is this just because they don't taste good hot? What hot dishes might be appropriate to put pickled onions in?
I've been reviewing old family recipes, and I've seen pickled onions called for in some soup, stew, and casserole recipes as an accent; this may or may not be because my foremothers grew and canned loads of onions. It's worth an experiment or two, I think!
This afternoon, I made a veggie/bean chilli. When preparing, I was surprised to notice that we are out of fresh onions. I decided to use a can of pickled onions in the chilli.
60 minutes later and this is my happy finding...that the pickled onions have retained crunch and infused the chilli sauce with the most gorgeous deep and rich sweetness. Pickled onion chilli can rest and infuse a wee bit more.
Dear Bev, welcome to Seasoned advice. On this site, we expect answers to be to the point, so other people can find information quickly. I shortened your introduction, but left all your relevant information in place. In this form, your answer is better recognizable as useful, so you also get an upvote from me.
Why not? The salt and acidity will spread to the rest of the dish, and the onions themselves have almost no texture, but you could. I've seen pickled onions used in baked chicken dishes in particular.
I wouldn't typically put them in a dish but they are spectacular on anything that can use a little acidic, crunchy counterpoint. Tacos being the classic example. Also great on a toasted bagel with cream cheese (which is partially hot).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.061522
| 2010-08-04T20:38:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4267",
"authors": [
"Dave Bettin",
"Decypher",
"Je Suis JuBa",
"LobsterZoidberg",
"crystal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8020",
"o12",
"otn",
"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
}
|
895
|
How do you peel garlic easily?
How should I approach peeling a clove of garlic to get the skin off most quickly? Is it different if I'm doing a bulb whole?
Good question. This has to be one of the most laborious tasks in food preparation, so any tips to make it easier are highly valued!
Even with a whole bulb, break it into cloves.
Put clove(s) on a cutting board. I usually cut off the root end of each clove. Lay a large chef's knife flat on the clove, then smack the knife to crush the clove. This breaks the skin of the clove and makes it much easier to peel.
The day I was informed of this trick was the day after I'd laboriously peeled over a dozen heads of garlic.
Be sure to NOT use a ceramic knife. It can easily break.
@Dinah - nor on a fiberglass plate; broke one of those once
Use this when you’re cooking with guests around: it never ceases to impress people who haven’t seen it before (especially when they go home and try it themselves), and to draw knowing appreciative looks from those who have ;-)
Step 1.5 - ensure fingers clear of blade when smacking it
Here's a tip to go along with this...don't store the garlic in the refrigerator...keeping it out helps keep the garlic peel dry enough to separate easily from the garlic when slightly crushed.
You can use the bottom side of a pot or frying pan instead of smacking with the knife. Works as was and involves less sharp edges.
I find I don't have to smash it: I just lean into it, flattening it in the process. It's more controlled, and feels more natural to me.
If you don't mind your hands smelling, you could use the flat/bottom part of your palm.
The trick is that you're bruising the clove of garlic a little bit so the paper will release easier -- if you're using a bulb or less, it's not too bad to do the side of the knife press method.
... but if you're cooking up a recipe that calls for a dozen heads, there's an alternate trick:
break the head into cloves
put the cloves into a sealable hard-sided container much larger (10x or more) than the garlic
shake the hell out of it for about 15-30 seconds
pull out the cloves, and the paper should come off easily.
if there's any cloves that are still difficult, shake longer, or more vigorously.
repeat for the remaining bulbs.
You can do this with two metal bowls of the same size, pressing together the lip on the rims while shaking. I don't recommend plastic containers, as you might impart a garlic flavor to them that will be difficult to remove.
like this idea for multiple cloves.
Food processor with plastic 'dough kneading' blade will also work, with some damage to cloves. Separate cloves from paper based on flotation: cloves tend to sink in water, paper is floaty.
See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/18150/67 below for a link to a video on this technique.
I take a hint from TV (and my fiancee): smash each clove with the flat part of the knife until the skin breaks, then you can easily take it off.
If you are peeling the whole clove, then you can just smash the whole thing with the flat part of a bigger knife (safety first) and take all the goodies out.
Smash n snatch is the simplest by far.
great jargon, guys.. goodies and snatching.. haha
I call these Garlic Cannoli.
Actually, they're simply called "garlic peelers." For Christmas, I gave my wife one of these as a stocking-stuffer. I had seen them in kitchen gadget stores for years, but was always reluctant to get one, believing it was another useless, cheap gadget.
I was wrong!
I used to peel garlic using a knife, but now, with this, I can peel a clove every 5 seconds. It's essentially a silicone or rubber tube. You place the clove inside and lightly press it and roll it on the counter (like you're forming a baguette). Penny for penny, I've never had such a useful gadget (except maybe a silicone spatula).
Thanks. I saw one of these in the local store but didn't think they were useful.
Great video on peeling garlic.
It's basically the same method as that described in Joe's answer: Smash the head, put it all (if you need a whole head of garlic) in a large metal bowl, put another metal bowl on top, but upside down, so that the rims overlap, and shake hard for several seconds.
Please summarize the information contained in links you post - a bare link is not an answer. 2. Please do not post obfuscated URLs here.
i'm voting you up, because even though your post was against teh roolz, it's still the most efficient way, and it addressed the question perfectly.
@franko please read the how to answer page and the original meta post on the subject. This is not about rules, it's about answers containing only links being poor quality answers by definition. "Here's a link" or "here's a video" does not address the question, it just tells readers to go somewhere else to address the question.
Link to the video is obsolete :(
Two methods that work great.
1: Put the garlic cloves into lukewarm water and wait 20-30 minutes.
2: Put the garlic cloves into a tupperware and shake.
I'd use method one for peeling large batches of garlic that you can store in the fridge for a couple of weeks, and method two for immediate use.
sounds like #1 might have flavor consequence (adverse)
That would happen in boiling water, not lukewarm water. As far as I can tell there is no side effect to this method.
I separate the cloves and put them in boiling water for just a minute or so. The temperature doesn't penetrate very far so there is no flavour consequence and the skin just slides off. This is just for sliced or whole cloves. For crushed garlic I crush then peel.
I just used option 2 last night, but in a mason jar. I put two cloves in at a time and instant peel.
If you need to keep the cloves whole, there's a nifty little tool that looks like a piece of rubber manicotti, which is specially designed for this purpose. You put a clove of garlic inside, then roll it back and forth on the counter. The clove will pop out the end completely stripped of its skin.
If you don't feel like going out and buying a one-use gadget, a silicone baking mat will probably do the same thing.
If you're going to be chopping the garlic, I find that slicing the garlic in half from base to tip makes it very easy to peel the skin off.
I don't like smashing garlic with my knife for fear of losing a finger. Safety first.
I used to have this tool; it was fantastic :)
I have this tool, but I find it easier to just roll the garlic in my hands.
The tool doesn't have to be a unitasker - I use mine as a jar lid gripper too. Lay it across the top of the jar lengthwise, not around the rim.
Rather than the "smash" method, I cut a little off each end of the clove and then slice the clove in half, lengthwise. Once it is sliced, the skin peels off easily. Plus, the cut allows for the (2) slices to lay flat for mincing.
The technique I use is just a little different from the "crush" method - I like to think of it as the "smack" method. It goes a little faster because you don't need to shift your hands on the knife very much.
After separating a clove, you place it flat on the cutting board and slice off the stem with a chef knife. Having sliced off the stem, you don't really need to "crush" the garlic to get the skin to separate - holding the knife normally by the handle, you can simply give the garlic one good smack with the flat of the tip, pick up the clove by the tail end, and poke it a bit with the knife and the garlic will fall out.
Optionally, something that I personally find easier is not to slice all the way when you are cutting off the stem. If you slice gently and lift up on the clove at the same time, when the knife reaches the skin on the opposite side, it doesn't penetrate the hard skin. The knife keeps the skin pinned down, and as you pull up on the clove, the skin will start to separate. This gives it a good start and makes the garlic part with its skin even more readily.
The side of the garlic clove closest to the core will usually have a flatish edge where the skin is thicker - if you slice at the base of the clove with the flat side down, and then rotate the knife 90 degrees, you will pull off this thick edge off easier, and frequently this will also take the rest of the skin with it.
Try microwaving a clove for between 5-10 seconds and the skin practically falls off. Be careful not to leave them in too long, they'll explode and you'll have a garlicy mess in your microwave.
10 seconds seems a bit excessive for a single clove of garlic. What wattage is your microwave?
Peel garlic using a jar
This is so far the fastest method I've seen. Just put the garlic in a jar and then shake it.
Cut the end at both sides and down the middle to peel them.
The way I peel garlic is really easy - and somehow not covered in previous answers.
it's easy to tug off the fine, papery skin from the garlic cloves - and it's usually necessary to separate the cloves in the first place.
As for the harder inner skin - at the base of the clove, where it attached into the roots, there's a dry, hard flat place, usually triangle shaped. Usually there are ridges around the edges of this base, pointing downwards. What I do is dig in my nail to the bottom of the clove (just enough to break the skin) and peel upward. The ridge makes a good hold, and the peel breaks and peels a strip off the inner skin.
Three tugs (one on each face of the garlic) has peeled most of the inner skin right off, in less than five seconds - and sometimes it takes less, if the inner skin can be tugged loose in a larger piece, or the garlic slipped out of the skin.
I find this works perfectly with roasted garlic, just dig in my thumbnail and pry upward two or three times and the whole skin is off. Fresh garlic might take a little more rubbing and scraping at left behind strands, but it works basically the same way.
lay down a knife horizontaly on the cloves and hit it. This will break the clove a bit. Now cut the top, and then the bottom and the shell will be gone.
Break the bulb into cloves, breaking off the bottom and the dry stick that goes up the middle. For each clove, press the ridge that would have been at the centre of the bulb down hard on the chopping board, crushing it. This causes the skin to almost entirely separate from the clove; using a knife at the base it then comes off very easily, you can peel the whole bulb this way in a few tens of seconds.
After you have broken it down into cloves, I usually smash it slightly with my thumb or the side of a knife, and the tough peel (the shell) cracks, making it quite easy to simply peel it by hand.
My wife uses this device that is basically a rubber cylinder that you roll the clove in and it breaks down the shell. It works OK, but I can clove for clove peel quicker than anyone I know ;--)
I do it two different ways: First, if I've been working outdoors a lot and have good calluses on my hands, I'll take a scant palm full of cloves and rub my hands together with the garlic between them over the sink or bin, this takes off most of the skin and loosens what stays behind. Second, if the garlic has large cloves, will hold the bottom and the top of the clove, top by one hand bottom by the other and twist the clove, this loosens the skin.
Usually don't smash the garlic, seems to change the flavor.
Smashing tends to leave the cells whole, whereas slicing/chopping goes through cells and releases more juice, for a stronger flavour. Both are good, for different recipes.
I generally microwave garlic cloves (as suggested by nachito above). 3-5 cloves 12 seconds works for me.
Alternatively you can heat a pan and put cloves in it for a few minutes just to heat them up. That will separate the skin easily.
On tv I saw them bring the pan with some water to the boil for a short time.
It depends. If you are going to chop, mince, dice or use them pretty much intact, I'd go with Choppy's method of crunching them with the flat of a knife.
If you want to crush them in a garlic press, don't remove the skins, at all. Cut the very ends off, if you wish, and put the whole thing in to the garlic press. The smashed garlic will get pushed through the press, as usual, and the skin, intact in pretty much one piece, will be left behind and will come out of the press very easily.
In case you're only going to press (rather than chop) the garlic, you don't even have to skin it. You can just put the whole clove in the press and you'll press the garlic right through its skin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.061758
| 2010-07-13T20:28:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/895",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Abbey",
"Avinesh",
"BaffledCook",
"Bernard",
"Brian",
"Bruce Alderson",
"ChefBrandonS",
"Damien",
"Dinah",
"Eric Johnson",
"Frankie",
"Ian",
"JWiley",
"Joe",
"Joel in Gö",
"Kate Gregory",
"KdgDev",
"Len Holgate",
"Loozie",
"Lukas",
"Marelize Greeff",
"Marti",
"Martin Beckett",
"MattAllegro",
"Muz",
"Noldorin",
"PLL",
"Ray Foo",
"Sam Holder",
"Scott Mitchell",
"Shirley Adams",
"Steve Weet",
"Sush",
"T Berg",
"TheOriginalKP",
"Tore Binarflame",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Willeke",
"alumb",
"ceejayoz",
"daramarak",
"franko",
"goodrone",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9973",
"jjnguy",
"jwalkerjr",
"lorenzog",
"slim",
"theringostarrs",
"vtsteve",
"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/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2517
|
What are some good ways to Roast Peppers
I'm looking for a safe method to remove the skin.
If you have a gas range, just fire up a burner. Make sure to have some tongs ready if you can't rest the pepper at a good height above the flame. (You'll probably want them to turn the pepper anyways.)
Once sufficiently blackened (and not on fire mind you) toss in a paper bag and close it. Let it rest and the residual heat inside the pepper will continue to steam it from the inside out.
Once cooled, remove the skin.
Feel free to use water to cool or help remove the skin, but you may wash away some flavorful oils.
I prefer this method as it lets me keep an eye on the pepper the whole time instead of having to peek at a hidden broiler. Plus, you can make sure you get an even roast.
Here's the procedure I use:
broil or grill peppers until blackened and blistered all around.
immediately pop into pot just large enough to hold.
cover pot tightly
sing two versus of some sea shanty (just joking, really, wait 5 minutes)
remove peppers and discover that you can easily scrape off the blackened, burned, skin.
If you have a gas range, roast them on the stovetop. Simply place the pepper directly in the flame, and turn it as it blackens. Once the pepper is completely charred wrap it in aluminum foil. Let it cool for about 15 minutes, then scrape the charred skins off and enjoy.
I roast them in the oven till the skin gets dark (blackens, actually). Then I put them in a paper bag to cool. The skins slide off easily. I'm not sure if plastic bags would work but the paper ones do a good job.
Hope this helps.
I haven't tried plastic, but my guess is it won't cool nearly as fast on its own as it won't allow for the hot moist air to escape. Same could probably be said for foil if tightly wrapped.
Ideally you'd be able to skip the rinse to prevent washing away some of the flavors released during roasting. Sometimes I just can't wait, though, if I mistimed bigger things.
Agree with not rinsing away the flavors. I never rinse mine. Small bits of the skin add to the overall taste and appearance (maybe that's just me).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.062877
| 2010-07-21T01:56:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2517",
"authors": [
"Angelos Arampatzis",
"Barry",
"Caveatrob",
"Duncan",
"Matt",
"VoutilaD",
"avpaderno",
"fuad",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/788"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1124
|
How do I feed a sourdough starter?
The cookbook I'm using tells me how to make a sourdough starter, but not how to feed it after I take out what I need for the bread. What do I do with the starter once I've used some? I don't think I'll use all of it at once.
related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/931/how-can-i-bake-bread-using-a-mother-culture
I feed starter with a 50-50 mix of water and flour. Usually 1/2 cup water 1/2 cup flour for a small container. You can eyeball the ratio. It isn’t critical to get it perfect.
If you keep the starter in the fridge you can get away with feeding it twice a week depending on your yeast strain. You can do this by eye…if the starter starts to look ugly when you take it out to feed, you should feed it a little more often.
One thing I will say is that you can resurrect a starter that seems long past edible. The starter will get a cloudy fluid on top of the batter and develop a really strong smell if you let it go too long. My personal experience is that you can pour off the watery fluid and some of the batter if need be. Then add a good feeding of flour and water. It will take a little longer than usual to build up again. Yeast is a very durable critter.
Generally when I get a layer of hooch (the cloudy/greyliquid), I find that it mixes itself back in when I bring the starter into the warm and it gets up to room temperature. Even if it doesn’t do that, you can just mix it back in. There is no need to pour it off. I’ve been following this principle with my current starter for around 7 years with no problems.
When I've made and used starters in the past I've generally fed it 1/2 cup water and 1/2 cup flour every other day. The challenge with sourdough starters is that you need to be using them regularly as the volume obviously grows if you're just feeding it and not using it regularly. Of course a friend, family member, or neighbor might be thrilled for you to share it with them but then again...it's kind of like having a pet - you have to keep it fed!
You can always discard part and feed it to keep it alive. A waste, yes, but better than not feeding or having it outgrow the container.
You just have to add more flour and water periodically so your yeast doesn't die. You can add more to replace. You don't have to feed the starter as often if you leave your starter in the fridge but then you have to let it warm up before you use it.
This video is awesome for showing how to make and maintain your starter.
Maintaining a Starter:
Feeding Schedule:
As a general rule: Once your starter is healthy and active, bubbling, rising vigorously, and smelling sour, you have two options:
If you store the starter at room temperature, you need to feed it twice a day. Don't wait for the risen starter to collapse before the next feeding, because it messes with the ph levels and can make the yeast and bacteria less active. Every 12 hours, feed it.
If you store the starter in the fridge, you can go up to a week between feedings. The cold won't kill the yeast and bacteria, it just slows them down. Just make sure the starter doesn't get shoved into a super cold spot and freeze.
The feeding process:
Stir the starter, remove all but 4 ounces of it (you can either discard the rest or use it to bake something). To the remaining 4 ounces, add 4 ounces flour and 4 ounces of purified or bottled water (chlorine in tap water is bad for the yeast and bacteria, and most filters remove chlorine taste, but not all the chlorine). Room temperature starter gets room temperature water; refrigerated starter gets lukewarm water. Stir until no dry flour remains. Cover with a non-airtight lid. Refrigerated starters need to stay at room temperature for several hours after feeding so the yeast and bacteria have a chance to wake up and eat.
Source
After removing some of your starter to bake bread, feed the remainder as you normally would, but perhaps with a bit more flour and water than usual if you're left with less than 4 ounces.
This can be avoided by planning ahead. The day before you want to bake, when you feed it, put the removed starter in a bowl and feed that, too. Your primary batch of starter won't be depleted, and you'll have plenty of starter for your baking.
I don't do sourdough in warm weather, it wastes too much flour. In the cooler months I use half the starter once a week and then add 1 cup flour and one cup water and watch the mix, when bubbles stop appearing (use a ceramic bowl with at clear glass top), will either make up another batch of bread or pour out half the starter and add the 1 cup of flour and one cup water. This refreshing of the starter is temperature related; the warmer it is the faster the yeasts work and the more often it must be renewed. I keep mine on the floor in a cool part of the kitchen. If you see pink in your starter, toss it and start over.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.063220
| 2010-07-16T19:27:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1124",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Gordon Gustafson",
"Howard",
"Matt Miller",
"Sam Holder",
"Scott Markwell",
"Spagirl",
"curriegrr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"picardo"
],
"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
}
|
1915
|
How do you remove garlic smells from your fingers?
I've heard touching stainless steel after chopping and handling garlic helps but I haven't found it to work all that well.
The smell of garlic is due to sulfur compounds. When you rub your hands against stainless steel, the iron of the stainless steel will react with some small volume of those compounds, but much more will remain in your hands. Rubbing your hands against an iron object does not work.
The sulfur smell compounds are water soluble to slightly water soluble, so rinsing your hands in cold water and then soap and water should work as well as the recipes suggesting Noxzema, lemon juice, salt, baking soda, raw potatoes, tomato paste solutions, or mouthwash.
I not agree that you just have to use water and soap, the smell will remain. I use a specific hand soap or, when not available, some lemon juice.
I agree. There are times when I smell the garlic even after a long wash. In those cases I rinse my hands with mouthwash and let it mask the garlic smell. Time does the rest.
I use the mouthwash with hydrogen peroxide, which probably helps oxidize the sulfur compounds that cause the strong smell. Should have thought of that earlier.
A quick rinse with some lemon juice.
Then wash your hands normally with soap and you're done.
I always use a stainless steel 'hand soap', such as this one with a little bit of regular hand soap. Wash for about 30 seconds and the garlic smell's gone.
I find that cold water and lemon juice works best.
There's also a theory that cutting a potato in half and rubbing it on your hands will work but so far I've never tried it!
I was recently reading up on this subject because, not matter how many times I washed my hands after chopping garlic, the smell would still be there even a couple days later.
I tried the "stainless steel" approach, but didn't see any results. The "coffee grounds" approach did help some, it works well to cover up the smell at least. At the same time I was trying these methods, I accidentally discovered a better solution. I was building an evaporative fan, using copper tubing and in handling it, the garlic smell instantly went away and my fingers and slightly smelled like copper but no garlic!!
I imagine this has something to do with the chemical reaction with stainless steel mentioned in this string, but copper seemed to work a lot better. Further testing may be needed, but wanted to share what I had found.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.063640
| 2010-07-19T04:51:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1915",
"authors": [
"BabsintheKitchen",
"I82Much",
"Narazana",
"Rob van Laarhoven",
"Robert",
"Wizard79",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3592",
"papin",
"user3456",
"yclian"
],
"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
}
|
2596
|
Substitute for onions and garlic
I love the taste of onions and garlic and it seems lots of other people do too. But they upset my stomach so much that I can't really cook with them. What can I use in their place to give my food a similar flavour?
Have you thought of reducing rather than removing completly, also cooking well should reduce their effects.
Asafoetida is a good anti-flatulent and can aid digestion. If you decide to try this, make sure you use it in very small quantities, as it has a distinctive, quite unpleasant, bitter taste if used liberally. I use it in conjunction with onions and garlic.
Is the problem when they're raw, or well-cooked? It might be that you have problems with raw onions only, and well-cooked onions are fine. Someone I know has trouble with raw onions...
I haven't experimented enough to find out if cooking them more or less makes a difference. But I usually encounter it with restaurant food and I almost never have raw onions.
Any trouble with artichoke, plantain, asparagus or sprouted wheat? Then it could be the inulin fiber which feeds good beasties but effects could be less tolerated if levels aren't gently raised over time. Leek is a good one to start with.
Many South Asian recipes use a (fairly weird) spice called "hing" or asafoetida powder. It's got a vaguely similar aroma.
Generally you add a pinch to hot oil before beginning a dish. A half-teaspoon is usually enough for a four- to six-serving preparation.
You can find it quite easily at South Asian grocery stores and online.
Oh, and it's "weird" because of the way it's gathered. Unlike other spices, it's not from a seed or seed pod or bark — it's sap, dried and ground. (Most hing powders are packaged with some filler.)
Note that if it's sulphur making you sick, hing has high sulphur as well.
Some herbs, daikon, or asafoetida powder which is an Indian spice often time used as an onion substitute.
You can find it here:
http://www.thespicehouse.com/spices/asafoetida-powder
Asafoetida may also be used as a substitute for garlic. Garlic chives may also work but are still fairly oniony/garlicy.
I'd browse around this site a bit. They have quite a few great substitutions for various ingredients:
http://www.foodsubs.com
If the recipe calls for onion and garlic, then shallots would be a great substitute, especially if you trying to make the food less "heavy."
Shallots are related to onions but much milder than onions, and also have a taste that's similar to garlic (I believe it's due to the amount of phenols, but don't quote me on that).
People ask very often what they can substitute for shallots, and the best answer I've found is onions and garlic in a 2:1 ratio - but it's not quite the same, the result ends up being a lot stronger than a shallot.
In fact, I believe that many recipes calling for garlic and onion actually should be calling for shallots, but that the writers of these recipes assume that the readers won't have them (or in some cases even know where to get them). And that's a shame, because too much onion and garlic can do a lot of damage to a delicate recipe.
I cannot promise that this will "sit" better with you - that really depends on your digestive system and how exactly you react to onions - but in most cases shallots tend to be milder on the stomach for the same reason that they're milder on the taste buds. So give it's worth trying something that may actually enhance the flavour of your dish as opposed to making it blander!
If you are making garlic bread and need a sub, asofoeteda (hing) and some nutritional yeast a is a good option.
In Indian cooking, hing with ginger can be added for flavor replacement of onion and garlic.
Diakon, finely cut, with a pinch of hing is a good replacement for raw onions in chevdas, etc
Onions, garlic and others from the Alium family are prohibited in Hindu cooking because they have a Thamasik effect on a person. Tamasik propensity like laziness, lack of interest in higher taste, over eating, over sleeping, etc.
I'm not sure if the last paragraph you have would technically be allowed here as we don't want answers to have any health claims. The rest of your answer is great though!
If you want to try something less orthodox, I'd use wild garlic, collected in spring in the forests. When collecting, be careful not to confound it with "may lily" which is a toxic plant.
You can make a great pesto of it too.
Scallions work really well as a replacement onions and garlic, yes they flavor will be milder but scallions have flavor components of both in my humble opinion. Green onions/spring onions add a nice onionly flavor and chives are also good sprinkled on top of burgers, and even steak for a nice, yet mild onion flavor.
green onions or chives can be a substitute for onion if you can handle those.
Garlic is tough to replace, but it depends on the recipe. Some recipes like salad dressings, you can get buy by omitting it or just replacing it by something on the bitterish side like pickles or picked beats.
if you're substituing it in cooking, then perhaps a high quality onion and garlic powder (not salt) would suffice. NOTE that this advice should only be used by people who can't eat onion/garlic and not by lazy folks who don't want to peal and cut
Dehydrated onion powder. It works well in soups and stews, but obviously won't be a good substitute for a pile of sautéed onions on top of your steak.
Also, in May an June, you might be able to find Ramps (Wild Leeks, Wild Garlic, Mountain Garlic) - Allium tricoccum, which has a lovely subtle flavour and is a bit easier on the stomach.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.063906
| 2010-07-21T13:29:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2596",
"authors": [
"BENBUN Coder",
"Harlan",
"Jeff Sternal",
"Jeremy French",
"Louisa",
"Mr. Shiny and New 安宇",
"Pat Sommer",
"Pulse",
"Rory Alsop",
"SourDoh",
"Spam",
"Yamikuronue",
"gudang lagump3 spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96591",
"mmr"
],
"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
}
|
1456
|
What is a good way to cooldown my food and drink without a fridge?
So I'm out camping, and I don't have a fridge, what are good ways to cool-down my food or drinks?
I've tried mixing salt and water to create a endothermic reaction, but it didn't work too well. What are your tricks?
Salt+water isn't terribly endothermic. If you have ice, ice+salt isn't endothermic, but it does significantly lower the temp of the mix.
In the cowboy days, the people traveling through the western desert would carry canvas sacks which they would fill with water. The water would seep through the canvas very slowly, and wet the surface of the bag. Evaporative cooling would then keep the water cold (at least cooler).
You could try something similar if you are in a dry climate (the rate of evaporation determines the cooling effect, which is limited by the relative humidity). Wrap the food or drink in wet cloth, and hang or set in a shady location with some wind. Keep the wrapping wet.
If you're near a creek or a lake, usually just sticking your drinks in the water gets them well below the ambient air temp.
This is your best bet.
Besides what @KevinSelker said, if you have sand available : wrap the food tightly, cover in sand, then add water. You're looking for evaporative cooling, so the water doesn't have to be cool.
If you don't have that, and it's summer time, you can dig a deep hole, as the ground temperature will be near 65F if you get deep enough.
When I used to go camping, we'd bring some of the food frozen hard, so we'd not have to worry about it 'til it came time to cook it (eg, the next morning). (and then only relied on things that needed refrigeration for the 24hr or so, depending on the weather. (unless winter camping), and made sure to eat everything so we didn't have to worry about leftovers.
Get an old wool jumper (sweater), make it wet, wrap it around the container of food and place in the wind, keep wet, wool is best for this.
If you can explain why using wool is better than the generic "cloth" in a previous answer, I'll be happy to upvote. Else I'll have to vote "delete" because it's nothing new.
@Stephie wool still has insulating properties when wet. most other fabrics don't
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.064417
| 2010-07-17T16:24:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1456",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Daniel Bingham",
"Jimmie Clark",
"Joe",
"MarkF",
"Nick Berardi",
"Stephie",
"Terry Corigliano",
"Vetle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"stephendl"
],
"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
}
|
1754
|
How do you prepare/cook Kohl Rabi?
I regularly get an organic veg box, which occasionally contains items that I'm less familiar with, or are more challenging to make something delicious with. One that causes me a lot of trouble is Kohl Rabi, as it's not something I've come across, so don't know the best ways to prepare it. So, what is the best way to eat Kohl Rabi?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.064654
| 2010-07-18T15:08:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1754",
"authors": [
"MStodd",
"danp",
"dibs",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3201"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1422
|
How long can I store cooking wine?
I made a dish that used a small amount of wine and now I'm wondering how long I can keep the rest of it for next time. I know you wouldn't want to keep good drinking wine around long after opening it, but does the wine get too bad to use in cooking quickly? It's Chardonnay, if it matters. Thanks!
Opened wine spoils fast. Red wine lasts about 1 day, white wine lasts about 3 days. You can prolong this slightly by putting it in the refrigerator, but only by a few days at most, and it depends on the wine.
It may be "safe" to consume for much longer, but the taste will be way off, even for cooking purposes. If you've opened it - finish it. ASAP.
There are exceptions: "Cooking wines" such as cooking sherry and rice cooking wine have an array of preservatives added and will keep for much longer. But don't leave perfectly good Chardonnay just sitting around to oxidize.
I disagree with this. Red Wine can last for several days once opened. Sometimes it can even improve before finally spoiling. White Wine we've had last for weeks or longer in the refrigerator. It tasted about the same two weeks later as it had when first opened. Admittedly, it was cheap white wine. But still, for cooking purposes, unless we're talking extreme gourmet wine can be kept for several weeks in the fridge or several days out of and be absolutely fine for cooking.
Just a couple of small points. Sherry and rice wine should not be referred to simply as "cooking wines" as they are used for drinking in the same way as ordinary wine. Sherry is a fortified wine as brandy is added after the fermentation process. Rice wine is not fortified. It's fermented rice and yeast.
@Daniel I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with you. I'm sure you wouldn't skimp when it came to buying a nice piece of meat fore Sunday lunch, so why use oxidised wine to ruin the sauce. Oxidation of wine sets in immediately the wine is exposed to the air and even if the wind is resealed, the damage is done. By using wine older than a few days, you are essentially adding vinegar.
Except that you aren't, it tastes fine to all but the most trained pallets. In the case of everyday cooking the question isn't whether you'll "ruin" the sauce for the trained pallet, but whether your average cook or eater will be able to tell the difference. I never was - and my pallet isn't exactly untrained. Maybe I'm just not enough of a snob, but my rule has always been - if it works, don't worry about it.
@Pulse: That's why I said cooking sherry and not just sherry. Cooking sherry has a bunch of preservatives added. You're right that rice cooking wine isn't alcohol-fortified, I meant fortified with the same kind of preservatives (guess I wasn't very clear).
@Daniel: I am hardly a wine expert but I can most definitely taste the difference between Chardonnay that was just opened and Chardonnay that's been sitting in the refrigerator for a week. It tastes sour and, well, vinegary.
@Daniel No worries, if you can't tell the difference, there's no harm done. I do, however, believe it's incorrect telling others that an opened bottle of wine will still be good after several weeks.
@Aaronut Fair enough, I've just never come across "cooking sherry"
Wine can last hours once opened, or it can last days. It all depends on the wine, and refrigerating it will help. Also, don't be afraid of wines with steel screw tops that will allow you to reseal the bottle for much longer storage. Yeah, it's pretty universally used by the swill makers, but there are some reputable vintners using steel closures these days. Do your homework and talk to the wine expert where you get your wine.
Honestly, who keeps downvoting this? I really hope I don't ever end up eating something made by one of you people who keeps opened white wine in the fridge for weeks and thinks it's still perfectly good. I'm by no means a wine connoisseur, but keeping any opened wine around for weeks at a time is insanity.
The trick is that you won't want it to oxidize (although, red wine needs to 'breathe' to reduce some of the tannins, which is why @DanielBingham said it might improve.) So, if you just need to hold it for a few days, store the bottle upright (minimize surface area exposed to air), and not on the door of the fridge -- it'll get jostled and mix air into it.
They also sell gadgets that inject nitrogen or other non-oxygen gas into bottles, or things to suck out the air, etc. But if you're not much of a wine drinker, from your earlier comments, I wouldn't bother. (hell, I don't even know if they work).
Oh -- boxed wine will last longer -- because there's a bag inside the box, when you pour out wine, the bag deflates, so air doesn't go back in (or not much of it). You can hold boxed wine for a week or two, maybe even longer without problem.
If you're not much of a wine drinker, and only cook with the wine -- you might want to consider freezing it -- as with everything else -- an ice cube tray, freeze, transfer to zip-top bag. Then, when you need little for a sauce, you can just thaw out of a cube or two. It might not be as great as "fresh" bottle of wine, but if you're cooking with it, most people won't notice the difference, and it'd still be better than a dedicated "cooking" wine.
The freezing idea is interesting, I'll try that sometime. Thanks!
I'm surprised this simple cliche answer isn't here yet, so here we go:
"If you wouldn't drink it, don't cook with it."
This can apply both to which wine to buy and to if that week old bottle is still ok to use.
For white wine, I always use dry Vermouth. It lasts forever unrefrigerated, doesn't cost much, doesn't sour, and it's a damn fine substitution if I do say so myself. The only time I use anything else is when I plan on using the better part of a bottle, in which case the specific character of the wine is more important.
Keeping an actual nice white wine? It's not going to happen. Even in a refrigerator it'll be going off within a week of being opened. And crappy "cooking wine" brand wine doesn't even bear consideration.
Red wines are even worse, because they oxidize rapidly on contact with air, and tend not to be refrigerated at all. I use Sherry in the place of red wine in some dishes, but I tend to use red wine most in stews and braises and there I tend to measure by the bottle.
Actually vermouth DOES oxidize over time - but fairly slowly. Try this experiment next time you need to buy a new bottle of vermouth. Get a new bottle when you have just a little of the old vermouth left. Pour some vermouth from the new bottle into a wine glass and taste it - YUM! Then taste some of the vermouth that has been sitting around a few months - YECCH! I was surprised when I did this myself.
@Rick G: I blow through that stuff at the rate of a bottle every 2 weeks or so, so it's usually not a problem. Any liquid that sits around for months, opened, is going to degrade.
For cooking wine, it can keep for weeks in the refrigerator, depending upon how picky you are about the flavor. White Wines especially, we've kept for weeks or longer and the flavor was not changed significantly. Admittedly they were cheap white wines, but that's what we usually used for cooking. Red Wines, I don't know about, but I would guess that if you kept them in the fridge it would be about the same.
Edit: The assumption behind this is that your an average Joe cooking for yourself or your family. And keep means it hasn't turned to sour vinegar. It may not taste the same as when you'd just opened it, and you probably shouldn't do it if you're in cooking school or a nice restaurant. But if you're the average person who doesn't have a ton of income to spend on a new bottle of wine every time you want to cook with it and your question is "How long can I get away with keeping it?" then the answer is several weeks in the refrigerator.
Opened wine will spoil quickly. Reds will usually stay drinkable longer than whites, but it depends on the specific wine. The effect is somewhat similar to massively accelerated cellar aging, at a rate of several years per day.
If you have small containers with good seals that you can fill all the way to the top (I use 250 ml screw-top San Pellegrino bottles), you can portion out a newly-opened bottle of wine, and it will keep for a little while. The key is to leave as little air space as possible.
If you are making a dish that calls for a small quantity of white wine, try using white vermouth, which will keep for months in the fridge. This is what I do for risotto, which usually calls for 1/2 cup or so of wine, and the results are very good.
Thanks for the vermouth tip, I'll try that next time I need wine.
I have used red wine for cooking tomato based sauces, beef stews and chili for years, and at times have left the wine in the refrigerator for a few months and used it again. Of course I taste it to make sure it hasn't turned, if it still tastes good I use it (I know what good wine tastes like). I store it on it's side in a cold (34.5 degree) refrigerator. I usually spend between $6.99 to $8.99 a bottle on sale, and buy only Oregon or Washington wines. I don't know about white wines, I cook with them but also drink the same wine with the meal, typically a fish or chicken dinner.
Please don't bother EVER buying "cooking wine". This is simply nasty cheap wine that has a bunch of preservatives added.
Yes, exactly, it has preservatives added so that you can store it. If the author had bought cooking wine as opposed to using good Chardonnay, he could have stored the remainder for weeks or even months.
I'm not one for reviving old threads. But, I have to throw my 2 cents in after I looked this subject up. While I wasn't born in a vineyard, my dad was 100% Italian, and most wines can be kept for several weeks in the refrigerator. And, yes. There will be a slight loss in taste. But, for most people, they can't tell.
Yet, a opened gallon bottle of E&J Pisano wine has lasted me for nearly a year sitting on the counter top with little loss in taste.
Also, as was said in another post, "if you can't drink it, don't cook with it". And, while Rice Wine Vinegar is an exception, "don't ever buy cooking wine".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.064744
| 2010-07-17T14:09:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1422",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Barry Wark",
"CesarGon",
"Chris",
"Daniel Bingham",
"Fábio",
"John Ledbetter",
"Matt Siegman",
"Mike Yockey",
"Pulse",
"Richard Tasker",
"Rick G",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Yonatan Karni",
"grayling",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/990",
"spam"
],
"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
}
|
1695
|
Do free range eggs have different cooking properties?
I've heard the slogan 'Happy chooks make for happy cooks', implying that free-range eggs make for more successful cooking.
Do eggs from free roaming chickens actually have a discernible difference in baking or cooking?
I am not asking for a moral opinion, purely a cooking/baking question.
True free range eggs are noticeably different in terms of yolk colour (a much deeper yellow) and taste. Free range chickens are allowed to supplement their diets with naturally found grubs, inscets etc.
You might find this of interest:
Nutrition – Free-Range vs. Battery-Cage Eggs: Hens with Outdoor Access Produce More Nutritious Eggs
I understand the yolks also tend to be a larger proportion of the egg. This will have an effect.
It shouldn't, unless they are exceptionally large.
The color of yolks is not much changed by grubs etc., but by other parts of feed which can be easily supplemented (and frequently are) for commercially farmed eggs. This is both the theory I have read, and my personal observation - there is a lot of variation in yolk color both within free range and standard chickens, and there is no rule that free range yolk is darker, or tastes better.
Kenji López-Alt from Serious Eats made a randomized, single-blind and kind of placebo-controlled study with six kinds of eggs:
Plain old factory farmed eggs
Eggs with 325 mg Omega-3 Fatty Acid per egg (not organic or cage free)
Organic Cage Free eggs with 200 mg Omega-3 Fatty Acid per egg
Cage Free eggs with 100 mg Omega-3 Fatty Acid per egg
Organic eggs, no other specifications
Organic eggs from free-roaming, pasture-raised chickens
His verdict after making scrambled eggs in a controlled environment: It doesn't matter. Instead the actual contents of the eggs the color determines the perceived taste.
Concerning frying the eggs sunny side-up of poaching: Freshness matters. The fresher the egg, the tighter the egg white and yolk. If the egg is older, the yolk and the egg white will lose liquid which is the looser albumen part of the raw egg. This causes the egg to spread while frying, making tegg less appetizing than an egg with taller standing yolk. When poaching, the looser egg white causes the ugly white flakes (https://youtu.be/66btvAWmp7g?t=1m25s (1:25 min to 1:48 min)).
I guess, if you get eggs from free-roaming chickens the eggs might be just fresher than the factory farmed eggs and this is why eggs from free-roaming chicken might tastes better and are easier to process in some cases. (Not, if you plan to boil those.)
I think they're generally higher quality, larger, have firmer, brighter yolks, and taste better. They also tend to have a higher proportion of omega-3 fats then caged/grain fed eggs. I think it matters less for baking, but I notice the difference when slow-boiling, sauteeing, or making an omelet.
It definitely takes longer to hard boil free range eggs. noticed that when I came to Jamaica - almost twice as long.
Do you mean that they take twice as long to cook on exactly the same stove compared with non-free range eggs or do you mean compared with non-free range eggs before Jamaica?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.065581
| 2010-07-18T09:10:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1695",
"authors": [
"Larry K",
"Mamta D",
"Max",
"Morgan",
"Pulse",
"Richard",
"bbigras",
"dan04",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/741",
"rumtscho",
"user110084"
],
"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
}
|
21658
|
Why does my bread keep 'blowing out'?
Instead of swelling as a whole loaf, my loaf will often expand in the oven off to the side or the bottom - looking 'blown out', a big tear. This results in a loaf that leans to one side, doesn't rise well, or generally doesn't look good.
Why is this happening and what can I do about it?
Blowing out happens because the extra expansion of the bread in the oven, called oven spring, expands further than the skin of the bread can accommodate.
The protein sheets that make up risen bread can toughen when they dry out. When the bread is introduced to the sudden high heat of the oven the water and alcohol vaporizes, filling the loaf with gas. If the outer gluten sheets were allowed to toughen or if the spring is just to great then the sheets have to tear to make room. The tear will happen wherever the sheets are weakest. This seems to be usually in the ugliest spot possible for a blowout.
It would be possible to reduce the spring by baking at a lower temperature but the spring is desirable and results in a lighter texture. The solution must come, therefore, in softening the gluten or controlling the expansion.
Fat softens bread so this problem happens mostly with lean doughs. One possible solution for some breads is to increase the amount of fat in the dough.
Keeping the surface of the dough moist will also help. Keep the dough covered while it is proofing and spraying it with water when it goes in the oven, and, if possible, having a humid environment in the oven will keep the proteins from drying out.
The traditional solution with lean doughs is to allow the blowout to occur but control the direction. In this way the loaf can be both light and attractive.
Slashing the surface of the loaf releases some of the pressure and allows the baker to have some control over the direction of expansion.
I don't think the "yeast goes into overdrive". Instead, I think the yeast quickly dies and the CO2 bubbles that have already been produced by the yeast expand greatly as they are heated.
@HighlyIrregular- You are quite right of course. Corrected.
If you mostly dislike the direction it expands to and the irregular shape of the loaf, you may try to help it a bit. First, take care when forming the loaf – try keeping the last fold crack (as created before the last proof) on the bottom of the loaf when it goes to the oven and slash the surface with a sharp knife or razor, to promote expanding upwards.
The oven inside and the loaf surface must be humid enough or the slashes will dry up and close before the loaf expands.
If you are having issues that it is blowing out on the sides... Like a big tear, then this is probably linked to your questions about steam? If there is not enough hydration in the air surrounding the bread, oh boy, big problems. I had often seen guys pull racks of french bread out of the oven which they had either a. forgot to engage the steam cycle, or b. started it late.
As I'm sure you know, when you put the bread in the oven, the yeast goes on a feeding frenzy, which produces more co2, which is what is causing the jump. the steam in the oven is actually retarding the ability of the bread to jump. If there is not enough / no steam present, the bread finds the weakest spot, and tears - all because of this supercharged yeast activity.
I hope that's what you are asking, if not, my apologies.
It most certainly is. :)
@rfusca: to ensure proper humidity add a container on the bottom of the oven when you turn it on, so that it will be very hot when the oven will be at temperature. When you put the bread in, quickly throw a handful of ice cubes in the container on the bottom and close the oven. The ice will quickly evaporate ensuring a good level of humidity in your oven.
I would suspect that your method of final prep may be causing the problem. If you are folding the dough to form your boule or batard you need to ensure that the seam is pinched together and then flipped to be on the bottom of the loaf otherwise you may get a side blowout. It may also be that your slashing is not deep enough to control the expansion.One way to help the loaf is to do the slashing when you place the bread in the oven on the stone or rack as sometimes the slash will close if done to early or not deep enough. You get some very nice expansion patterns when you slash the bread on the stone. Finally don't be shy with the knife or razor, slash at least 1/4 inch or more will help stop the blowouts.
Interestingly- slashing shallowly and at an angle can promote more expansion because the slashes will tear open gradually without drying out the way a deep vertical cut will.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.065867
| 2012-02-23T20:46:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21658",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Borislav Ivanov",
"Duane Wilkinson",
"Highly Irregular",
"Michel Audette",
"Sobachatina",
"antobbo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6767",
"nico",
"rfusca",
"yepikhodov"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11209
|
How long can you freeze raw chicken before it seriously affects its taste?
The dramatic effects of freezing something almost always has an immediate impact on taste. But it seems like the longer something is in the freezer the worse it tastes. Recently, I found some months old raw chicken in the back of the freezer and it definitely tasted slightly strange.
So, beyond the initial freezing process, how long can you store frozen chicken before being frozen affects its taste?
raw chicken, or previously cooked?
Aside from initial quality, post-thawed quality depends on the freezer and even the location within it. Things I keep in a door of the frost-free freezer over my fridge can get quite freezer "burned" within a month. Takes much longer for that to happen to something in the colder and lesser air current of a top-open deep freeze. In a good freezer, I'd say 3-6 months is not a problem.
The change in flavor is mainly affected by packaging and how long before it gets frozen.
Packaging: If you have vacuum sealed chicken it will last quite a while. It won't get freezer burnt, dry out or pick up flavors from other freezer occupants. I would say properly packaged will last months to a year range depending on your taste buds.
Time before freezing: I have a habit of buying meat to cook right away, but end up freezing it raw several days after the fact. I then see it a week or two later and pull it out to cook. It never tastes as good as when I freeze it immediately.
As Wulfhart mentioned the packaging and time before freezing are very important, other major factors are the temperature food is stored at and the speed freezing takes place. Food bought frozen is flash frozen to minimise the size of water crystals which form in the process. This minimises the impact on flavour and texture.
If you freeze food at home, use the fast freeze option if you have one (these usualy take your freezer to about -26°C) then this will be better than freezing at -18°C (normal freezer temperature) but not as good as flash freezing.
The temperature of your freezer is affected by how full your freezer is, how well you maintain it (keeping it from icing up) and the quality of your freezer. If your freezer is constantly at or below -18°C and the chicken was bought frozen tests have shown little measurable change at 12 months.
If your freezer is not cold enough, changes temperature a lot or was frozen slowly, then larger ice crystals form and the changes you mentioned occur.
I found myself in a situation and now I even can call it a 'hobby' of always getting my meats at a really low price. So when I go to my store and I see the sale I get pounds and pounds of Chicken Pork and Beef meats. What I do (like someone else stated above) I take the meat out of the packaging cut it in pieces (if needed, like a whole pork 'roast') put about 3 'pieces' in a bag and immediately freeze it (put it in the freezer), even if I end up using it the next day. And since its a "big" amount of meat that I get at a time, it lasts me for about 6 months. So just want to mentioned that because I freeze these meets right when I come from the store, even after 6 months the chicken that I unfreeze and bake, and porch chops that I fry, ect, REALLY taste like I just picked them up yesterday. So don't worry about the taste of frozen meats... as long as you freeze then "immediately" (or within 3 days or so) and as for storage time, I just taken out a frozen pack of chicken necks that I bought on August 2016 and its end of March 2017 now, this is the longest time ive kept a meat frozen, so that's why im on Bing searching for 'frozen meat keep time' and most if not all websites (including the government's foodsafety.gov) mention up to 1 (one) year for Poultry (like chicken and turkey) 'meats' and between 6 and 12 months for any other meat (like Beef, Veal, Lamb & Pork).
And by the way all the 'meat' I mentioned was fresh (before expiration date) and raw. I didn't check the 'freeze times' for cooked meats.
PS when the chicken necks unfreeze and ill cook them I will let you guys know how they tasted right away ;)
UPDATE -- just want to give you guys a quick update. The chicken necks unfroze and I went on the Bing Search spree because when I took the chicken necks out of the freezer they looked brown, almost black, but when they unfroze now, they are TOTALY back to their normal 'fresh' color, light pink. Just wanted to mention this because if you notice that 'dark color' in your prolonged frozen meat you shouldn't get worried or alarmed. So now im going to put them in a pot and give you the final 'taste update' in just a few hours. :)
FINAL UPDATE -- yes! the taste is 95% delicious, its 'still' REALLY good. I say only 95% because I noticed that some of the chicken necks (literally like 3 or 4) out of the whole pack had a tiny taste of, what I can describe as, "old water". It REALLY didn't matter at all as even with these 3 necks "effected" they still tasted 'normal'. Plus there was an odor to the meat, which I just think it was odor of the freezer, as its been there long. But after rinsing with water there was no smell. Just to tell you the exact time they were frozen.. it said 'Sell By' date of August 24th 2016, so I bought them about 5 days earlier, and they have been sitting in the freezer this whole time and its March 19th 2017 today. So in conclusion yes you can keep a fresh/raw meat in freezer for up to a year and the taste is great... so don't worry :)
just want to mention to, use your judgment when unthawing and cooking meat... because if it smells or tastes bad its better just to get a new "batch" :)
and sorry for this novel size of a 'tale' :)~ ... I hope you didn't get annoyed by the length. Thanks for reading :) and hope it helped.
There was a question about freezing fish recently which was similar (but had the overtone of food safety, not taste). Personally, I only like to freeze meat for up to a month (on the top end). I find that unless it is really, really well protected, anything more than that has a really noticeable effect. However, there are some cuts, like ground beef, that I will keep longer, simply due to the type of dish that they are being used in.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.066643
| 2011-01-18T20:47:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11209",
"authors": [
"Chandu",
"Debbie",
"Joe",
"Judi",
"KyleMit",
"Michele",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"tM --",
"user23032",
"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
}
|
5114
|
Where can I buy kosher salt in London?
I make a point of taking a few minutes to look around for the stuff whenever I go to a new supermarket / farmers market / ete etc and I haven't been able to find a source here. At the same time, I'm not wanting to import anything from the States, because it defeats the purpose of having a cheap supply of a goood salt.
Surely there is a place one can obtain Kosher salt in London, no?
There's a kosher tag that might be more appropriate for this question.
@Joe: Why did you remove the "kosher" tag?
@Neil : at the suggestion of one of the users who had flagged it for moderations ... and then immediately wondered why ... and now even more so ... yeah, I probably shouldn't have caved into the request.
Meta on closing: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1292/what-types-of-sourcing-questions-should-be-allowed-revisit-march-2013-plea
@SAJ14SAJ : http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/a/1679/67 ... the issue is in part that they don't call it kosher salt in the UK ... as best I can tell, they call it "flake salt". (see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/784/67 , and in this question, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/27750/67 )
@Joe Perhaps we should edit it, then, to reflect the more appropriate root question.
You could try Maldon Sea Salt, or similar supermarket sea salts. While not identical to kosher salt, they can be used in a similar way. Maldon is also is much cheaper in the UK than it is in the US (where it's an import).
It's not a product I can recall seeing in many UK stores.
I think this answer really gets to the main point. Most US recipes that ask for Kosher salt don’t need many of its specific qualities: they just need a decent-quality large-grain salt, and for most of the 20th century in most of the US, Kosher salt was the only option for this, so it became the term recipes use. So in the UK, a good sea salt will likely be the most appropriate option.
I think it's worth pointing out that it's the 'Maldon Sea Salt Flakes', specifically the 'flakes', that are the same as kosher salt... traditionally in the UK we know the term 'sea salt' more as rock salt that you'd see in salt grinders, whereas the natural characteristic pyramid shapes of flaked sea salt is the same as what Americans call 'kosher salt'.
Kosher salt (or koshering salt) is a more American-known name for what we in Britain call flaked sea salt. It's not jewish or anything like that, it's just the kind of salt they use in the koshering process to draw the blood out of the animal. The difference with table salt (as explained by Alton Brown) is that sea salt is more naturally grown (like a wheat crop), and harvested rather than manufactured, and forms hollow pyramid shapes. These don't need any added ingredients (eg. desiccants) to stop them clumping, and you often don't need to use as much salt as you would do with table salt.
After watching practically all of the Alton Brown cooking show 'Good Eats', I've invested in a salt cellar/pinch pot similar to the one he uses and some Maldon Sea Salt Flakes. I bought a small box to begin with to make sure it was the same as the Diamond Crystal salt, and it is, so I've now bought a bigger box.
You'll find Maldon Sea Salt Flakes in the majority of british supermarkets (Tesco, Sainsburys, Waitrose all stock it), alongside the spices, usually on the lower shelves. The Maldon site also has a stockist list if you're interested.
All of the suggestions that sea salt, course, fine or flaked, are the equivalent of kosher salt are misleading at best. Kosher salt in the US is a standard kitchen salt, not used solely for koshering. Its larger granules allow for more precise salting of foods during prep, cooking and serving. There are two main brands, Diamond Crystal and Morton's, similar but with different densities so salt is usually used by weight or taste. Chefs and cooks generally use one or the other (I am a Diamond Crystal person myself). The grain size and flowability of table salt make it difficult to distribute or control.
I have not yet found a UK substitute for Kosher salt in cooking. Maldon is great salt but the variety of crystal sizes makes for difficult precision and repetition and using flaked sea salt for salting pasta water say, is a but over the top in the expense category.
The prices on say Amazon are extremely expensive compared to any grocery store in the states. A three pound box of either Morton's or DC will be $3 US or so. Once you start using Kosher style salt or its equivalent, you can save the fancy salts and grinders for the final salting or the table.
The short answer is I have not found a local source in the UK for the two kosher salts in general kitchen (both home and restaurant) use in the US, specifically, Morton's and Diamond Crystal.
This seems like a comment on other answers, not an answer in its own right.
Welcome and +1! Your answer is on point!
The answer on this page might help:
Anyhow just call up the butcher or a kosher grocer and ask where you get "kashering salt", not "kosher salt", it's the same thing used to make meat kosher after ritual slaughtering as it draws out the blood. Its totally pure. It also draws out the gunk from our noses which is why it's so good. And you can certainly get it in London in Hendon or Golder's Green.
Try a Jewish delicatessen or jewish markets.
The OP is asking where to find such things, I think. This question is regional, but seeing the kind of store where MauriceL end up finding kosher salt at might be instructive to city dwellers. (Here in the northeast US, we get it in the supermarket.)
Golder's Green is a very Jewish neighborhood, and you can go to kosher markets there.
Melbury and Appleton sell it on line. They have a minimum order level of £10 before VAT and postage. London customers can order on-line and collect from their warehouse which is at marlborough Road, Islington.
http://www.melburyandappleton.co.uk/kosher-salt---136kg-3-lb-9980-p.asp
I have not ordered anything from them myself but do need Kosher Salt for a recipe for Lemon Confit.
In the UK, "kosher salt" is called "coarse salt", or sometimes "rock salt". If you ask for kosher salt in the UK, you'll get blank stares, because that isn't what we call it.
A popular brand in the UK is SAXA which makes a coarse sea salt. It's available in most supermarkets. Obviously this is not the only brand available, just the one I happen to have in my food cupboard which I photographed below. I am not affiliated with SAXA, nor am I making a brand recommendation here.
Sorry, but rock salt is not the same as what is known as 'Kosher salt'in the US. It's delicate 'flake sea salt' rather than hard rocks.
We have flaked sea salt in the UK too. Maldon makes a popular brand.
I know, that was in my answer from ~5½ years ago. I was only correcting the type of salt crystals, as it's not just coarse/rock salt.
Although it is likely true that so-called Kosher Salt got its name from Koshering meats (absorbing the blood of kosher slaughtered animals), outside of Jewish meanings, it currently means the salt has no Iodine-based additives. These additives were introduced into many countries to solve an old health issue (from Iodine deficiencies). The UK simply never did this (https://www.ukiodine.org/iodine-in-the-uk/), as a result, all salt in the UK is 'Kosher Salt'. The other connotation of the term Kosher Salt is that the salt crystals are large, i.e. 'rock salt' as us Brits call it. So far from needing to scour specialists, or ask for any particular brand of salt, just go to ANY supermarket in the UK and buy their cheapest rock salt (look on the bottom of the shelves where they keep the biggest and cheapest packets). All of our 'salt' in the UK is simply Sodium-Chloride, which, in eating terms for the consumer is simply pure 'salt'. If it says something else, like 'Lo-Salt' for example, THEN it's something else (Potassium-Chloride is mixed into Lo-Salt).
This is why there's no 'Kosher Salt' in the UK, we never messed with salt in the first place, and Kosher Salt is simply pure salt, so all salt in the UK would be considered 'Kosher Salt' in the US.
US "kosher salt" is large flake and also can (but usually doesn't) have iodine added. For many use cases the larger crystals are more significant than not being iodized, so stating "all salt in the UK" is equivalent to US kosher salt isn't always accurate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.067160
| 2010-08-13T15:34:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5114",
"authors": [
"Billy Kerr",
"Cindy",
"Darleen sy",
"Erica",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Joe",
"Mit",
"PLL",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sam",
"Sneftel",
"blunders",
"dsample",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9952",
"koollman",
"lvictorino",
"palacsint"
],
"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
}
|
13721
|
How do I get breading to stick to pre-cooked chicken for pan frying?
I tried pan fried chicken and pre-cooked the chicken sous vide. This meant that the chicken just needed to be crisped once it went in the pan. I dredged in flour then egg and then panko (Japanese bread crumbs). The chicken was cooked perfectly and the crust was really nice, but the two didn't stay together when cut. The breading would shear right off.
I did not dry the chicken after removing from the sous vide, so it was a little damp.
How can I get the breading to adhere better to the chicken? Flour, egg, Panko works great for raw chicken. How can I get it to stick to the pre-cooked stuff?
How long do you have to fry it before the breading cooks through. Surely this would defeat one of the best points of sous-vide chicken? I would use a light tempura style batter and deep fry for maybe 20 seconds
On the second last episode of Top Chef, one of the chefs almost went home for attempting fried chicken using that exact technique...
@tfd, it didn't take more than 30 seconds a side to cook the breading, I don't thing. While I'm sure it did cook the chicken somewhat more, but I don't think it was much.
The three step method should work for this.
This being dredge the cooked chicken in flour, then egg wash and finally the bread crumbs(ideally Panko bread crumbs).
The other way is to do a tempura batter. But to make sure the tempura batter is effective, make sure to dredge the chicken in flour first.
Good Luck,
I will be doing this soon and I can give the results. The three step method is the best method I have found for breading and frying meats in general.
Dave Arnold over at Cooking Issues says the following:
What I do is brine and cook the chicken breast in salted milk at 63 degrees in a ziploc, take it out of the bag hot, put the chicken on a cooling rack, force dry the outside with a convection, then flour/(buttermilk+egg+baking powder/baking soda/salt/pepper)/flour, then fry at 375F. I haven't had problems with adhesion.
The typical issue is that dry won't stick to dry, and wet won't stick to wet, so you have to alternate but not build up too thick of a given layer.
As raw chicken tends to be wet, you add a little flour to it ... but if it's already dried from the cooking, you'd be better off going straight to wet (buttermilk, egg wash, etc.), and then getting the breadcrumbs onto it.
Also, too thick of any of the layers will cause problems, so if you are flouring, make sure that you knock off any loose flour before going into the wet, and then let the wet drip as best you can before going into the breadcrumbs. Also, if it was too wet when coming out of the bag (which you hint at), you might have similar problems. If you're going to flour, you want it slightly damp, but not overly wet; patting dry might've helped.
I've also seen quite a few recipes that call for letting the breaded items sit on a wire rack for a while before attempting to fry, and most claim it's for improved adhesion, but I don't know what the specific process involved is (if it's just simple drying out of the wet layer, or if there's some other process going on).
I just put egg on it, let it drip off a little, then just bread crumbs. I deep fry it, OR pan fry it this way and it has never failed me yet.
ok y'all, I just put this to the test on a chicken thigh: I was using Lard to fry for the first time and the 2nd batch cooked much quicker than the first so it was a little burnt (little burnt means just small dots of black charcoal). I tried to shave off the black spots with a serrated knife but ended up with gaping holes. Turns out the chicken was still a little pink so, having nothing to lose I tried the following:
I soaked those two fried thighs with the crusty floured skin still on (except where the burnt spots used to be) in buttermilk,and rolled it in seasoned flour, and fried it in the same lard at the same medium temperature (the chicken was room temp). It took about 10 minutes and I could not believe my eyes, the holes were patched,it worked fantastically!!! This was my first experiment so take it as that but it DID work to my amazement! I credit the buttermilk with keeping this in one piece (and the second coating did not try to fall off the original at all).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.067853
| 2011-04-04T16:19:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13721",
"authors": [
"StormRyder",
"TFD",
"Val",
"ahains",
"bobthechemist",
"hg8",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66258",
"talon8",
"user2888",
"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
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.