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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3202
|
Is there a difference between Brie & Camembert?
I was listening to a program on Radio NZ where the broadcaster claimed that apart from size there was no difference? It's almost like today we put a brie label on and tomorrow a camembert one. Is this the case world wide or only in in NZ?
Wiki says camembert must be aged at least three weeks while brie must be a week or more. Similar tastes, different regions.
They are both soft-ripened cheese, and there are certainly many similarities, but they are by no means the same.
Camembert is aged at least 3 weeks; Brie may be aged as little as 1 week.
Brie is generally drained for 18 hours; Camembert is drained for 48 hours.
Brie may be salted before aging; Camembert is not.
Brie is more often pasteurized than Camembert (although "genuine" Brie is unpasteurized).
That said, there are many different varieties of Brie and many different varieties of Camembert, and it wouldn't be too surprising to find at least one Brie that tastes exactly like another Camembert. Still, they are quite different - different moulds, different draining, different aging.
The real difference is the surface area to volume ratio. While both come in different sizes, Brie is generally less thick compared to a Camembert of the same diameter. This results in a different breakdown in the middle of the cheese. The enzymes that break down the cheese get much further into the middle (usually all the way) in a Brie. In many Camembert you can see a line of discoloration which is as far as the enzymes have penetrated.
I should have also said that they originated in different regions, so that is an obvious different.
If you by the cheap commercial stuff, there's no discernible difference. If you're buying high end, then you can tell the difference.
@pfctdayelise -- The question didn't ask that. It simple asked, "Is there a difference." Anything more than my answer would be extraneous to the question.
I'm not clear on the no different except the size comment. In the US where I occasionally buy Brie and Camembert they are basically made in the same sizes and packaged either in cut wedges about an inch thick or in small cylinders. I had the same size and packaging experiences traveling in France, Switzerland, and Austria.
They have similar ingredients, difference recipes, and taste different. It seems like they ought not to be thought of as "no different."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.068361
| 2010-07-25T21:01:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3202",
"authors": [
"Aaron Mazel-Gee",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Michael Blaustein",
"Overdose",
"Shuberrie",
"ceejayoz",
"dckrooney",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6562",
"plor",
"user15464"
],
"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
}
|
2868
|
Is it cost effective to make your own roast beef sandwich?
Seeing how expensive deli meat is it sure seems like roast beef sandwiches would be cheaper to make if you did your own roast and sliced it thin.
Are there any cons to this method? I imagine it would not last as long as the deli meat.
Voting to close as too localized. There are just too many regional variables for this to be an appropriate, answerable question.
Localized to what? OP is asking what the downsides are to making his or her own sliced roast beef for sandwiches. One aspect asked is the cost component, which will vary from region to region, but there are other aspects too—the last sentence hints at a food storage question.
@Pyrolistical: we can't tell you whether you'll be able to beat your deli when it comes to cost-effective roasting, but we may be able to suggest efficient methods of roasting and preserving beef. I've tried to edit your question to reflect this...
@nohat, then the OP should have asked the food storage question and left the subjective pricing aspect out of it. +1 @hobodave
@Knives: Whoa. That's a very aggressive edit there. "As I have a great love" is pulled out of thin air. I don't think this level of editing is appropriate for someone else's question. If the OP approves he can revert it back, but I'm going to revert it to his original.
@Knives: "As I have a great love" .... lol thats funny, however I do agree with hobodave
@Knives: Otherwise, the edited question was very well put.
@hobodave: you voted to close the original... Why would you restore it if you think it inappropriate? Or did the edit fail to relieve your objections? If you feel I went too far with phrasing that didn't directly contribute to the unsuitability of the question, then why not just revert that?
@Knives: Voting to close, and downvoting are appropriate tools for addressing inappropriate questions. Your edit significantly altered the OP's question and put words in his mouth. It's important that you try to respect the OP's question when editing. While not showing disrespect, your radical altering of the question just isn't appropriate in the absence of the OP requesting help with rephrasing.
@hobodave: closing is not something that can easily be undone by the author if he comes back to address his mistakes. Therefore, I prefer to edit if there's a chance that a question can be salvaged, and vote to close only if I can't easily see a wording that could be allowed. Do you feel I altered the fundamental nature of the question?
@Knives: I started a meta discussion regarding this. See: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/308/what-amount-of-editing-of-an-ops-question-is-acceptable
@Lord Torgamus: Yikes! Word your question imperfectly and expect it to be closed mercilessly?
@nohat, to some degree, yeah. SE sites aren't about passing values judgments on things; anything that asks for "the best" or "what's better" or "your opinion" almost certainly deserves to be closed. Especially in the beta/definition phase, we have to be brutal, or else people will try to get away with this stuff forever. They might try to get away with it forever anyways, but we've tried being permissive in the past, and you know what they say about trying the same thing and expecting different results....
@Lord Torgamus: I don't think I could disagree more with almost everything you say. Opinions seem almost the very core of "seasoned advice". Being brutal seems more likely to frighten away potential contributors rather than straighten them out. I guess you subscribe to a "strict father model" when it comes to managing these sites, and I'm more in the "nurturant parent" camp, where users can learn from their mistakes by being shown the right way, rather than being told they're wrong.
@nohat: This is something I learned in college the hard way. When you have an organization that lets anyone in, you get a lot of crappy people. When you add an application process and a few requirements, quality increases dramatically. As for opinions, see the existing SO model. Hard to argue with that.
@Lord Torgamus: see the last 2 paragraphs from this http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/359/is-this-question-about-usda-grading-on-topic/362#362 for why I think your approach is harmful.
@nohat, to quote you, I don't think I could disagree more. But I think we'll just have to agree to disagree at this point.
You've got a few things to consider --
cost of the ingredients
shrinkage
energy costs
time costs
wastage
So, in our decision making tree, we have to consider the real costs of each option.
Say for instance that whole roasts are on sale, so the cost of a roast is 1/2 the cost of buying the deli meat. The roast is going to lose weight as it cooks ... it's just part of the cooking process. It could be anywhere from 10 to 25%, depending on the cut of meat and how hot you cook it.
Obviously, there will be other spices and such, but we'll assume they're mostly negligible. There will be the cost to power your oven ... and that'd be a function of where you live, if it's gas or electric (or solar), etc ... and if you make too much, and can't eat it before it spoils, then there's waste.
... but then we get to the most important part in my opinion -- time, and slicing. Even if we assume our time costs nothing (and when you're throwing something in the oven and leave it for a few hours, that part's negligible). Our real time comes in slicing it -- and I don't have a professional slicing machine, just a bunch of knives, so it's going to take me quite a long time, and I'm not going to get it as thin as the deli can.
And in my opinion, it's the shaving of the meat that matters; there's a big difference between large chunks of meat vs. thick slices vs. thinly shaved.
...
So, in my opinion -- is it cost effective? maybe a little bit, if you assume your time is free. Is it worth it? Maybe if you want to spice it special, or make it lower salt, stay away from sulfides / sulfates, or do something else special ... but as you likely can't slice it the same, it's more likely to come out as an inferior product.
That's not to say that I won't ever do it, but I doubt I'd do it anytime soon, and it won't be because I think it's a cost savings.
Roasting your own beef for sandwiches doesn't have to be time consuming, and you can easily get enough to make sandwichs for quite a while out of one roast. The only problem with slice your own is storage but your freezer will take care of that as long as you take care to make sure the packages you freeze in freeze as quickly as possible to prevent ice crystal formation.
The slicing problem is easy as long as you make sure you only cut your roast cold. You should be able to easily thin slice using only a knife, and while it will take longer than a deli slicer, you should be able to slice through a decent sized roast in only fifteen or so minutes.
It's all depend if you are going to eat all the roast beef you prepare.
If you just need three/four sandwiches, then it's probably better to buy deli meat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.068611
| 2010-07-22T20:12:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2868",
"authors": [
"Cakemox",
"Dalmas",
"Piotr Dobrogost",
"Pops",
"Shog9",
"Tree77",
"bioffe",
"cjroebuck",
"florin",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"jamesbtate",
"littlestove",
"neontapir",
"nohat",
"re5et"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5052
|
How to clean my unanodized aluminium pot?
I got some acidic food in the pot and its starting to look ugly.
Can this pot be saved, or do I need to throw it out?
Define "look ugly"?
If it's a small spot you can rub half a lemon on it till it's gone. If the entire inside has darkened you can fill it with water, add several tablespoons of cream of tartar (2 per quart) and boil it for 10 minutes.
You can also buy aluminum cleaner, but the do it yourself is typically cheaper.
In case you're wondering why I'm suggesting an acid for cleaning. It's actually alkali foods that stained your pot, not acidic. e.g. boiling potatoes. Acid actually cleans the spots put there by alkali foods.
The common warning against cooking acidic foods in an aluminum pot is to prevent excessive amounts of aluminum being leeched into your food.
If it's just a matter of darkening and isn't significantly affecting your cooking (i.e. burnt on areas that will cook more quickly) there's no need to worry about it.
I like nice looking pans too but performance is more important than appearance.
As for maintaining a nice clean surface in aluminum and stainless pans, particularly when things have burned or oil and fat have splattered and are creating that "sticky" feel on the edges of cookware, spray it with degreaser or oven spray and let sit for 5-10 minutes before scrubbing with a steel scouring pad. The degreaser works on non-stick pans too but just use a soft nylon pad, not steel for scrubbing it.
Using degreaser and steel wool to clean pots? You must be industry, because that's what I was about to suggest.
When camping with the Boy Scouts our aluminum pots and pans would frequently get burned and stained (cooking on a wood fire, lack of expertise...), but steel wool and detergent would always bring them back to their pristine state. In a pinch, a handful of sand or even plain dirt, as long as it contains enough finely subdivided hard materials, will also work.
When you don't have a delicate/shiny surface to worry about, life is so much simpler.
On cheap steel pots I use a very fine emery cloth that is usable in water. (Sand paper would disintegrate.) I use an old one left on the side for this particular purpose so it is not too rough. You can get very fine grades. My pots are really very clean and I even at times clean the base. Although some pans you shouldn't do this as they have special copper impregnated patterns engraved. Obviously not to be used on non-stick or special surfaces.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.069198
| 2010-08-12T21:09:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5052",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Firsh - justifiedgrid.com",
"JJMonk",
"LifeWorks",
"Mr. Xymon",
"Steve Kehlet",
"baka",
"chellebertuk",
"gunter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9951",
"zwerdlds"
],
"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
}
|
4428
|
Can chicken not completely cooked then cooled be fully cooked later?
I cooked some chicken but didn't realise it hadn't completely cooked through. It then went in the fridge and a day later I cut through it to discover the problem.
Is it now safe to put that chicken in the oven to finish cooking it or am I risking major health issues?
Whole chicken or chicken pieces? How long after cooking did it go into the fridge?
Please don't bother.
Meat spending any significant amount of time in the danger zone of 40 F - 140 F (4.4 C - 60 C) that has not been fully cooked should never be re-chilled to be served later. Given that Salmonella can be found throughout poultry, not just on the surface, and that it's almost guaranteed that your poultry had some level of a pathogen present, you shouldn't risk it.
Your not so thorough cooking, likely to an internal temperature of 120 F - 130 F, has basically heat-shocked the bacteria present imbuing them with a much higher than usual heat resistance. On top of that it likely took at least a few hours to get the meat back below 40 F (at which they can still grow, albeit slowly), so depending on the initial amount of infection and the time spent in the danger zone you likely have a bacteria population minimally in the hundreds of millions, possibly in the billions.
In this answer of mine I give a lot of detail regarding the relation between temperature and duration and it's effect on Salmonella. The important take-away is that with any reasonable temperature death is not instant, it's merely a percentage of the population that is killed at any given temperature and duration. As few as 100,000 Salmonella cells can get you sick, and it takes much fewer for E. Coli. So even if you're killing five-9's worth of bacteria, is it really worth it?
I'm all for eating rare meat (not poultry), but only if I'm confident in the quality and handling of said meat before it reaches my plate. Think of it this way, if the meat were exposed to these conditions before it reached your plate it would be considered gross negligence, and would likely result in a recall.
The guidelines that many agencies publish to safely cook meat all assume typical levels of contamination, given proper handling (though they do err greatly on the side of safety). They simply aren't accurate when you are starting with meat that has a population large enough to sicken or kill a small village.
I'm not even going to begin to address the toxic waste products produced by some pathogens, which are not destroyed by heat.
Throw it out and prevent this in the future by being sure to cook it all the way through. It sounds like you likely just grabbed the chicken out of the refrigerator and threw it directly on the heat, this can lead to the exterior cooking too quickly before the interior has time to cook. Get in the habit of setting your meats out for 30m to an hour so that it reaches room temperature throughout, but cook it immediately, do not re-chill it.
Excellent answer. It's prudent without straying into germo-phobe. Exactly right.
Assuming all the bacteria is dead, you still don't want to do this. Reheating it enough to finish cooking the center is going to make the outer edges super dry (i.e. chicken jerky).
Chicken must always obtain the temperature of 165F to properly kill salmonella. If you did not achieve that throw it out. If you got somewhere between 120 and 140 you killed many bacteria but not salmonella. The time it sat between 60 and 120 salmonella was multiplying at 140 it came to a halt, then from 120 back to 60 it started to multiply again. While the bacteria are multiplying they are releasing toxins. Cooking it to 165 or higher will kill the salmonella and the other bacteria but there will be to many toxins left behind. You can't get rid of toxins by cooking. In the ASSUMED time period there won't be enough time period to create enough toxin to kill you or even make you as sick as the original salmonella but it will make you more sick then you would like. Unless you are a professional chef with all the right equipment don't try "sous vide" they have bacteria test strips to ensure the proper procedures, cook times and temperatures. Yes you can cook chicken to only 131 for several hours but if the chicken wasn't prepared right and properly sealed food poisoning may occur. Get a good instant read thermometer and follow recipes properly. People who think they had the 24 hour flu actually received some sort of food or water poisoning in the last 12-28 hours, 6-48 for salmonella.
Good luck on your next chicken and may it turn out perfect!!!
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! You may want to consider using some line breaks when you write a detailled answer like this one. You make some valid points, but the chance that people read them all the way through is diminished by the formatting.
I got food poisoning from doing that w/ a piece of ham. It was cooked thoroughly, and was at temperature, but I discovered if you partially cook something, and then, come back at a later time to fully cook it, that it needs to be super cooked or else you can get really sick!
This is dangerous advice. Once you've let something grow enough bacteria to be dangerous, you can't fix it by cooking it. I'm leaving this here for now because you've attempted to answer the question - but your answer is wrong and dangerous.
As long as the internal temp hits 165-170, you're fine. That should kill anything that might have grown in between. Chances are it's going to be a bit dry though.
Might be best to cut it up in chunks to use in something like a stir-fry.
Simply "hitting" that temp isn't enough if the population is large enough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.069455
| 2010-08-06T03:52:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4428",
"authors": [
"AYW",
"Cascabel",
"Evy",
"Jim",
"Kevin Ongige",
"Rezinka",
"Rich Armstrong",
"Richard ten Brink",
"Sydney Shadid",
"Tim Gilbert",
"dimme",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8432",
"kstyrc",
"rpozarickij"
],
"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
}
|
17464
|
Creating differing temperature fluid gels that stay separate
At the Fat Duck they serve a mug of hot and iced tea. The drink is served in a single cup yet the two different temperature drinks stay separate side by side with no barrier between them.
I believe this is done by using fluid gels rather than liquids but how do you actually make this. What gelling agent would you use and in what quantities? How would you actually get it into the cup maintaining separation?
This is done, and explained in the Big Fat Duck cook book, by creating a hot fluid gel and a cold fluid gel and then fitting a tight divider down the centre of the glass. Fill both sides equally, remove the divider, serve immediately.
you can follow the link and 'look inside' to see the page which has the recipe for this on to see exactly how to do it. search inside for 'hot and cold tea', then its on pages 274 and 275, so just follow those links.
The gelling agent used is gellan F, and making the gels requires making two parts for each and mixing them together. The details of the recipies are not availabale at the amazon.com site, only amazon.co.uk, although you can access it from outside the uk
I know you're probably reluctant to reproduce the entire recipe but you might want to mention the specific agents that are used in each.
I second Aaronut's suggestion for reproducing some of the details. While the text/prose of a recipe is protected under copyright, at least in the US (not sure about the UK) the individual ingredients and proportions are not copyrightable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.069940
| 2011-09-04T09:40:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17464",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BHS",
"ESultanik",
"Hannah Song",
"Romeo Sierra",
"chloe2404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"realtime"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6059
|
Sun Drying Tomatoes
Sorry if this seems obvious, but is there a method to making your own sun-dried tomatoes or is it really as simple as leaving them out in the sun? How long should it take to reach the proper "dryness"? Once dried what is the best way to store? Any spices that can be added to complement the flavor?
Not obvious at all, good question.
There are three common ways to make sundried tomatoes:
Sun - This can take days. Use a cheesecloth to keep the bugs out. Weather is obviously a huge dependency here.
Dehydrator - Probably the most efficient method, but not everyone has a dehydrator.
Oven - Use a cookie sheet and set the oven to 140-150F. This could be tricky depending upon the oven. You might have to use the pilot light or prop the door open slightly. This should take about 8 hours.
I usually store them in light olive oil once made. I've found light oil makes a huge difference because extra virgin tends to have a much stronger flavor.
We can do them in a day in August, it gets pretty hot. You always want to cut them, it makes drying much faster. With smallish tomatoes, halve them first, then put cut side up. Larger ones can be cut int smaller pieces as you see fit.
I sun dry things by putting them in the back of my car by the rear window during the day. The heat is intensified by the car and the fact that it's inside of something keeps bugs away.
Place tomatoes on a cookie sheet, sprinkle lightly with salt, and dry.
+1. I've done this accidentally before, with surprisingly pleasant results.
What a great idea, will definitely try.
I have tried sun drying tomatoes with no success. It is just too humid where I live and the bugs or mold will get them before they dry.
I just slice My tomatoes in half and dry them in the dehydrator and that works very well.
If you live somewhere dry like Utah or Arizona you could just leave the tomatoes in the sun (protected from dust and bugs) and they will be zombified in short order.
to avoid bugs, make sure to cover with something mesh like a screen on top of a solid object.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.070123
| 2010-08-26T16:18:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6059",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Aron Ahmadia",
"Eclipse",
"Fábio",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"justkt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10243
|
Why is it necessary to preheat an oven?
Just about every recipe advises to preheat the oven before using it. I often forget this, but luckily this doesn't seem to matter all that much. Hence my question: why would it be necessary to preheat the oven?
Just to mention it, the reverse is sometimes true of broiling. I actually like to broil toast, sandwich melts, and even steaks or pork chops in a non-preheated oven.
When you don't preheat, you cook your food at a lower temperature as your oven heats up for the first 5-15 minutes, depending on the target temperature and your oven's strength.
For forgiving foods, like a casserole, this may not affect you much - you'll just have to bake longer than the recipe says to. As long as you're careful, you'll be fine.
But if you're baking something that should be baked for a short time at a relatively high temperature, your results are going to be very different. For example, take traditional Southern biscuits: they're baked very hot for less than ten minutes. This cooks them all the way through, and browns the top and bottom. If your oven starts out cold, they're going to be done in the middle before they're brown! Beyond under-browning, you'll also run into problems like lack of rising in steam-leavened foods. Pastries, in particular, could probably be disastrous.
Chocolate chip cookies aren't forgiving, either. Definitely pre-heat. This is so we scientifically duplicate the conditions outlined in a recipe. Otherwise, you introduce unknowns as per other comments.
@zanlok: Yup, that wasn't intended to be a complete list of things that can go wrong. And of course, scientific duplication of conditions and control of all variables is not always important, like with a casserole that bakes for an hour. You just have to know when you can get away with being less precise. (Good general rule for reducing kitchen stress!)
agreed on the casseroles :)
I have noticed that when I forget to do this, the elements on the bottom of the oven are running very hot. So, if I put a pan in the oven, then the bottom of the pan gets much hotter than the topside.
For example, quick dinner rolls - refrigerated croissants. (Dinner in 15 minutes - forget to buy or make rolls... Oven cold...) If I do not preheat, they come out burned on the bottom, but barely done on the top. Wait 3-4 minutes for oven to pre-heat and they come out fine.
Nice point, while heating you are getting the direct radiant heat instead of the volume of hot air to do the cooking.
Put a heavy pan (e.g., cast iron) under them (on the next lower rack), that'll block the direct heat. Or cook them on a cast iron (with foil on it, possibly) instead of a cookie sheet.
As Jefromi said, some items, when baked, will have a very different reaction to warming slowly than to going into a hot oven. Consider a dough, like a biscuit or puff pastry dough that has butter layered or dotted in it. If the dough heats slowly, the butter will melt and run out, altering texture. If it heats quickly, the butter will do its job of shortening the dough or preserving layers.
The concerns about browning are also there, in that a pre-heated oven for the right amount of time will create the browning and bubbling and melting that is called for in certain recipes.
All that being said, it is easy to modify recipes and adjust for pre-heating times, but until you are very comfortable with this I'd be careful.
I only saw 1 post that stated a very important reason to preheat . And it is not so the instructions can give the correct cooking time . No one leaves something in the full time with out making sure it is not burning , and they also dont pull something out at the exact time with out visual that it is looking done . The big reason to preheat is the lower element stays on red hot for 5 or 10 minutes when you first turn it on . Thats long enough to burn the bottom on something and the whole oven wont be warmed enough to start cooking much . After the preheat the lower burner cuts off by the thermostat and the food cooks evenly . The lower unit cuts on and off to hold the temperature but doesnt usually stay long enough to turn red. . Thats why mama always scolded us for opening the oven door to look at whats cooking , every time you do that the lower element comes on again to replace the lost heat that went out the door .
The effect a particular recipe has on the ingredients is often dependent on applying a specific temperature for a specific amount of time. You have quite a bit of latitude when you're making a roast, a casserole, or something similar. However, you have almost none when you're baking. You should treat a baking recipe more like a chemical equation -- be as precise as possible with ingredient measurements and the amount of heat you apply. There are chemical reactions in the food that depend on this level of precision.
The baking times in your recipes would be almost useless if you would not preheat your oven. Yet it could spare you energy, but every different oven takes a different time to heat up...
It also helps you tell if your oven's actually working. If you're a good judge of temperature (or if you have an oven thermometer), you can also judge if the oven's keeping the correct temperature before you close it up and ignore it for a lengthy period of time.
(from Pork shoulder put in broken oven for 10 hours, safe to eat?)
In most cases, when packaged food advises you to preheat your oven (often giving a ridiculously long time), it's in the interest of having a “ready in 10 minutes” highlight on the packaging.
You can just put the food immediately, set the timer to the suggested time plus half your normal preheating time, and go spend your time on something more fulfilling like doing the laundry.
You can often just set the temp at 30°F higher than the item calls for, and cook, without preheat, the normal length of time. It's usually the integral of heat vs time that matters.
Sorry to say that I have discovered preheating is a waste of money when
I cook sourdough bread in a Dutch oven in our oven.
For years I preheated the Dutch oven in the electric oven to 220 C and then put the dough into the hot Dutch oven in the electric oven and cooked for 50 minutes with the lid on and then 10 minutes with the lid off. You can understand that it takes around twenty minutes to preheat and then it is dangerous putting the dough into the hot oven. Well a lady on sourdoughbot told me preheating was a waste of money and it is. I now put my sourdough into a cold Dutch oven then into my cold electric oven and the bread cooks perfectly in the exact same time.
No doubt to get crackling on pork one may need to preheat the oven, but one day I will try from a cold start.
With my bread I save at least twenty minutes of electricity waste each time I cook.
The main working principle of an oven is providing a volume of air evenly heated to a nominal temperature, to immerse the food (+pans) in. Until that is reached (preheating finished), you are really cooking by an undefined mix of somewhat heated air and radiant heat from heating elements (which will be stronger while still heating up since the elements will be on for far more of the time) - closer to grilling than baking.
Also, for some foods, the speed with which the outside is heated significantly matters, for example if a crust is to be formed to keep moisture in or molten batter in shape.
Because it's important to follow directions, else we would live in chaos! "up would be down; left would be right; cats living with dogs..."
That and if you pre-heat you have a quicker 'bounce-back' to cooking temp because the walls of the oven are heated up and not just the air in the oven box.
Eh, I'd have to say that it's more important to know what you're doing than it is to follow directions. Half of the time the directions are wrong anyway.
Or the directions don't translate directly to your oven. Still, the point of directions is to have a good approximation, better than running amok without a rudder.
To me, it's more important to understand than to follow directions (which is why I don't bake much...). But good point about bounce-back.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.070449
| 2010-12-17T14:11:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10243",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Amy Color",
"Cascabel",
"Christopher Gonzalez",
"Daedalus2014",
"Dale",
"Frederik",
"Gina",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"Michael Greene",
"Paul Calabro",
"RolandTumble",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"beansa",
"bij0ux",
"derobert",
"guest",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79186",
"user21054",
"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
}
|
12899
|
What are good techniques to prepare liver?
I don't like liver, but now I have to start eating pork liver because of its high iron content.
There are some ingredients which I have disliked for years, then suddenly started liking when I discovered how tasty they can be when prepared properly. An example is an aubergine: throw it into a stew as it is, or deep fry it so it soaks up three times its way in oil, and I don't want to see it. Blanch it to reduce the bitterness, dry it before it touches fat, combine it with rosemary, and it becomes one of the best veggies ever.
I was wondering whether there is some cooking technique which transforms liver into a lovely treat. My biggest issues with liver are
the texture, which is too crumbly, almost sandy, and a bit dry
the intensity of its earthy, fatty, almost rancid flavor.
At least, it tastes that way when my mother or grandmother prepare it, I have never eaten it in a restaurant.
Do you know a way to mitigate these problems? Advice on good combinations, be it side dishes or herbs/spices, is also appreciated. Also, what is the optimal pH range? I'd tend to use some acidic components because of the fatty flavor (e.g. make a sauce by deglazing the pan with lemon juice), but is this really a good combination, and how does it affect the texture if the acid is added while preparing?
Maybe you can add the way you (or your (grand)mother) prepare it?
@Mien Grandma sometimes serves diced chicken liver and heart, baked with rice, as a side dish with the chicken. Based on how oily they are, I think that she shallow fries them before baking. I have tried frying just liver slices in a pan, like chicken breast pieces. Once I made Leberknödel (dumplings from bread and liver), but they were extremely soggy and didn't cook through to the middle. I don't remember anything specific mother has made with liver, only that I didn't like it at the time.
How to transform liver into a lovely treat: Poor yourself a nice glass of wine, toss the liver in the bin, drink the wine, order take away. Yummy!
Liver (like any offal) needs to be as fresh as possible. Liver naturally has a dense texture, so over-cooking it results in the dry shoe leather effect that causes most people to hate it.
Soaking it in milk is a common technique, but I grew up with venison liver cooked quickly in a pan with spice mixes (usually a slightly spicy "cajun" or lemon-pepper).
I would suggest looking up some more modern recipes to see if you can find one that appeals to your tastes. Chefs like Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, who are keen on re-introducing people to these less popular cuts, tend to have recipes that will appeal to a modern palate.
General Tips from Joy of Cooking (with liver):
Soak for several hours in milk or a spicy marinade
Never toughen liver by cooking it too long or over excessive heat
Never cook beyond the point of tenderness
Good ingredients that pair with liver are Maderia, white wine, sour cream, nutmeg, or thyme
Good sauces that pair with liver are Bearnaise, Barbecue, Lyonnaise, and butter sauces like Lemon Butter or Brown Butter
Liver from younger animals is preferred, the paler the color the better
You may consider blanching the liver if it still has the tough outer membrane intact. Ice water on the side, boil water to cover the liver, dip for a moment or two, then plunge into ice bath to stop cooking. Loosen and peel membrane, slice, soak in milk for as long as you can, a few minutes to a few hours. Dry the slices and let them rest while you grill some onions and shiitake or oyster mushrooms, remove to platter. Coat them with spice or whole grain flour, fry in same hot pan as onion for a minute or so, turn do the same and return onion/mushroom mixture until hot. Remove to hot platter. Deglaze pan with vodka, vermouth, or broth and boil down to a slurry to drizzle over platter. OR for gravy, add some fat, the leftover flour and seasoning, cook until brown, add liquid or milk and stir like mad to keep lumps at bay. Yummy!
Re: salt: I've never had trouble with salt toughening liver; I have however, if I over cooked it.
slice it, put a bit of flour on the slices, fry it with onions (and bacon if you like). Have it with chips(french fries) and brown sauce or gravy.
Its a staple of english cafes.
My ex-wife became quite anemic at certain times of the year. Liver (specifically, chicken liver—it was easy to get at the farmer's market) was among the things we tried to maintain her iron levels (including iron supplements, the Lucky Fish, and large quantities of spinach). Frankly, I cannot stand liver—the smell, the taste, nor the mental image of a liver as a processor of toxins that I probably don't want to eat. However, I did find that pâté was a pretty tolerable way of preparing liver.
My understanding is that the general theory of pâté is that you caramelize a good quantity of shallots (or other onions) in a lot of butter, throw in the liver (making sure to keep enough space so that everything browns nicely, but keeping the temperature moderate), then deglaze the pan with some brandy or madeira or sherry or some such. The whole mess is then liquified in a blender or food processor, and allowed to cool. As it cools, the fats (from the butter and liver) solidify and you end up with something spreadable.
A few things which seemed to help (and, honestly, I got to liking various versions of pâté after exposure):
Soak the liver overnight. Most of the internet tells you to soak livers in milk. I just used water (or, on a few occasions, coffee, because... why not?). I'm not sure what magic the soaking does (though this has been addressed before), but an overnight soak seems to ameliorate some of the strong flavors.
Add strong flavors. When the onions are nearly done, add a ton of garlic. Or herbs and spices. This is probably not terribly French, but a teaspoon of cayenne is real nice in the preparation. I've also enjoyed pâté made with a lot of capers and anchovies (which give the whole concoction a salty, marine feeling). My guess is that things like tarragon, oregano, marjoram, etc are more traditional, but the goal is to add flavors that you like. You are cooking for yourself, so find the flavors you like.
Don't overcook it, but it doesn't really matter. Overcooking liver (or any meat, really) makes it tough. However, you are going to throw all of this into a blender and pulverize it. Sharp blades hide a lot of sins.
Trim the gristle (or don't). For chicken livers, this is honestly kind of a pain, but for larger animals, it is probably not so bad. Livers are surrounded by a lot of connective tissue and fat, and you likely want to make most of that go away. On the other hand, everything is going into the blender, so if you miss a bit of connective tissue, it isn't such a big deal (and you probably want to keep the fat... mmm... fat).
Being a secular Jew, I find that this is best spread on a matzoh, though any toasty or crunchy base will do (Ritz crackers if you are feeling a bit trashy, or some solid rye toast for a little eastern European flair—the crunch is important). A dollop of sour cream is also a nice touch.
Don't salt the liver until it has started cooking in the pan. If you salt it before you cook it, it will loose some of it's moisture, and the result will be leathery.
Are you sure? I have read many sources debunking this quite pervasive myth for steak, so I am inclined to assume that it isn't true for liver either.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.071146
| 2011-03-07T18:49:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12899",
"authors": [
"Anton",
"Daniel Ward",
"Elizabeth",
"Jason Patterson",
"Lindsay",
"Mien",
"Mitch Wheat",
"Unionhawk",
"anonymous",
"arielf",
"bazeblackwood",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5051",
"lori hediine",
"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
}
|
2336
|
Roti Canai cooking tips?
I am in love with Roti Canai, but I recently moved to a small island.
My local buddy at the farmers market sells Malaysian food, but she has been unable to make Roti Canai, so, what's the secret? Can anyone post a recipe or tips for getting it thin, nearly see-through, and crispy and soft when cooked?
if you don't know what this is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roti_canai
The link in the bottom of the Wikipedia page has a step-by-step guide with photographs.
Thanks, that second link is what I was looking for -- a method that does not require acrobatics.
A step by step guide from the wikipedia page:
http://chefinyou.com/2009/11/roti-canai-recipe/
reproduced here in case wikipedia changes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.071790
| 2010-07-20T13:32:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2336",
"authors": [
"Alix Axel",
"Peter V",
"Saar Drimer",
"Sam Holder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/982",
"papin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14007
|
Can I can vegetables using sous-vide?
My girlfriend and I were talking about the summer produce season approaching and hit on the idea of canning sous-vide. That is, rather than sterilizing by high heat for a short amount of time, you could sterilize with low heat for a large amount of time with a sous-vide setup. Particularly in the case of vegetables, which don't start to cook much until around 170 degrees, we thought that if we could use a lower-temperature process for a day or so we could can pickles and jams without having to boil them half to death. So: why is this stupid?
Here is why it's stupid:
Sous-vide doesn't get hot enough to kill botulism spores. Low acid foods will be very dangerous.
Boiling is required for a strong seal on canning jars.
All pectin jellies I have seen require boiling to set.
High acid recipes often call for processing in a water bath for a mere 10 minutes to seal the lids. Recipes that don't call for the water bath universally call for the product to be refrigerated.
Perhaps high acid foods could be vacuum sealed instead of bottled and pasteurized. It seems feasible but this is not the sort of thing you should experiment with. The failure conditions are catastrophic.
Per Douglas Baldwin, "a 6D reduction in non-proteolytic C. botulinum requires 520 minutes (8 hours 40 minutes) at 167°F (75°C), 75 minutes at 176°F (80°C), or 25 minutes at 185°F (85°C)" so I disagree with point one. Like with many other safety temperatures, boiling is recommended because it's instant death and doesn't require precision. Sous Vide allows a level of precision that lets you use much lower temperatures than traditional "safe" metrics.
Also, wrt 3, the pectin may need boiling to set, but that doesn't require that it boils for the whole time (assuming you're adding pectin rather than using the fruit's natural pectin). Bringing to a boil and then finishing sous vide would decrease the total amount of cooking you are doing and still allow the pectin to set.
Hmmmm, actually, I retract the information from Douglas Baldwin. That's only relevant if you're consuming the food quickly as the spores can survive these temperatures and become active again after canning.
@yossarian- I agree with you. It seems for high acid jam you could boil for a little while to set the pectin (possibly separate from the fruit), seal in a vacuum pouch and pasteurize. Is it possible to test this approach for safety without a lab or electron microscope?
Low heat pasteurisation is common in the food processing industry. They also use many other techniques including batch laboratory testing. Two low temperature techniques are:
Narrow tube pasteurisation. To ensure all food/liquid has been evenly heated and then cooled. Only suitable for food/liquid that can pass through a grid of narrow tubes. Can be as low as 72°C for 15 seconds. Similar to what happen on a dairy farm. Besides juices it is often used for tomato paste and fruit fillings
High voltage electric pulses (PEF?). Typically 20,000 V pulses for a few seconds. Used in juices and meats
None of these are suitable for a home environment, and it would not be worth the risk if you live in an area with a common botulism problem
Most people quite like the "bottled" (canned) taste and texture for none staple foods
Actually, you can use sous vide to preserve food in canning jars. The company "Chefsteps" has a guide on their website. They use an acidic brine, and quote well-known expert on sous vide safety, Douglas Baldwin, who writes: “Distilled 5 percent white vinegar, at about 2.6 pH, is very acidic. Food pathogens can’t grow below 4.0 pH, and vinegar is 25 times more acidic than this. (The pH scale is logarithmic, so 3.0 pH is 10 times more acidic than 4.0 pH.) Cooking or pasteurizing the pickles kills the pathogens that can grow below 4.6 pH, and the vinegar in this recipe is 100 times more acidic than this. For reasons of both taste and safety, our brines contain between 38 and 44 percent vinegar. So as the brine diffuses into the fruits and vegetables, it quickly acidifies them to below 4.0 pH, and so no food pathogens can grow. Since no food pathogens can grow, the pickles are safe to store in your cupboard.” Of course, this does not address making jams.
I ferment dill pickle spears. Many web sites suggest that you can pasteurize fermented pickles in a 180 degree water bath for 30 minutes. I am going to try this with my fermented pickles. I don't have enough room in my refrigerator to store all the pickles I ferment. I feel confident that the salt and lactic-acid from the lacto-fermentation process will be make everything fine.
Interesting. So this would stop the fermentation process? (and thus not need the fridge to slow it to prevent it over-fermenting and/or the vessel rupturing). ... and it would need to have a high enough ph so it could be shelf-stable)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.071896
| 2011-04-13T03:08:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14007",
"authors": [
"Ali Caglayan",
"E. Collins",
"George",
"Joe",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rla4",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2439
|
How should I use extra summer squash?
My CSA delivers me a lot of summer squash, more than I can actually find the time to cook in a week. Can I freeze the remainder in some way? Is there a quick recipe I should be making that stores well? I'm not thinking primarily of meals here -- if I had the time to cook dinners more regularly I wouldn't be overwhelmed -- but of things I can store for a while.
find a recipe for zucchini bread, substitute squash, then freeze it?
I feel your pain. If only I liked summer squash better...
You definitely can freeze squash -- thick slice it, blanch it in salty water briefly until almost tender, transfer to an ice bath until it's chilled, bag it, and put in the freezer.
Later, thaw and use with recipes that don't require ultra-crisp squash.
I blanch it, run it under cold water or put into ice water to stop any further cooking. Then I pat dry and store individual portions in the freezer. I love to make fritters with them and this makes it easy to do, not to mention it is a great way to save the wonderful flavors of summer squash.
Hope this is helpful.
SORRY, I see somebody else already answered. Still, now you know at least two of us agree that squash can be frozen. :-)
Have you tried Squash/Pumpkin Ravioli?
The filling is very easy to make
(Squash, egg, nutmeg, cinnamon, Cream)
and freezes very well.
If you have recipes that take shredded squash (or zucchini while you're at it), you can shred the squash and then place it in a freezer bag and then into the freezer.
This works really well for zucchini that's bound for bread, but squash for some soups, bread, or similar uses would work as well.
I just made refrigerator pickles out of a couple. Treat it just like you do cucumbers.
I slice it and cook 10 min in a little olive oil. Sometimes I add peppers,onions,eggplant,or tomatoes. Freeze in bags and pop into recipes such as sauces,soups, or stews. The squash actually has a bit of crunch to it doing it this way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.072282
| 2010-07-20T20:05:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2439",
"authors": [
"ErikE",
"Joe",
"Publia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"ibcj",
"mkm"
],
"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
}
|
8185
|
Where can I obtain cream without additives?
Until a few years ago, with only a little effort, I could find whipping cream and heavy cream without carrageenan and other undesirable ingredients in grocery stores. Now my source has dried up. How can I obtain cream that consists of nothing but cream? I typically only need small amounts and not all that frequently. I don't imagine I can just drive up to a dairy, knock the secret knock and whisper "psssst...where do you keep the good stuff?"
Are you in the US, UK or elsewhere?
@Bluebelle: Sorry, I meant to say that I'm in the US. Thanks for reminding me.
You should mention to the grocery stores that it's something you'd like to buy because if enough customers indicate an interest, that demand can cause responsive stores to carry a product. In much of Europe, whipping cream only contains one ingredient: cream. I've noticed that it has shifted in Canada as well, with many brands, adulterating their creams. In the Netherlands, none of the whipping cream brands in the grocery store appear to have any additives.
Move to another country that hasn't lost the plot!
Looking for a farmers market is a good way to find fresh possibly additive-free dairy, or to find recommendations on where to get fresh additive-free dairy. Just talk to the vendors. Most know more about the bad side of additives and hormones than us and look very diligently to avoid them.
Yes, many local dairy farms will have "raw" milk and other products (and most local dairy farmers will not use hormones, etc). They may not sell them at the Farmer's Markets, but usually you can order a la carte.
We have one dairy vendor at ours (in Downtown Columbus, OH) that sells fresh cheese products that are additive-free and from hormone-free cows. That said, I have not seen cream at his booth.
Be careful. In some states like Florida raw milk is illegal to sell. Saw a story about it on the news once.
@Zan true, "the federal government has not established any mandatory national safety standards for Grade A milk; no national law even regulates the sale of raw unpasteurized milk.
That has been left up to states and localities, which are best equipped to regulate, monitor and inspect the local dairy industry and respond to local reports of adulterated milk" (http://www.uspirg.org 2006).
You might check with localharvest.org and find a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) farm in your area. That is if you live in the U.S. Not sure if this type of thing is available in other countries, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is in some form.
The local harvest website has a search form where you can type in your zip code to look for CSA farms in your area.
Also, in my area I can get cream at natural foods groceries and at food co-ops. So you might check on those options in your area.
Organic Valley Heavy Whipping Cream (NOT the Ultra). I had to get my local health food store to special order me some, but they were very nice about it. I used one right away, then froze the rest. I've read frozen cream doesn't whip good, but I'm using it mostly for sauce anyway.
BTW, I found Organic Valley by doing a label search for heavy creams. Organic Valley was the ONLY one I could find without carrageenan.
Skim the cream off the top from the fresh raw milk you buy from a local farmer. I know it isn't as convenient as going to the store, but getting to know some real farmers can lead to other sources of good fresh products, like eggs, and grass fed chickens/ beef. If you buy in bulk, it can be cheaper, too.
You kinda have to network a bit. I am sorry it isn't easier, but the food chain in our 'modern' western world is seriously compromised.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.072470
| 2010-10-16T06:52:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8185",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"Bluebelle",
"Dennis Williamson",
"Jenn",
"John Curl",
"John McKim",
"Jonathan",
"Kyle",
"Macross",
"Noob101",
"SyBer",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"hugo",
"mfg",
"moodygrrl",
"tekniklr",
"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
}
|
2287
|
Is Teflon dangerous?
I've read that non-stick saucepans using Teflon are dangerous. Why do so many people still use them including all the professional chefs, and how do you personally feel about using them after reading this?
We are in the predicament at the moment where we have an induction stove and a titanium Woll pan which is non-stick but takes FOREVER to heat up. The only other non-stick pans are Teflon. What to do?
Get a good cast-iron pan. Season it well. Don't look back.
@Ocaasi We got a good heavy cast-iron pan but it got so hot that it damaged the glass surface of the induction cook-top and also damaged the heating function - not sure of which components. It's now being used in the oven for steaming bread which is works really well for!
Inductions works on magnetic metals only, like steel. Titanium is not magnetic so that is why it takes forever. It must have some steel to be heating at all. Sometimes pans encapsulate steel in the bottom.
I had a quick look around pubmed, an aggregator of biological and medical literature, and found very little in the way of actual scientific evidence for teflon toxicity under 500C. In fact, teflon is still widely in use in surgery and can be left inside the body for tens of years.
This does not mean that improper operation (such as overheating to the point of thermolysis) cannot result in compounds you would rather not have in your food. It will also ruin the pan. Don't do it.
I think you mean 500°F, not 500°C.
@derobert - 500°C may be right; it depends on what is meant by "toxicity." The really nasty compounds will only occur above about 450°C (about 850°F), and they aren't generated in significant quantities until 600-700°C. Depolymerization of teflon doesn't really happen at appreciable levels until about 350°C (about 650°F), after it has already started to degrade and melt. Below 650°F, you can have off-gassing of stuff (which can also occur below 500°F). The main concern in heating teflon above 500°F specifically is that the surface can degrade and ruin the pan, not really a safety threshold.
in the context of a hot plate (electric), should one never use the hot plate on say 6/6, would that be too much? how about a burner? I'm not sure how much heat these produce..
Apparently, heating Teflon to 400 degrees will release gasses that kill birds. I really wouldn’t trust it not to have adverse health effects on humans, as well. And if you’re careless, it’s fairly easy to heat Teflon to this high a temperature on a stovetop. Be careful!
I wouldn't put too much faith in articles you read on the internet or otherwise. Teflon poisoning is the least of your worries in a kitchen, the simple dangers associated with hot oil and boiling water far outweigh such trivialities. The fact that professional chefs, chemists and the majority of food safety experts do not worry is a good indicator that they're safe.
I am more interested in your induction hobs and this pan that isn't heating up. Some pans are not compatible with induction hobs, the electromagnetic induction doesn't work in the right way. It might be that your pan is simple incompatible with your hobs.
I think its important to note that many TV chefs have great vested interest in non-stick cookware each with their own range of pots and pans. There is a huge industry built around Teflon, and I don't really think this indicates safety.
I do agree that there is probably incompatibility between Woll and Miele Induction cook tops.
Well, I read the same several times, and it seems that some toxic elements appear at high temperatures, above 250C.
More can be found here
There is certainly a temperature above which the Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), on which Teflon(tm) is based, will break down. Below this point PTFE is very stable, almost inert (largely due to the strength of C-F and C-C bonds).
So: don't fry hot in Teflon. You can braise, stew, or fry slowly. They're no good for searing beef and such anyhow because they won't develop fond.
Frying my steaks is exactly what i want non-stick for! On my stainless steel pans, frying always leaves very difficult to clean residue.
Anyone know what temperature the pan is when searing steak?
@reckoner: I use cast iron for steaks, which is fine up to at least 600°F. But if you want to use stainless, try either deglazing or alternatively Bar Keeper's Friend to get the residue off. Pan temperature is probably around 500°F, depending on how much you heated it (and if going by oil smoking, which oil).
@derobert We tried a cast-iron pan but it damaged the induction cooktop heating function and glass surface because it got so hot. I think it was the thickness because a lower heat wasn't adequate for cooking steaks.
in the context of a hot plate (electric), should one never use the hot plate on say 6/6, would that be too much? how about a burner? I'm not sure how much heat these produce..
As long as you are using teflon pans in their intended role, there is no problem. Once the non-stick surface reaches a certain temperature, it starts to release fumes. For an adult human in a well ventilated kitchen, the danger from these is still extremely low.
Don't leave a non-stick pan sitting empty on an active burner.
Don't use a non-stick pan for deep-frying.
Don't use metal utensils (for lifespan of the pan, not danger to you).
Titanium is non-ferrous. Induction works through magnetic fields. If your pan was solid titanium I wouldn't expect it to work at all on an induction range. Since it is working slowly, there must be some other magnetic material underneath or inside the pan, but not enough to heat it properly.
For an induction range, you really need steel or iron pans. Solid aluminum and copper are also non-ferrous and won't work. From my understanding, the best pan is a tri-ply 18/10 steel pan. It has durable steel surfaces, and a layer of aluminum sandwiched in the middle to help distribute heat evenly through the pan. You can use pans with a non-stick surface as long as the base material is ferrous.
Teflon is an inert substance at all but the highest (making pizza maybe) temperatures. Dupont states that it becomes unstable above 260 Celsius or 500 Fahrenheit. Pyrolysis (breaking down of organic compounds in the absence of oxygen) is said to be detectable at 200 C/ 390 F.
Teflon is a result of a mistake by some chemists while trying to come up with an alternative refrigerant to those used at the inception of refrigeration (sulfur dioxide, poison, and anhydrous ammonia, stinky). Their task was to come up with an odorless, non-toxic gas which wouldn't stink or poison people, not conduct electricity, and still work well. Some of the cheap pots and pans I used a few decades ago would sometimes cast off small flakes of Teflon into my food (really skrinchy in the teeth), and I don't like the way Teflon cookware browns food, so I don't own but a small pot I use to make rice in.
But why do you even need to use it for rice? A little butter and it won't stick to the pan at all!
Apparently the aluminium that is found under the teflon coating is highly reactive and if you scratch the surface with a metal utensil, the aluminium will get exposed. Some pans of course have a thicker teflon coating than others.
Where can I find references to studies supporting that?
Aluminum is generally considered safe to eat; it’s the Teflon which can be poisonous if overheated.
If you heat teflon cookware up to temperatures above 500°F for a few minutes, it releases toxic gasses which will kill birds. See this article and this one. The second says that even teflon at 400°F can kill sensitive birds. I expect that these gasses aren't good for people, either.
But according to the second article above, if you keep your teflon cookware under 400°F, it's safe.
If you cover your floor in Teflon you are more likely to slip…
However I have never heard of any real risk of using Teflon as indented.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.073180
| 2010-07-20T07:39:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2287",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Athanasius",
"Binil",
"Chipaca",
"Chloe",
"Colin K",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Ocaasi",
"Peter Shor ",
"Richard",
"Sophie Alpert",
"X10",
"asthasr",
"bobobobo",
"derobert",
"docwhat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"jellyfishtree",
"tkit",
"vaughan"
],
"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
}
|
9238
|
How long will a whole turkey keep in a refrigerator?
My daughter bought a fresh, organic, kosher turkey from Trader Joe's last night (her first turkey!), 8 days before she will start cooking it.
The company customer service representative as well as the store manager all reassure us that their turkeys are fine to refrigerate in the coldest part of the refrigerator for as long as 10 days.
The turkey's sell-by date is Nov. 28 - two days after Thanksgiving. The information on their own food storage guide as well as some other info I have read say that 1 - 2 days is the proper amount of time to store a fresh turkey.
TJ's says that the manner in which they transport their turkeys - at a nearly, but not quite frozen, state extends that time.
As long as she stores it unopened in the coldest, bottom part of her fridge (and turns the temperature down as well), will the turkey survive until Thanksgiving? She plans to brine the turkey a day or two ahead of cooking it also.
Sorry I can't tell you for sure, but I can give my experience. Last fresh turkey I bought, the fat under the skin went rancid in the two days I kept it refrigerated before brining it. I don't think it was kept properly at the store before I picked it up, to be honest. If your bird gets rancid, you'll be able to tell, believe me.
I really don't believe anyone responsible enough is going to recommend you to eat something you've doubts about ...
Not all turkeys are the same, and personally, I would not risk letting an entire turkey go rancid in the refrigerator. There is so much you don't know about this turkey:
How was it butchered? In particular, how long was it sitting on the block and was it packed immediately afterward or left sitting out for a long time?
How quickly was it cooled down to "transporting" temperature after butchering?
Was it transported immediately, or was it stored for a while before transport, and if so, what were those storage conditions?
How specifically was it transported? What were the environmental conditions, aside from temperature? Was it exposed to air? Could it have picked up any other contaminants?
Just how cold was the refrigerator at Trader Joe's? Are you sure that it's consistently that cold?
What if the turkey was shifted around? For example, what if some other customer picked it up, tossed it in a shopping cart, then after an hour of shopping decided to put it back?
How did she transport it? I'm guessing in a non-temperature-controlled trunk? How long was it in that condition/environment before finally making it into the fridge?
Was the temperature in the fridge turned down as far as it can go long before putting the turkey in there? If not, how long might it have taken to get down to the desired temperature, especially with a massive slightly-warmed-up turkey in there?
How cold does her refrigerator get? Is it a new refrigerator? Are you both certain that it gets as cold as the rep at TJ's is assuming? Have you actually stuck a thermometer in there to measure the environmental temperature around where the turkey would be stored?
I'm not expecting you to answer any of these; my point is just that there are so many variables, so many things that can go wrong, and the quoted 10-day storage period (as well as the sell-by date) is for storage under ideal conditions.
I've seen turkeys go rancid in the fridge after just 2 days. I've seen others take longer, but still far less than 10 days to go rancid. It's an incredibly frustrating and completely avoidable experience. Just put it in the freezer! She just needs to make sure she gives it a couple of days to thaw in the fridge, due to the size of the bird. A half-frozen turkey on Thanksgiving day is almost as useless as a rancid one.
Yes, we are going to freeze the turkey and then take it out to thaw on Monday. On Tuesday night we will start the brining process. Thanks for the good advice. Every year the turkey trauma begins anew.
The question is old, with an upvoted, accepted answer, but I still want to put in my two cents. Personally, I wouldn't be concerned about a turkey I kept refrigerated and planned to serve 2 days before the sell-by date (which still allows for more time before the bird is expected to be cooked), but that's just me. If you are at all concerned (and assuming that everything looks and smells as it should) get it into brine sooner rather than later. I've brined turkeys for as long as four days. I'm sure you can brine for longer than that with no problem, but since I have no experience with that I can only say that you're fine up to four days. That means you can put it in the brine on Saturday to remove it on Wednesday to dry before roasting. That will reduce your regular refrigerator storage time by 4 days, while brining the salt will give added protection against spoilage. To brine a turkey for more than 36 hours use a half strength brine, 2.5% salt or 2 oz salt by weight (4 Tablespoons kosher salt or 3 Tablespoons table salt) per 10 cups water. Be sure to rinse it thoroughly upon removal from the brine. Pat it dry with paper towels then leave it in the fridge to dry more completely before cooking it normally on turkey day.
@user40943 On brining kosher turkeys, see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19111/brining-a-kosher-bird
Another thing you could do to keep it from spoiling in the brine as long as possible: add some ice. The ice present in the brine will keep the brine-ice-bath slightly above 32°F (above due to lack of stirring). As long as the fridge is reasonably close to that temperature, you won't suffer that much ice melting (diluting the brine). Or keep the entire sealed-in-plastic bird in an ice bath.
I agree with the fact you cannot depend on the pretreatment of the bird before you purchased it . I also have seen a Turkey go bad in around three days of purchase , not a friendly site or smell lol .Your best turkey is going to be fresh and cooked at once ,If possible. Happy Holiday's
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.073795
| 2010-11-18T16:57:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9238",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"DANIEL JETER",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Hajni",
"Pulsehead",
"Vicki Daniel",
"bikeboy389",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"mamadalgas",
"neubert",
"urmila sr2001",
"user18888"
],
"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
}
|
6810
|
How to keep fresh lemon juice for a week without a change in its taste?
Are there any way to preserve the juice of lemon for, say, one week without a change in its taste?
Even deep-freezing it makes it little bit bitter!
I do not think that there is a better way they not to squeeze the lemon until you need them :D
Regardless, if you want to do testing and are concerned about the bitter notes that develop , I recommend doing the research with grapefruit instead as it turns bitter is a matter of minutes and has a much stronger bitter flavor then the lemons do.
That way you at least have a shorter turn around time.
You need to freeze them and You can find all tips here http://drinklemonwater.com/ways-to-preserve-lemon-juice/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.074257
| 2010-09-06T07:19:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6810",
"authors": [
"Ayhan Erdem",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80028"
],
"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
}
|
4503
|
How to cook bison burgers (a.k.a. buffalo burgers)?
I'm wondering how to cook frozen bison burgers (also known as buffalo burgers). The package (Carmen Creek) says "cook slightly less than regular hamburgers" - but since I'm not a cook, and have no real idea how to cook hamburgers, that's not so useful :) It also says, "cook 3 minutes per side at 160 degrees".
I have a Tappan electric stove with dials that have settings of 2-6/hi/low/, and a Calphalon 12'' pan of some sort (the edges are angled).
So, how exactly do you determine which number is 160 degrees? :) I've tried various settings, and have yet to get burgers that look right, they're either too rare, or mushy and fall apart when I remove them from the pan. Or maybe that's how bison burgers just are? How can I tell when they are cooked correctly?
@hobodave, not that I'm complaining, but the package does call them buffalo - is there a difference?
The meat comes from the American bison which is not a buffalo.
@hobodave You're being needlessly pedantic about the "buffalo" issue; common usage has the term synonymous with bison (that's even made clear at the top of the article to which you linked).
@Cyclops When I make bison burgers, I add a bit of butter or oil to the pan to help get a flavorful sear on them because of the meat's low fat content.
@hobodave I wasn't trying to open a discussion, just to make a point where it would do the most good, much as I've seen you do many times on this site. Please feel free to start your own discussion about this issue if think it's warranted.
+1 for asking this question! I'm making bison burgers this week and didn't even consider whether cooking them would be any different than cooking beef burgers.
@hobodave, after thinking over the issue, I've added back the word buffalo :) My reasoning is based on general StackOverflow principles - whether the word is technically correct or not, people may search using the "wrong" word (buffalo), and if they don't find it, will put up a duplicate Question with just the one word changed. This way the Question can be found by anyone searching with either term. Also, it would be nice if someone could add a buffalo tag for that reason. Or not.
@Cyclops: Good point, thanks!. There's no need for a buffalo tag however. If and when such a tag arises it can be made a synonym of bison.
The temperature is 160 F (71 C) is not referring to the setting of your stove but to the internal temperature that the meat should reach. You measure this using an instant read thermometer. Just put your oven on medium to medium-high heat and shoot for 3 minutes per side and see what temperature it has reached at that time. It will depend on how thick the patties are.
It's also important to let the meat thaw before using. Don't try to cook any meat frozen. Your burgers should be first thawed in your refrigerator and then brought to room temperature for 30 minutes to an hour prior to cooking.
In case you aren't aware, bison is a much leaner meat than beef and thus benefits greatly from not being cooked well-done. If you trust the quality of your bison shoot for rare to medium-rare.
The packaging does say, "cook frozen burgers about three minutes per side" - is this maybe different from hamburger meat? Maybe the time it takes to thaw via cooking, also shortens the time or something?
@Cyclops The package's instructions are poorly worded; all meat should be thawed before it's cooked.
Regardless of the package, you should get more even cooking and better browning with room temperature (or at least thawed) meat.
Eh. I've always thawed frozen patties, but I also haven't cooked them in years.
Buffalo meat is one of the healthiest meats out there. That's great, but its lower fat content means it's easier to overcook. You don't want overcooked meat of any kind, but especially not lean meat like Buffalo.
160 degrees is an 'internal temperature'; how hot the buffalo needs to get before it's considered cooked, or safe to eat. If you have a food thermometer, you can test it directly. If not, use a temperature slightly hotter than medium on your stove. Let the pan get hot for about 2-3 minutes first. Add the meat for 2-3 minutes each side. Try one and adjust accordingly: If the outside is getting black not brown, lower the heat slightly. If the outside is not browning at all, turn up the heat slightly. If the inside is still raw looking, cook a little longer. If the inside is cooked 100% through and bordering on dry or chewy, cook a little shorter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.074360
| 2010-08-07T01:27:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4503",
"authors": [
"0x4B1D",
"Archibald",
"Brino",
"Cyclops",
"Edwin",
"Issam",
"Iuls",
"JustRightMenus",
"Ocaasi",
"Tim Potter",
"goofyui",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9174",
"mikebmassey",
"smokris",
"spongefile"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
31948
|
How to cook grass-fed, high-fat hamburger on electric stove?
I've managed, through trial-and-error, to learn how to cook regular hamburgers on an electric stove. But recently, I've switched to grass-fed beef (with 25% fat, higher than regular hamburgers), with less-than-stellar results. So, given these conditions:
An Electric stove (Yes, although every cooking book I've seen, thinks you should be cooking with gas - my apartment has an electric stove, so that's what I use.)
U.S. Wellness Meats grass-fed, 75% lean burgers. These are pre-formed, and 25% fat, which is higher than the standard burgers I used to cook. I'm sure the fat content affects cooking - I'm just not sure how.
12" Calphalon non-stick skillet (although I'm wondering if I should replace it, that's a separate issue).
Infrared thermometer - very nice tool, I can't imagine not having one after using it.
What I want to know, is how, using only these resources, to cook a burger that is at least medium-well, if not well-done. So far, I've generally managed to get the outside too cooked, or the inside too pink.
I'd appreciate detailed, step-by-step instructions, if anyone has them. Even the so-called basic cookbooks seem to give just one-liners, for things like hamburgers.
For instance, one situation I don't know what to do about - after about a minute, the burger starts to bow up, so the underside isn't touching the skillet. It's obviously not getting cooked, so now what? I've seen posts saying you shouldn't press down grass-fed burgers. Most of the time, I'll flip it after a minute, so it's flatter. Is that a good method? I have no idea.
Or they say "cook on medium-high heat". Well, my electric stove doesn't have a medium-high setting, it has numbers 1-6. Give me a specific temperature (say, 350F), and I'll use the infrared thermometer to find it.
Update: yes, the hamburgers have thawed out in the refrigerator for a day, and I usually set them out while the stove is heating up. I also have an internal thermometer. As for using an oven - I'd prefer to use only the listed resources (with a skillet), rather than extra items (don't have a cast-iron skillet, don't want to cleanup a baking dish). If there is no other way to cook them well, I'd go with the oven, but I'd rather not.
There's really no need to defend the fact that you're using an electric stove. Tons of people use them, and gas just responds faster - if you're cooking at constant heat, there's no difference.
You should clarify (or check) the temperature of the patties when you put them in the pan, since frozen / fresh from an extra cold refrigerator patties are definitely a root cause of "overcooked on the outside, pink on the inside".
One of the main points of free range and grass fed animals (besides being humane) is that the meat has a nicer texture. Grinding it up means you can't tell whether it was free range or factory
@TFD, I'm not sure what your point is - that I should stop eating hamburgers?
If you are having difficulty with grass fed ground beef, switch back to your regular ground beef. Once it's ground up there is no difference in texture (the main difference in grass feed beef), and little in taste
@TFD, but there is a big difference in nutritional value of grass-fed beef, which is the reason I switched in the first place.
The answers are in, and I'm still trying to figure out if Wellness Burgers are cooked from frozen or thawed. I use grass-fed beef myself, but I make my own patties with a much lower fat content ground beef.
Summary or "detailed" instructions: flip frequently, and if it's still cooking too fast on the outside and too slow on the inside, adjust the temperature down a little. Maybe you'll take two or three tries to get it perfect, but such is life.
Medium-high probably means somewhere between halfway and maximum on your stove. There's no temperature, don't worry about obsessing with a thermometer. Just try something 4-5, see how it goes, and adjust if necessary. (A thermometer doesn't really help, in any case, because what you care about in the end is the power output of the stove, not the temperature the pan is at.)
Flip as frequently as you want or need to. It'll make it cook more evenly, because you're effectively heating from both sides, instead of letting one side stay cool while the other side cooks. It will also reduce the total cooking time. Notably, Harold McGee has been advocating this for a while, and it really does work - see this blog for some nice plots and cross-sections from simulations, or this Food Lab post for a nice hands-on test with burgers. You can flip as often as every 15 seconds if you want to pay that much attention to it.
If you still have trouble with the outside being too cooked (or the inside not being cooked enough), simply reduce the heat. This is universal advice, not at all specific to burgers. Alternatively, for burgers, you could make them thinner.
We often post at the same time, although this time with different ideas :-)
+1 also, for alternate method, and generous comments
Thanks, this did it. I had previously tried a number of temperatures and times, the last down to 275F for fifteen minutes, without getting closed to fully cooked. My latest experiment was 300F+ for ten minutes, flipping every thirty seconds - and the burger was completely cooked.
Cooking any item to well done is tricky. I suggest you use a variant of the method that restaurants often use:
Place the seared hamburgers in a pre-heated 350 F oven until cooked through to your liking, probably another 10-15 minutes depending on thickness, temperature, and other idiosyncracies. You want an internal temperature of 160 F (measure with an instant read thermometer) for medium-well. They will be grey and unappetizing looking, but that is okay.
After removing the burgers from the oven, preheat your frying pan (without the burgers) to very, very hot. Sear the hamburgers on each side until they are brown, crusty, and delecious looking.
You should use a pan which is suitable for both stovetop and oven use at these temperatures, or you can use two different pans. Cast iron is ideal for the stovetop searing.
This method is also suitable for a wide range of foods, not just hamburgers.
I think you might want to sear after cooking in the oven - there's some discussion of this method in the Food Lab post I mentioned in my answer as well. That way the nice outer layer is freshly cooked, so the crust is in better shape.
@Jefromi For a steak, I would definitely agree, and CI advocates this as well for steaks. Interesting idea for a hamburger, but since I like mine medium rare, I won't be trying it :-) Okay, I just reread that part of Kenji's article, and I but it. Updating answer.... Thanks.
Cool! I suspect that the sear first idea is associated with the myth that searing somehow seals in juices. (+1)
Start slow, my electric stove surprised me after using gas for a while, with how hot it could get. Medium or even a little lower at first. The brown searing will come as the patty cooks, and there is no need to "seal in" flavor with an initial high-temp sear.
When forming patties by hand, it is helpful to put a "dent" in the middle with your thumb, so the patty is thicker around the edges than in the middle. You can do this to your preformed patties before putting them on, and the middle will puff up so it is disk shaped, instead of ballooning into a football shape.
For now, your nonstick pan will be okay, but please do consider something else. My recommendations are a seasoned cast-iron pan (I saw these at the grocery store for $15-30). Never use soap on them, and learn to keep them seasoned. They'll hold up to high temperature frying much better than nonstick (and with 25% fat, you really won't have to worry about the burgers sticking regardless). On your electric stove a heavy iron pan will even out the heat from the burner. Otherwise, if you want something more similar to nonstick that you can wash, look for black enameled cast iron. They're more expensive, but pretty handy to have around.
Cast iron is a poor conductor of heat; it is almost guaranteed to be worse at evening out heat than another type of pan. They do have a lot of thermal mass, so once they've heated to equilibrium, when you throw something in, they hold that temperature fairly well. But other pans will do a much better job of, for example, conducting heat to the part under the burger from the hotter parts without anything on them. It's still a good pan to use for this kind of thing, but not because of conducting heat.
Quite true, I guess more what I was meaning is that the thermal mass evens out the high-low cycle of the electric burner turning on and off to control temperature. High heat conductivity, like in an aluminum pan, is probably something you want to avoid for this type of cooking.
Sear first on high heat to lock in juices, then reduce heat to complete the cooking. It works.
This got down voted and voted for close as "It's low Quality", however I feel this post answer just answers the question in the most direct fashion. The original question appears to be trying to over complicate the cooking of a humble burger.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.074762
| 2013-02-15T17:20:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/31948",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cyclops",
"Doug",
"Joshua Kast",
"Marshal Tembo",
"Matthew Hupert",
"Mr R",
"NeeNee",
"Ozy",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shalryn",
"Shawnee Slim",
"Sherie Panarello",
"TFD",
"Tacroy",
"Venkat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73456",
"mcleanlauren",
"sweetmeat"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3035
|
Chocolate mousse without eggs
I've a friend who is allergic to egg protein, and my wife inadvertently raved about my chocolate mousse to her, causing some food borne awkwardness that I'd like to erase with an eggless mousse.
I've done some experimenting though, and I'm not happy with the results. Can anyone think of a substitution that would hold air and provide the light mousse-y texture, but not be an egg? Can't be corn-based either, due to an additional corn allergy.
I've been pleased with this Good Eats recipe in the past, which uses whipped cream plus gelatin; have you tried this yet?
Try Hervé This's chocolate Chantilly. Water plus chocolate. Quite stunning.
It is amazing and quick to make. The portions need to be a bit smaller, as it's rich. Sometimes I dilute This' Chantilly with whipped cream.
Ended up going with the "Good Eats" version that Dennis posted, but I topped it with some of your suggested Chantilly. First class.
We have been making mousse with aquafaba (the liquid drained off a can of chickpeas). It's whisked by the food processor into a thick foam and then the chocolate is folded in. Quite popular approach in vegan circles.
An egg is such an amazing little thing that it doesn't really have any direct substitutes. To get the lightest eggless mouse possible you'll have to stick to heavy cream, sugar, and chocolate.
Gently melt 3.5 oz. of dark chocolate over low heat. While that melts, whip together 5 oz. of heavy cream and 1 oz. of sugar until it's foamy. When the chocolate is ready, gently fold it into the whipped cream. Pour it into your serving dishes (serves 4-6) and refrigerate for at least an hour until cool.
This won't be as rich or as light as mousse made with eggs, but it's still good!
Silken tofu mousse recipes couldn't be easier. Yes, can get it quite light. Maybe not as aerated as with egg or gelatin but without the off flavors of either
This is going to sound rather unorthodox, but whipping chilled instant chocolate pudding will make a nice mousse substitute. I can't call it mousse really, but you honestly can't tell the difference unless you are taste testing side by side with one made from fresh shaved chocolate. Obviously the real mousse will be much richer when tasted side by side, but this trick works as a cheap, quick and very easy substitute.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.075591
| 2010-07-23T22:04:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3035",
"authors": [
"CodeMedic",
"FCTW",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Tim B James",
"fazen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7774",
"klokop",
"music2myear",
"papin",
"xdumaine"
],
"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
}
|
1130
|
How can I barbecue salmon steak?
I have two Salmon steaks that I would like to Barbeque. What are some effective techniques for barbecuing salmon?
Buy a cedar plank. Soak it in salted water for a couple of hours
Rub the salmon with olive oil and season it with a little bit of salt, I use kosher salt or smoked sea salt but regular table salt will work just fine. Then put the salmon on top of the plank, skin side down. Then put the plank on the BBQ. You can see the fish cook, it will get pinkish-white starting from the skin and traveling up. If your grill has a top, close it and cook for about 20-30 minutes. Check it to make sure it's not drying out. Internal temp should be around 130 or so.
also great is to marinade the salmon in Italian dressing for ~10 minutes (at most 30 so that the salmon doesn't disintegrate when you try to pick it up).
I like making a dry rub with brown sugar, paprika, chipotle powder, thyme, black pepper, salt, and parsley. To cook, dredge in a bit of olive oil, then pat with the rub. It'll caramelise wonderfully and lends a really nice taste - smoky sweet with a bit of a bite.
You're making me hungry.
The only thing I've ever done for BBQ salmon is to put something on it (I usually just put a couple lemon slices, sometimes a bit of BBQ sauce) wrap it in foil, and cook it.
A quick and easy way is to grill with a slice of bacon and slice of lemon on top. Set the bacon and lemon aside while flipping, then put back on top.
i love doing it this way, it's not quite "BBQ" other than that it is cooked on the bbq itself.
put the steaks on some foil then salt & pepper them. lay on top of them some lemon slices and some sprigs of oregano. put a splash of white wine on it then seal the foil into a tent shape with the steak inside. pull off after about 10 minutes or until the steaks are how you like them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.075819
| 2010-07-16T19:33:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1130",
"authors": [
"Bell Mans",
"Bob Higbee",
"Darren Kopp",
"Eugene Yokota",
"Ihsir",
"JSBձոգչ",
"Jennifer",
"Jimmy Hoffa",
"Marc ",
"Ravi",
"Sam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/843",
"milesmeow",
"raji",
"wormintrude"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27610
|
What should I do with candied citron?
My inlaws just gave me a gift of candied whole citron (not just the peel) that they picked up from southern Italy. It was very thoughtful and just in time for Sukkot!
However, I'm just not sure what to do with it. I did taste a small slice of it plain and it was pretty good--not at all bitter nor too sweet.
I'd read that you can put it in your cereal, and that it's also used in ricotta pie or panettone--though I don't see myself making those. Are there other good uses?
Well, if it comes directly from Southern Italy you could use it to make some Southern Italy specialty like pastiera napoletana, sfogliatelle napoletane or cannoli siciliani, all of which require candied fruits.
Traditionally pastiera is done with a mix of candied citron and orange peel plus candied pumpkin (cucuzzata) which however is not the easiest ingredient to find.
Citrus is definitely a must for sfogliatelle. There are two types of sfogliatelle ricce and frolle. Sfogliatelel ricce are better tasting in my opinion, but can be challenging to do at home.
Sfogliatella riccia
Sfogliatella frolla
Cannoli traditionally only have candied orange peels, but I guess citron would do well in them anyway.
Cannolo siciliano
Note: the pastry in the Wikipedia photo for pastiera seems way too thick and crumbly. The pastry should be very thin, there just to keep everything together, and should not be the dominant taste.
Wikipedia reports (without references):
Succade is sometimes used in cakes, as a filling for pound cake,
oliebol, plum pudding, florentines, sfogliatelle, fruitcake or
ontbijtkoek. It is also added to raisin bread. Succade is often
combined with currants, raisins and cherries. Candied citron peel is
often coated in chocolate and eaten as confectionery. Chopped succade
is also used in cannoli.
Why not try making panforte with it? i made that a few times with other candied fruits, but can immagine that the freshness of citron would really fit nicely with it
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.076031
| 2012-10-05T00:20:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27610",
"authors": [
"404",
"Jay Mahaffey",
"M4stah",
"Mario Dureg",
"Rizwan Niaz Raiyan",
"ThinkTank",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64896",
"lmotl3",
"paul mckiernan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30859
|
What happens to boiled pasta if you use too little water?
There are almost always guidelines on pasta packages for the amount of water you should use when boiling. Sometimes I'd like to use a pot that's on the smaller side, and that got me wondering; what actually happens to pasta if you use too little water (assuming it's at least fully submerged)?
See:
What is the correct water to pasta ratio?
How much water to put in my pasta pot?
Short answer: if you stir once or twice at the beginning to prevent sticking, and all of the pasta is submerged, you can very successfully make pasta in a reasonably small quantity of water.
Here is a direct link to the Serious Eats article both of the answers above cite.
Anytime you boil a starchy food, like pasta or potatoes (or yuca :), some of the starch ends up in the water (or broth/stock) and thickens it a bit. Now when you're making a stew, you want that thickening to happen, so you use somewhat less liquid to pasta/potatoes. But generally when you're just making pasta alone, you want the pasta noodles to remain separate and you don't want any more thickening than necessary.
Also important is that if you're talking about dried pasta, the pasta needs sufficient water to rehydrate.
At the extreme, if you used just barely more water than pasta, the pasta would heat but never fully rehydrate and/or you'd end up with a sticky, underdone mass.
Actually, the Serious Eats article referenced in the accepted answer debunks most of your claims. The one about the starchier water ends up making no difference for cooking pasta, and proves to be even handier for use in thickening your sauce later.
Cute article. But it doesn't debunk anything I said. The author points out the increasing concentration of starch-in-water if you use less water. Whether starchy water is something desirable or not depends on the cook/sauce/application. And when he used the bare minimum of water, he did in fact have to stir the pot a fair bit, and check doneness frequently - not necessarily something everyone feels like/has time to do.
@MandisaW As you said: "At the extreme, if you used just barely more water than pasta, the pasta would heat but never fully rehydrate and/or you'd end up with a sticky, underdone mass." This was definitely debunked regardless whether you had to stir the pasta a lot or not. And this is the very extreme. If you cover your pasta with enough water, you only need to initially stir the pasta.
@MandisaW Fom my reading of the article (and from experience), pasta has to be stirred to begin with regardless of how much water is used.
@MandisaW The point is that you can use substantially less than is commonly used and everything will be fine. The starchy water gets poured down the drain. The question does say "assuming it's at least fully submerged", and as long as it is, it will cook fine.
I suppose this will be good news for people tightening their water budget then. As for me, I like fix-and-forget pasta, so I'll stick with my usual water:pasta ratio (not buckets, but not "barely submerged" either).
@MandisaW it's not only water that's wasted when you add more than needed, but energy wasted from unneeded heating to get a larger mass to boiling, as well as increased time waiting for the larger volume of water to boil.
One of the reasons for using lots of water to cook pasta is that the temperature of the boiling water does not drop drastically when adding the pasta when it is proportioned that way...the water will just keep boiling...or reboil very fast..
however, using little water for lots of pasta...will drop the water temperature too low and then takes longer time to reboil..the result is starchy, sticky, and gummy pasta that was sitting in lukewarm water too long..
The standard for Chefs is one liter water (4Cups) per 100 g pasta (around 3 oz)...and of course salt..lots of room for the pasta not to be crowded..
Unfortunately, while I have no doubt about the standard practice, the science behind it has been debunked. As Kenji Alt has pointed out in his article on pasta, has pointed out, the amount of energy required to bring water back up to temperature is not proportional to either the amount of water or its temperature before the pasta was added, but rather the volume of pasta and how much energy it absorbed. See the link for more.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.076236
| 2013-02-12T17:42:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30859",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chef Mike",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Eric Brooks",
"Jay",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Jerry",
"Julie Demoor US Military",
"MandisaW",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SVill",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"janeylicious",
"mndl"
],
"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
}
|
32997
|
Why do brisket recipes move to the oven to finish?
In the Cooks Illustrated BBQ brisket recipe and many others I've seen, they call for moving the brisket from the grill where they are being smoked to the oven to finish. I'm wondering why the recipes call for this step rather than finishing in the grill.
Convenience: It's more convenient and easier to monitor the temperature inside the home. The oven has a thermostat, where the grill temperature needs to be monitored and adjusted manually.
No smoke left: Is could be assumed that the smoke has been exhausted.
Too much smoke: The smoke flavor could become too strong if finished on the grill.
There's really no reason to move the brisket into the oven aside from convenience and ease of temperature control, with the contrasting point also being true that there's no rule that says you have to leave your meat on the grill for the entire cook. After a few hours, the brisket will have taken on about as much smoke as it can/should. So if it makes sense to finish cooking it in the oven, there is nothing keeping you from doing so. Also bear in mind that a gas grill is not the most efficient means of cooking with indirect heat. You will use a lot of propane to maintain even relatively low roasting temperatures, while an oven requires far less energy to achieve the same effect.
If it were me, I would be inclined to keep the brisket in the cooker if I were using a charcoal grill, or a smoker, where the cooking chamber is more suitable for retaining ambient heat. I would be less inclined to keep it on a gas grill the entire time, as it's not worth blowing through the bulk of a propane tank for no discernible benefit.
All of your postulations are valid. A couple more below. These would my main concerns:
A normal grill has a tendency to be wilder in control and cooking to the centre properly might become unpredictable. Though I have seen full grill recipes with the Big Green Egg. This you can mitigate using an insertion probe thermometer.
Purpose of the grill is deliver flavor to the outer layer of the meat. It doesn't do much for the center and it tends to dry out the meat in long term since the humidity escapes. In the oven it reaches a saturation point and prevents turning the outside into leather as the center is being cooked. This you can't easily mitigate on the grill. If you look carefully at their picture, you can see a break in color and texture at about 1/2" depth where it goes from gray-ish brown to moist pinkish color. They are trying to prevent that break line to get too deep in the meat.
Your first bullet point is can be true in some cases, but your latter point bears no merit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.076610
| 2013-03-25T14:29:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32997",
"authors": [
"FitzChivalry",
"HectorLector",
"Juan Carlos Gama flores",
"Sean Hart",
"Vylette",
"ale19",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76355",
"irsyed",
"kittenparry",
"micheala",
"theresa gifford"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36426
|
What's an effective method to strain liquids?
When I make horchata or aqua frescas, I often have a large volume (quarts) of liquid that could benefit from straining. Usually only the small fine mesh strainer can get out the fine particles that remain after running the juices through the blender.
I haven't really seen very fine mesh strainers that are bigger than a couple inches across; I'd like to be able to strain a large volume at once. Are there any tricks of the trade?
At restaurant supply stores, you can get much larger fine strainers than consumer stores normally have. Another type is the chinoise or china cap, which may or may not be suitable for your needs; these typically have very fine mesh. These can be available in larger capacities.
You may also have success with a tamis, which is a drum type strainer, although these are harder to find.
Cheese cloth is easy to find and does a great job when we make horchata.
More Details
I use a regular mesh strainer like the one below, and I line it with a few layers of cheese cloth. Depending on your colander's design, it might work too.
The number of layers depends on what your straining, and how loose the cheesecloth is. I use it more often to make mascarpone cheese and I typically use 3 or 4 layers.
I set the strainer over a large bowl and load the strainer and cheese cloth with as much unstrained liquid as it will take. Something like horchata shouldn't take too long, a few minutes maybe. When I make mascarpone I set the strainer (in its bowl) in the refrigerator overnight.
Could you be more specific about how you use the cheesecloth? How many layers do you use? Do you place it into a large funnel? Can you pour in two quarts or more and wait, or does it flow right through?
Frequently health food stores and asian markets will have "milk bags" that are used for straining soy milk and nut milks. They usually look either like a pillowcase with a drawstring at the open end, or occasionally a long cloth tube with a wire handle. Either way, you pour the liquid in and the fine mesh of the cloth holds the particles back, but the large surface area allows the liquid to drain quickly. You then rinse the cloth inside out and wash it before reusing. I've used them to make both nut milks and cold brewed coffee and they work a lot faster than a strainer of equivalent mesh size. Another advantage is that the cloth allows you to squeeze the liquid out of the pulp for maximum yield.
I've been using this strainer To help me strain liquids, it has smaller holes and bigger space. You can have some of these at Elisabeth Nielsen's webite.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.076883
| 2013-08-30T02:24:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36426",
"authors": [
"Alexander Semenkevich",
"Benjamin Brannon",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Liza Farris",
"SL Filho",
"Virginia Lutonsky",
"Vonda Hart",
"Wojtek Stec",
"Yvonne Fagnano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85509",
"qettin baxk in shape",
"user807327"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32192
|
How would I susbtitute fresh spinach for frozen?
I have many recipes that call for frozen spinach but only have fresh spinach on hand.
Suppose I have a recipe that calls for, say a 10 oz. package of frozen chopped spinach with the water squeezed out. Short of blanching and freezing, how can I prepare the functional equivalent using fresh spinach?
I'd like to know the approximate equivalent weight of the fresh spinach, plus some procedure for removing the moisture such that I don't end up with a watery mess in the end product.
Frozen spinach has been boiled/blanched. You can do this if you really want it to be as much like frozen spinach as possible, but really, you can just cook it with the water left on the leaves from washing - effectively a bit more like steaming. There's no need to freeze it. This will result in something with fresher flavor and a bit more substantial texture than frozen spinach (not as eager to disintegrate). And you don't have to worry about moisture much - a lot of the water will cook off - but you can certainly drain it additionally if it's too much for you.
If you really want it exactly like frozen spinach, you could boil it, and maybe even freeze it to help mess up the texture, but I'm guessing you'd prefer cooked fresh spinach anyway. In this case, you'd have to squeeze and drain it just like with frozen spinach to get the water out. (If it's unclear how to do this, see What is the most efficient way to squeeze water out of cooked spinach?.)
Based on nutrition facts for raw spinach and frozen spinach, one 10 ounce package is approximately the amount you'll get from cooking a 340g (12 ounce) bunch of spinach - that weight is probably after removing the stems you're not actually going to cook, though. This fits with my experience cooking down spinach. Most things you'll use it in are really forgiving, so probably best to err on the larger side with your bunch of spinach!
Are you metric or imperial?
I'm less concerned about the taste difference (I certainly prefer the taste of fresh spinach) and more concerned about the possible excess moisture content of replacing frozen squeezed spinach with fresh.
The fresh will cook way down, and you can squeeze it if you desire. my web research indicated answers up to 2 lbs of fresh spinach to equal one 10 oz carton of frozen because of the moisture loss. Most of the sources say that 10 oz frozen is 1.5 cups, and that about 1 1/2 lbs fresh will cook down to 1.5 cups. I didn't post it because I didn't think it was authoritative enough, and I haven't tried it--but there is a huge shrinkage factor. Still, it rarely is a critical ingredient for accuracy.
@SAJ14SAJ I think the 2 pounds -> 10 ounces might be the whole bunch, before you trim it - if it's just leaves, there's surprisingly little weight loss to water cooking out. (The volume difference is still enormous, though.)
I don't bother with the steaming or any preparations when substituting fresh for frozen. If the recipe calls for 10 oz. of frozen, thawed and squeezed, I simply de-stem and chop fine my fresh pre-washed organic spinach till I have about 12 oz. in a glass measure (1 1/2 c.)-way better than steamed, frozen thawed, and better tasting.
Based on the calories in
one 10 oz package (3.5 servings @ 30 calories per serving = 105 calories)
compared to the calories in
1 lb fresh (4.5 servings @ 25 calories per serving = 112.5 calories),
one 10 oz frozen is almost exactly equal to 1 lb fresh (trimmed and mushy leaves removed).
Trimming all that raw spinach is time-consuming, but squeezing thawed spinach isn't my favorite activity, either. Plus a good fraction of the frozen-thawed spinach goes down the drain because it sticks to my hands or the colander as I squeeze it.
With fresh spinach: I remove tough stems, blanch it in boiling water for 30 seconds, drain, rinse with cold water to cool, allow to cool some more to get to room temperature, squeeze into a ball - it's much easier to work with than pre-chopped spinach - and then slice the ball and slice the slices to end up with chopped. That's the procedure used in James Peterson's Vegetables cookbook to prepare the spinach for an Indian Vegetable Stew and in my opinion the result has better flavor than thawed frozen.
You are not meant to squeeze the liquid from spinach by hand, or with a collander. Use a clean tea towel. Place the spinach in it, roll the towel around the pile of spinach and twist as if you were ringing water from the towel. The towel will absorb the water and your hands will remain clean. No more lost spinach.
I just made a spinach lasagna recipe that called for frozen spinach. I used about 9 oz. (bag) and chopped it up without removing stems or anything and just mixed it in with the cheeses. It worked perfectly.
How much frozen spinach did the recipe called for?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.077136
| 2013-02-25T02:39:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32192",
"authors": [
"Alexey Romanov",
"AnotherPerson",
"Cascabel",
"EmmiLou",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Lis",
"Mien",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"TFD",
"William Eure",
"blakeney",
"elbrant",
"gunther niesar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74168"
],
"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
}
|
41742
|
Is soaking beans 24 hours unrefrigerated safe?
It strikes me as an unsafe food practice to follow Cook's Illustrated's advice for soaking dried beans for 24 hours unrefrigerated. I've also seen them suggest you soak steel-cut oats unrefrigerated overnight.
Is there some reason why these practices are okay? Would there be any harm in refrigerating them, particularly the beans, while soaking?
From Cook's Illustrated:
Dissolve 3 tablespoons salt in 4 quarts cold water in large bowl or
container. Add [one pound] beans and soak at room temperature for at least 8 hours
and up to 24 hours. Drain and rinse well.
I know it's common practice in the US to ask whether or not something food related is 'safe'. However, if you think about this wording, it's somewhat misleading. What do they specifically mean by 'safe'? What are you afraid of, specifically? Unless you are more specific, your questions, as well as answers to your question are lacking proper 'foundation'.
In fact, although the risk is low, the Penn State Extension does recommend soaking in the refrigerator, or using the quick soak method as opposed to an overnight room temperature soak:
To be on the safe side, it would be advisable to use the quick soak method: Bring water and beans to a boil, cover and boil for 2 minutes. Remove from heat and let stand 1 hour. Drain and further cook.
Similarly, the US Dry Bean Council recommends (emphasis added):
A 12-hour soak in cold water before cooking helps hydrate the beans and considerably shortens cooking time. Ideally, beans should be put to soak the night before they are to be prepared and be kept in a cool place, or in the refrigerator, to avoid any fermentation taking place. Before soaking, wash them several times in cold water and remove any damaged or split beans. Discard any particles floating in the soaking water, such as small insects from the harvest, specks of dirt or other contaminants.
Well when it comes to reconstituting foods, often times its best to do it at room temperature because temperature changes solubility greatly. So you may need to soak the beans longer if you did refrigerate them. Even then the texture could be different.
In terms of food safety, I think everyone is way to crazy about this. Many people swear by FDA cooking temps, strict cross contamination rules, and yada yada. Just don't be negligent about it. Know how foods preserve, how long it takes for cultures to gain a foothold, and use common sense. Gain knowledge of your food, don't mindlessly follow over zealous standards from the same departments that lets us eat pink slime labeled 100% USDA beef. As for your situation, if you're cooking the beans, I see no problems. Bacteria that would form in the fluid would easily be killed in the cooking process, just like you can drink boiled water from a lake. What you have to be mindful of is mold. Certain mold spores can be toxic, even if cooked thoroughly. Also consider, a bean before is dehydrated can sit safely at room temperature without going bad. No part of the bean goes rancid quickly, things like milk and fats go rancid, whereas most plant lipids are very resistant to this.
Don't know about beans specifically, but food poisoning has more to do with bacteria waste products, which are not destroyed by cooking.
This answer is underrated. Especially the second paragraph about the safety-craze the FDA etc.. Also note that not all bacteria or funghi are necessarily unhealthy. And some only are, if your body is weak.
It's not 'unsafe', but is potentially riskier. It is the traditional method, and history is on its side
If these are for personal consumption and you trust the source of the beans or oats and you have good hygiene practices, clean water etc. then go ahead.
Surface bacteria is the primary risk here. You normally wash and rinse the beans first, so most of this should be gone. Rolled oats are steam pressed and quite clean, not sure about cut oats?
For public consumption follow you local health laws, which will most likely require them to be under refrigeration.
In my experience refrigeration does not make much difference. I wash and rinse, bring to boil, change water, and then refrigerate overnight.
What surface bacteria are you talking about? Bacteria aren't generally 'risky'.
I know anecdote != data, but I can offer my own perspective: We cook beans once a week (Latin American family), and we almost alwys soak the beans in water on the counter overnight. I've never had symptoms of food poisoning after eating our beans.
My in-laws live in Nicaragua, and most of them soak their beans outside the refrigerator as well. Then again, their cooking methods usually bring the beans to a boil during cooking, and/or they fry the beans before serving.
Though interesting, this does not answer the question, i.e. if there is any reason not to soak in the refridgerator, and why it is not unsafe to leave the beans out on the counter overnight.
"Everybody in Nicaragua does it" doesn't mean that it is safe. There are places in the world where everybody drinks water from a river polluted with human, animal and industrial waste. Just because a practice is widespread, it doesn't mean it is safe; it means that it is good enough for the personal risk preference of the people who do it, not for official food safety standards. And while you might be more interested in personal safety standards, their discussion here is pointless, as they are not objectively comparable.
@rumtscho He already noted that anecdote != data, but anecdotes remain important. There are lots of questions of what's safe and what's not and knowing that a big portion of the planet just doesn't refrigerate them ever but eats them hundreds of times can help someone who left it out once and doesn't want to have to go cook something else. Since at worst, you're only experiencing 1/500th the risk of the Nicaraguan, and they're doing just fine anyway.
I will note that the standard recipe for fermenting beans, is leaving it to soak for several days. No salt or vinegar or anything.
I generally refrigerate, which certainly does no harm if you are not in a hurry (though I find a refrigerated soak of 8-12 hours is not noticeably different from 24 or more), and in fact have left them in the fridge for as much as a week without problems (I generally change the water if they are in there that long, as I'm of the "soak that crud out of my beans and send it down the drain" camp rather than the "but there might be nutrition in the nasty polysaccharide slime that comes out of the beans" camp.)
I've always soaked my beans overnight, but keep in mind not for 24 hours. 5-6 tops, and the key is to change the soak water several times during the soak process replacing with cool water, drain again before bringing to the boil and simmering. Yes i do soak my beans in the refridgerator during summer months. During the winter though i leave them out,covered.Yes your beans can ferment if you're not contientious about the whole thing, or even sprout! BTW, i never found the quick soak method effective for me. It works but your beans will come out more cooked through if you give em a soak! Also avoid adding baking soda to the cooking water, it makes the beans mushy and flat tasting in addition to leaching out the b-vitamins!Instead,Bring to a hard boil after soaking and skim the scum that rises to the top for the first five minutes(that's where those olligliosachrides are that give you gas)reduce to a simmer adding carminitive herbs like bay or thyme until cooked.Good luck from a gal that's cooked a hill of beans in this life!:-)
Simple answear: no harm in either refrigerated or unrefrigerated soak provided that you use the beans within 24 hours, otherwise put in the ref first if you will not use or cook it yet within a day after soaking.
soak water should have an acidic medium: lemon juice or ACV. I soak beans for over 24 hours with no risk. I do the same with walnuts (6 hours, not more than 8 depending on ambient temperature), almonds (8 hours). Soaking is not just to cut down on cooking time, but to remove phytic acid. Soaking in salt water is also recommended, but I personally like the acid soak better. Draining beans two to three times during the soak period is also very important; refill bowl with beans with fresh water, again add lemon juice or ACV (or salt). Drain nuts really well at end of soak period (you may change soak water too, depending on intention such as removing the phytates and not have it reabsorb), add sea salt (work it in with your hands) and small amount of herbs/spices of your choice (a fav in my home is curry powder and/or saffron, thyme, basil, cayenne; be creative), spread nuts on pyrex or stainless steel pan, set your oven to low temp, not over 150 (I prefer 125 to 130) and allow to dry slowly over a period ranging from 12 hours to 24, sometimes even more, depending on amount of nuts, size and temp of your oven. Stir the nuts a couple of times during the drying period and re-spread evenly in the pan. Also, you may purchase a dehydrator and follow instructions. Slow cooking beans, slow drying nuts is the healthiest thing you can do to consume these foods.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.077660
| 2014-02-03T20:08:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41742",
"authors": [
"Casey",
"Jon Schrader",
"Mrsmoolie ",
"Nicholas Pipitone",
"Pete",
"Sarah Dee Hartman",
"Spammer",
"crash15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97626",
"kathy heintz",
"polynomial_donut",
"razumny",
"rumtscho",
"silk",
"spammer"
],
"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
}
|
21863
|
Why can soda be used as a substitute for eggs when using a boxed cake mix?
When making a cake from a box mix, I see that soda can be used instead of eggs and oil. What is the science behind this, and what are the properties of oil and eggs that the soda is replacing?
Here's an example of this substitution being mentioned (from ehow)
Reduce the fat in a cake by using soda to replace the oil and eggs, as
well as the water. The cake will still have a tender and moist crumb,
but will be somewhat chewier than usual. A diet soda may be used
rather than regular soda, which will further reduce the total calories
in the cake.
Edit: Here are some links to similar recipes
http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/diet-soda-cake-recipe/index.html
http://www.food.com/recipe/diet-coke-cake-224794
Do you have an example from a better source? Sure you can dump soda in your batter, but I would expect it to be as similar to good cake as Koolaid is to freshly pressed juice. And ehow is not known for quality information.
@rumtscho Alright, added a couple more links to some recipes. I had trouble finding a place that gave an explanation.
7 p was used during WW2 in place of these items. The reason for this was Food Rations the Governments imposed on their people. So the food won't run out.
There are lots of people who have a rather simplistic approach to nutrition and think that removing fat and calories makes you healthy. Then they go through recipes for things they want to eat, replace the sources of fat with something which doesn't have fat and doesn't make the result outright inedible, and declare their recipe a success. I think this is what happened here.
In a cake, eggs provide leavening, moisture, smoothness, own flavor, and enhancement of other flavors. Oil provides smoothness and enhancement of other flavors (and possibly its own flavor, if not netural). And while it is not water based, it keeps the moisture in the cake from evaporating, so it makes the cake less dry.
If you are a "simplistic nutritionist" without all this information, you can approximate some of the effects with soda. It will provide moisture, and it will also provide some leavening because it is fizzy. It will provide some flavor of its own too, but frankly, I find the rather chemical flavor of soda to be unpleasant. And it won't have any fat. In the eyes of the simplistic nutritionist, it has successfully replaced the oil and eggs while reducing fat and calories.
From the point of view of a baker, the cake will be a disaster, and won't even deserve the label cake. It will dry out quickly because it has no fat. It will have a bland flavor. Its texture will be terrible. They say "more chewy?" It will miss both the protein structure and the emulsifying agents provided by the eggs. It will be essentially an overwhelmingly sweet quickbread with no redeeming qualities. From a culinary point of view, it will be terrible.
Bottom line: under some assumptions, it is a good substitution. For me, these assumptions are so far from reality as to be useless. It is a terrible substitution.
I have been looking at this answer to see how I can remove the topic of health from it, but I can't, because it is based around the fact that certain groups of people have certain health beliefs. So I will like to remind everybody: please accept this as a descriptive fact and do not comment on whether you agree or disagree with these beliefs, such discussion is off topic here. I may change the answers' tone too, if I find out how to make it less leading towards such reactions.
I've seen this listed as a convenience trick/hack, rather than for health/nutrition reasons. And if you have a can of soda and no eggs/oil and want cake, maybe it does work.
I have developed an intolerance to eggs and sought some advice from a vegan Indian family I know. They have always used soda in their cakes. Since they've never had a cake made with eggs they admitted they have no way to compare the cakes but they said it is spongy and not dry. For them it isn't a matter of simple nutrition but a cultural and religious diet.
There are plenty of egg substitutes (even vegan ones) that better mimic the nutritional and culinary properties of a real egg than soda, though.
Cake recipes that heavily use syrup (especially inverted syrup/honey due to its non-crystallizing, moisture-keeping properties) and can work well without eggs are not uncommon (several types of Gingerbread/Ontbijkoek/Syrup Cake...)
Now soft drinks (not the diet type suggested in that recipe, oddly, unless it uses sugar alcohols) ARE (thin) syrups. Additionally, the carbon dioxide will help start gas bubbles for raising, while the acidity of still dissolved CO2 probably helps to activate any (baking, not soft drink) soda in the recipe .
Eggs are basic, though, so replacing them with an acid will alter the pH balance of the batter and thus potentially hinder chemical leavening.
Something basic, unless it is the leavener itself, will hinder leavening. Eggs are there for textural reasons, they make the dough easier to leaven but are not part of chemical leavening.
Oh yes you're right; I had things flipped. Sorry! But altering the pH of the batter can have other effects, such as hindering browning, which may or may not be desirable.
Yep, actually some recent articles advise to always add (very little, and without an acid to activate it) baking soda even to cookie recipes that you do not want leavened.
The soda has carbonation, which helps with leavening the cake. You can see this effect in recipes for matzo balls, some of which contain seltzer for added leavening (in addition to eggs). Soda also contains acid, which reacts with the (usually basic) leavenings in the cake mix, such as baking soda, to produce carbon dioxide which leavens the cake. I have made recipes for egg-free cake that used vinegar and baking soda for leavening, and it works! Both of these will help a cake rise, even without the eggs that usually do a lot of work towards leavening a cake.
However, realize that cake mixes are designed to be somewhat "foolproof" and not fail even with many changes/bad technique/imprecise measurements. For example, they usually use cake flour (or extra wheat/corn starch) so that the gluten development from beating the batter for two minutes(!) doesn't make the cakes overly tough, and then use a lot of baking powder to compensate for the lack of structure from reduced gluten. Because of this, soda likely won't work as a substitute in "normal" cake recipes, which are more sensitive to technique and ingredients, unless the recipe was specifically designed to use soda.
i am NOT a good cook...but COULD do cakes with eggs, oil...etc
then I switched to the cola in the brownie idea...wow !!
flavor, moist, not dry...not as 'heavy, dense' but much lighter and much much
tastier...so those who wish to debate the science...I suggest you make a cake with just 2 ingredients...a box mix and a soda...give it a FAIR trial...don't tell the family (they won't know) until after the last crumb is consumed !!!
It's always great to know that it works, and this makes me want to try! But the original question was about why -- do you have any info about the food science involved?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.078377
| 2012-02-29T21:55:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21863",
"authors": [
"Beth Kent",
"Buy Sell Restaurant Equipment",
"ESultanik",
"Erica",
"Esther",
"Kryptic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94",
"patricia paul",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12562
|
Substitute for bell peppers in meat dishes
I recently became addicted to the taste of fried bell peppers (green specifically because that's what's cheapest) as an ingredient in meat dishes. However, in my area the price has doubled so I can't buy as many.
What are some things (if any) that can replicate the flavor (and the lack of spiciness) of bell peppers? Specifically I like to add them in beef and make sandwiches with cheese and onions.
I find that bell peppers freeze pretty well so when they go on sale you can stock up, that is if you don't already do that.
To run on from the above comment, in the UK you can by frozen peppers cut in small strips. Not as nice as fresh, granted, but much cheaper.
Do you mean roasted/fried peppers? Raw green peppers don't taste like much, just watery and crunchy like yossarian said.
How are you preparing the bell peppers? or even, what meat dish? that might help give us ideas for suggestions.
@Joe Sorry, I'm frying them and like to add them in for beef cheese steak sandwiches. I'll edit my question.
@Kryptic : blah ... frying ... bell peppers have a fair bit of sugars in them, which aren't in a lot of vegetables ... let me go update my answer.
Others are saying that bell peppers have no taste -- but I'd disagree. The green ones have a kind of grassy quality to them.
Obviously, there's wheat grass, but I never have that around. There might be some herbs that could pull it off (eg, flat leaf parsley; maybe taragon, but also gives a licorice note)
You might try some dark greens ... spinich, kale, swiss chard. They've got a touch of other stronger flavors to 'em, but if you cook them down first, you might be able to tone them down some. (I guess you might describe it as a 'spiciness' ... it can be a sharp flavor.
... for the texture, though, my first thought was bok-choy. It's actually a cabage, and it has some dark green leaves, but the thicker white parts have that watery/crunchy quality that other people have mentioned about bell peppers, but there's that sharp cabbage note that might keep it from fitting your requirements.
update : okay, as the issue is specifically fried peppers, you're going to be bringing out the sweeter notes of the peppers, which you're not going to get from a cabbage. Sweet onions might give some similar qualities (once fried well), as the cooking will mellow the oniony qualities, but the sugars will caramelize.
You can also try looking for jarred peppers -- they're usually packed in oil or a vinegar solution after being roasted. There are 'hot' and 'sweet' varieties, where the hot ones also have some hot peppers in there. The non-vinegared ones sweet ones might work for you.
Also, remember that bell peppers, like most vegetables are a seasonal item -- if you're in the north, it's the end of winter, so any peppers are being being grown in hot houses, or brought in from the southern hemisphere, which jacks the prices up.
ooh I agree with trying bok choy. It might not give you exactly what you are looking for, but I definelty feel the same sort of kindred with bok choy that you feel for bell peppers. Asian markets are the best place to find cheap produce, in face you may even find cheaper bell peppers there than your local supermarket.
Bok choy rules, however if you find yourself going to an asian store to get it, be sure to check the price of bell peppers as well. Around here (US), bells are often half price at these stores compared to the local supermarkets. Peppers are also usually cheaper at latin American stores.
I find that bell peppers are a predominately watery and crunchy. As such, I'd look for other vegetables that have that characteristic. Depending on how much you are cooking them, you could use carrots, red or white onions, or celery. I think those are all pretty close. To get a little further away from the texture and flavor, you could also try broccoli, asparagus, or green beans; although I'm not sure any of those will be cheaper than bell peppers.
Depending on your climate, peppers are actually quite easy to grow too (at least in my experience). If price is a significant issue, you could try some of your own gardening.
The great thing about peppers -- there's no need to ever buy seeds ... every time you buy a pepper to eat, you get enough to plant more peppers than you need for a small garden.
Nothing will ever replace the taste of fried bell peppers. And I mean nothing, if the price double then you pay double. Simple as that.
I agree, a very definite taste and hard to replicate. Particularly when fried.
Watery and crunchy could also describe water chestnuts, or to go a bit further afield, bamboo shoots or even baby corn. These all tend to be inexpensive, since they are purchased canned.
Can't eat peppers any more (red, green, yellow etc) in chili I substitute with green squash. No one yet has noticed.
This is a great suggestion.
I haven't found any thing that tastes like a bell pepper. So, I collected the seeds from one I purchased at the grocery store (well over 50 seeds) Bell pepper grow well in pots even on my tiny deck. I picked and froze/dehydrated 15 peppers from just one plant! I saved those seeds too. It only cost me a slight increase in the water bill. This year I planted three. Dehydrating changes the texture but saves the flavor and space.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.079217
| 2011-02-25T00:58:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12562",
"authors": [
"Adam W",
"Joe",
"Julia Silver",
"Kryptic",
"Manako",
"Orbling",
"Pablo Urquiza",
"Steve Dodier-Lazaro",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"duchessofstokesay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94",
"jesper",
"tim",
"user25873",
"user25874",
"zants"
],
"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
}
|
3201
|
Lemon and Mint drink
I once had a delicious lemon and mint drink on a flight with Qatar airways, but I have no idea what it was or how it might have been made. Does anyone know what it might have been and how it was made?
Edit
I'm not sure if it was made on board or not. It wasn't carbonated but it was chilled when it was served. It did have a slight syrupy consistency like there might have been some sugar syrup in it. There wasn't any alcohol in it and I couldn't make out any other flavours.
There's a lovely middle-eastern recipe for mint lemonade.
I used to make loads of this stuff in my navy days.
So, for a jug serving six sailors:
Juice of about 2-3 lemons
Six tablespoons of sugar
nice handful of mint
Put the mint and sugar in the jug and pour about half a cup of boiling water.
Stir well, and leave for a few minutes so that the mint can think about what it has done.
Add lemon juice and water slowly while stirring.
The amounts may not be precise, as I used to make this in an eight gallon saucepan, and these days I make it in a 2-cup shaker.
Middle Eastern Lemonade
Serves 6
8 lemons
3/4 cup sugar, or to taste
1 teaspoon orange blossom water, or to taste
generous 1/4 cup freshly chopped mint
water (or seltzer) and ice cubes
Is this what you're looking for maybe?
I just flew yesterday and asked what it was. They make it with sprite instead of making the stuff. So lemons, mint, and I think she said bitters.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.079661
| 2010-07-25T20:59:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3201",
"authors": [
"Cristian",
"Dmitriy",
"Gaige Gibson",
"Mandi Millar",
"Nick Katsivelos",
"Paul J. Lucas",
"Phyllida Neal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5909",
"walkeran"
],
"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
}
|
20322
|
What happens to cheese as it ages?
An answer* on another one of my questions sparked this: What is actually happening to the cheese on a molecular and chemical level as it ages? What processes are going on and why is there an upper limit to it?
("It has already aged for over year and has changed pretty much all it's going to.")
IMHO, a bit too general.
@FuzzyChef - really? hmmm, edited slightly
I will answer what I know and leave it to others to add more.
Two major changes that take place as cheese ages are fermentation and drying. In some cheeses time is also needed for mold growth such as Brie or Blue cheeses.
The fermentation is usually the more desirable. Bacteria is introduced when the curd is formed. The bacteria consumes lactose and turns it into lactic acid and other flavorful byproducts. This acidifies the milk and is an important factor in curdling it and creating the cheese curd.
When the curd is pressed, excess water is removed. In the case of Parmesan most of the water is removed. This retards the progress of the bacteria. As the cheese ages the bacteria stays active and makes a lot of flavor. Think of a bread- a little yeast with a lot of rise time tastes much better than a lot of yeast and a short rise.
The acidity and flavor increases. Drying also plays a part in concentrating flavor.
Both the acidity and drying will change the protein structure of the cheese and is what gives Parmesan its characteristic crumbly texture. I can't speak to what these changes are on a molecular level.
Is there a food and/or dairy chemist in the house?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.079815
| 2012-01-10T17:18:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20322",
"authors": [
"Carol O",
"FuzzyChef",
"José Figueroa-O'Farrill",
"Rupesh",
"Summer",
"Tina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10036
|
Ways to counter the burn of too many scallions?
Last night I made mashed cauliflower and made the mistake of putting in too many scallions before I blended it. The result is a mashed cauliflower that has the distinct burn of eating raw onion. Is there anyway for me to counter that? Aside from watering it down with more mashed cauliflower is there anything I can add to it in modest amount that might neutralize the burn with out destroying the cauliflower?
Cauliflower fritters. Mix some egg, ice-cold water and flour, then stir in the other ingredients. Gently put about one or two tablespoons at a time into a deep-fryer using two spoons. We do something similar to make "kaki-age", which is a mix of vegetables prepared using a batter similar to tempura, and generally includes onion. You can probably also get away with doing this in a frying pan with just the bottom covered in oil if you keep the oil temperature stable enough.
For what it's worth, I prefer to make mashed potatoes by ricing them then adding butter, milk, scallions and cream then letting them roast for a while in an enameled cast-iron pot. I've never noticed an unpleasantly raw taste with the scallions in this way. Perhaps a similar approach would work for the cauliflower.
I should add that, whether the "kaki-age" style technique works will depend on how mashed your vegetables are. If you've got a pretty solid, firm puree, you'd be better off breading it instead. If it's still fairly coarse in texture, the kaki-age style fritter should work.
Can you get away with cooking the mashed cauliflower more? The only thing that really kills onion flavors is heat. Maybe you could turn the cauliflower puree into croquettes and fry them?
I don't think there's anything you can add that will neutralize the onion flavour itself. However, since the only other ingredient is cauliflower, you should be able to just pop it in the microwave for a few minutes. The onion will caramelize and turn sweet.
Of course this assumes that you haven't blended it into a pulp and released all of the sulfur compounds already. If you have, then they've basically contaminated the cauliflower and there's nothing you can do to remove the taste.
You could also try incorporating some parsley, mint, or cilantro, all of which "mask" the flavour of onion (but again, don't actually eliminate it).
I've also heard people say that lemon juice works for them, but that sounds illogical to me because the the sourness is already being caused by acidity due to the sulfur. Nevertheless, if the alternative is throwing it out, it's something you could try.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.080089
| 2010-12-12T18:45:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10036",
"authors": [
"Christine Powless",
"JasonTrue",
"Karl Bielefeldt",
"Laurel",
"PhilipD",
"Sean",
"Tamara",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"user20555"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9665
|
How should chicken breasts for a chicken salad be cooked?
Most of the recipes I've seen for Chicken Salad simply call for "cooked chicken". ...okay, but how? Should I bake it? Blanch it? Sautee it? Grill it?
What is the preferred way to cook Chicken Breasts prior to use in Chicken Salad?
will the chicken be chopped? Cubed? Shredded?
Cubed I believe.
It really depends on the texture you are looking for in your finished product. If you want a chunky chicken salad then bake your chicken breasts seasoned or not, I season mine, and then cube them. If you want something a little more exciting pan grill the breasts to the point of a little char and then dice. If you want your chicken to be flavorless and get all of your flavor from the mix you are tossing your chicken into, boil it or put it in a slow cooker if you are cooking up a big batch.
It all really comes down to how you like to eat your chicken salad, and more importantly how pretty you want it to look in your serving method, because a cajun blackened chicken salad sandwich can look down right homely. I say try them all until you fall in love with one temporarily and when that has lost its passion try a different version.
Also as a side note if I am preparing it for me and not for someone else, so it doesn't have to be all white and pretty, I use thighs instead of breasts since they are more forgiving and generally cheaper. If I am not just breaking down a whole chicken and using the leftovers.
+1 for frugality. Using thighs is a great idea. The dark meat is more flavorful and moist, too!
re: boiling & slow cooker -- the slow cooker isn't hot enough to kill surface bacteria, and with boiling you risk overcooking. I explain an alternative in How do you poach chicken?. You can then strip the bones out, let it cook, and then dice up. (if you skip the cooking, it'll shread)
I always boil my chicken when I am making bbq chicken for sandwiches. I will have to check out your article. Good advice on the slow cooker but a query since I cook a lot of other meats in the slow cooker why would that not also be problematic?
Re: "blackened chicken...homely" and "all white and pretty" -- Actually, I prefer a little blackening in my chicken. In my mind, plain white (i.e. when boiled) means "no flavor".
I prefer simmering a whole bird to get shredded chicken, like Satanicpuppy. That should take an hour or two to accomplish.
For a chicken salad that has cubed pieces, I would saute or grill a whole breast, then cut it up afterwards. You can bake it, but it takes longer than the former methods. You can also slice it up beforehand and saute it- that is a much faster option than any other. Just make sure you season the breasts; they will be virtually flavorless otherwise, and make your salad dull. I'd use garlic powder, salt, freshly-ground pepper, and saute it in butter.
I usually do a whole small chicken in a pot with the traditional herbs, onions, celery, etc. Cook it slow until it falls off the bone, strain it, and let it cool before picking the meat off.
That being said, I've gotten perfectly decent results using store bought rotisserie chickens.
Roasting and pan-frying provide the most intense chicken flavor and make the tastiest chicken salad. Both have the added advantage of some browned scrapings to add to the savory flavor of the salad.
There are many ways to cook chicken AKA: apply heat to chicken to bring it up to a safe 160 degrees. Most old school recipes have you boiling the chicken. This is wrong on many levels with the biggest reason you are dumping most of the flavor down the drain when they are done. I wash then bake my skin-on rib-attached chicken breasts at 350 until they reach 159 degrees. I then take them out and let them cool where carry over heat will take above 160 degrees. Let rest covered and unrefrigerated (OK for up to 2 hours) with plastic wrap for 90 min. Throw away the bone and skin and chop. YUM.
washing raw chicken is also a safety concern because you're just splashing bacteria and germs all over the sink. It's better to not wash it at all.
I'm not sure I understand the question but let me help clarify. "Most old school recipes have you boiling the chicken . . you are dumping most of the flavor down the drain when they are done." So here you go: The chicken sits in the water until it reaches 160 degrees. Then remove the chicken. MOST people pour the water down the drain. This is the same water that has not only cooked your chicken but extracted many of the fat and water soluble compounds. These compounds are no longer in the chicken; they are in the water. I'm not sure how better to explain this. I hope this helps, George.
Luciano - I always wash chicken. Always. I once toured a chicken processing plant and this is why. I don't splash all over kitchen. I have a deep sink and use a very low pressure of water over a longer period of time - about a minute of washing. No splashing at all.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.080342
| 2010-12-01T16:52:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9665",
"authors": [
"Blair Conrad",
"Caroline",
"Daniel Bingham",
"Dong Nippano",
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"Mrs. Garden",
"PF4Public",
"Sonyia",
"Varuuknahl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76346",
"justkt",
"keithjgrant",
"maysday",
"user19780"
],
"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
}
|
11433
|
Cooked whole chicken has congealed blood around joints and bones, should I worry?
So I just roasted a whole chicken and finished carving/cleaning the carcass today. I discovered a great deal of congealed red matter surrounding many of the joints and bones. Looks like congealed blood. Normally, I wouldn't worry about it, except that there's a lot more of it than there usually is. And it's a brighter red, as opposed to the dark reddish brown I'm used to. Should I be worried? Did I undercook the chicken? Was this chicken just not as well drained as ones I've gotten previously?
This exact thing happened to me about a month ago - roast whole chicken, bright red leaky blood around the bones and joints.
I looked it up back then. I didn't find a truly authoritative source like the USDA, but I did find several instances of people saying that this happened even with highly overcooked chicken. I also found several links similar to this one:
Bloody Chicken
The author (a Ph.D according to that page) did a number of experiments where he cooked a chicken and checked the internal temperature everywhere, ensuring that it was in fact pasteurized and thus free of any bacteria, and parts of it were still bloody on the inside.
According to him (and a few other sources I found), it's because the chickens are very young and their bones have not hardened properly; when you cook them, the marrow seeps out and ends up looking as you describe.
If you're using a meat thermometer to test the chicken for doneness, and you are certain that it got hot enough, then don't worry about the blood. It's not appetizing, but it's not harmful either.
FWIW, I ate the chicken when it happened to me, and did not get the slightest bit sick.
if you can get over the look, marrow is quite delicious.
... and nutritious!
not unhappy, or malicious. ;)
In an of itself, brighter blood doesn't mean anything, so I wouldn't worry about it, unless you also noticed any of the following:
Was the meat pink? Undercooked chicken has a distinct color, very different from cooked.
Was the texture off? Undercooked chicken has a distinctive texture, completely different from cooked chicken
Were the juices bloody when you pierced the meat? Clear juices indicate the meat is properly cooked
Was the temperature too low?
I cooked two chicken at once and indeed had some redness around the joints in the thighs drumsticks and the breast bone i am sure i cooked it thoughly since the juices where clear and the oven temp was at 350 for 3.5 hours they where about 8 pound birds this should be long enough. the meat was not pink its was just at the bones. tasted fine and i ate it not sick yet its been over 6 hours.After letting it cool i de-boned it at frist it seemed really red but after a bit it became redish brown so i am sure it safe to eat but at frist it dose seem a little unappatizing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.080786
| 2011-01-24T20:58:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11433",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chris Mueller",
"Doug",
"Ghcgcfh Cgxgv",
"Kim",
"Michael Borgwardt",
"ho ho ho",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97258",
"tobizet",
"user1884155",
"zzzzBov"
],
"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
}
|
9442
|
Chop nuts before or after toasting?
I have a recipe that calls for toasted chopped pistachios. I'm wondering if I should toast them whole and then chop them up, or toast them chopped?
I don't think it makes any tremendous difference. I'd probably lean towards toasting them whole first, then chopping just because the size will be more consistent so the toast might be a little more even.
It makes a difference -- you might not develop the flavors as deeply, but you also won't have powder in with the larger chunks that might burn and ruin the dish; I also try to toast then chop, even though it takes longer.
Toast the nuts evenly first, it will let off the steam in the nut. Then chop them. If they are evenly toasted the toasty flavor & crunch will be present throughout the nut. You will notice the difference in the nut as you eat it. :) I learned this from Christopher Kimball on America's Test Kitchen.
I would chop first as then each piece will be toasted on all it's exposed edges. If you toast then chop, the chopping will expose so untoasted edges so the overall effect will be less uniform.
+1 You have to use a coarse sieve to remove any chopping dust and fine granules as they will burn easily. These parts can be toasted, but for a shorter time period. This is a common problem for all nuts and seeds being toasted
Good tip - I didn't know that! - +1
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.081057
| 2010-11-25T05:17:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9442",
"authors": [
"Agust Jin",
"Bluebelle",
"Bortix",
"Joe",
"MoMo",
"TFD",
"bowo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"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
}
|
10157
|
Using Chakki Atta instead of whole wheat flour?
I bought a bag of chakki atta from an Indian grocery store. The back of the bag says that it's 100% whole wheat flour. It was cheaper than traditional American style whole wheat flour, so I decided to buy a bag to see how well it would work.
At home, the main thing that I noticed was that chakki atta looks different. The whole wheat flour that I'm used to is tan with dark flecks. Chakki atta is a more uniform yellowish tan without any flecks, or maybe the flecks are just really small. I've used it a few times in bread baking, and it seems to work well.
My question is, does anyone have a better idea of how packaged chakki atta is different from whole wheat flour, and what kinds of things it is good for?
Have baked a simple enriched yeast bread from (IIRC "Elephant" brand) wholemeal atta once, was very moist and relatively dense (but definitely risen OK, just not as aggressively risen) - and tasted excellent in my opinion. Even if wholemeal atta is supposed to be coarse ground it is indeed still rather homogenous and free of large fibrous particles compared to eg what is sold as wholemeal flour in western Europe- and the taste was more sweetish/malty (the heat effects described might explain the malty taste) and less bitter too.
In theory chakki is a flour mill, and chakki atta is flour fresh from that mill. Realistically of course nothing you find on your grocery store shelves is fresh from a mill.
Atta flour is made from hard wheat, which has a high gluten content. This means that your flour is probably better for bread than typical all-purpose whole wheat flour from the baking aisle. If it is hard white wheat this might explain the color, as ground white wheat doesn't look that much darker than all-purpose flour.
Like typical grocery store whole wheat flour, atta flour is coarsely ground. This may give your bread a more grainy texture (not a bad thing), and makes atta unideal for cakes, biscuits, and quick breads unless you like them with a coarse texture in the crumb. If you would like to use whole wheat for baking other than bread, whole wheat pastry flour is the usual suggestion (or grind wheat yourself to a very find grind).
Atta is for chapattis as a rule, ie. bread - it is sold as a bread flour (high gluten). Note chakki originally implied "stone grinding" I believe, this method of milling results in very high temperatures which tends to slightly roast the flour, that can account for colour changes and taste variation. Personally I just use the flour for thepla.
The slight roasting mentioned in @Orbling's comment is critical to chakki atta and should be a part of the answer.
Typically in India you get different color wheats. The color vary from white to yellowish to darker brown. And that is why Chakki atta's color differ. If you stick to one brand you will get same color flour as they use same kind of wheat.
For chapattis (Indian bread) the Flour used is finely ground. Which is good for baking. And is whole wheat flour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.081214
| 2010-12-15T15:59:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10157",
"authors": [
"Orbling",
"cube",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"jnfjnjtj",
"millie",
"rackandboneman",
"verbose"
],
"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
}
|
13822
|
How to throw a pizza dough?
If there are different instructions for different sizes, those would be appreciated as well.
How to throw dough, a basic step by step guide.
Make sure you have a dough that can stand up to being airborne. This means that you need a high gluten dough. You can throw wetter doughs as you get more experienced but they require much more precise hand placement and are much less forgiving.
Make sure your dough is fully risen with out being "blown". It should be elastic and soft to the touch.
Coat dough in flour. This step is necessary to allow free spinning on your hands and to get good, clean releases.
Create crust. You can use the method that daniel describes, you can use the Papa John's fold and tuck method, you can do it like this video, it doesn't matter as long as you end up with a piece of dough that is flat over the interior with a ridge going around the outside.
You should be comfortable with in-air hand stretching before you get to the actual throwing. This is when you place the dough on the backs of your hands, support it with your knuckles and stretch it out. This position is a great way to start a basic toss that won't rip your dough as you will be catching with the backs of your hands and not your fingers. You want to release the dough by having your right hand provide upward thrust as your left hand provides spin. This will provide a straight up toss that is very easy to catch.
The way to do the more advanced throws is learn to release from your finger tips. This involves having your fingers rest along the ridge that we made in step four. You can check out a quick tutorial starting at 2:17 on this video. Feel free to ignore the rest of it, but it was the best explanation I found online. Basically, you want the dough to hang in such a way as to allow you to impart spin and momentum with just one hand, while other is occasionally used as a stabilizer. This allows tricks like the roll and the through the legs and all the others.
Important tips that will help you be successful at learning this skill.
Cold dough is more elastic than warm dough. That means its terrible for pizza but great for practicing. It also resists puncture a little better, so less holes.
A damp kitchen towel has about the same aerodynamics as a piece of dough. It's what I used to train the guys at my restaurant on for extra practice, and it's way cheaper than one of those rubber doughs.
The dough should always be spinning in the air. If it's not, you aren't doing it right.
Throwing dough can result in a very thin middle. You want to make sure that you are stretching evenly and keeping an eye on that if you intend to use the dough for it's actual purpose of delicious pizza.
Practice, Practice! Throwing dough is a physical skill and you have to train your muscles a little to be good at it. It can be a little frustrating at first but stick with it, it's a lot of fun.
If you have any additional concerns leave a comment and I'll do my best answer them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.081458
| 2011-04-06T23:15:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13822",
"authors": [
"Amanda",
"Le sir",
"Linda Joy",
"Rei",
"Steve Midgley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29053"
],
"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
}
|
11184
|
How can I make my seitan a bit firmer?
I tried my hand at making homemade seitan the other night, and it was pretty good - my only complaint was that it wasn't as firm as I would have liked it to be.
These are the steps I followed (based on "Basic Seitan Recipie" instructions on the back of a vital wheat gluten box)
Mixed vital wheat gluten with water, kneaded for 5 minutes until it was elastic.
Formed into 2.5" log, let sit for 5 minutes.
Cut log into 0.5" pieces.
Heated vegetable broth over medium flame, added seitan pieces.
Brought broth to a boil.
Reduced flame, let seitan simmer for 1 hour, stirring occasionally.
So what could I do to improve this, and get firmer seitan pieces as a result? Less water in initial dough? Cut smaller pieces before boiling/simmering? Longer simmering time? Different type of vegetable broth?
i've only made seitan myself a couple times, and it's been awhile, but isn't there a point where you drain it and/or squeeze out some moisture? if so, maybe an extended sit in some sort of press would help. the times i've made it, i put it in a smoker afterwards, so it was firm because of the low-heat semi-cooking, i guess.
Hmmm, I had not thought of that - I think that's a good idea!
I tried making seitan by boiling it once and didn't like the texture. The way I do it now is wrapping it in tin foil then steaming it (I recently got some cloth bags I'm going to try doing it in). I found my recipe here, and I generally follow a similar process for any seitan.
hey, those look tasty. i believe i'll try those. thanks!
I use microwave foil, roll it up, tie one end up with cooking cord and holding it on the open end I press down the dough like you would do in a sausage. Once pressed tie the upper end too.
I use to add an extra layer of foil so that no (or very little) water gets in.
Now you can cook it either 1 h in water only in a normal pot or 30 minutes in the pressure cooker.
The resulting hunch of seitan will be much more consistent than made in broth.
Mileage may vary, of course ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.081731
| 2011-01-18T15:45:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11184",
"authors": [
"Austin Gleason",
"Chef Fredo",
"Elvie Fuchsberger",
"Rob",
"The DK",
"Zaralynda",
"franko",
"glockenklang",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22988"
],
"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
}
|
28996
|
What is the effect of poaching fish in milk?
I recently came across a recipe for fish poached in milk. I've never heard of this technique, and am skeptical of its effect (vs. water), so it sounds wasteful to cook fish in 4 cups of milk only to discard the milk afterwards.
After a quick Google search, I found that it's done in some cuisines. So I'm wondering what, if any, effect does poaching fish in milk have?
The milk sugars will add a sweetness to the dish. Also, after the fish comes out, the milk can be reduced/thickened to make a bechemel sauce.
The milk will also help neutralize the smell of the fish cooking as well.
Found this link for you...
The Art of Poaching Fish
Milk - Milk is good for poaching flatfish, such as dover sole, turbot and halibut. Like a quality enamel, it makes the texture of the fish more resilient and adds an extra "shine" to chalky white fish.
Pursuing taste, some chefs aren't really concerned about wasting a couple cups of milk. Adding milk makes the fish tastes more tender and more "gentle" than just adding sugar.
However, you don't really need that if you're not going for it or you think it's an absolute waste. In my opinion, the taste of some fish is rich enough. You can get milk-like soup from cooking fish with water. That tastes a lot better than milk, at least to me.
To remove the odor of some fish, you can let it sit with ginger and alcohol. Both works well.
It's not wasted if it has a significant effect on the final product. My concern was that it may have no or negligible effect.
Regarding tenderisation consider the top answer to this question which indicates that milk will not tenderise meat.
You mean that unsourced answer, which is disputed in several of the other answers? Furthermore I think it is a mistake to expect fish to behave in the same way beef does.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.081935
| 2012-12-06T22:30:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28996",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"Buzhoo",
"Chef Suman sharma",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Ismail Ali",
"Jackie Lutterman",
"James Gould",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Muleskinner",
"Nahkuni",
"eirikdaude",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67237",
"nutterguy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32451
|
Why would IQF shrimp say "do not force thaw under running water"?
I recently made a recipe that called for thawing frozen shrimp by running them under cold water. However, I noticed that the IQF tail-on shrimp I buy from Costco state, "DO NOT FORCE THAW UNDER RUNNING WATER".
Why might they add this capitalized warning? Would it be a safety issue or a texture issue?
@sarge_smith yes, sorry, I spaced out and wrote no instead of yes.
Update
Jeff Axelrod commented (much thanks) that the Costco IQF shrimp come with most of the shell removed. In that case, "DO NOT FORCE THAW UNDER RUNNING WATER" most likely means if you do it, you'll end up with "shrimp pulp" with some of it even down the drain. The shrimp can absorb the water and get mushy and disintegrate. This, I have seen in our kitchen and tried to erase from memory.
This also means the trapped bacteria under the shell is less of a concern.
the original answer/caution regarding safety:
Besides the fact that the shrimp can absorb the water, get mushy, and fall apart under running water, it could be a safety issue.
It may be possible that the pressure from running water will force or push some bacteria that would normally be on the on the outside of the shells (and destroyed) in and under the shell (e.g. between the belly and the shell) where it may be shielded from heat and not fully killed during cooking.
Bacteria going from outside of the meat to inside has caused Costco a lot headache. In the meat case, it was forced in mechanically by the needles of the tenderizing machine. They might also be hedging against a similar thing happing with the shrimps and running water.
If you thaw them in a tight freezer bag placed in water (even running), it should be safe.
Cold running water is one of the accepted safe thawing methods in general. I have to downvote for indicating that running water is the problem, and for lack of citations on the claim that there is a safety issue. http://nfsmi-web01.nfsmi.olemiss.edu/documentlibraryfiles/PDF/20091123115939.pdf
Yes, and the OP is asking WHY costco would make that claim. My personal guess is that they are worried about lawsuits in a litigious society, but I have no evidence, so I didn't answer. You have made a pretty strong--and counter-intuitive claim--without any citation or evidence. Your profile says you have gone to "chef school" so you should have some training in sanitation and food safety, and should be able to give some reference or backup. Provide that and I will remove my downvote.
Costco/IQF saying that you shouldn't do something (not directly that it's unsafe) is not the same thing as evidence that it's unsafe.
@SAJ14SAJ the most important thing we learned about food safety was to think. The guidelines are by no means bullet proof. Now, you're right, I do not have evidence on what's in their heads, so the [now updated] answer is based on best facts available.
@Jefromi I think in this context, IQF probably stands for Individually Quick Frozen.
The assertion is soft enough now that I will take away my downvote, but I still don't believe it, since mechanical penetration in a plant where multiple items could be affected, versus running water of a single retail package in the home are very, very different scenarios.
@SAJ14SAJ Ah, very true, you caught me - was responding to MandoMando's comment about "Costco and IQF".
it's possible (and likely) they are genuinely concerned about the shrimp getting mushy. Take a look at the IQF conveyor belt here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZgwjFYruW4. By the time the last shrimp gets through....
Costco's IQF shrimp have the shells removed (except for a small portion at the tail).
I can attest that force thawing CostCo frozen shrimp under cold running water does not result in "shrimp pulp".
Three possibilities that I can think of:
If the water weren't cool enough and they were big shrimp, it could raise them to a temperature at which bacteria could develop.
If the water were actually warm or hot, it could start to cook the shrimp.
If the shrimp were defrosted directly under water, not in a bag, they could absorb some of the water and the texture would become mushy.
So of course Costco could write "If you defrost the shrimp under water, make sure they're in a bag and the water is cold." But perhaps they feel that people are more likely to read a warning than an instruction, so their current wording is safer.
Just guessing, anyway, but a quick Google search doesn't turn up anything more likely or useful!
Shrimp cook very easily under hot running water.
I think the most likely of the three is the third option. Putting the shrimp into a bag and put them into running cold water should be safe.
While thawing items under cool running water is a quick method done in just about every restaurant that uses frozen items, it has a side effect of giving you a less than desired end product. Basically the quality goes down. Water is absorbed into the item, the flowing water can damage the item texture yada yada yada. Best to thaw in the fridge as a rule for best results or as stated in other posts, sealed in a baggie and soak the bag so you don't get the water contact.
That said, when dealing with thawed shrimp/prawns, I've always found that soaking them in an ice cold saltwater bath(seawater like) for 5-10 minutes prior to cooking helps to firm up the flesh, add flavour(yes, I know it's really just salt) and give your prawns a little bit more "pop" when you bite into them.
I'm thinking Costco is just trying to ensure the end product you use will be of good quality.
The biggest loser when IQF shrimp are "force defrosted" is diminished flavor profile and loss of texture (or mouth feel - they should have a certain resistance to the bite). There is no danger of any food safety issues when force thawed. The very best way to thaw any IQF shrimp of any size and style is to leave them in the bag, put the bag in a bowl, and leave them in the refrigerator until they are defrosted - typically over night. If the shrimp are mushy or tough after defrosting overnight, it means that they were chemically treated (usually with sodium tripoly phosphate) or they suffered from time and temperature abuse during processing and shipment.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.082147
| 2013-03-05T23:00:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32451",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Derrick",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"MandoMando",
"RevDrJohn Petsas",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"TrinitronX",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93326"
],
"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
}
|
27280
|
Why is my green tea brown?
As Crystal Gale once wrote, "You're gonna make my green tea, brown." Or something like that.
When I typically order (the free or close-to-free) green tea at Japanese restaurants, it's usually noticeably green. At home, regardless of brand and time on the shelf, it's typically brownish. I follow good guidelines for making green tea: 170 degrees for about 90 seconds.
Am I buying the wrong kind of tea; or are restaurants using food coloring?
UPDATE: I'm pretty sure the Japanese or sushi restaurant green tea I'm used to is either partially or fully matcha, giving it the distinctive green color. After trying out many different green teas, some Japanese, some not, it seems that Japanese green teas are generally greener in color than non-japanese, and the matcha powder provides the greenest color by far. Some green tea bags come with matcha powder mixed into the tea bags, including Costco's green tea. I found it to be better than any of the many bagged green teas I bought at the asian grocer.
Could be the restaurant uses matcha? That stuff is super green.
Green tea is normally brown :)
There are multiple types of green tea. I know here in Korea what is called green tea tastes nothing like what I was used to and in fact tastes like rice. So I'm sure there are lots of other types too.
@hippietrail - are you drinking Gaenmaicha (green tea with roasted rice)?
@5arx: Just nokcha (녹차) as far as I know, but I'm not really a fan.
@hippietrail OK. I've recently discovered Gaenmaicha and really dig its toasted rice/popcorn aroma.
Genmaicha is amazingly delicious. I haven't had any for years now but it's highly recommended.
Hojicha is a green tea which is made from bancha, a low grade green tea, and cooked slightly; this very inexpensive green tea often comes out brown because it is discolored by oxidation. Other than this variety, and some very stale bancha, I can't think of a Japanese green tea that comes out brown. Some stale kukicha might come out brown, and low quality genmaicha made with poor quality kukicha could be brownish from the combination of excess oxidation and the toasted rice.
Most of the non-Japanese green teas I've seen sold as "green tea" and some lower quality teabags marked as "sencha" are broken down tea leaves that can easily oxidize in the packaging to the point where they are, at best, yellowish.
However, if you use even a moderate quality sencha, and it isn't stale, it should come out green. Most good quality kukicha and genmaicha will at least come out greenish-yellow. Since most Japanese restaurants use a fairly inexpensive second-harvest sencha, I imagine you're either buying hojicha or simply using a very stale, low-quality sencha.
Chinese green teas are sometimes slightly yellow, but if they're actually yielding a brown brew, they, too are either stale or are simply mislabeled oolong.
I used to sell a fair amount of green tea when I ran a small scale import business. I do recall even matcha products turning brown after being exposed to excessive sunlight; one of the bakeries I know was constantly running into issues with their matcha pound cake slices on sunny days, especially those pieces in the front of their pastry case. So it's reasonably possible you simply have tea which has been stored improperly; you're best off with a nitrogen flushed tea and it should be used within about 6 months of opening the sealed package. If your tea comes unsealed, it probably isn't in very good shape to begin with.
In any event, my recommendation is to try a first-harvest high-mountain grown sencha that is sold in nitrogen-flushed aluminum packages. Depending on the style, the brewed color will be either very green or slightly yellowish if brewed in the typical way. You can either do a very brief, several second infusion at near-boiling, or a longer infusion at around 80 celsius. I like it both ways.
Gyokuro, if you can afford it, is extraordinarily green, but is unlikely to be served at a restaurant without an additional charge (it's essentially the same leaves used to make matcha, except rolled instead of being milled).
Thanks for the great answer. It's certainly not a matter of my storage or the store's--I'm buying it from Trader Joe's and it's in sealed plastic bags; even right after purchase--still brownish brew. And it can't be a matter of quality; I highly doubt the free tea I'm getting with my lunch special is made from any kind of premium tea.
You could ask the restaurant to show you what kind of tea they are serving you. When I was new to tea I did this frequently and I was never turned down on my request. They might even sell you some if they are reasonable about it.
@PeterK. I did some follow-up research at your suggestion when I went to a sushi joint. They told me the same thing--buy Japanese green tea. I went to a big oriental grocer and bought a few different kinds of Japanese green tea and what a huge difference vs. Trader Joe's! (Theirs is not advertised as Japanese green tea.) They came out green and tasted much better.
It's the kind of tea you are using. Japanese green teas are mostly steamed, where Chinese teas are roasted, in order to stop the leaves from breaking down. When the leaves are steamed, as in Sencha or Matcha, they produce a very green leaf, and in turn, a green brew. If a restaurant serves you a really green colored tea, its most likely a powdered sencha (which is very common for use as an iced green tea). Most likely you will have to order the tea from an internet retailer unless there is a specialty tea shop near you.
All green tea should be green, but if you let it boil for too long it will be brown. Try waiting half a minute rather than 90 seconds, and it will be a spring green. It depends on how strong typical cafes make it, though my green tea also turns brown after too long.
I don't boil any tea, especially green tea. I usually let it steep at 170.
I disagree with Chris Steinbach. Japanese green tea is green. Chinese green tea is brown. In Chinese character (Kanji in Japanese), Cha means tea, and Chairo means tea color=brown. We Japanese always wonder why Chinese call brown as tea color, because we Japanese only know "Tea=green"!!
Hello Mimi, and welcome to the site! This is probably a language issue, but your original phrase was disrespectful of another user, so I reworded it. I left the rest of your post (where you explain the tea colors) untouched.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.082767
| 2012-09-19T21:28:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27280",
"authors": [
"Alex Nye",
"Denise Matthews",
"Futurecat",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Jim Ferguson",
"Jmp",
"Kate Wheeler",
"Kyle Roach",
"Liza F",
"Muhammad Raja",
"Peter K.",
"Rod_Algonquin",
"Sinstein",
"Vectornaut",
"daniel brone",
"hippietrail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6231",
"immutabl",
"kitchen tuts",
"lemontwist",
"rumtscho",
"Эдуард Фролов"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34027
|
Does a home produce refrigerator exist?
It seems there are many foods that store best at about 50℉ (10℃) storage temperatures and high humidity levels: herbs, peppers, tomatoes, etc. As it stands, I store tomatoes and some herbs on the counter, which shortens their shelf life.
Is there a small home refrigerator available that will provide a suitable environment for such produce?
Humidity Tip: I recently read somewhere about adding a damp towel to your refrigerator's produce drawer to increase the humidity. It did make a dramatic improvement, verified with a hygrometer, raising the drawer's humidity to about 70%.
You could try wine coolers*. Wine likes temperatures around 50F, so they should all be around the temperature you want, and the nicer ones will have accurate thermostats too.
Mini-fridges could work - if their warmest temperature setting is warm enough. But be careful: they tend to have very bad circulation. On normal fridge temperature settings, a lot of them range from frozen on one end to too warm on the other end. If you set it warmer, you might end up with a range from too cold to room temperature. If all you're storing in it is roots, this is totally fine, but it could cause problems if anything is sensitive. So your mileage may vary, and it can be tough to tell without buying and trying.
That said, you don't want temperatures that cold for tomatoes. Storing them at room temperature is fine and generally recommended, unless your room temperature is excessively hot. (For example, Harold McGee says this in On Food and Cooking, and that temperatures below 55F will mess with the texture.)
Most herbs also do pretty well in the refrigerator, wrapped loosely with paper towels inside an open bag. Things like basil that like warm weather do better at room temperature, with cut ends in water, like flowers. (You can also do this in the fridge, if you're having problems with them drying out too much - you'll want to cover the "bouquet" loosely with a bag still.) See How to Store Fresh Herbs for more.
The things that you might want to store at intermediate temperatures are root vegetables - this is why they were traditionally stored in cellars (like wine). Potatoes, for example, have an ideal storage temperature around 45-50F. But it's not a huge concern; their storage lifetime is pretty long at room temperature. Unless you find them sprouting before you use them, there's not much to worry about!
* Note that I said wine cooler not wine cellar - in general the ones marketed as cellars are more expensive, but there are ones marketed as coolers that are back down closer to the minifridge price range. Rumtscho's additional suggestion of drink refrigerators is probably good too - though quickly searching, I didn't find ones that were any cheaper than the cheap wine coolers.
Like many Canadians I have a "beer fridge" in the basement. In this case it's an ancient fridge that once belonged to a relative. I've turned it up as warm as it can go and it makes a great "root cellar" for carrots, beets, and the like from my Community Support Agriculture winter program. However it is significantly dryer than the typical damp earth root cellar, so I have to keep all the produce in plastic bags in there. (Anything not in a bag becomes wizened very quickly.) They definitely keep better there than at room temperature in the kitchen, or in the main fridge upstairs which is set to fridge temperature.
Many modern fridges have compartments that run at different temperatures and humidity levels than the main fridge area
For a really modern look, try this fridge drawer designed and made in New Zealand :-). It matches the dish drawer and can be set to -18°C to 15°C (0°F to 59°F)
I took an old refrigerator and placed a wine-making thermostat (with sensor mounted inside on top) which keeps the temperature around 60 to 62 degrees. Then a small computer fan was added by mounting it inside on an angle. This moves the air around throughout the whole interior.
For power I used a small plug-in type transformer which satisfied the fan. This way, all the food, etc. remains fresh for a much longer time. I keep my medicine, vitamins, spices in there too because it's that elusive 'Cool, Dry and Dark' place.
The freezer area is now warmer than a regular refrigerator, yet it's a great temperature for beer. On the outside is a label which warns all that this not a freezer, or even a refrigerator.
+1. I have been doing the same now for years, without using a fan. Just a refrigerator plugged through a thermostat, with the thermostat's probe inside (the door gasket closes on it well enough). I keep it at 15-ish C, and it works very well for me. Also, because I use a modern small refrigerator without a freezer compartment, the electricity consumption is minimal.
Yes, they exist. They are called "drink refrigerator". Unlike a normal fridge, they don't have a freezer compartment, cheese compartment, etc. They are supposed to be used by kiosks who sell cooled soft drinks, and normally are regulated at around 15 Celsius, which is actually a bit better for some kinds of produce (e.g. tomatoes, tropical fruit) and not that bad for lettuce and such. But as far as I can remember, you can regulate their temperature within some interval, and getting them down to 10 Celsius (50 F) does not sound unreasonable, if that's what you want.
All electric refrigerators I have seen have a rotary dial or knob for adjusting the temperature.
If you put a thermometer inside of the refrigerator, then by trial-and-error experimentation, you can calibrate the knob setting to degrees in Fahrenheit.
I recommend marking the region around the knob with a felt-tipped marking pen.
Any factory-made electric refrigerator produced after the year 1990 and sold in North America is just as suitable (or unsuitable) for vegetable produce as any refrigerator sold with lettering in the user manual describing produce or vegetables.
Good point, I might try this along with the damp-towel trick to increase the humidity.
I've done this, adding an aftermarket thermostat to a chest freezer. It worked great. Fruit and veggies kept well in it and I could put cases of veggies in it. Someone got the thermostat wet and it shorted everything out, so the key is to make sure the thermostat is mounted somewhere dry.
This sounds very much like the function of the Kimchi refrigerator, a type of refrigerator that typically features multiple compartments and sometimes has separate controls to manage each compartment's temperature separately.
Most of them can be set to fermentation temperatures around 60-68f, and then have cooler settings for long term storage. I'm not sure how much control you have outside of the sweet spot ranges (30-40f vs 60-68f) but it wouldn't surprise me if you
These are obviously more popular in the Korean market than anywhere else, but there are some companies that sell them for people outside Korea. It might be a clever solution if you can find one that meets your needs.
Rather than spend a lot of money on devices marketed as wine cellars or similar (which are just plain regular refrigerators, perhaps with a glass door or differing aesthetic treatment and a higher price tag), you might wish to purchase small chest freezer and an aftermarket temperature controller, with a temperature probe that goes into the freezer cavity.
While focused on home brewing beer, The Barley Blog explains it in detail.
They recommend a particular model of controller, which you plug the freezer into:
The device essentially overrides the freezer’s own cooling mechanism
by cutting power to the appliance when the desired temperature is
attained. All you have to do is plug the freezer into the Johnson
Controls and then plug the regulator into a suitable power supply.
It does seem that such controllers are available through Amazon, for example. (I wanted to be sure this idea is practical).
This may not be a great idea, at least for some fridges/freezers - it can apparently be quite bad for the compressor.
@Jefromi I suspect that post is bumpkin. Check spec sheets from compressor manufacturers, they dont mention or warn against this. Many commercial installation have multiple compressor installs into one chiller, they are effectively auto-backup unit. When one compressor fails or can't keep up with need food load, they other step in. Otherwise they sit idle
@TFD I don't have any manuals handy, but the answer there does say "However if you must turn it off in order to sleep, turn the cold temp to off prior to turning the fridge off. All fridge manuals recommend that you do this before unplugging the fridge when moving the fridge." And having multiple compressors in one fridge doesn't mean that it's good for them to turn them on and off by unplugging - if short-cycling is a problem, presumably those fridges doesn't short-cycle them.
@Jefromi The web is awash in manuals, what you will generally find is advice like "after moving fridge, allow it to sit still for 10 minutes to allow oils and gases to separate and move to correct locations". The multiple compressors are wired so mostly only one runs, and others run only when extra cooling is, required. So they can cycle very unevenly depending when the cooler is opened or filled. This is normal
I read a trick in one of the Amazon posts that you can place the probe in a cup of water to slow the cycle time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.083302
| 2013-05-09T03:58:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34027",
"authors": [
"Ansar Bedharudeen",
"Cal McLean",
"Cascabel",
"Don",
"Fernando Angulo Larrazabal",
"Gloria Holcomb",
"Gloria Igah",
"Helen Miller",
"JRodge01",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Joe M",
"Patrick Wilson",
"Rand0mater",
"Smich",
"Star Dancer",
"TFD",
"Takoma Parky",
"Texaschikkita ",
"Wendy Arneson",
"What the",
"codeulike",
"fidelia779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79182",
"rumtscho",
"winbacker",
"ybnd"
],
"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
}
|
27350
|
For equal volumes water and sugar, what is the ratio of separated volume vs. combined?
I'm making a simple syrup with equal parts sugar and water in a glass measuring cup and want to avoid dirtying two measuring cups.
I want to measure one (say standard table sugar,) then add the water. What should the resulting volume of both be?
Not that this isn't an interesting question, but the syrup's going to end up somewhere else, right (like in a pot to heat it up)? Just use the same measuring cup for both. Measure sugar, pour out, measure water.
This question as stated in the title is confusing, because the answer of "what ratio" is 1 to 1.
Why not use scales?
@PeterTaylor Why use a scale when it takes at least as much effort as looking at the line on the container, but I need to pull out an extra piece of equipment? This would solve no problem that I have. The only advantage it provides is a slight increase in accuracy. Instead of memorizing the volumetric ratio, I'd have to remember the weight to volume ratio of sugar.
It's not really about accuracy but reproducibility. The density of water is fairly constant, but the density of loosely packed anything isn't. And you don't need to worry about rate of dissolution affecting the measurement.
@PeterTaylor while I agree that a scale is preferrable (along with recipes by-weight), this case is probably an exception. Sugar syrup is mostly heated until a supersaturated solution is reached, so that the ratio of water to sugar in the final product is determined by the temperature to which the syrup was heated, not by the initial ratio. If the syrup will be heated, then the only concern is to have enough water to dissolve all sugar at room temperature, without using so much that the time needed for evaporating it to supersaturation gets too long.
Absurdly enough, I'm using the data provided here in a discussion over at Physics.SE :-)
My experiment with table sugar, pouring 1/2 cup of table sugar into a glass container then pouring in 1/2 cup of water on top without stirring resulted in the water line reaching the 3/4 cup mark after a few seconds of absorption.
So the ratio of the volume of separated sugar and water to the mixture is 3:4.
Well, after this came up in another question and after realizing data on this was hard to find online, I pulled out my graduated cylinder and tried it myself.
As noted in comments, measuring sugar by volume is very inexact. I found that simply by pouring sugar into the graduated cylinder and tapping it, I could start with about 110mL and tap it down to about 90mL. Even without considering other problems like possible clumps in sugar or the fact that different brands of granulated sugar may have different particle size (and thus different densities), this is already a huge source of potential variation.
So, I tried getting a volume of sugar that was about 100mL on average (that is, tapped down to settle slightly, but not completely). Using 100mL of water and adding this volume of sugar gave me a solution of approximately 158mL.
That means the combined volume of the dissolved sugar-water mixture was about 79% of the combined volume of the original sugar plus water. Again, I note about a +/-10% variance in sugar density depending on how it is measured, which means the possible range here should be around 76% to 82%, depending on how "settled" the sugar was when I measured it. This is in close agreement with widebandit's post here that found a ratio of 25 fluid oz. solution to 32 fl. oz. of original ingredients, or about 78%, though just a bit higher than Jeff Axelrod's ratio of 75%.
Maybe someday I'll try this with a few different brands of sugar, but I just thought I'd add one more datapoint that's close to the other answers here, with some information on how much variance to expect.
As a homebrewer this question is really important to me so I know how much water to put in a container without overflowing it with sugar. The internet seems convinced that there is NO increase in volume, that is untrue (Except perhaps as a junior science experiment where the relative quantity of sugar is very low and the increase immeasurable.)
I have confirmed from experiment that 100 ml room temperature tap water with 40 g of granulated table sugar added increases the volume to 125 ml, which is a 25% increase in volume.
Depending on your concentration of sugar I would expect this to scale in linear fashion, or close as makes no difference.
I've been making hummingbird sugar water for years. Dissolving 2 Cups (16 dry oz) granulated sugar into 2 cups water makes about 25 oz (3-1/8 cups) of sugar-water. The sugar adds about 9/16 of it's dry volume to the liquid solute. Once I have this mix I add more water to make 48oz of sugar-water for the hummers. Sugar content is then a bit less than 19% sugar by volume.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.084076
| 2012-09-23T21:08:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27350",
"authors": [
"Adele Hayes",
"Carl Witthoft",
"Cathy",
"Daneel",
"Dereleased",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"MSS",
"Peter Taylor",
"PyGeek03",
"barmanb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61643",
"johnnyj",
"jscs",
"lemontwist",
"rumtscho",
"seeker_of_bacon",
"user80030"
],
"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
}
|
81728
|
Cooked or raw mushrooms on pizza?
Should I precook mushrooms before putting on pizza to prevent soggy pizza? I swear when I've seen pizza shops do it, they put them on raw--albeit from recollection they're more thinly sliced than the supermarket pre-sliced variety.
Is that the key? Or do most pizzerias saute their mushrooms in advance to remove the moisture? What if I'm using a lot of mushrooms?
Short answer: It Depends.
Long Answer:
You are correct that the decision on precooking mushrooms before putting them on pizza is about controlling moisture. For some hefty mushrooms like portabellos, it's also about making sure that they cook fully. Here's what to factor in:
What's the density of mushrooms per pizza area? That is, how much space between slices?
Are these hefty mushrooms (white, crimini, portabello) or delicate mushrooms (chantrelle, oyster, enoki)?
How thickly are they sliced?
Are there other "wet" items going on the pizza topping, like a sauce or fresh tomatoes?
How thick is the crust?
How long will the pizza cook, and how hot?
On one end of the scale, if you're making a thin-crust pizza with tomato sauce and covering it completely in thickly sliced portabellos, you pretty much certainly should precook them. However, if you're making a deep dish pizza with only a few thin-sliced white mushrooms on top, then don't bother. Stuff in between is up to your judgement.
For pizza restaurants, American Pizza is a medium crust, and they generally don't put that many mushrooms on each slice, so it's fine to put them on raw. However, I've been to thin-crust Neopolitian-style pizza places where they did, indeed, partly cook the "wild mushrooms" ahead.
Also, if you are precooking the mushrooms, you want to cook them in a way that will remove moisture. That means broiling them in the pizza oven on a baking sheet with parchment ... not sauteeing them.
Additional variable - how you like the mushrooms cooked. If you want big slices with fresh mushroom taste or if you want well browned little half-crispy mushroom bits, well, that will definitely make a difference in whether you should pre-cook or not (and my examples were extremes, there's a whole range of outcomes in-between that a person can favor this way or that way, only solution is try and see)
I thickly slice mushrooms and then pan fry to get them coated with oil and to season (salt, pepper, thyme).
The oil and thick slicing prevents the mushrooms from getting too dry. I've had thinly sliced raw mushrooms on commercials pizzas and don't like the dry almost chewy texture.
Pizzas are cooked under intense heat, so precooked mushrooms will tend to get overcooked. There's no need to precook them, even if you are adding a lot of them. I would always buy whole mushrooms and slice them myself, pre-sliced ones tend to dry out and they won't taste as fresh.
I wish that I could find this in a written form (rather than video), but America's Test Kitchen makes the case that you really can't overcook mushrooms.
I've never had problems with raw mushrooms on pizza turning it soggy. I have always seen them putting raw mushrooms on pizza at the places I go to.
The only reason to sauté them would be to add extra flavor.
If lightly-cooked mushrooms aren't your thing, and you're making pizza on a stone in a domestic oven, it's quite possible they won't cook enough while the pizza cooks. So I pre-cook mine.
I used to microwave them then drain them, and that works, but I've found something better.
Now I just slice them and put them flat on a baking tray in the oven for 2-3 minutes when it's nearly preheated. This leaves them much drier and less prone to making things soggy than microwaving or even frying. I don't use any oil, but you could.
Mushrooms should be pre cooked to remove moisture and placed below the cheese to prevent drying out.
Ted, welcome! To ensure that this remains a welcoming place for everyone, I would like to remind you that we have a Code of Conduct, also known as the „be nice policy“. You can post your own answers and once you have gained the community’s respect you will be able to downvote posts you consider not helpful. Bashing others in your post is not ok. For now, I have removed the part in question. As for all new users, I recommend the [tour] and our [help] to learn more about how the site works.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.084598
| 2017-05-16T21:32:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81728",
"authors": [
"Megha",
"Stephie",
"Xander Henderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259"
],
"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
}
|
933
|
How hot should the oil be when preparing schnitzel?
I frequently fry breaded chicken breast, but I can't seem to get the temperature right. Sometimes the first couple pieces come out overdone and sometimes if I don't let them sit in the pan for a while, they will come out under-cooked. I would like to get the outside of each piece crispy without having it be overcooked. How can I know what is the correct temperature to fry at and is there a trick to know once the oil has reached this temperature?
Or you can prepare them in the oven! You just have to find the good temperature for your oven/taste. I do mines at 240 degrees for 20-30 minutes each side (i'm not wery sure about the time because i am still new at this. But nothing stops you from removing a piece from the oven and try it, to see if you could leave it longer or not)
I generally use about 1cm deep of olive oil when I'm making schnitzel which may or may not be the right oil but it works for me.
I generally find that if the oil is smoking, it's too hot so I tend to get it to a temperature that is very hot, but not smoking.
Once I get it to that temperature, I don't cook too many schnitzel's at once, generally 2 or maybe 3 max to a pan depending on how big your pan is.
The final thing is that you need to make sure you beat the schnitzel out nice and thin before you crumb it so it's only about 1/2 a cm thick when you're cooking it. This way it'll only take a minute or two to cook through and won't overcook the crumb.
A recent episode of America's Test Kitchen recommended heating the oil to 375F and to gently shake the pan back and forth while frying.
I tried it the other day and the schnitzel came out great. Shaking the pan keeps the oil temperature more even and help form a nice crisp crust.
Infrared thermometers are exceedingly useful for determining the temperature of frying oil, particularly shallow-frying oil that can't be measured with a probe thermometer. And yes, about 375 F would be a good temperature for something like schnitzel, where you want some good browning and crust, without risk of burning. (For comparison, 325 is good for sweating onions; 450 or so is good for stir frying or searing steak.)
It may depend on the pan & how well it holds the heat…
I've had the chance recently to test three different frying pans of three vastly different qualities & prices, and the results were amazing. All are approx 30cm [12"] pans, smallest 29, largest 32.
£15 Cheapo lightweight supermarket 'teflon' pan - get the oil nearly smoking before putting in the chicken. First side cooks in seconds, almost too fast. by the time you flip it, the pan has lost all its heat & the second side takes minutes. Lifting the flame for the second side doesn't really help as it then gets hot spots.
Result: crispy one side, soggy the other, or burned at the edges. Poor.
£50 Heavy 'premium brand' - don't need the oil quite so hot to start with. Less pronounced temperature drop by the time you flip it.
Result: Quite acceptable. Been using this one for years & have got used to just easing the flame up a little to compensate for the second side.
£120 Seriously 'posh' pan - takes ages to heat up, but once it does it can weather the storm. Same cooking time both sides of the chicken, at an overall lower starting temperature than either of the other pans. Heat stability quite remarkable.
Result: Best schnitzel I've ever had.
If you want brands, the first is a no-name supermarket's own brand, second is a Meyer, Raymond Blanc, & the expensive one is Scanpan.
I am from Germany so we generally make schnitzel with veal or pork but I think these tips will also apply to chicken.
The most important part to watch out for is something @Tetsujin already hinted at. You are going to introduce a lot of cold (or more scientifically accurate remove heat) from the pan when you put in your schnitzels, meaning your first ones might actually have the oil at the correct temperature but the pan not yet be preheated properly.
What I do is generally that we use ghee for frying schnitzel and you want it to cover your meat. I preheat my pan for 5 minutes on low heat (gas stove) and then add the ghee to it while turning up to medium heat. Let the ghee melt and slowly come up to temp for the course of about 5 minutes(might vary depending on the stove). If it is not getting hot enough this is the point where I'll increase to medium-high. The correct temperature is a little bit above frying temperature, so if I want to fry at 170C (which is my preferred temp) (338F) I will heat until 180-185C (356F-363F) and then drop in my meat. After I get out the first one I will leave the pan undisturbed for the ghee to come back up to temperature.
As an Austrian I feel obliged to answer :)
First, schnitzel should be thin. Pound them really quite thin, salt and pepper them, then do the breading and put them in the pan soon after (no "pre-breading").
The oil should be about 1 cm/half an inch high in a wide pan and be about 190 °C/375 °F. I like to use an instant read thermometer to periodically check the temperature, but if you do not have one, you can dip the tip of a breaded schnitzel into the oil; it should immediately start to bubble around the crust and make a crackling sound.
Do not overcrowd the pan, as the temperature will drop, leading to a soggy crust. Agitate the oil slightly from time to time by shaking to keep the temperature uniform.
When a schnitzel is done and has developed a nice golden crust, transfer it out of the pan onto a plate with some kitchen towels or a cooling rack to let excess oil drain of. You can keep a few schnitzels in a low oven until you are ready to serve all of them.
The oil should be heated in such a way that the starch coating's surface reaches 190 C during the first few seconds of frying. This is a general rule that holds for all deep fried things with a starchy surface (which is practically all of them, since the nonstarchy ones typically get breaded).
There are various ways to achieve this. The easiest is to use a deep fryer with a sufficient amount of oil (at least 2 liters is good) held at a constant temperature just above the needed 190 C (to counteract the cooling from the schnitzel insides). With some experience, you can make do with other methods as described in other answers.
The main thing to remember is that the momentary temperature of the oil the moment you add the schnitzel is not sufficient to ensure a well-fried schnitzel. You will have to control the whole heating process properly, and depending how you do it, the oil temperature at that specific point in time can vary. The really important parameter is the time it takes to stabilize the crust at the needed 190 C. If you either let it go up to that temperature slowly, or have it overshoot at first and cool down later, you will end up with a greasy, soggy crust.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.084955
| 2010-07-14T10:49:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/933",
"authors": [
"Glenn",
"Harlan",
"Nix",
"RBerteig",
"Ron",
"Vinnie",
"babyysteps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89158"
],
"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
}
|
76585
|
What is ideal temperature for baking cupcakes?
I baked two batches of cupcakes at 180˚C but both collapsed in the middle. I guessed I must have used a little extra baking soda in the first batch so I used lesser amount of baking soda and baking powder in the second batch. The cakes rose nicely for first few minutes (I watched through the glass door of the oven without opening it) and then collapsed in the middle finally resulting in hard on the outside, sticky in the inside mess.
Recipe: Adapted from an eggless cake recipe.
Ingredients: 1 cup butter; 1 cup granulated sugar; 1 cup flour; ¼ cup milk; ½ teaspoon vanilla essence; 2 teaspoons cocoa; ¼ teaspoon baking powder; ½ teaspoon baking soda.
Process: I cream the butter and sugar together and then add milk and vanilla essence. I then mix dry ingredients and fold them lightly in the batter. Then bake them in cupcake moulds at 180˚C (356°F).
Are you following a recipe?
There are many variables at play here. Altitude, humidity, recipe, and more. We definitely need more information to give you a great answer.
Please [edit] the question to add additional information. That way, it's easy for everyone to find (and it doesn't get lost in a potentially long comment chain). I'm going to go ahead and do that for you.
The most common reason for cupcakes to sink is an oven temperature that is too high. 180C is equivalent to 356F. Most recipes in the US for cupcakes call for an oven temperature of 350F. 180 and 350 are just round numbers signifying a moderate oven. Cupcakes are picky though, a very slight difference in temperature can make a big difference in the final cupcake. So try dropping your temperature a bit, and be sure to use an oven thermometer.
Opening the door during baking can cause sinking, so don't do that! (I see that you didn't, so that's one possibility down)
Use fresh baking powder. Baking powder that has been opened for just a matter of a few months starts losing effectiveness. Baking soda on the other hand, lasts pretty much forever if stored properly.
Are you by any chance using Dutch processed cocoa? If so, try adding a small amount (a quarter teaspoon or so) of white vinegar. Baking soda needs acid to work properly, and Dutch processed cocoa has been made nonacidic. Since your recipe also includes baking powder, that is unlikely to be the problem unless your baking powder is stale.
Finally, follow the recipe carefully regarding beating. Overbeating the batter can cause sinking.
That's the best answer I can give based on your limited information. We can help you narrow it down further if you give us every little bit of information you can.
I am following a simple recipe adapted from an eggless cake recipe.
Ingredients:
1 cup butter
1 cup granulated sugar
1 cup flour
1/4 cup milk
1/2 teaspoon vanilla essence
2 teaspoons cocoa
1/4 teaspoon baking powder
1/2 teaspoon baking soda
Process:
I cream the butter and sugar together and then add milk and vanilla essence. I then mix dry ingredients and fold them lightly in the batter. Then bake them in cupcake moulds at 180˚C.
Is this a recipe you adapted, or is it as originally written? Are you using an oven thermometer? Is your baking powder fresh (open < 6 months and before the use-by date)? Instinctively, I look at those measurements for baking soda and powder and think that it doesn't seem like enough, especially in a recipe that doesn't include eggs.
EDITED: Yes, the original old-fashioned pound cake was named that because it used 1 pound each of butter, flour and sugar. Yes, the ratio was 1:1 of flour and butter but it was done by weight, not by volume which is what is in the recipe the op gave. One pound of flour can vary between 3-4 cups, depending on the type of flour (cake vs high-gluten) and how humid it is. And of course a recipe for pound cake (or anything similar) uses eggs that are vigorously beaten to maintain a solid form when baked.
So I stick with what I say about proportion of flour to butter despite what @rumtscho wrote in his comment.
I don't guess that the recipe might be off, I know it is! If you check the recipe @Jolenealaska linked to, the proportion of flour to fat (oil in this case) is 3:1. In your recipe, it's 1:1 - 3 times as much fat. That's more like a brownie recipe but without anything like eggs to bind the mixture, plus yours has the addition of milk. Many brownies aren't that rich as well; neither are brownies expected to rise and have a cupcake like texture.
Best toss out that recipe or recheck the ingredients ratios.
That's not the problem. One of the most established recipes for cakes is the "pound cake", which used to work by taking exactly one pound of each ingredient (eggs, flour, butter, sugar). Nowadays we make it smaller, but it still keeps the 1:1:1:1 ratio, and it works perfectly. 3:1 is even quite far outside the ratio range which Corriher considers sufficient for a "good" cake. Your taste is probably different, so you are OK with your recipe, but the OP's recipe is much closer to the norm.
@rumtscho Please see the edit to my answer. I wonder if you might've slipped and got weight confused with volume as you seem a very experienced cook?
You are right - I read your answer without paying that much attention to the question and overlooked that you used a volume ratio, I'm not accustomed to those. That would be 2:1 in weight, so indeed unusual. Downvote removed, and even an upvote - I am not sure it is the reason, but certainly something to look into.
I would say that the eggless recipe is at fault here. It is not a recipe which replaces the eggs somehow, it is a recipe which simply leaves out the eggs. The symptoms are very typical for that case: there is no binder in the recipe, so all the gas created by the baking powder (that first rise you observe) just goes into the atmosphere, leaving you with warm pudding (the sticky mess you observed).
So, if you want a classic cake texture, use a standard recipe with eggs. If you absolutely can have no eggs at all, try a recipe that uses a commercial egg replacer. In the worst case, use some of the homemade replacers, but the texture won't be as nice. As for just leaving out all eggs, there are cakes which do it, but you have to get accustomed to liking the end result.
As the solution here is to choose a different recipe, just use the temperature suggested by your new recipe.
Look at this: http://www.spiceupthecurry.com/chocolate-cupcakes-egg-less/ I think perhaps you are jumping to conclusions.
@Jolenealaska I tried this recipe. I must say it worked better than other eggless recipes I have tried in the past. Still, even at the low height recommended in the recipe, 1) they lost quite a bit of height as compared to when they were in the oven (even though they do have a nice cupcakey look, not a sunken middle), 2) there is a large difference between their hard outer crust and the crumb. The crumb is not sticky to the touch, but falls together on the tongue, turning into mush before I have the chance to bite into it. It is certainly better than my older tries, but it goes very much in...
... the direction the OP describes. Also, I made two heights, one has 2 cm wall after cooling (these are the originally suggested 2/3 fulls), the other has 1 cm, and the 1 cm are somewhat better. If the OP has a pan with deeper indents (and I have seen these frequently) maybe the height alone is sufficient to make the cake impossible to bake through. Or the balance in their recipe is a touch off. And even though my results are acceptable, they still deflated a lot.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.085767
| 2016-12-18T05:03:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76585",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"Catija",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jude",
"Parry",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7029
|
How to Make Home-made Flour Tortilla Bowls for Salads?
I have tried a couple ways to do this and they have been OK. Of course, when I worked in industrial kitchens, using a deep fryer and a stainless steel potato masher (but larger) was ideal, but neither of these tools are available in my home kitchen.
So basically, I have a 12-15 inch flour tortilla I want to make into a fried bowl for a nice salad. Any ideas?
Try brushing the tortilla with oil, and baking it upside down over a steel bowl.
This seems like a good idea. I will try this.
JustRightMenus touched on this topic in this answer to a similar question.
Quoting that answer:
you can make your own shell for taco salad by placing a large flour (burrito-size) tortilla in an oven-safe bowl (shaped however you'd like) and putting a big ball of tinfoil inside it. You can also do the opposite - place the bowl upside-down and drape the tortilla over it. Either way, Bake at 350 degrees for 10-15 minutes until it's lightly browned, and you're done! When you remove the tinfoil and the bowl, the tortilla will hold its own shape.
I do the bake-in-a-bowl version every time I make taco salads. Depending on how crispy you want the shell, just keep an eye on it in the oven.
I've seen a posting somewhere that used a muffin pan, putting it upside down and placing smaller tortillas in between the crevices before baking. They look great, wavy, just like they serve in the restaurants!
Probably something like this: http://www.emilybites.com/2011/02/mini-taco-bowls.html But don't they look better if you just use the actual muffin cups? http://www.hispanickitchen.com/profiles/blogs/muffin-tin-tacos
If you're going to fry in oil, then just use a ladle to get the bowl shape you desire. I've done that in the past with good results.
I have tried this and it works OK, but not as well as I would like...
I somehow acquired a "tortilla bowl maker" as a gift. It looks something like this: http://www.amazon.com/Norpro-Nonstick-Tortilla-Bowl-Makers/dp/B00005EBH7/. It's essentially a metal mold with ridged sides on the "bowl". We baked flour tortillas on it, but the results were . . . "eh". You may have better luck making bowls from corn tortillas, though.
Cool! I have never seen one of those... Pretty nifty. I'm sure it would work with one of these other techniques mentioned here...
I brushed both sides with oil and put IN a bowl and microwaved it. It tasted fried and crispy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.086379
| 2010-09-09T17:27:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7029",
"authors": [
"Caleb Doucet",
"Cascabel",
"Christian Neverdal",
"Jill Taylor",
"JustRightMenus",
"Laura",
"MNK",
"Nick F",
"Nick Vaccaro",
"bbqmasterchef",
"davarino",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57899",
"kinnou02",
"nicorellius"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3280
|
Why isn't my American-style baked cheesecake very sweet or rising significantly?
I am trying to make a good American-style baked cheesecake.
I tried one recipe and it did not rise as much as I would have expected and it was not as sweet as I would have hoped.
Hope that someone can solve this problem for me!
thanks :)
Maybe it would help if you gave the recipe (or a link to it) to know what you've tried and suggest improvements or different recipes.
isn't all cheese cake "American Style" ?
@dassouki No, it isn't
Cheesecakes are made in UK, Australia, Italy, Greece, Bulgary, Latin America, Franche, Sweden, etc.
There are different styles of American cheesecakes: New York-style, Pennsylvania Dutch-style, Pennsylvania-style, etc. You should report which one you tried, and what you exactly did.
New-York style cheesecake shouldn't have much rise to it. The mixture is basically a custard and the only rise would come from steam created in bubbles that are incorporated during the beating process.
While a REALLY smooth texture is the goal, you don't want to aerate the batter as in other cakes or you'll end up with cracking on the surface from the expansion of the air bubbles. Pull the cream cheese out a couple hours in advance to ensure that it is at room temperature throughout. Eggs must also be at room temperature and can easily be warmed by putting the whole egg in a bowl of hot water from the tap for 5-10 minutes. Having these ingredients at room temperature will create a really smooth texture without beating in too much air.
In regard to sweetness, you might be able to increase the sugar slightly (compare the ratio of sugar to cream cheese in your recipe vs. others), but be careful not to add too much. Excessive sugar will make the custard too watery from the formation of sugar syrup and will make it difficult for it to set up.
New York-style cheesecake normally isn't overly sweet, either. The tang of the cream cheese should come through.
And it provides an excellent flavor base for other ingredients (fruits, for example) without distrcting from them.
I actually tried raising the temperature on an NY style cheesecake that didn't seem to be setting. It rose like crazy (about 1/2 inch above the side of the pan). It immediately fell when we realized that it didn't need to set any more than it had and took it out of the oven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.086628
| 2010-07-26T10:20:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3280",
"authors": [
"Erik B",
"Gagravarr",
"GalacticCowboy",
"Michael Todd",
"Rowland Shaw",
"Rox",
"Sandra ",
"Soner Gönül",
"Todd Chaffee",
"Tzarium",
"avpaderno",
"dassouki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/873",
"justkt",
"matt eisenberg",
"slhck",
"sprout"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3132
|
What type of sherry is typically used when cooking?
Not having used sherry before, what is the type used when a recipe just calls for "sherry"? I see cream sherry, dry sherry, and very dry sherry at my local grocery store. Does brand matter much?
Cream sherry is very sweet - likely too sweet for most recipes that don't explicitly mention it.
If a recipe simply calls for "sherry", it usually means dry sherry, as that's the most common kind of available. In fact, I don't think I've ever even seen "very dry" around here. So I would definitely stick with the dry.
As for brand, if you see several different bottles all labeled sherry, I don't think it matters too much which one you pick - at least if you're using it for cooking and not drinking.
P.S. If you're using this as a substitute for rice wine, the commonly-accepted substitute is indeed dry sherry.
Thanks! You saved me, I was going to buy cream sherry. There were 4 brands of cream sherry, and only one each of dry & very dry. Sherry was not the brand.
And yes, it was a substitute for rice wine. :) General Tso's here I come!
Sherry is a type of wine not a brand, like port or Pinot noir. (Although not named for the grapes that make it unlike a lot of wines)
@sarge, I just found this - apparently it is a registered name but is used generically in the U.S.
If you are able to buy actual styles of sherry, then fino is the driest, and is the one to go for in most savoury dishes. If you are using it in seafood or fish dishes, then I'd try to get manzanilla which is a kind of fino that is grown on the coast and has a salty tang to it.
For sweet dishes try the really raisiny Pedro Ximinéz (PX) or oloroso, which is usually dry but there are sweet versions.
I think the typical American grocery store must have a pretty crap selection then. None of those words/brands even occurred on any of the ones I looked at.
Fino differs from other kinds of sherry, it is cask fermented, unlike the other varieties. Dry sherry for cooking or as a substitute should be Amontillado or Manzanilla (which literally means apple-like).
@klypos Manzanilla is also the noun for camomille infusion in Spanish, to which colour it resembles more. It could also mean little apple. And Manzanilla is a variety of olive and olive tree.
I would gravitate to the dry sherries eg fino/manzanilla
But! I have used dry madeira, dry white port, and amontillado sherry with Chinese recipes that called for rice wine, all with great results.
The real rice wine Sake (if you have any) always works well with cooking though I find it a nice, buzzy drink and it always disappears quite fast from the fridge!
Dry sherry is what is normally used.
I would use dry sherry; the brand most popular in ireland and the Uk would be Winters Tale, I've used that in cooking and desserts many times.
Dry sherry is what you want! Cream sherry is a sweeter sherry and more commonly used for sipping. If the recipe calls for sherry, but doesn't designate it as a sweet sherry, then go for dry sherry. You can find it in most grocery stores. I have used Christian Brothers sherry for several years. Although it is not labeled as a dry sherry, I have found it to be a good go-to sherry for cooking (and sipping as I cook!).
Sherry is the english name for the wine made near Jerez de la Frontera (Cadiz, Spain). It's legal (protected in EU) denomination is "Jerez-Xérès-Sherry". Also there are American sherrys, but they have a completely different elaboration than real sherry.
Sherry is made exclusively with white grapes, but certain varieties of sherry are made also with dried grapes.
Elaboration:
The grapes used for sherry wine are of the varieties Palomino (dry sherry), Pedro-Ximenez (sweet cherry, grapes are dried) or Moscatel (sweet cherry, grapes are dried).
Grapes are collected at the beginning of September. They are cleaned of any leaves and stalk, and discarded any bad bunch of grapes. The grapes are then squeezed and pressed gently once. The remains may get a second pressing for other uses but not for wine making.
The juice is set for fermentation until December, and a 11/12º vol dry white wine is obtained. The wine tasters classify the wines for different types.
Then the wine is fortified with brandy to give the a higher alcohol content. Finally, the fortified wine is put on oak barrels for ageing.
Of course, this is just a short description of the sherry making processes, the fortification are ageing of sherry is quite complex, for more information: Sherry wine production
Types of sherry:
According to the procedure followed in its preparation, the different
types of sherry wine can be grouped as follows:
Vinos Generosos (Generous Wines), with a reducing sugar content of not more than 5 grams per liter, among which are the types Fino, Amontillado, Oloroso And Palo Cortado;
Vinos Dulces Naturales (Natural Sweet Wines), with a content of reducing sugars of more than 160 grams per liter, among which are the types Dulce, Moscatel and Pedro Ximénez;
Vinos Generosos de Licor (Generous Liquor Wines), with a total alcoholic strength of not less than 17,5% by volume and a reducing sugar content of more than 5 grams per liter, such as Dry, Medium, Pale Cream, and Cream.
Culinary use:
Each type of sherry may be paired with different groups of food:
Fino and Manzanilla pair with appetizers (tapas, olives, soft cheeses, seafood, ...), with soups and white fish.
Amontillado pair with cured cheese, soups, consommés, blue fish and white meat.
Oloroso pairs with red meats and game meat.
Pedro Ximénez pairs with sweets and blue cheese.
Pale Cream pairs with foie and fresh fruit.
Medium pairs with paté patés and quiches.
Cream pairs with all kinds of desserts.
For cooking mostly the dry ones are used, but it's usual to find Pedro Ximenez reductions in many preparations, but if other than dry is needed the recipe will state what kind to use.
I truly don't think in Asian recipes,which tend to be historical, sherry from Spain isn't the answer. I'd stick with indigenous rice wines from Asia if you're looking for an authentic taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.086881
| 2010-07-24T21:18:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3132",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BradH",
"Damon",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Liz Morgan",
"Luis-Manuel Garcia Mispireta",
"Tyrone",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91412",
"jcnaquin",
"klypos",
"sarge_smith"
],
"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
}
|
21371
|
How to prevent tofu from falling apart on the grill?
Whenever I've tried to grill tofu (on a propane home grill), it falls apart and into the grill. Is there anything I can do beforehand to prevent the tofu from disintegrating, and get it to behave more like a hunk of meat?
In terms of tagging this vegan/vegetarian - http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21/vegan-vegetarian-meat-tags
@rfudca - Based on that question, and the tag wiki, I'm still a little unclear on the guidelines for tagging "vegetarian". This question occurred to me because of the contest, and because I want to have inclusive options for my veggie friends at the cookout. But, no big deal.
We just finished a big chat discussion about it, feel free to pop into chat.
basically, if the question is actually about veg*n - not just a food that is commonly used by them. Other groups use tofu as well. For example, we don't tag rice questions with 'asian cuisine'.
Standard tips for browning/frying/grilling tofu;
Ensure that you press the tofu sufficiently to remove its own moisture, marinate if desired
Lightly dust with flour
Brush oil on the grilling surface
The same advice applies for pan frying. I prefer to work at a high temperature, others have had very good results using only medium. Use a very thin, flat metal spatula to turn. Specific to the case of grilling, be mindful of the gap the tofu will stretch across on the grate; it may be crumbling because it isn't strong enough or thick enough to sustain wide gaps.
Additionally you can pre-bake the tofu to dry it out further. I have heard tell that salting lightly with finely ground sea salt helps prevent sticking but have no experience with this, and have had good results without the added sodium.
Typically the moisture in the surface of the bean curd is causing the sticking. Prevent or inhibit this and you should be good.
i'd also add that you should get the firmest tofu you can. some places sell smoked, pre-pressed stuff that is VERY firm, and that would hold up really well on a grill.
@franko and additionally you might try sprouted tofu as it has a nice ability to stay whole. Short of any specifics on the type of tofu (i.e. it is easy to get Nasoya, but not-so-much Cleveland tofu), and assuming you are using non-silken, the advice above should obtain in any case.
Bamboo skewers are popular here in China for tofu and mushroom grilling: seems to be the scraping of the spatula that disintegrates the tofu when it's time for flipping.
No need for super-firm either. Basically it's a size issue: the moister and heavier the thinner the slice and more it is 'woven' onto skewers. Rule of thumb if you can handle the piece without destroying it, probably will work on the grill.
If the grill spaces are very wide and sticking is still a sticky issue, then try creating a rack of foil to balance the skewers on each end so that tofu grills horizontally in air.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.087475
| 2012-02-15T17:54:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21371",
"authors": [
" 2016",
"Douglas Thayer",
"Isaac",
"KatieK",
"LeighC22",
"Megha",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47454",
"mfg",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21945
|
Is there a reason to have a plastic bowl?
The only mixing bowl I have for now is a plastic one. But recently it came to my mind that I should have bought a stainless one instead. Is there any pros of plastic bowls, or some task that's best done with plastic bowls?
FWIW, A quick blurb on non/reactive bowls
For your average mixing task, pretty much any bowl (of the right size, shape) will do. Also, "plastic" isn't one material, it's a bunch of different materials. For example, some advantages of polypropylene bowls do not apply to melamine formaldehyde bowls, but both are plastic.
So, here are some advantages of a polypropylene (PP) bowl over a metal bowl:
microwave safe
high elasticity (can be bent, and will go back to its original shape. E.g., if you drop your PP bowl, it won't dent)
extremely acid-resistant
extremely resistant to other chemical attacks (e.g., will not corrode)
plastic bowls are often made in a mold, so can be cheaply made in a variety of shapes. You can get bowls with nice pouring spouts, etc. because of this.
Of course, they have disadvantages too:
fats stick, almost impossible to remove all traces (a problem when beating egg whites)
can't be used over a pot as a double-boiler
can't hold very hot things (e.g., you can put hot oil in a metal bowl, but PP would melt. Different plastics have different melting points, some can't even hold boiling water. You never have to worry with stainless.)
can't be used in the oven
And there are things which are just different, like metal conducts heat better (so it works better when cooling in an ice bath, but also you're much more likely to get burnt on it), metal is denser (PP floats, metal doesn't).
If you get metal bowls, except for a few applications where copper is nice (those egg whites, again), you want stainless steel. Stainless is fairly resistant to acid and also corrosion (plain steel is not). Note that stainless comes in different grades, which vary in their corrosion, rust, and acid resistance.
One reason to have at least one stainless steel bowl is to beat egg-whites. As plastic is difficult to clean of fat and egg-whites do not beat easily with fat around. It's better to just have a clean stainless steel bowl. Copper is even better for beating egg-whites.
@BaffledCook yes indeed, that's the application I was thinking of. I'll add it in...
Plastic bowls, along with plastic/rubber/silicon utensils, are quieter when beating and scraping than metal, glass or porcelain would be.
There isn't much difference at all really. I have ceramic bowls, glass bowls, steel bowls and plastic bowls. I use my plastic bowl the most as its lighter and has a 'grip' on the bottom. Steel mixing bowls are heavy and if you use an electric beater make a really loud noise as they strike the bowl. No nonstick steel or plastic bowls exist on the market (as far as I'm aware of) however ceramic ones do. Metal bowls are supposedly easier to clean than plastic bowls as plastic bowls tend to cling to fats and lipids more than metal bowls however I have only seen this referenced (albeit frequently) in meringue recipes where it really matters. Weighing up the odds, I don't think it's worth it to go out and buy a steel bowl if you've already got one as the difference is to minimal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.087756
| 2012-03-03T05:27:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21945",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Rincewind42",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32674
|
What is a good substitute for ground veal?
I found a great looking recipe that calls for ground veal. What other meats would be a reasonable substitute for flavor and texture for ground veal besides the obvious ground beef? Lamb?
I think you should take out the whole ethical part of the question and make it just what are the best substitutes for veal in terms of flavor and texture.
@Jay \I'm not opposed to eating calf meat, just the way it's inhumanely raised in the U.S.
@JeffAxelrod The beef ain't treated so nice either. At least the calf gets put out of misery earlier (j/k). Drive out of town for 1hr and find a nice farmer. see the book Omnivore’s Dilemma.
@MandoMando There were really two questions embedded, and I ended up splitting off another question if your answer is recvoverable: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32679/where-can-i-buy-free-range-veal-in-the-us/32680#32680
@MandoMando most calves used to make veal are bull calves, they're not treated any different from any other calf that's then raised to adulthood. A more important reason to want substitutes would be unavailability (see that here, just can't get any veal, it's all exported to where the price is better) or high price (could special order it, paying 2-3 times the price of already expensive beef).
The original recipe calls for a total of 2 lbs of ground meat, 1/2 beef and 1/2 veal.
I would suggest a close approximation to the effect can be had by using either (in decreasing order of preference):
50% ground pork, 50% ground beef -- Some of the mild flavor of veal, with tenderness and flavor from the pork
100% ground beef -- It won't be as tender or as subtle, but still will be good
I would avoid trying to use as part of your substitution mixture:
Ground lamb, goat, ox, and so on -- flavor is too strong
Ground chicken or turkey -- these are extremely low in fat, likely to toughen your overall mixture, and likely to make it taste more poultryesque
Personally, I would also switch from whole eggs to just the yolks, which will bring the binding and tenderizing qualities of the yolk, without the slightly rubber-like texture of albumin based white, to more closely approximate the qualities the veal would have brought to the dish.
Before seeing your answer, I made it to the grocery store; I briefly considered lamb but ended up going with ground pork because that's what I found Cooks Illustrated used in their recent meatloaf recipe.
I have used ground turkey as a substitute in several receipes with ground beef . I have never had a poultryesque (did I spell that right) taste, especially when you are using quite a bit of seasoning (and stout in this receipe.) Ground turkey is low fat, readily available and tasty. I recommend it heartily!
I made up the word poulreyesque, so you can spell it any way you want :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.088022
| 2013-03-14T16:38:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32674",
"authors": [
"Barb",
"Carlos Jamal Skele",
"Cathy",
"D Joffino",
"Enodie",
"GKE",
"Jay",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Jerry",
"Juan Alonso",
"Julie",
"Lily",
"Madison Walker",
"MandoMando",
"Miriam",
"PanfriedVI",
"Pilgrimm",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Scott E",
"Vielbein",
"abhi parikh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"jwenting",
"monika mercado"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32679
|
Is free-range veal available in the US?
I found a great looking recipe that calls for ground veal. Is there free-range veal or "rose veal" available here in the U.S.?
Meta discussion on off-topic status of sourcing questions: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1292/what-types-of-sourcing-questions-should-be-allowed
@SAJ14SAJ interesting discussion. I agree that questions like "Where can I buy XXX cheaply?" don't add to the site. I changed the title to reflect what I really wanted to know; Is free range veal widely or otherwise for purchase in the US?
Veal cows are male. So the best place to get them would be from a dairy farm. You know they have milk for the calf and they have little use for bulls.
This article lists some farms and source around the US. In most parts of the US there are farmers that will try to treat their stock humanely, but they tend to be local organizations (for now).
I purchase Strauss "Free Raised" veal in my local Whole Foods. I believe most Whole Foods Markets carry this product.
The only manufacturer I could find that produces free-range veal in the US is Strauss Brands. Through their website you can contact them to find where it may be sold in your area.
I'm not sure about proper veal, but Prather Ranch Meat Company sells certified humane Vitellone, which is kinda like veal. I think they may be slightly older. They're pasture raised and have a little grass in their diet.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.088319
| 2013-03-14T18:22:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32679",
"authors": [
"Daniel",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Larry K",
"Margaret Belt",
"Mathew Mahindaratne",
"Paul",
"Ricky Smith",
"Roy Montague",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sabby star69",
"Silly Freak",
"Stephen Beaumont",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75615",
"josue.0",
"toniedzwiedz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32863
|
When should cutting boards be replaced?
From a food safety perspective, under what conditions should a plastic or wood cutting board be replaced?
I have a plastic one that developed a crack that goes through both sides of the board. I presume a crack like this would indicate it needs to be replaced since it could harbor bacteria.
Please provide a reputable reference with your answer.
The USDA suggests that "all plastic and wooden cutting boards wear out over time. Once cutting boards become excessively worn or develop hard-to-clean grooves, they should be discarded."
Other advice they offer for avoiding food contamination from cutting boards:
Avoid Cross-Contamination The Meat and Poultry Hotline says that consumers may use wood or a nonporous surface for cutting raw meat and
poultry. However, consider using one cutting board for fresh produce
and bread and a separate one for raw meat, poultry, and seafood. This
will prevent bacteria on a cutting board that is used for raw meat,
poultry, or seafood from contaminating a food that requires no further
cooking.
Cleaning Cutting Boards To keep all cutting boards clean, the Hotline recommends washing them with hot, soapy water after each use;
then rinse with clear water and air dry or pat dry with clean paper
towels. Nonporous acrylic, plastic, or glass boards and solid wood
boards can be washed in a dishwasher (laminated boards may crack and
split).
Both wooden and plastic cutting boards can be sanitized with a
solution of 1 tablespoon of unscented, liquid chlorine bleach per
gallon of water. Flood the surface with the bleach solution and allow
it to stand for several minutes. Rinse with clear water and air dry or
pat dry with clean paper towels.
Not necessarily relevant to your original question, but this article provides interesting knowledge about wooden cutting boards: http://faculty.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/faculty/docliver/Research/cuttingboard.htm
The simple rule is that if a cutting board has obvious damage to the surface, it's probably unsafe to continue using it.
The most common such damage is scratches or grooves worn in by your knives, or actual cracks in the material, but any kind of narrow damage is bad; it's hard to effectively clean and can indeed harbor bacteria. The exception is wider wear, like a shallow but smooth worn-down area, which you can still clean. It's easy to tell the difference: if you can't clean it, it'll stay discolored in the grooves, making them very visible. A very worn cutting board will have so many scratches that they start to blend together, turning into a slightly rough, discolored region.
If it's a wooden cutting board and you're well-equipped, you may not have to replace it, though. You can sand it down to remove the damage, rather than discarding it. This depends on the wood; in some cases you may have trouble getting as good a finish as it originally had. While you can do it completely by hand, it's easiest to keep it flat with planer (or at least a belt or disc sander). See for example this What's Cooking America article or this workshop's article.
(None of the safety information is directly taken from a single source; the obvious one is the USDA article on cutting board and food safety that Jeff's answer replicates, but you can find the same advice virtually anywhere that discusses cutting board food safety, like this Consumer Search article - it's all common knowledge at this point.)
Agreed on the sanding of wood boards -- there's no reason to trash a wood board just because it's got a few nicks in it. Not all boards can go through a planer, but if you know someone with a woodshop, ask and they might be able to take the top mm or two off. Even if it's splitting or cracked, you can always cut it down into one or two smaller cutting boards.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.088498
| 2013-03-20T16:12:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32863",
"authors": [
"Beachy Baker",
"Brenda Barreras",
"Charalambos Paschalides",
"Inspi",
"Joe",
"John Pavek",
"Jonathan",
"Joy G",
"Kyle Berezin",
"Prof Cabralg",
"Rosh John",
"YGA",
"aliciahsteen",
"alter_igel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8682",
"static",
"جواد خسروی"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27941
|
What's really happening when reusing tea leaves?
I reuse my green tea bags three or even four times with little to no loss in flavor. But it's a pain to reheat water to the correct temperature after I'm done with the first cup and wait another three minutes for the tea to brew.
I've never tried brewing a single bag in 24 or 32 ounces of water rather than eight, but I'd be surprised if the resulting tea would result in the same strength as brewing three individual cups. Is this the case? What if I let the single bag brew for more time in the larger volume of water? What exactly is happening here?
Bonus points: Why is it that green tea doesn't seem to lose much flavor after reuse, but black teas are practically useless after a single brew?
There are couple of factors at work when re-steeping green tea: temperature, time, and the quality of the tea (the size & way it's been processed). Green tea is supposed to be brewed with water that's been brought to boil and allowed to cool to 167 - 176 degrees Fahrenheit (though many people simply heat the water to that point or what they eyeball as hot but not boiling). Green tea is typically steeped for 1 - 2 minutes. And green tea, especially loose leaf, but also with higher quality tea bags, has furled and sometimes rolled leaves. The lower temperature, the short steeping time, and the curled leaves mean that flavor is still left within the leaves even after multiple steepings. The leaves continue to expand and release in subsequent baths. I don't, unfortunately, know any of the exact science--what's being released when, etc.
However, a possible alternative to boiling & brewing individual teas when done or simply using more tea (the typical choice when brewing larger quantities), you can bring your water to temperature, steep, pour it into a preheated or heat retaining container, and repeat the cycle until you've brewed your multiple cups in one go. As far as I know the tea leaves don't need to 'rest' in between brewings.
The reason green tea can be re-steeped is also the reason most black teas can't. Black tea is subject to boiling water for a longer period of time (typically Western use is 3 - 5 minutes; some cultures favor an even longer steep for the deeply bitter tannins). The hotter and longer steep pulls more flavor out of the leaves faster. Some black teas, especially high quality whole-leaf, can be re-steeped, however. Most bagged black teas--and a lot of loose leaf--can't.
The heat & steep time is dictated by the processing of the tea once it's picked. Green tea has minimal processing--pluck, wilt, shape & dry. Black tea is allowed complete oxidation (called fermentation). Fermentation breaks down chlorophyll, releases tannins, and forms many of the taste & aroma compounds that typify black tea. Oolongs and other varieties are subjected to varying degrees of fermentation. The size & shaping of the tea leaf--allowed to remain whole, broken, rolled, or (for most bagged tea) cut into fannings and dust, also affects how tea should be initially steeped and whether it can be re-steeped. Highly rolled oolongs, for example, often hold up to more steepings than green tea and are even said to taste best only on the 3rd or further steeping.
I like your answer about the green vs. black teas. It makes intuitive sense. I'm still hoping to elicit an answer about what's happening with multiple brews of the same bag and how it might differ from steeping a single bag in more water. I think I'm going to try an experiment and brew 24 oz of water with a single bag. I'm sure it will have to steep longer to get the appropriate strength, and I'll see if it becomes bitter before it reaches the appropriate strength. There can't be magic at work here :)
Not sure about bags, but it does take considerably more loose tea for a large pot than a small one, so no, probably not. Try adding more than one bag if you're doing a large quantity of water; that ought to give you the same effect as my adding extra scoops to a teapot. For best results, though, invest in a cast-iron teapot and loose-leaf tea: brew once, then remove the tea and put the lid back on the pot, it'll stay hot long enough for you to enjoy multiple cups.
Furthermore, a good black tea will get you 3-4 brews easily; I suspect it's only because bag tea has the worst quality leaves that you're not getting a second brew.
My question isn't how to brew a large quantity of acceptable quality tea, it's about what's physically (chemically) happening when you reuse the same teabag to a new 8 oz cup vs. just adding more water to the same teabag.
@JeffAxelrod Unfortunately I'm not sure on the science :| best of luck!
I'll respectfully delete this if deemed not relevant, but nobody else has answered yet so hopefully it's a reference point better than none?
I make coffee using a plastic cone (instead of a French press) when I'm rationing my beans right before payday. (cone with small hole in bottom sits atop cup, filter inside holds grounds, pour hot water over grounds so it drips coffee into cup.)
When I'm going out and around, I fill up my insulated travel mug, plus a roughly 10-ounce home mug, with coffee. When I'm home I just make two or three 10-ounce home mugs throughout the morning using the same grounds.
While it obviously isn't ideal coffee, the quality is the same as to how much water the grounds will tolerate before producing weak, watery coffee, whether I pour it all at once or throughout the morning.
The only variance is that I eyeball pouring the beans into the grinder each morning, so the ground product is sometimes a slightly different amount.
Tea, like coffee, will have a finite amount of goodies that can be extracted into the water. I'm not sure why black and green teas would behave differently; is black tea more dry than green so that it absorbs more of the water?
I'm not sure how an answer about coffee grounds would be relevant to a question about tea? The source material (beans vs. leaves) and preparation process (filtering vs. steeping), is completely different.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.088823
| 2012-10-22T17:37:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27941",
"authors": [
"Aaron L. M. Goodwin",
"Aaronut",
"Innishannon",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Kim Anez",
"Ole",
"Proto E1000",
"Rafael de la Cruz",
"Sammy Compton",
"Theron McKay",
"Valerie Parham-Thompson",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64356",
"zeinab yakubu"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18632
|
Are the claims legitimate linking botulism to vacuum prepared foods?
I have read in many places 1,2,3 claims of a link between preparing foods sous vide and botulism, with claims that this is because the food is prepared in a vacuum.
This struck me as illogical, so I looked around online and could find no solid references to back up the claim that cooking food in a vacuum can result in botulism poisoning.
From what I can tell, there has been misunderstanding and confusion about the risk of vacuum sealed foods and botulism. I suspect it's because often vacuum sealing is performed to preserve food. In this case, fresh food is being vacuum sealed just before cooking to protect the food from the water, but still let it come in close contact with the water, after which it is immediately unsealed.
I also assume that clostridium botulinum does not thrive in a vacuum more than it does when exposed to air.
Is there any solid science to these claims I am questioning or is this a misunderstanding?
There is absolutely real truth to improper sous vide cooking and botulism. Clostridium botulinum is an anaerobic organism - it grows when there isn't oxygen - like in sous vide vacuums and canned goods.
The risk is that sous vide cooks both without oxygen and at temperatures so close to the perfect repoduction rate for the organism. If you cook it a little lower than recommended, you could be creating a perfect place to reproduce. Clostridium botulinum dies around 126 F (52.222 C) - so most sous vide won't go lower than 130 F (54.444 C).
The opponents state that the temperatures in general are far too low and if we were cooking for a few seconds, it would be. Luckily, pasteurization is a function of temperature and time. This is part of the sous vide magic. Bacterial death is a result of heat and time - if you have a high heat you may only need it for seconds. If you have lower, but sufficient heat, then as long as you cook it long enough (see recommended reading below) - then you can still pasteurize the food. Sous vide often cooks foods for hours and hours - either for taste and/or pasteurization sake.
A great resource for information here is Douglas Baldwin .
Additional, real, danger comes from if you store your finished product in the vacuum bag at improper temperatures (not freezing). Botulism spores need to reach 250 F (121.111 C) to die (this is why, in canning, some food needs to be pressure canned). You won't hit that in sous vide cooking. If you cook the food, cool it, and then store it in a non freezing temp - there's a real risk that the spores could eventually become active and reproduce. If you're going to keep sous vide food after its been cooked, generally freeze it and then reheat (quickly, in sous vide terms) in an eating temp sous vide bath to consume.
This is true but remember that the botulism spores don't die until 250F. If the food is cooked, cooled, and not eaten immediately there is an enormous risk of botulism.
@Sobachatina - Very true, I'll update to include.
rfrusca, I know of some gourmet food markets which sell pre-made par-boiled sous vide packets. Seems like these vendors are presenting a real botulism risk to their customers. How long does it take spores to become a botulism infection at fridge temperatures?
rfrusca: never mind. it occurs to me that this is a separate question, so I asked it: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18644/how-long-does-it-take-botulism-spores-to-germinate-in-the-fridge
@FuzzyChef: No doubt those pre-made/par-boiled items are intended to be fully-cooked or quickly-consumed, respectively, just like any other pre- or par-cooked perishable food product.
I know this is from a while back but slightly contradicting info: You say Clostridium botulinum dies around 126 F - so most sous vide won't go lower than 130 F. and then you say Botulism spores need to reach 250 F to die so which is it? Can't be both surely?
@redfox05 The spores are hardier than the bacteria (but do not produce any toxin until allowed to germinate).
Is it viable to open the bag after cooking to allow oxygen in, which would prevent Clostridium botulinum from reproducing since it's anaerobic?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.089370
| 2011-10-28T19:04:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18632",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Carol Weiler",
"FuzzyChef",
"Ilya Grushevskiy",
"JAB",
"Jerred Shepherd",
"Junebug",
"Shaun McDonald",
"Sobachatina",
"Sonny",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"j-beda",
"kubanrob",
"redfox05",
"rfusca",
"sweerpotato"
],
"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
}
|
39910
|
Vacuum sealer exclusively for canning jars?
I'm looking for a vacuum sealer just to vacuum seal canning jars. Presently I use a traditional vacuum sealer for bags that has an accessory port. It's bulky and because it's designed for bags as well requires you to press some latches to seal the vacuum chamber every time you seal a new jar. It's cumbersome and inconvenient.
Ideally there would be a compact device designed just for creating a vacuum that I could use for the canning jars. Ideally it would be something I could keep on the counter for quickly resealing a jar and flip a switch to power it on/off.
I've seen that you can use manual brake bleeder hand pump, but I'm looking for something electric as I open and vacuum seal mason jars daily, and from what I hear the manual pumping is a significant amount of labor.
If there isn't a dedicated device for this, I'm wondering if there is a product that at least doesn't require you to re-seal the vacuum chamber after vacuuming each jar.
I don't know that it's any less bulky, but this one is dedicated to canning Vacucanner. It does several cans at a time. Here's a review
If you like DIY projects, you might be interested in this video. DIY Vacuum Canner
Thanks very much for letting me know about this. This won't meet my needs at all, but it does certainly answer the question as asked. I was doubtful there was any product on the market dedicated to vacuum sealing cans, so it's great to learn that there is one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.089716
| 2013-12-01T21:11:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39910",
"authors": [
"Jeff Axelrod",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15932
|
What is the hottest part of a chili/chilli/chile pepper?
I often hear different points of view to this question - some say the hottest part of the chili is its seeds, yet I've heard some (arguably more believable) sources claim that the white part that holds the seeds to the flesh is the hottest.
What part of the chili fruit is the hottest?
The Wikipedia article on Capsicum reads, citing a FAQ on a page of the ollege of Agriculture and Home Economics of the New Mexico State University:
Capsaicin is present in large quantities in the placental tissue (which holds the seeds), the internal membranes and, to a lesser extent, the other fleshy parts of the fruits of plants in the genus Capsicum. Contrary to popular belief, the seeds themselves do not produce any capsaicin, although the highest concentration of capsaicin can be found in the white pith around the seeds.
Cisneros-Pineda et al. measured via gas chromatography the content of capsaicin and dihydrocapsaicin in the pericarp, placenta, and seeds of seven cultivars of chili peppers and the results confirm this:
For dihydrocapsaicin, the difference is not so large, but the placenta still has a higher concentration.
In terms of concentration considering fresh mass the difference won't be as dramatic because while the seeds lose around half their mass by drying, the placenta will lose 90%.
Both the seeds & the membrane can pack heat. While I believe the experts who say "it is the membrane" my experience is that it is easier to control the heat by removing the seeds and the membrane and adding some seeds back in to get to your target "heat level" in any giving recipe.
removing seeds and spiciness? blasphemy!
"controlling" spiciness. Notice the part where I say "adding some back in." It helps to create consistency.
not at all, while I took it as tongue-in-check I thought it an opportunity to explain my reasoning...
Exactly, ribs and placenta contain the hottest part. That's the point for hotness.
In regards to seeds, I do not recomend to add seeds to any hot cooked or raw sauce, because seeds are not good for our digestion, in any pepper, hard to process them.
Just think, do you add seeds when cooking a red sweet bell pepper? I love hotness but I always take the seeds out of my salsas, for health.
I do not understand why chefs add seeds... Are they just lazy or ignorants about our health issues?
Do you have any citations for the claim that seeds are bad for our health/digestion?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.089857
| 2011-07-04T11:17:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15932",
"authors": [
"Allie",
"Brigitte",
"Cos Callis",
"Dasha",
"Kurtis Beavers",
"Linkyu",
"Will",
"greggles",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"pixelbadger",
"user141592",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7202
|
How to warm plates before serving?
I realize that serving on warmed dishes is preferable to serving on cold/room temp dishes, so as not to leach the heat out of your freshly-cooked food.
How can I warm my plates?
I have two kinds of dishes: ceramic (cheapo from a department store) and Noritake china (circa 1955-60).
Neither says "oven safe" on the bottom, but would a warm oven do the trick? Or microwaving? Or a hot water bath?
I'm not sure how to achieve warmed plates, but I'm tired of eating cold fish.
I put my dishes through the drying cycle of my dishwasher...very simple.
We do this regularly with regular dishes and fine china. Neither say "oven safe". My mother has also done it for years. The process is fairly simple:
Put our oven on it's coolest setting (about 175°F or 80°C, I think)
Wait for it to reach temperature
Turn it off
Put dishes in and close the oven. We just stack the dishes. As Joe points out, they'll warm faster if you don't stack them. However, I usually do this when I've got 6-8 dishes, so stack is easier.
Be careful when taking the dishes out. They'll be hot. We've never had a problem with dishes using this method. However, if you don't think your dishes will stand getting hot, use your own judgement as there's a wide variety of quality and materials used in place settings.
Stacking dishes will take longer for the middle ones to warm (but should hold their temperature longer) ... of course, unstacked dishes will take longer to get into the oven, thereby releasing more heat in the process, so it's a bit of a tradeoff. You might want to experiment and see what works best for your plates.
@Joe, you are completely right. However, I usually only warm dishes for a dinner party when it will take me a while to get everything plated and out. At that point, there are too many dishes to spread through the oven.
I think one could put dishes on the drying rack and then in the oven. This way more dishes are in and they're not stacked.
Another few ways I do this, depending on what else is going on:
If I have just a couple plates, I may do it in the toaster oven, or even just set them on top of an already hot toaster oven
Pour a little boiling water in each bowl, then drain and wipe just before serving.
Pour a little cold water in each bowl and microwave for a couple of minutes
You can buy microwave plate warmers - you stack the plates with them layered between and nuke them for a couple of minutes.
nice idea. instead of heating the plates in the microwave by themselves (as I have been), this product says it helps keep the rim cooler and the plate easier to handle.
"Oven safe" refers to using them to cook rather than to whether they can be warmed. Be careful putting cold dishes in a warm oven though. I'd put them in a cold oven and turn the oven on its lowest setting. Watch the temperature using an oven thermometer. When it reaches the desired temperature (125-175F) turn the oven off. Don't trust the oven's thermostat. Don't use a preheat or quick preheat cycle if your oven has that.
My new Samsung stove has a warming drawer. Keeps food warm on the plate and preheats plates as well. 3 settings of temperature: low, med, high.
Update: the model is FE710DRS 5.9 cu. ft. Electric Flex Duo Range bought from Sears in Canada last year.
Care to elaborate on what model, what country it is available, and how it works?
I do this the way my parents have always done it, by putting some water onto each plate, stacking them and then putting them into the microwave for 1-2 minutes. Even with 4-6 plates this technique seems to work fine.
I've not used this technique for fragile plates, but our normal plates (both thin and thick) work fine this way.
I presume this would work in a similar way to oven technique, except if you're cooking for a party you're more than likely going to be using the oven for cooking some of the meal, which would leave little/no room for plates, and may be too hot. Not to mention that using an oven for this kind of thing would be quite a waste of energy (IMO)
I use the proof setting for my oven which is 100F. I didn't even realize I had a dough proof setting until I reread the manual and suddenly saw it. So I just set the oven for 100F which I'm cooking and it is the perfect temperature as I'm sure my dish washer is hotter than this and is still safe for plates.
In my part of the world, dishes are often kept in cabinets that may be hung on an exterior wall. That can make your plates pretty cold during the winter, and putting hot food on them results in a cold meal very quickly. If you're just cooking for a couple people, running plates under hot tap water for a few seconds takes the chill off them. They won't get really hot this way, but at least they won't make your food instantly cold.
We have a large toaster oven & pop them in there & put it on toast. If I'm using the toaster oven, I'll set the plates on top near the vent. We have since put a warming drawer in & I just used that at 175° til I was done preparing the breakfast. This way the plates was not overly hot.
I just stack a few plates in the sink and run hot water over the top for a minute or two. The water clings to the sides as it goes down so it reaches every plate. I'm actually a little perplexed about why this isn't already mentioned somewhere on here yet -- it's easy, no chance of spilling water anywhere, and quicker than heating up the oven.
Put them in the bottom of the oven on the lowest setting for a few minutes. If it's a fan oven preheat to the lowest setting, then turn it off and let the plates heat for a few minutes.
If you're currently using the oven and you have a grill or another oven above the one you are using you can use that as long as they don't touch the base of the unit. ()you can proof bread this way too).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.090124
| 2010-09-12T21:07:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7202",
"authors": [
"Granny Andersen Granny420",
"H Weinberg",
"JeffreyABecker",
"Jo Pedder",
"Joe",
"Mary broskey",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Peeja",
"Ruth Olea",
"Sam Greco",
"TFD",
"coderodour",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"ryabenko-pro",
"user14697",
"user257686",
"yossarian",
"z-boss",
"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
}
|
5
|
In a tomato sauce recipe, how can I cut the acidity?
It seems that every time I make a tomato sauce for pasta, the sauce is a little bit too acid for my taste. I've tried using sugar or sodium bicarbonate, but I'm not satisfied with the results.
What ingredients are you using?
Have you tried mixing in the sodium bicarbonate before you start cooking it (rather than after)?
My secret weapon is onion. Caramelize the onions first. This creates a natural sweetness. Always use ripe tomatoes; if you cannot then use canned. The canned are made from ripe tomatoes and tend to be a very good substitute.
Also, the celery and carrot suggestions are very much a good addition - you are making a classic tomato sauce when you include the celery and carrots, 1 part each celery and carrot to 2 parts onion. Add the onions first to get the caramelization.
I don't get too fancy with herbs, usually one good fresh herb does it for me, basil or sage are two favorites of mine.
There is a suggestion to add cream, why not use the parmesan end you may have in your fridge, it is dairy and allowed to slowly simmer in the sauce will lend a very nice flavor note.
Acidic sauces are usually reserved for nights when I make a puttanesca sauce - it goes with the capers and calamata olives I add to it.
Don't forget to season with salt and pepper.
Yes, onion works great that way. Make sure to sauté them at low heat, see also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8289/why-do-onions-taste-sweeter-when-cooked-at-lower-temperature
Just add half a teaspoon (or even less) of white sugar. Typical Italian tomato-sauce always requires a bit of sugar (and not just to cut acidity).
Yes, and my Grandma says that in every dish you should have at least a bit of sugar and a bit of salt!
I sometimes add some sweet wine instead, with good results
The Canadian version is maple syrup. No joke. Try it sometime. Just don't overdo it, obviously.
You don't always need the sugar. If you cook the sauce on a low heat for a long time it brings out the natural sweetness, the sugar is more necessary for the modern sauces that are cooked quicker.
@Ian: not at all. Typical, old fashioned, Italian tomato-sauce recipe requires a bit of sugar added (the original reason was actually cutting acidity, and eventually became part of the traditional recipe).
If you use too much sugar, it ends up tasting like cheap store sauce, so go gently.
I second Tim. It's a very fine balance. You don't actually want a sweet taste to the sauce in the end, just less acidity.
@Noldorin: yes, it is a fine balance, however the tomato sauce has to be a bit sweet - tomato, after all, is a fruit!
@Tim and @Noldorin - half a teaspoon of sugar in several cups of sauce is not going to overwhelm the taste. Even 1-2 teaspoons would be difficult to notice if you're adding other herbs and spices.
@Aaron - no, but 2 tablespoons is too much even for a large pan full of sauce. I speak from accidental experience.
I'm for the even less: the tradition suggests the tip of a teaspoon of sugar.
@MaD70 "tip of a teaspoon" - what's that exactly? 1/4 tsp? A pinch?
@ necessary for the modern sauces that are cooked quicker. Not true... The longer you cook tomato sauces the more sour they become. The acidity primarily comes from citric acid and malic acid. neither of which are effect by heat bellow 170 C.
I know there is already an accepted answer, but I will offer a different opinion: cook it for 3-4 hours over a low heat. Stir it every 30 minutes or so (more often if you can't get the burner down to a low enough level, to prevent burning). Not only will it taste wonderful but the house will smell wonderful, too!
I seem to remember that this is also a very traditional "Italian grandma" way to do it. Any idea on how it works? Is there stuff in the tomato sauce that caramelizes or acids that break down during long cooking?
@Hanno: It's the way my mother did it and she learned it from her mother, so.... No idea why it works, though -- sorry.
I know it's sort of culinary folklore that the acidity will reduce with longer cooking (like alcohol does), though with the boiling points of common culinary acids, I'm not sure that it's true. The longer cooking probably does reduce the acidity to some small degree, but also concentrates all of the other flavors helping them to overpower the acidity.
One of the ways to do this is to make sure you have some finely diced onion in the sauce or start of with a Sofrito. Once the tomatos have been added turn the heat down, and put a lid on and then leave for as long as you have. The sauce tastes sweeter and less acidic the longer you cook it so if you do have time to leave it for a few hours to gradually cook you should have a sauce that is much less acidic. To my taste it gives a much more rounded seetness than just using sugar but you do need to be careful when cooking this way because even without using any sugar in the recipie it is possible to create a suace that is too sweet.
Mushrooms are often included in recipes to balance out acidity, it's the reason they're in recipes such as beef bourguignon. If you're at the tuning stage then you can also turn down the acidity level by adding some butter.
Tomato sauces often include red wine, if you're using a recipe that includes wine it's important that you reduce the red wine down fast to the point where it mellows the acidity levels. You can really push the heat up at this point. Make sure you get your head right in the pan and take a good whiff, if it needs longer to mellow you'll know instantly.
Sometimes I add an chopped apple to the sauce. The sauce becomes soften and the apple tastes good.
I often start off with crushed tomatoes. My normal recipe involves sautéing some spanish onions and garlic in olive oil, then adding some Serrano peppers, white pepper, sugar, celery, and carrots. After a short toss in the oil I pour the crushed tomatoes over top. I've never noticed that recipe to be acidic.
A little more salt, a little less tomato, a little more stock / water / non-tomato liquid, a slightly longer cooking time. If using dried herbs, switch to fresh (and increase the quantity). If you're using pureed tomato in some form, try switching to tinned; if you're already using tinned, try switching to chopped fresh; if you're using chopped fresh, switch to a sweeter variety.
I echo the comments about sugar – but don't overdo the sugar either! A teaspoon seems to be more than adequate for a batch of sauce that will serve 4-6.
I simmer the sauce for a long time on low heat, which mellows and blends the flavors nicely.
Finally, I can recommend one ingredient in my tomato sauce that I never missed until I forgot it once: chopped celery. I find it too cuts the acidity and fills out the flavor. If you're not already using it, give it a try and see if you like the results!
Yes, the suggestions for using a Sofrito–preferrably one that uses carrots–is the best route. I would suggest shredded/grated or finely diced. One carrot is typically sufficient for 4 cups-worth of sauce. I studied in Italy for three months and I was told this is the secret to a good red sauce. The natural sugars in the carrots, onion (as I suppose even more so an apple) balance out the acid without overbearing the sauce.
My favorite way to counter the perceived acidity of tomato sauces is kind of unusual, but I LOVE it. It's not traditional, so it might be hated, but I add a heaping teaspoon of sour cream to my bowl of pasta sauced-pasta right before I eat it. Nice and creamy and it helps my stomach at least.
As you said you already tried sugar, and didn't like the results -- have you tried adding other sweet ingredients?
Our family recipe always started with lots of plenty of carrots and onions for our sauce, and I can't think of when I've ever needed extra sugar.
Small amounts of pickling lime (calcium hydroxide) can be used to raise the pH, like sodium bicarbonate. Unlike bicarb, it doesn't leave your tomato sauce with a fizzy, oversalted flavor.
In Naples (Italy) we add a few leaves of basil (about 2-3 per kg).
It has the same effect of sugar without making the sauce sweet. If you cook the sauce for long add the basil later, as overcooking it may make the sauce bitter.
Apart from regulating the acidity it adds a fresh smell.
Kudos for giving a measured advice.
Adding sweet red wine will cut the acid and add some nice flavor. Drop the cream idea - yuck. Properly sauteed onion and garlic in olive oil will add sweetness. Paste can also add sweetness if desired.
Rarely would I ever use sugar. I like to keep it Italian.
Add some sugar, and cream or milk. A creamy tomato sauce is never acidic.
Wrong. Sugar has no effect on acidity and milk has a slightly acidic pH itself. The flavour of added milk or cream might be very nice, but as far as reducing acidity, you'd get the same result by adding water.
How the heck is this one downvoted for sugar, but the second highest answer recommends sugar in it?
Table sugar (sucrose) will undergo hydrolysis from the acids in the tomatoes. 2 birds with 1 stone - take out some of the acid, break down the sugar into 2 sweeter tasting sugars (same calories).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose#Hydrolysis
@Aaronut Commenting on a 13 years old comment, heh. Wrong too. Actually milk acts as a quite neutral acidity buffer, meaning it tries to keep pH constant. In any acidic solution it will therefore reduce acidity somewhat. If one likes its taste, the better it is.
Believe it or not, a squirt of Heinz tomato ketchup can do the trick.
Because of the sugar I imagine ...
Using sauce to make a sauce.. Novel idea.
Have you tried cream? It really seems to soften up a tomato sauce, as long as you don't mind the lighter change in color.
Absolutely not. It is no longer tomato sauce if you add cream!
I have to disagree with Lorenzo. It's tomato sauce because that is the primary ingredient.
I like acidic sauces myself, but sometimes I'll add 1/2 cup shredded cheddar to the spaghetti sauce for flavor and thickening.
@Tim: even ketchup has tomato as its primary ingredient, however you don't call it tomato sauce.
The cream is added also in the original ragù recipe to cut off the acidity. A variant is to add milk.
I tried once, but even the color changes. I don't like to use cream.
my mom always told me a little bit of baking soda.
How much is a a little bit? Have you actually tried this?
Yes, baking soda works. About a teaspoon for every 20 tomatoes.
This was already covered by a previous answer.
An interesting way to cut acid in almost anything is to add a bit (1/3 tsp or less) of ground cinnamon (no sugar or anything) to it. I learned this from my grandmother who is Lebanese and it has always worked out well for me. If you search a bit you can probably find this tip on some other websites as well.
So many almost identical suggestions. Maybe I gave up reading all of them too soon, but I haven't noticed one very important piece of advice: Always use fully ripened tomatoes, the meatiest the better. If you don't have them or they are not of the right variety, there is one more foolproof method: Cut the tomatoes in halves or quarters (depending on their size), spread them on a baking tray (layered with a sheet of baking paper) and sprinkle them with salt, a little bit of brown sugar, black pepper, dry basil, and last but not least - add a few chunks (quarters) of red onion, too. Sprinkle everything with olive oil and bake at low heat until the slices (chunks) of onion start turning brown at the ends/edges. Then pass everything through a food mill /processor (rotary food mill sieve Grater, or a blender or use a stick blender/, then transfer the sauce in a pot or a pan (depending on the quantity) and finish it on the stove. It only takes a few minutes of additional cooking and you can season it or add other ingredients in that final phase.
I haven't tried the recipe yet myself, but the book "The Frankies Spuntino Kitchen Companion & Cooking Manual" is supposed to contain a recipe that produces a mild, sweet tomato sauce using just good-quality canned San Marzano tomatoes cooked for four hours. There's no celery, carrot or even onion in this recipe; nor is there any added sugar. The recipe can also be found on a Serious Eats blog post from June 14th, 2010 which says: "You are left with a thick and rich sauce, with the flavor of the sweetest summer tomatoes."
Things that will reduce the acidity bite: sugar, onions, carrots, and red wine. This is because all of these things are very sweet.
To actually cut acidity: baking soda. But please understand that you should only use a very small amount and skim off the foam that rises to the top. Too much baking soda will alter the flavor and probably ruin your sauce.
another for completeness: pressure cooking for 20 minutes low pressure is faster than 4+ hours simmering with less chance of burning
electric or stovetop doesn't matter, but use a slow, natural release
can be put in an inner pot on a trivet with 1+ cup water under the trivet to guarantee no scorching
I can add that aside from most tips I've read here, I like a Tbsp of tomato paste to my fresh tomatoes, herbs, anise seed, chile pepper, and fresh ground black pepper, to reduce the acid; and like others have mentioned I slow cook it for quite a while. I also drizzle a little olive oil after serving portions. There also is no good reason to hurry a great Sunday gravy. We also use a 19th-century recipe for Roman meatballs with minced carrot in it.
Best of luck.
This is a problem I too have faced and the best thing is to find some better tinned tomatoes.
Giving the baking soda more time to react and more stirring will help. There is also something used in Asian noodle making called "lye salts" and in Modernist Bread they suggest using a flavourless antacid from the chemist.
As a food science student I can tell you that commercial solutions include magnesium carbonate, calcium hydroxide and sodium citrate.
Many vegetables are alkaline so they are all options too.
Good luck!
I threw an onion and a celery stalk in my food processer first and carmalized it. Once the sauce was made I peel a potato and left it whole in the sauce to absorb the acidity. I added sugar to it to add sweetness. I have to say I love my sauce. I use 4 types of seasoning not inlcuding salt pepper and a dash of red pepper. To each is own. I like a flavorfull sauce. I managed to get my picky fiance to eat it and he enjoyed it. I also read to cut acidity to add butter.
So, is it the potato that cuts the acidity or the onion and celery?
The biggest reason why your tomato sauce is acidic is because of citric acid. Companies add this crap to their tomato sauce because they pick tomatoes when they are not yet ripe and it helps the ripening process in the can. The biggest way to rid yourself of the acidity is to buy tomatoes that don't have citric acid in the ingredients on the label, then if you want to add sugar or whatever else you can.
This tomato doesn't have citric acid and if you don't like whole tomatoes, just cook them on low for a long time (30 minutes or so). As they cook the whole tomatoes will break down and you can take a fork or potato masher to puree them more. Enjoy!
Oh yea, tomatoes without the citric acid are going to be more expensive because they are better tasting and more ripe.
This makes very little sense. The addition of citric acid has nothing to do with ripeness and everything to do with food safety. Without it, it would be impossible to can the tomatoes; slight acidifying moves the pH just below the point where botulism and other nasties can grow. Canned tomatoes without added citric acid, in order to be safe to store, would either have to be pressure-canned (and therefore heavily cooked) or already acidic enough and therefore unripe. In most cases, the acid is added precisely because the tomatoes are ripe, and therefore naturally lower in citric acid.
@Aaronut I've read this in a couple of places, so maybe my sources are wrong, but I've definitely read it before. One place I know I've seen/watched it is on a subscription-based site called rouxbe.com. They said to avoid canned tomatoes with that because the tomatoes are usually picked under-ripened and then that's added. Thanks for you input.
That claim is actually more plausible - for a safe, repeatable process, it's better to err on the side of caution (under-ripe). It's quite possible that most canned tomatoes are both under-ripe and have citric acid added for safety reasons, and using fresh ripe tomatoes would be a great option. It is possible that there are pressure-canned varieties of canned tomatoes without citric acid; however, I wouldn't necessarily assume that they are riper or less acidic than any other kind unless the can explicitly said so. Regardless, citric acid is naturally in tomatoes, so it's not "crap".
Makes sense to me. I used the word "crap" in the context of the original posters question of tomato sauce being "acidic". In my experience (and from my knowledge) citric acid is added to foods because it's a natural preservative and it makes food taste "acidic" like in Sour Patch Kids and other candies. I assume that adding it to an already acidic food like a tomato would make it more acidic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.090693
| 2010-07-09T19:09:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"AdrianM",
"Akshay Pamnani",
"Anh Nguyen",
"Anna",
"Arafangion",
"Arthur",
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Cassio Cabral",
"Cassius-Darius Ellis",
"Chlyxu",
"Christine",
"Colin",
"Dante",
"Diana Clifford",
"Elizabeth Hamilton",
"Emilia Fernandez",
"Hanno Fietz",
"HarryH",
"Harvey",
"Ian G",
"Ian Turner",
"Joe Casadonte",
"Karen4mi",
"KatieK",
"Leonel Martins",
"MaD70",
"Markus",
"Muz",
"Nick Larsen",
"Nita",
"Noldorin",
"Ocaasi",
"Pulse",
"Questor",
"Robert",
"Skip in St.Louis",
"Sneftel",
"Sonia Balagopalan",
"SourDoh",
"Tim Gilbert",
"TripeHound",
"Vinko Vrsalovic",
"Wizard79",
"amflare",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89",
"ibtarek",
"kfrz",
"lemontwist",
"mfg",
"pacoverflow",
"pygabriel",
"shsteimer",
"steveclark324 spam",
"tomjedrz",
"user660",
"user7726",
"yms",
"zachary"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1161
|
What is the difference between Cajun and Creole cuisine?
What is the difference between Cajun and Creole cuisine?
The previously accepted answer contains a good link, but not any information here on Seasoned Advice, so I thought I would write out a few things from my understanding after having developed an abiding interest in Cajun foods over the past decade.
Basically, Creole is a much broader term with a longer history. While it is perhaps inaccurate to say Cajun is a 'subset' area and culinary style, it is more geographically- and flavor-specific than just saying Creole. The history of people and region identified as Creole (on the American continents) goes back a long ways, and Cajun is a more recent phenomenon. Creole can also refer to other peoples and regions other than just in the South/Central parts of North America, though such use in the United States is a distant memory.
In the past century, the "Cajun" term has certainly attained an independent status as a self-identified people, region, and flavor -- the last no doubt owing to the flavor potency of their offerings. Which offerings, in my opinion, when consumed, are nearly always exquisitely enjoyable examples of perfection in the experience of food.
it's not authoritative, but for specifics, Google led me to this post with a couple examples, including how a cajun jambalaya starts with roux, while a creole version will have tomatoes
Both Cajun and Creole cuisines originate from French/European influence but there's a specific difference between them -
Cajun is French 'provincial' cuisine adapted by local workers for and with local ingredients.
Creole is French 'aristocratic' cuisine as practised in the better off households of the south and mimicking the influences of higher quality French/European cuisine but still having local Cajun influence using higher quality but still local ingredients.
Both cuisines have French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian (European) influences, reflecting the previous occupants of the southern territories as well as African and Native American influences.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.092556
| 2010-07-16T19:52:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1161",
"authors": [
"Carin",
"MUlferts",
"Michell George",
"Nicholas Shanks",
"QueueHammer",
"Ron B",
"UniversalKnowledgee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7583",
"user2152",
"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
}
|
8044
|
Is there anything wrong with soft shrimp?
Once in a while when I'm thawing and prepping frozen shrimp, I'll come across one that's quite a bit softer than the others. The flesh is a bit floppy and not firm like the others, and even the shell seems thinner and flexible. Other things like size, color, and smell are all fine. Is there anything wrong with these shrimp? Maybe they were sick or malnourished in life? They seem to be fine after cooking, indistinguishable from the rest.
I'm not sure, but if I find them I tend to chuck them.
If the shell is thinner that could indicate that the shrimp is younger, which would also explain the softer meat.
I think a good possibility is that the shrimp has recently molted, within an hour or two of being caught. The shells of arthropods are soft at this point to give the animal the chance to grow before it hardens again.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.092779
| 2010-10-12T03:26:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8044",
"authors": [
"Optimight",
"Sam Holder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18400
|
How can I stop fish from sticking to a stainless steel pan?
I think Anne Burrell lied to me. She said fish will always stick to a stainless pan. This is true. No matter how well I lubricate my pan, my fish will always adhere like cement. She also said that the pan will release the fish "when it's ready." Maybe meaning it will eventually become unstuck when the fish is done cooking? Well, I've tried that, and it never works. No matter how long I wait, it never becomes unstuck. Most recently I gave it as much time as I could. When I finally chiseled it off the pan, tearing it apart in the process, I saw that it was starting to burn on that side. I've started going back to non-stick until I get this figured out.
Are there any tips? Am I heating the pan wrong? Does it help to slide the fish around a bit after putting it in the pan?
Have you tried the other advice on stainless steel pans? Notably: Why does my food turn out poorly using an All-Clad Stainless-Steel Fry Pan? How do I prevent food from sticking to a standard (non-coated) pan? and How to prevent sticking and get a nice searing on scallops
I searched for several terms and only found the first of those three. It doesn't seem to talk specifically about sticking problems.
I liked Tesserex's original title better.
@LarsTech: This site is supposed to be a public resource; questions aren't very helpful if they're worded so that nobody will ever find them using a search engine.
This isn't a direct answer so I'm making it a comment. If you are trying to avoid non-stick coatings, you should really consider getting a cast iron skillet. Their natural non-stick properties are very good (much better than stainless), they heat evenly and retain heat well, and are oven safe. Stainless is lighter and can be easier to clean (on account of being lighter) , but I use cast iron a lot more than stainless. Just don't use soap when cleaning.
As a side note - I would think sliding it around on the pan for a few seconds first thing will probably help with sticking, it should let the very surface cook a bit before it can bond to the pan, let the food stick to itself/the oil instead. I don't have fish-specific experience, which is why it isn't an answer, but the same technique has really helped me keep tortillas and other smooth and fragile foods from sticking in oiled (stainless steel) pans. The food sits loosely, it keeps any sticking to a minor level that may release, not get worse, when the food cooks and browns.
I used to have this fish sticking problem in my Aluminum wok.
The solution (accidentally discovered) was to put the fish in the wok only after the oil is hot enough.
Que: How do you decide whether the oil is hot enough?
Ans: Drop one Yellow Mustard Seed in the oil. If it cracks immediately then your oil is hot enough for the fish to be dropped in. If not, then you may like to wait for few more minutes and try the same with another mustard seed.
Yellow Mustard Seeds start cracking in very hot oil only as opposed to Cumin seeds which do turn brown in non-so-hot oil too.
this is something I need to try!
@PascalBelloncle Just a reminder - Immediate here does NOT mean 3 seconds, it means fraction of a second. If the mustard seed takes 3 seconds to crack - then you better wait a bit more. :)
that's what I understood by "immediately" :)
as early as this weekend.
Yellow mustard seed isn't something found normally in most kitchens.
@Jay They are one of the most common ingredients found in Indian kitchens.
@TheIndependentAquarius That might be true but the OP is from the US.
Heat is your friend in solving this problem. As described here:
Oil creates a smooth layer across the surface of the pan when it is sufficiently heated.
I like to use a blend of a high smoke point oil (i.e. peanut, canola, but veg will work) and butter since the water content in the butter will promote the steam effect that is described in the link. Also, something to consider with regards to the steam effect is that you can sear at a higher temperature and then finish at a lower temperature in the oven which typically allows for the protein to release from the surface and makes it easier to remove in one piece at the end of the cooking.
Physically speaking the steam effect you mentioned is the since 1756 well known Leidenfrost effect that keeps the meals hovering over the pan’s base, thus preventing them from sticking. Seasoning the pan is another trick to make it non-sticky (in your link it is referred to as patina). See this video on how to do it (for a Wok).
On a slightly different note, I've found there's something to be said for the fish type and weather the skin was left intact. 'Fattier' fish like Salmon or Herring I have always found to fare better in a stainless pan, and certainly with skin on. Skin adds fat, plus it serves as a last line of defense--if your fish does stick, the skin will be ruined, not the fish.
Frying lean fish like Cod or Halibut in stainless I've always found tricky no matter the temperature of the pan or amount of oil used. They also tend to flake apart easier than fattier fish, so if they stick even remotely, you often end up with lots of small pieces.
On technique, I agree with all prior posts--hot pan first, add oil, then fry usually for a minute or two longer than you think, and flip. I read the loose science behind letting the protein tell you its done somewhere--the muscle fibres contract when applied to heat, and that tightening up pulls the protein away from the grill. Not that its noticeable visibly, but enough to make a cooked piece of protein release easier than a totally raw one.
Generally speaking the answer is heat. Have a nice hot pan, and oil the fish, not the pan.
Bottom line though is that there's a reason they call them 'non-stick' pans.
same goes for chicken, if the pan isn't hot enough, the skin will stick to it. Normally if it's a thin cut of fish i'll let the oil become smoking hot before I put on the fish.
Are you heating your pan enough before you add your fish? In other words, it is not how hot you eventually get it...but how hot you get it before adding your fish (and then of course, keeping it hot).
So, first... LOTS of oil, enough to coat the whole bottom of pan, and not "just barely". Then, heat pan until the oil is making little shimmery, mirage waves. Add fish.
Then, you want to let it go several minutes without touching it. At that point, you can use a very thin metal spatula to slide under the edges and loosen it.
Yes, non-stick is easier. But, this method will get a nice crusty golden brown on the outside of your fish.
Umm, I've always been taught 1) Hot pan 2) Then oil 3) Only enough oil to have a thin coat on the bottom ... It sounds like you're suggesting a straight up fry.
Well, no, I'm not talking frying... Just as a chronic dieter, my "coating" of oil turned out to be pitiful for this purpose, according to a pro chef who showed me how to cook fish. And, he definitely put the oil in first and let it heat up to tell him when the pan was ready. :D
I'm just saying a pan loaded with 'lots of oil' that is heated up...is a fry.
@AnnMacDonald, but if you put 'lots of oil', then you cannot serve the fish tasty sauce from pan to the dish, which is what I love, especially with salmon! In this case, I use as little oil as possible so that I can then serve everything - the oil with the sauce! And you? You have to throw it out I guess?
@Tomas I use butter and I've yet to find fish that doesn't taste awesome with extra hot butter poured over it... Nomnomnom!
I generally trust Alton Brown's advice, so I'd recommend his take on frying fish (text), and you can also watch it in a video.
He says the keys to keeping it from sticking are:
heat a heavy pan to a high heat (use an oil with a very high smoke point - he used canola but added a bit of butter)
dredge lightly with a bit of flour (shake off excess)
jiggle the pan around a lot for the first 10 seconds or so after adding the fish, skin-side down!
I think the flour is really for a crust, and the butter he says is for color. The most important things really seem to be the high heat (which has been covered plenty in the other answers) and the jiggling (fresh from Alton Brown).
I haven't tried this method for fish because I don't eat fish. I do cook and eat other things that stick to pans (hash brown potatoes), though, and I do find that they stick less with early high heat and a lot of motion while they are still sticky and starchy, and having watched the inestimable Mr. Brown fry his fish, this method looks good to me. :-)
The remedy which worked out in my case for the problem of fish sticking to the frying pan is....
When the oil is hot enough, put curry leaves as stem by stem and then put the fish above this...just as a bed for the fish to lie comfortably...don't remove leaves from stem...put 3 or 4 stems with leaves according to the quantity of oil as well as the number of fishes.
The Chinese method is always to have a sufficient amount of oil in the pan and it must be almost at the point of flashing... Usually this is tested by seeing if a dry bamboo chopstick will begin to sizzle in the oil due to the moisture retained in the bamboo.
Hot oil immediately seals the cooking side of the fish, and by the time it is ready for you to turn it over the oils that are about to rush into the void created when you lift the fish will cook and seal the uncooked side in a similar manner.
The first thing i always do is to season my Stainless Steel pan. I heat up the pan very hot and then add a high smoke point oil to the pan until it smokes. I then drain the oil, wipe the pan out with a few paper towels and let cool. You can repeat the process several times but make sure the finish in the pan remains smooth and shiny and not gummy and tacky. To clean the pan, use water and soap and a smooth sponge. If you use an abrasive cleaner or a brilo pad, you will have to start the process over again. After I clean my pan, i like to re-season the pan and store till next time needed. You should only need to season the pan only once after every use but you can repeat the process as much as you want. The more you repeat the process, the darker the pan will become.
The next thing I do is to apply oil to the fish and season the fish with salt and pepper. I heat the SS frying pan very hot, then I apply oil into the hot frying pan. Once the oil starts to smoke I then put in the fish into the frying pan. Flip after a minute or two depending on how cooked you liked your fish. You can easily check the down side of the fish as it won't be stuck to your frying pan.
Bon Appetit
Soap breaks down fat, including oil, so wouldn't a soapy sponge ruin your seasoning?
As a rule, the layer of oil needs to be deep enough and hot enough for a fish to be fried without sticking. It's a delicate procedure, the oil needs to be hot enough to deprive the contact surface of the fish of almost all moisture before the fish is allowed contact with the steel so you need to lead the fish around in the oil by hand a few moments, and even then the results are spotty at best. Bottom line: Stainless is a poor choice for fish, period, unless you do an extremely low-temp oil poach.
Hello Jacob, and welcome to the site! More that we are not a discussion forum. There are no follow-up questions, and every new post is supposed to be a direct answer to the old one. A comment already points out that cast iron is a better choice, but this has no place as an answer, especially when formulated as a question. Normally, we'd delete such a post completely. But as the explanation in the middle addresses the problem, I'll leave it as your answer instead, editing out the rest. You are welcome to expand it and make it more thorough.
One solution is proper preparation.
First defrost the fish if it's frozen.
Next, you need to dry your fish off. I accomplish this with paper towel. Doesn't have to be 100% dry, but try to get as much water off it as possible.
Now you can season the fish with salt, pepper, etc. After the fish is seasoned I put the fish onto a dish of flour, rub it in, flip it over, rub the other side in.
Finally, put about 3mm of oil in the pan, start at a low to medium temperature, and throw in the fish.
Try to mix new cooking oil and old cooking oil.
E.g.: put 8 table spoons of new cooking oil. Then put 2 table spoons of old cooking oil. Then fry your fish, making sure first that your pan was hot enough.
How on earth would this prevent fish from sticking?
I could imagine that the semi polymerized oil (the old oil) helps seasoning the pan by sealing the pan’s invisible scratches making it non-sticking. But that is only a guess.
I lightly oil the pan, and add thin layer of water to steam the fish. If you have a lid, put that on to cook the fish more evenly. Moving the fish around at the start helps as well.
If the water steams off, it leaves the oil there, and the fish can have a little fry as well. But keep the fish on the move.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.092953
| 2011-10-17T00:30:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18400",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Angelina Dock",
"Ann MacDonald",
"Ann Reinisch",
"Anna kl",
"Ape Man",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Caleb",
"Elwood Jones",
"Felicity R",
"G_oh_G",
"Georgia Limones",
"Gretchen Allen",
"Ink blot",
"Jackie Carlisle",
"Jason",
"Jay",
"Jeurvis Moore",
"Judy G",
"LarsTech",
"Lucademicus",
"Megha",
"Pascal Belloncle",
"Rachel Duplechain",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sakina Petiwala",
"Tesserex",
"That Leafs Fan",
"Tomas",
"aminography",
"erik",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84058",
"iferminm",
"michael",
"mrog",
"paul",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"user5411579",
"vinnyjames",
"w00t"
],
"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
}
|
336
|
Onion soup: How to chop the onion and what kind of cheese to put in it?
What is your preferred type of cut for the onion in onion soup?
And how do you put the cheese? A deep chunk submerged in each plate, on top? What kind of cheese do you like?
Onion soup or French onion soup?
@Bryant: What's the difference? Is there an USA-an onion soup?
I've only ever made French onion soup, but I would guess just plain onion soup could mean something else.
In the classic recipe the onions are chopped, personally, I like mine very thinly sliced. The cheese typically used is the French Comté but a good substitute is Swiss gruyère or even Swiss Emmenthal.
When I make French Onion soup I slice my onions very thin. It also helps to use a small onion so the pieces aren't so wide.
For the cheese I use gruyere cheese. It should be grated.
In order for the cheese to cook properly you need to have some stale french bread. It should be toasted lightly on both sides and then sliced fairly thin. Then you place the bread on top of the soup and then the grated cheese on top of that. Next put the soup in the broiler so that it melts the cheese.
I sometimes chop my onions, and sometimes slice. If I slice them, I slice them in thin wedges, pole to pole.
As for cheese, I use a good Gruyere.
I prefer chopped onions, so you know you're eating onions. The onions, if cooked long enough will be quite tender. A smaller cut, say diced, won't hold up well once the stock is added; you'll get a pulpy soup rather than onions in stock.
For the cheese, any melting cheese works. I prefer a medium cheddar, grated over the top and melted under the broiler.
I've had a very good response to a "french onion" style soup where I've used a combination of leeks (yes, leeks!), red onions, white onions and shallots, all chopped to about 1-2mm in thickness.
Definitely add shallots, makes the soup so tasty. Float the toast topper with some provolone on top, melt under the broiler.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.094102
| 2010-07-10T00:04:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/336",
"authors": [
"Bryant",
"Kevin Yap",
"Marco Mustapic",
"Rob Walsh",
"Tracie",
"Vinko Vrsalovic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89"
],
"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
}
|
263
|
What's the easiest dough for a Lemon Pie that still tastes good?
What dough would you recommend for when you need to wrap up a lemon pie fairly quickly?
This doesn’t help you now, but if you’re prone to need to make pies quickly, a trick that I saw on a cooking show years ago: make your pie crust, then freeze it in a block. When you need to use it, grate it on the large holes of a box grater, then pack it down into the pie crust.
Well... Pie dough? Flour, fat, salt and water. I recommend lard for flavor and texture.
Alternately, a graham cracker crust can be had by putting the crackers into a plastic bag and rolling with a heavy rolling pin until fine crumbs. Then mix in butter, press into a pan, and bake until fragrant.
But this takes a while, I'm thinking along the lines of gasp cookie-based dough or some other hideous thing like it :-)
Hmm... Like a graham-cracker crust? I actually take longer putting those together than I do just rolling and baking the dough, but if you're so inclined then the steps are easy enough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.094402
| 2010-07-09T21:58:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/263",
"authors": [
"2snacc",
"Agnel Kurian",
"Alec",
"Joe",
"Omu",
"Ravi Vyas",
"Shog9",
"Vinko Vrsalovic",
"bgibson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89",
"karim79",
"snitzr"
],
"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
}
|
66
|
How to calculate the calorie content of cooked food?
I like to cook from scratch, and I'm currently trying to loose a few pounds. I know that cooked food is generally more calorific than raw food, so if I add up the calories of the ingredients I know it won't give an accurate result.
So my questions are two-fold:
How much difference is there between a raw food item and a cooked food item?
Is there a method to deduce the calorie content of cooked food (given the know values of its raw form) ?
Can you please link to a reference? There seems to be a violation of conservation of energy implied here.
@bmargulies -- how is it a violation? Cooking = Food + Heat, and Heat = Energy.
@Joe Well, I hadn't considered that, but my creaky memories of chemistry lead me to be to be skeptical of the amounts. More likely, cooking some things makes more calories available to the human digestive tract.
There is actually a fairly large margin of error in calorie counts on nutrition labels, and I seriously wonder if the cooking matters, in comparison to that error.
Get out your calorimeter, thermometer, and refresh yourself on enthalpy changes from high-school chemistry. Proceed by totally combusting the food in the calorimeter and measuring temperature change to calculate heat gain... Oh wait, you've just ruined your dinner now.
@noldorin LOL at ruined your dinner :)
Actually, I don't think that you can get the "diet calories" from thermal combustion. While technically you get pure calories in terms of full burn, your body does not absorb energy that way. We should ask a specialized doctor for how food calories are actually evaluated.
example, take agar agar, or gum. They give plenty of calories thermodinamically, but if you eat them, they pass through your body untouched, hence from the diet point of view, they have zero calories.
@Stefano: Yeah, I was just being silly there. :) In reality the body does not use combustion to extract energy from food, so the 'real' calorie content will be significantly lower.
Why are so many people on this page talking about the chemical definition of calories? That's not what they're asking. This question is obviously about food-calories -- as in the amount of calories your body absorbs when you eat something, which does change when you cook things because they become easier to digest.
If you are concerned about the impact of whatever difference in calorie count cooked vs. raw makes, you are cutting it pretty fine. The margin for error is likely very small--probably smaller than your measuring errors, or the inaccuracy of your kitchen (or bathroom) scale.
Keeping an eye on calories is fine for weight loss. Reducing calorie intake and/or increasing calorie burning is the only proven way to do it. But looking out to avoid that 20 calorie margin of error suggests that either you're not cutting enough calories in the first place that 20 matters, or you're tormenting yourself over things you shouldn't be worried about. Cut yourself some slack, and don't sweat the small stuff. The simple act of realistically monitoring how much you eat is more likely to help you than obsessing over every single calorie.
Your risk taking gained you an upvote :)
I know this comment is years late, but according to the researcher quoted in this blog article, the difference in net energy gain from consuming raw vs. cooked food could be as high as 25%-50%. Now I haven't seen any actual studies to back that up. It's just a conjecture, but it's quite possible you're vastly underestimating the effects of cooking on the net caloric content of food.
I disagree with this answer. While it's true that obsessing over very fine measurements is bad, that was not the original question. Moreover, as @MikeDeck mentioned, the differences are not always that small. Take basmati rice for example. The difference in calories between 100g cooked and uncooked basmati is 252 kcal. If a person has a TDEE of 1500 kcal and aims to achieve 20% deficit, that would be a goal deficit of 300 kcal per day. An error of 252 kcal does not seem so small in such a case.
Calories are a measure of energy, so technically warm food has more energy than cold food. It's possible that the way that it's cooked might add fat (saute, frying, etc), which will add to the chemical energy available.
But the real issue is a factor of absorption -- cooking makes more nutrients available that the body wouldn't otherwise be able to use. Do those nutrients have calories? It's possible, I guess, but to get the same nutrients, you'd have to eat more of the raw food.
I really don't know calories are calculated these days -- it used to be a measure of how much energy was given off when the dehydrated food was burned, but with the advent of things like Olestra that are considered '0 calorie' are only so because they can't be absorbed by the body.
I've heard that one of the suspected reasons for the advent of human civilization was because of cooking that might be the source of your question. From the Publisher's Weekly summary of Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human:
By making food more digestible and easier to extract energy from, Wrangham reasons, cooking enabled hominids' jaws, teeth and guts to shrink, freeing up calories to fuel their expanding brains.
... but that doesn't specifically say that it added calories, as it "liberated mankind from the drudgery of chewing", which would've required energy. (sort of like the 'negative calories' of raw celery)
update (many years later):
I'm going to have to change my assumption that the articles I cited suggested that the changes made by cooking other than the addition of heat energy were purely mechanical.
A recent article made the news about the problem with the 'calorie' as a measure for dieters (which should technically have been 'Calorie', ie, 'kilocalorie'). But they mention both that the number printed on packages are not the same as bomb calorimeter, but modified by 'Atwater values' ... which assume that the digestability of all fats are the same, as are all carbohydrates, etc. But studies have shown that how you cook food can change its digestability, which significantly reduces the calories that you absorb. As mentioned in the recent calorie article, this has been known for decades, but isn't part of the formulas used for labeling:
Wrangham and his colleagues have since shown that cooking unlaces microscopic structures that bind energy in foods, reducing the work our gut would otherwise have to do. It effectively outsources digestion to ovens and frying pans. Wrangham found that mice fed raw peanuts, for instance, lost significantly more weight than mice fed the equivalent amount of roasted peanut butter. The same effect holds true for meat: there are many more usable calories in a burger than in steak tartare.
...
Yet the FDA’s methods for creating a nutrition label do not for the most part account for the differences between raw and cooked food, or pureed versus whole, let alone the structure of plant versus animal cells. A steak is a steak, as far as the FDA is concerned.
The article also explains more research into the linkage between obesity and gut microbes -- we can make both mice and people obese through fecal transplants. The problem is, each person may be able to extract different amounts of energy out of the same food, leading to people having enough calories to subsist well before they feel satiated.
Warmness has nothing to do with it. The difference is completely negligible -- food calories are actually kilocalories, and warming something up will only increase its energy by a few normal calories. A quick search for "cooking digestion" on Google turns up this site: http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-2a.shtml which mostly talks about other things but cites a study showing that cooked starch becomes 2-12x more digestable, meaning 2-12x more calories.
@Brendan : it's negligible? A "Calorie" (ie, kilocalorie) is the energy required to raise 1kg of water 1°C. So 0.5L (about a pint; 80 Calories by nutrition labels) of hot chicken broth at 50°C (about 120°F) would have 20 more Calories more energy in it than at 10°C (50°F), or 25% difference ... I, too, can pick out specific examples to support my argument. The problem is, the way of measuring Calories for nutrition labels (a bomb calorimeter) can't take temperature or digestability into account. Don't blame us, blame the US FDA for thinking they can summarize food as a bunch of numbers.
Temperature = physical energy. The energy of food is a measurement of chemical potential energy. (Sorry I do realize how old this answer is but I thought I'd post anyway).
I was just reading the same article on ArsTechnica. Some very interesting new data!
Here's a quick and dirty table to help you get a rough idea of the calorie content of what you are cooking. Keep in mind that this will only give you an estimation of your meal's calorie count.
--------------------------------------
| Food Component | Calories per gram |
|----------------|-------------------|
| fat | 9 |
| alcohol | 7 |
| protein | 4 |
| carbohydrates | 4 |
--------------------------------------
The difference between raw and cooked forms depends on the type of food and how you cook it. Some food takes on water, some release water, some change their chemical composure entirely.
Truth be told the differences are very minor.
To use your example:
*raw* chicken whole egg contains 151 calories per 100g
*poached* chicken egg has 147 per 100g
This is (relatively) nothing.
Perhaps a little more powerful than you need, but there are web services which can reference USDA maintained databases of thousands of ingredients in cooked and raw form, thus negating the need to deduce anything. I use a la calc (they have a time unlimited free trial) as they provide a UK service but they do have the latest USDA database too.
You could download the USDA nutrition databases yourself from the USDA website but I tried that and, to be frank, it's all gibberish to me. The website I mentioned has a good interface that flashes up the data of every ingredient they have (they claim they have 12,000+).
This question is impossible to answer.
There are two things going on: the first is that it takes less of your own calories to process cooked foods, of all sorts. This is (I think) always going to be true because the heat applied during cooking breaks down bonds between the food molecules, so your stomach won't have to.
So, eating a raw food will require more net calories of work to process it than eating it's exactly-the-same cooked counterpart. This 'net calories' conversation is one arm of the question.
Where you run into troubles: food has water in it. How are you going measuring your cooked and raw food to compare? One cup of squash that has all the fluid cooked out of it is more calories than one cup of raw squash. One oz of squash that has all the fluid cooked out of it has more calories than one oz of raw squash.
Finally, there's the what-you-cook-it-in factor: cooking something in butter adds available calories, although not as much as the whole butter amount, since some is left in the pan, drips off the sides, etc.
All that said, getting super exact is impossible, sorry!
It's worth pointing out specifically that, even with this logic, cooking does NOT add calories to food. It may reduce the amount of calories you burn processing it, but there's no net gain.
I believe the only type of food that gains calories from cooking is starches, and it would vary depending on the type of starch.
I do not see how this can be true. Calorie is energy and you cannot increase the energy of a something like that. You may just decrease water content hence getting more calorie per grams, but in that case this should apply to everything and not only starches. Can you explain?
Some starches start out hard to digest (or even indigestible) and are likely to pass through the body without being fully digested. Cooking breaks these starches down making them more easily digestible.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.094577
| 2010-07-09T19:31:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66",
"authors": [
"BarrettJ",
"Beth",
"Brendan Long",
"Catija",
"Christy Tayler",
"Darko",
"JSideris",
"Joe",
"Lokesh Dhakar",
"Michalene Smith",
"Mike Deck",
"Nikolay Suvandzhiev",
"Noldorin",
"Recep",
"Spammer",
"Stefano Borini",
"Wills",
"bikeboy389",
"bmargulies",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99372",
"its_me",
"jfa",
"mechel jean",
"slim",
"vzczc",
"wilton",
"zlog"
],
"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
}
|
7278
|
How to properly freeze calzones
In an attempt to streamline my weeknights I plan on baking several mini calzones and freezing them for later. How would I go about this without ruining the crust? Should I bake them before I freeze them?
I have never had a problem freezing pastries and other dough dishes (inc. pot pies) in foil and saran wrap, however the trick is in reheating. If you are willing to give them another 3-6 mins at ~450 degrees F you should have a nice crispy crust (especially if you have an oven stone and flip the calzone* half way through).
*Assuming you make flat calzones rather than rolls, either way it's good stuff
Actually I was just rethinking this and you might have equally good luck not pre-baking them. Unless you are set on using a microwave or taster oven, the difference of baking. Not counting prep, it would be minimal; whether you bake for ~5 or ~15 minutes, it probably takes longer to preheat the oven.
Generally I do plan on baking them, but in the case that I bring one to work (and microwave it for lunch), would I have to bake them in advance for any length of time?
@dorrene In that case I would probably bake some and not bake some; bring the baked batch to work, let thaw in the fridge overnight and morning, and microwave. (*Taster oven=toaster oven)
Yeah, that sounds pretty simple. I wasn't sure if I only had to bake them halfway first or bake them all the way. Thanks!
Also, my computer at work is not letting me mark this as answered, I'll try again when I get home.
@dorrene baking them halfway will only save a marginal amount of time and the dough will be a bit too dense compared to letting the dough fully bake all at once. It might be a decent idea if you want them for work and have access to a toaster oven though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.095544
| 2010-09-14T13:25:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7278",
"authors": [
"Dorrene",
"GambasandGrits.com",
"Néstor",
"Pavcook",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"mfg",
"rds"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7089
|
What is the point of a baking rack?
I notice when I bake cookies (usually chocolate chip or peanut butter) the recipe often says "place on baking rack to cool". Because I don't have one, I just place them on a plate after removing them from the pan. It doesn't seem to do any harm. What is the point of buying this special piece of equipment?
A cooling rack serves two primary purposes.
First, it allows the cookies (or other baked good) to cool faster by letting air circulate completely around the cookie.
Second, it prevents the steam escaping from the cookies from soaking the bottoms, and other cookies placed on top.
Baking racks are also helpful for cooling things still in the pan (a cake, for instance) before removing. Or before refrigerating, if you're cooking a casserole ahead, for instance. Plates don't work for that.
I like crispy cookies. This is good to know!
In addition to hobodave's cookie-specific answer, as a general point (since this was asked as a general question) it's also quite important to have a rack if you are baking anything with a significant quantity of fat (i.e. meat). The rack allows the fat to actually drain; otherwise the food would end up being drowned in its own fat and become soggy. In extreme cases the fat may actually burn and seriously taint the flavour of the food you're baking.
You call cooking meat baking? I call that roasting.
@hobodave: That depends entirely on how it's prepared. If you want to call the techniques in the chicken wing question "roasting", all the power to ya; I think most people would call them baked.
For roasting meats, I rarely use a wire rack -- I just place down some carrots or other vegetables. The only time I use a wire rack in the oven for meats is for bacon. 99% of the use my wire racks get is from baking.
@roux: Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure you're right - just about everything, from preparation to heat levels to which oven rack you use, is exactly the same. The only discriminator I use is the vessel - if it's a baking sheet or dish, it's baking, if it's a roasting pan or dutch oven, it's roasting.
I'm not sure I'd call anything involving meat baking, but this is also a good point.
When you place something on a cooling rack you expose more of the surface area to the air allowing your cookies, bread, etc to cool faster than just leaving them out on the pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.095742
| 2010-09-10T19:29:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7089",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Betty",
"Dorrene",
"Erif Neerg",
"GMCz",
"Joe",
"Nickolay Kondratyev",
"Schiavini",
"Tor Flatebo",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"kajaco",
"karllhughes",
"lucasbrendel"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20949
|
Is leaving eggs out of the fridge, prior to cooking them a direct cause as to how shell break?
I have friend who went to culinary school who claims that cold eggs crack cleaner than eggs at room temperature. Do egg shells crack cleaner coming cold out of the fridge?
Does warming up to room temperature for a few minutes cause the eggs to crack less clean?
Assuming your fridge temperature is around 4 C (39 F) and your room temperature is 22 C (72 F) then that's a difference of 18 C or 33 F. The two temperatures are not particularly polar so why should it crack differently to when it comes straight from the fridge? It won't be like if you threw hot water onto a frozen window where it would crack, the 2 temperatures here are a lot more polar, 1 below freezing point and 1 near boiling point.
The change in temperature would be fairly gradually (I don't have any Scientific evidence for this but I know from experience as when I take an egg out of the freezer and wait for it to reach room temperature -for culinary purposes- it takes around 45 minutes).
Also on a chemical level, an egg shell being mainly calcium carbonate there is no reason for such a gradual change in temperature to weaken its structure especially as it is in the form of a very stable and strong shape. So no is the answer, I don't think it makes any difference in the weakness of an egg or how it cracks!
Hope this helps!
I think the question is not whether they crack spontaneously but whether the temperature effects the shape of the crack.
@Sobachatina Have I written that? I think what I was trying to convey how a change in temperature gives no different effect on the cracking of eggs.
@Sebiddychef- you wrote "The two temperatures are not particularly polar so why should it crack?" It sounds like you are referring to thermal shock. If I misunderstood then I apologize and remove the downvote.
@Sobachatina I can see how that could come across I shall edit the question.
Aside from technique (always on a flat surface, never on a knife or bowl edge) the age and temperature affect the cracking due to moisture and elasticity.
As eggs age the membrane separates from the shell which leads to smaller bits being able to fall away.
An egg which is fully at room temp, which is more than a few minutes, will have more elasticity to its membrane. This will worsen shell chip loss for older eggs. For decently fresh eggs it will not matter.
Bottom line if your eggs are fresh and you crack correctly temp does not matter.
Incidentally if your eggs have a flat spot when hard boiled they are quite old or have been stored improperly.
Maybe.
The reverse seems to be true (room temp eggs not cracking well after cooling), so temp does something - I had some eggs sitting at room temp for a couple days (trying a different preserving method), and used a couple at room temp - not much different from normal eggs, maybe a bit less brittle. A couple others that didn't get used went back in the fridge afterwards. When I went to crack them today - they would not crack cleanly at all, the membrane had to be torn by hand to separate the cracked shell and it still came away in chunks rather than clean halves like I usually get (leaving aside "correct" cracking method, mine is consistent and got different results this time). The white was also much more gelatinous, and stuck more firmly to the inside of the shell and had to be scraped off.
Possibly the difference might come from the change in temp, several times. Maybe the speed of cooling was to blame for the difference (I imagine eggs cool quicker in the fridge than they warm at room temp). If so, a fridge-temp egg that was warmed too quickly might show the same problems. Or an egg that had been stored inconsistently in the past, allowed to cool and warm several times. Or, less plausibly the egg might, ah, adjust to the new temp after a while (so a few hours to days after a temp change are tricky, several days after either way is fine). That could account for why someone might find warming an egg to room temp, harder to crack.
For myself, I can only say the warmer eggs didn't give me any problem - they were a bit less brittle, which meant a tapping out a cleaner break rather than the shell shattering or chipping under the force, and a bit easier to crack (less force to get the cracking started).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.096006
| 2012-01-31T19:50:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20949",
"authors": [
"Egg King",
"Ginger Ale",
"Mrshll1001",
"Sebiddychef",
"Sobachatina",
"Vishwajeet Vatharkar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8920",
"jessi",
"user46127"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18332
|
What does the term mirepoix mean?
What is mirepoix and what purpose does it serve? Is it a type of cut such as julienne or Macedonia, or is it a type of cuisine?
Please use Google for this sort of question. It is already very well covered
@TFD: How will Google pick Seasoned Advice if it doesn't have this question already?
@BaffledCook Why would you want that for? So we get 1000 recipe requests per day? And then have 400,000 unanswered questions like SO!
Yes, much better to keep the whole site secret eh? :/
@BaffledCook, while I'd normally be on your side, this is clearly a general reference question; questions of the form "Define " are best left to the dictionaries and encyclopedias that exist for that express purpose.
I've voted to reopen this question as I've received a booster badge for linking to it... I can't even remember doing that :-) Apparently this question isn't half bad, or at least people are interested in it.
In doing a search on closed questions for another discussio, I found this. It seems to be perfectly on topic: asking for the meaning of a cooking term, and why it is useful or important. How is that off topic?
@SAJ14SAJ: Off topic is essentially a catch-all close reason for "general reference" questions which are off-topic by definition because they don't require any culinary knowledge to answer, they are answerable simply by looking it up in a dictionary or encyclopedia. And I don't mean digging around and consolidating lots of information in an encyclopedia, I mean literally opening it up to the "mirepoix" page and reading the first sentence. We never did, and still do not, want that kind of content here; it distracts from more interesting questions and makes us look like a content farm.
I agree on the simple definition part... but the part about "what purpose does it serve" is quite interesting and not a content farm thing. rfusca's answer illustrates that part quite well.
Mirepoix means 1: diced onions, carrots, celery and leek. 2. the type of cut of the mirepoix (see 1).
The dices are roughly cut about 1cm and don't have to be completely regular.
When talking about the cut, it should be about 1cm and regular. So you can cut potatoes in mirepoix, meaning 1cm cubes.
So, a cook can say, 'cut me a mirepoix' to mean roughly diced onions, etc.
And a cook can also say, 'cut me a potatoe in mirepoix' to mean evenly diced potatoes.
So, the answer is both. A cut and a combination.
In my experience online and in the US, it much more commonly means combination of ingredients than it does the cut. Also, I think leeks might be optional or regional?
In my experience (Spain) it means the cut. I've seen that leek is optional on Wikipedia.
Mirepoix, in every reference I've seen, refers to the chop of vegetables of onion, carrots, and celery - in the ratio of 2:1:1. You dice up the vegetables - normally small, but there are rarer applications (long stews for example) where a larger dice is acceptable, but certainly not the norm.
Mirepoix alone is not intended to be a dish - its a component that goes well with many, many other things. It has its roots in French cuisine and its generally a 'base' that you build other flavors upon. Think of it as "Here's a well known, good starting point to build complex flavors on". They are normally added to the dish very early on and often cooked at low heat in order to 'sweat', often with butter. In addition to their usage in normal dishes, they're included in stocks for the same reason. They provide good aroma and taste to the stock and sit well with other common meats and herbs.
Other cuisines have adapted a similar trio of veggies to use as a base. Cajun cuisine uses bell pepper in the place of carrots and calls it 'The Holy Trinity". Italian cuisine has the same principle in 'soffritto' - the principle difference being olive oil here, although it often contains garlic as well. In Spain, its sofrito - garlic, onions, and tomatoes - but it can also be more sauce-like.
A quick google revealed that it is neither a type of cut nor a type of cuisine, but rather the combination of onions, carrots, and celery that is used as basic flavoring in stocks and soups.
See Wikipedia
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.096370
| 2011-10-12T06:51:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18332",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Aldy",
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Delton",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Henry Burton ",
"Renee'",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sage Wizard",
"TFD",
"Tallal Hassan",
"Vladislav Ivanishin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"user80752"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32326
|
How should I store leftover rice noodles?
I seem to recall reading somewhere that you should store leftover cooked rice noodles in water. Is this right? I don't want them to bloat and become ruined.
I also seem to recall reading somewhere you could revive stuck pasta by running it in (cold?) water.
How should I store leftover cooked rice noodles to best preserve them for a day or two?
UPDATE: I tried storing them in cold water, and that's definitely not the way to go; the rice noodles bloated to about double their original thickness. They taste fine, just not what I was looking to accomplish.
I don't know how to store rice noodles, but you can definitely revive stuck pasta by running it under cold water. Hot water would cook it further, which you probably don't want.
From the point of view of someone who used to work in a Chinese restaurant, we used to prepare vermicelli which are really thin rice noodles by soaking the uncooked dry noodles in cold water for about 1 hour or until it is flexible. We then can store this soaked, but uncooked noodle covered with a plastic wrap in the refrigerator for several days. They don't need to be oiled. To cook it, we just submerge it in boiling water for about a minute and then prepare it however we need it. With the soak it takes practically no time to cook at all.
Perhaps in the future you can follow this method and pre-soak your noodles. Then you can use however much noodles you need from that batch and save the rest for later. Plus it'll save on cooking time.
Just put the leftover rice noodles in a zip lock bag in the refrigerator to store them. When you are ready to use them the next day or so put however many you want into a heat proof bowl and pour boiling water over them. Immediately drain them, put them in the serving bowl and put Thai peanut sauce (which may also be left over) and fresh cilantro on them. Toss them lightly. Fast delicious hot lunch.
How are you eating them? For me, reheating these noodles automatically overcooks them and I can never get a good consistency out of repeats. I use leftover noodles one of two ways: in a salad or dropped in soup. For the former, I toss the leftovers in olive oil and store them in the fridge. The oil keeps a protective seal around the noodles so they keep their tooth. The next day, I chop some fresh vegetables and mix in the noodles, and season. In soup, there's no need to prepare them, just drop refrigerated noodle clusters in hot water and they separate. The result is soft noodles, which may not be your preference.
I usually end up either eating them in chicken broth--not by themselves; they don't need to be explicitly reheated.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.096835
| 2013-03-01T23:44:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32326",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Watermark Plumbing Co. spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99791"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33643
|
How can I keep pasta shapes intact?
I frequently make wagon wheel (rotelle) pasta (Racconto brand and probably others) for my kids, but the shapes rarely stay intact. Pieces of the outer edges often break off of most pieces, and some wheels are completely severed in two.
I noticed that pieces are already breaking apart during my initial constant stirring to unstick it from the bottom of the pot. I do stir it fairly frequently, especially at the start. I also use plenty of water--three or four inches above the pasta, about three quarts water and one cup pasta.
What can be done to cook the rotelle and help keep it intact?
What brand of pasta are you using?
I'm not really sure that I'd call 2-3 inches of water "plenty". As others have pointed out, you don't need much water if you're willing to stir constantly, but otherwise you want a pot that is mostly water (and well-agitated).
@Aaronut you misread (or mistyped)--it's not two to three inches of water, it's two to three inches above the pasta.
Do you get Dececco (http://www.dececcousa.com/Pasta/Short-Shapes/Rotelle-54/?Product=65) where you are? I think they are a bit overpriced, but probably represent a widely available pretty high quality comparison point.
@Aaronut sounds like you missed the update on how pasta cooking works...it's not necessary to stir after the initial sticky phase, even with little water. You can even use so little water that there's hardly more than a couple tablespoons to drain at the end of cooking, and the pasta still won't clump up in the pot. It only clumps very early in the process as the starch is being liberated. The extra starch coating the pasta can be easily rinsed off after it's drained, with no ill effects. Extra water is purely a waste of the energy and time it takes to heat it.
I neither misunderstood nor mistyped; I don't think that 2-3 inches of water covering the pasta is all that high. It's not obscenely low either, but I don't think it's a "set it and forget it" ratio.
@TheodoreMurdock: I have no idea which "update" you're talking about, if it's one of the many questions we already have on the subject here or if it's the well-known Serious Eats write-up. I'm more than familiar with all of them and don't use a lot of water to cook pasta. But I also have no idea what you mean by "initial sticky phase" - once all that starch gets in the water, it starts to cook, and if the loose starch binds with the pasta, it can still easily stick.
I don't understand this at all. I never stir pasta, and I never get clumping or sticking. Perhaps when cooking spaghetti, one or two strands will be stuck to the pan after draining, but no more than that.
@slim As discussed, it depends on how much loose starch there is on the surface of the pasta, which can vary a good amount between brands. I assure you, this is a real thing that happens.
@Aaronut Try some experiments. You only need to stir the pasta two or three times early on, additional stirring is completely unnecessary. I'm not sure what the explanation for it is, but the starch doesn't tend to bind pasta pieces together (during cooking) after an initial sticky phase. Of course the starch will still bind them after the pasta is drained as it starts to dry.
Try starting with the pasta in cold water. This lets you stir it to wash the starch off the surface of the pasta while it's still completely hard, so you can't possibly damage it. Then it'll stick way less as it cooks, so you shouldn't need to stir nearly so much, and hopefully it's not breaking just from cooking.
This works because the starch doesn't actually get sticky until it's heated, so this way you have all the starch dissolved before it's sticky. On the other hand, when you add pasta to hot water (even if it's boiling) the starch instantly becomes sticky, and it's only the motion of the water and your stirring that saves it from all sticking together. (And as you've seen, if there's enough starch, sometimes this isn't enough.)
If you still have trouble with sticking, I suppose you could even remove some of the starchy cold water, effectively partially rinsing it. Some brands and shapes of pasta do seem to have more starch on the surface, so I could see that being necessary. You could also simply try using more water (but still starting with cold water!) so that the starch is more diluted; this is roughly equivalent to rinsing a little.
And if all of that fails, you may want to try another brand, as suggested in various comments here. The fact that it breaks during the initial stirring, before it's had time to soften much, is not promising.
(And before someone comes along and says "no, the water has to be at a full boil when you add the pasta!" yes, I have done this many many times, it works fine, and Harold McGee says it works too.)
For one more bit of evidence, simply starting with cold water even keeps orecchiette (dry, not fresh) from sticking - and that's by far the worst-sticking pasta shape I've ever tried. They fit together so that once they're stuck, the water can't even get in to rinse off the starch.
The cold-water washing technique is recommended for certain types of rice, so I could see it working on unusually starchy pastas. Of course, if they're allowed to stick as any other pasta, then all bets are off - once they "tear" and the interior is exposed then they're just going to keep sticking.
I'll try this technique as well as @MandoMando's ideas and see if either of them help and report back.
never pasta in cold water
@violadaprile I can't stress this enough: it works. I know it's not the tradition, and I know a culture as proud of its tradition of pasta as Italy doesn't like changing it, but really, it works. This is exactly why I put that last sentence in there. Pretty much all of us have always been told that the water must be boiling, but it really doesn't have to be. Have you actually tried this, or are you just repeating the traditional advice?
If you're having to unstick it from the bottom of the pot even once, then you're making a fundamental error of cooking pasta and that's why your rotelle gets broken.
The water should be at a roiling boil when you add the pasta.
There should be enough water that the pasta you add doesn't bring it to a complete standstill. It should at least maintain a simmer immediately after you add the pasta.
You should stir it right away to prevent sticking.
You should let it come back to a roiling boil, stirring a couple times until it does so to prevent sticking.
Once the water has returned to a boil and the pasta is moving around without sticking, you can turn down the heat a bit so it's at a vigorous simmer. But the water must keep moving the pasta. Don't let it sink to the bottom.
Why the down vote?
I got one too... I have learned that down votes are kind of like random background noise. You just cannot pay them much attention unless there is a comment or they come in groups.
In this case it could be the assertion that it has to be a rolling boil, which is definitely false.
@Jefromi No, it doesn't have to be a roiling boil, but doing so will prevent the sticking since it keeps the pasta moving. And that was the question.
It prevents it some, but as I mentioned in my answer, pasta sticks significantly less if you add it when the water's not even hot. Adding pasta to water at a rolling boil (as opposed to a slight boil) is essentially just equivalent to stirring a little more vigorously.
I can confirm that none of these suggestions decreased the sticking. I just made a new batch--full rolling boil 3q water to 1 cup pasta, maintained boil upon dropping pasta, stirred constantly but pasta already stuck and broke during initial constant stirring.
@JeffAxelrod That's very odd. I don't understand how any pasta that's kept moving freely in the water could stick, much less break.
@CareyGregory That's because there's a fundamental error in your advice. The thing that causes sticking is heat. The heat gelatinizes the starch. When the water's at a rolling boil, this happens very fast. Some of the pasta will stick together immediately, and stick well enough that although your spoon and the water are trying to move everything around, they won't break apart.
@Jefromi That may be true in theory but in practice I find it does prevent sticking in practice. Granted, I've never cooked rotele and maybe it's unusual, but no other form of pasta I've cooked have I had sticking problems with.
When I fix stuffed shells, I rinse my shells with cold water for two reason. One is to clean them. Second reason is to wash any excess layer of starches that may be on my shells. You can't get all off until you start cooking but you get the access off. I put enough water and just little more to make sure the water is cover all my shells.
Then I add butter, not oil. I have found that butter works better for me. After it starts to boil I add my shells and stir for one to two minutes, then reduce the heat. I'll maybe stir one more time before my shells get to soft. If you try to stir when they are soft you might as well forget it because they more likely going to tear apart. After cooking I rinse my shells and fix them up.
I don't know if this will help you or not but maybe your water is boiling too much for the type of pasta that you are fixing.
You have already said that you stir it frequently, but the most important time to stir is in the first 60 seconds after you add it to the water. If the pasta doesn't stick to the bottom of the pot then, it is unlikely to stick later.
While it is very feasible to cook pasta in reasonably small amounts of water, or even water that is not quite boiling, these methods require more attention and stirring. I like those methods, since less water to boil means faster time to dinner, but the price is that you have to watch more closely. If you are having trouble with sticking, you might want to make sure you are cooking in plentiful water at a full boil.
The second likely cause is that you are simply overcooking the pasta, and it is becoming very fragile. The recommended time on the package from the vendor is often a good place to start, although there is usually some room for longer cooking if that is to your taste.
No, it happens well before the pasta is done, and it does certainly stick after it's been freed even several minutes into cooking. I'm afraid I might have to stir the entire 10 minutes or until done!
Once the starches dissolve from the surface of the pasta, there should be little cause to stick. Is the pot, to quote Julia, impeccably clean (and smooth on the bottom)? Are you using a quality brand of rotelle? Do you have this problem with farfalle, my own personal favorite shape? Or rotini or penne? Any of these can serve in most applications where rotelle would be used.
I can't vouch for the quality of the rotelle brand, though I vary the brand I'm sure and haven't noticed any change. I don't have the problem with any other shape including the ones you've mentioned. My pots are impeccably clean in between uses. I had about three inches of water above the pasta. I've also experimented with higher (boiling) and lower cooking temperature to see if that would make a difference, but no dice.
Then as the doctor says, "don't laugh." :-)
I assume you mean "don't do that,", but my kid thinks they're train wheels and I doubt I could convince him that bowties are train related.
There are a lot of versions of that joke, but I don't know what to tell you... I don't know any other reasonable cause of sticking, which seems to be your real issue, leading the breakage.
I had about three inches of water above the pasta.
Use way more water. Start with nearly a full stock-pot of boiling water to minimize the starch concentration in the water and eliminate sticking (you still need to stir for the first 60s). Then start with less water in future batches to find optimum amount.
Some brands of pasta are lower quality (to my eyes glassy is undesirable, chalky is good). So you'll need to find optimum amount for each type/brand. I recall nearly 10 to 1 water to pasta by weight ratio.
Doesn't chalky appearance mean that there's more powdery starch on the outside, so there's likely to be more sticking?
@Jefromi it might, what I've noticed is the outside stuff wash off the second it hits the water. The lower quality pasta has an imbalance of starch to protein (gluten) where starch granules not well supported by the gluten network and swell (absorb water) too much and break the shape. It's not the stickiness I'm all concerned with, since even if you make 1 single low quality rotelle it's likely to break on its own.
I find that for those delicate types of pasta, it's best to bring the water to a boil, add the pasta and reduce the heat to a simmer, stirring just once or twice. The lower flame (or heat if you are electric) will help the pasta not stick to the bottom of the pot, the lower slower cooking allows the pasta to soften without being agitated by boiling water AND you don't have to stir (which can contribute to breaking).
I'm not the downvoter, but I'd just let you know that this won't help in my case since the pasta sticks to the bottom of the pot almost immediately and pieces break upon stirring to unstick. It happens so quickly that there would be no time for the lowering of the heat to make any difference.
@JeffAxelrod: It's really sticking immediately? Exactly how much pasta are you adding? That generally only happens to me when there's a very dense layer (or several layers) of starchy something-or-other. If you're dumping an entire package in, or a few of them, maybe you should try making smaller batches.
@Aaronut I mentioned almost immediately--within about 10 to 30 seconds, stirring constantly. I definitely dump the entire batch in at once--and of course these are dense noodles. If you re-read the original post, I did mention that it's about a cup of noodles--not exactly a big batch.
You say "rotelle" - what do you mean? Dry pasta:
or filled fresh pasta:
I talk more about the difference in this answer.
The first ones, dry pasta, must be cooked with plenty of BOILING water; occasionally stir gently (not all the time) and drain it "al dente". If you cook them too much they break into pieces.
The second ones are "pasta fresca di grano tenero". Form is as lasagne. They are cocked separately, let dry a bit, filled with a filling with eggs, rolled, cooked again separately for a few minutes wrapped tightly in gauze. Then they're removed from the water and cool. When they are cold, they're removed from the gauze, cut into wheels and arranged as shown, covered with a little tomato sauce and parmesan and gratined in the oven.
Yes, the question is about cooking plain, dry pasta, like the first picture. But the OP has already tried cooking with plenty of boiling water, and found that it sticks together a lot.
In the future, you may want to use the insert image button instead of manually typing image markdown - it uploads them to imgur, which in turn lets you put an "m" at the end of the filename to reduce the image size (see my edit). (Also, I think it was pretty clear from the question which of these the OP meant, so the actual answer here is just the couple sentences about cooking dry pasta, but I've gone ahead and left the rest.)
Have you tried a larger/flater non-stick/glass pot? When you constantly use the same stainless steel pot to boil water, it will start sticking no matter what, I compensate by frying something in the pot once in a while (Which sticks like crazy...)
Also, I am going to recommend something crazy, try boiling it in the microwave in a glass bowl. You just need enough about twice the amount water to pasta in size (not weight). The texture gets a bit weird, but the pasta always stays intact.
The proper way to cook 100 grams of PASTA:
use at least 1 litre of water with 10 grams of salt
bring the water to boil
put the pasta into the boiling water and stir it for a few seconds, then add to the water a little of oil to maintain pasta separate without steering continuously
keep the water boiling until the end of the cooking time (usually for that pasta format no more than 9 minutes)
drain pasta and immediately add your sauce, or butter, or oil
Enjoy your meal!
Hello Giulia and welcome to the site! What in your answer would help the person who asked the question? I think he said the problem was that he stirred. You mention stirring as well, while he does not want to stir.
@Mien I think you misread something. Nothing in my question says I don't want to stir, only that stirring doesn't solve the problem. This answer does add some new ideas--adding oil to the water--though I'm not sure how good of an idea that is if that makes the pasta unable to hold as much sauce after cooking. Either way, I'd take away the down vote. It's not a bad answer and we should encourage new users.
@JeffAxelrod The down vote wasn't mine, I agree to encourage new users. Nevertheless, search about the oil trick on the site. IIRC, this actually doesn't work.
Hello all! I'd just like to add that I'm Italian and I've cooked pasta since years. Oil helps in avoiding pasta from sticking together. To maintain the shape, the important thing is to keep water boiling until the end of cooking time, otherwise pasta would absorb too much water and loose his starches.
@giulia_in_the_kitchen Letting the water stop boiling (but still keeping it hot, say at least 85°C) does not cause it to absorb too much water or to lose starch. And apologies for not having time to explain, but the downvote was mine: the question is quite clear that adding the pasta to boiling water then stirring is causing it to break, so suggesting doing that is not useful (which is what downvotes mean). I know it's the traditional advice, but it's clearly not working in this case.
We appreciate the contribution, however, very few of these points directly answer the question, and the ones which do (e.g. oil in the water) have been scientifically debunked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.097108
| 2013-04-20T22:19:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33643",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Aishwar Singh",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"Dread",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"MandoMando",
"Margarita Bermeo",
"Mien",
"R. M. Q.",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Theodore Murdock",
"giulia_in_the_kitchen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057",
"slim",
"user112688",
"user112690",
"user979326",
"violadaprile"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10721
|
Does Boiling Water, Instead of Warm Water, Hurt the Flavor of Tea/Hot Chocolate
I have a counter-top water kettle that I frequently use to boil water for tea, hot chocolate, and powdered drinks (e.g. chai). I don't think anything of it when the water starts boiling and keeps on boiling for 20 to 30 seconds before the kettle automatically shuts off, then I almost immediately use the water. Should I be worried about:
The taste of my water changing from boiling and thus changing the taste of the drink?
The boiling water altering the drink's compounds and thus changing its taste?
Finally, if I should be worried about these, what method should I use to heat my water and what temperature should I aim for? Specifically, I most often make tea (mint, earl grey, etc.) and chai lattes (from a powdered mix).
Hotter water leads to more caffeine release and a more bitter flavor as it cooks the leaves. If you're serious about the taste of tea, set up four cups and pour water into them: The first boiling, the next after 30 seconds, and on down. Use a cracker between each sip; the later teas should taste slightly lighter and sweeter, and the middle two especially should have a distinct delicate green tea taste. For loose-leaf you normally use a slightly lower temp, while typical teabags need more coaxing to get the flavor out. There are websites that actually list perfect temperatures and steep times for each individual variety, but it's also a matter of taste.
Green tea snobbery can be a little like wine snobbery, the sky's the limit for how sublime you want to go, but at the same time anyone can drink and enjoy it.
Black tea on the other hand doesn't have such delicate taste because it's already pre-cooked. (Oolong retains a little of each nature.) How hot you should make it depends only on how much you like the taste of Bergamot (for Earl Grey) or whatever additives are in your tea, how bitter you can stand it, and how much caffeine you want out of it. The hotter and more bitter it is, the more the tea will cover up the flavor of any additives. Steeping time affects bitterness as well, of course. I'm not entirely certain, but I believe that bergamot oil will also start to evaporate if it's boiled, but I assume you don't boil your tea.
I have no idea how it would change the taste of chai, as I've never made a really good one myself. I typically make them from the powders, and I've seen no difference at all in taste between hot, warm, or even cold water, though the texture changes slightly - it doesn't mix perfectly in cold water. Those powders probably have most of the variability processed out of them. I assume this goes double for hot chocolate, since most of the mixes don't even have real cocoa anymore.
Aside from the possibility of boiling off oils or partially burning green leaves into black, I don't believe the water can get hot enough to change the chemistry of the drinks.
Thanks! Luckily, I make black tea 99% of the time, so it sounds like boiling water will be okay! I've never made a homemade chai latte. I've moved recently and can no longer find my favorite: Tazo Chai Latte liquid concentrate. It was very good in a 1:2 ratio with soy milk and was great both hot and cold. Having moved (to Europe), the only option I've found is David Rio powdered Chai Latte, specifically their "Tiger Spice" flavor. It's good but not as flavorful, convenient, or cheap as the Tazo. I would say the only noticeable flavor difference is when I reheat the chai in the microwave.
Uh, I've never met a hot chocolate powder that didn't contain cocoa. It's not exactly something you can substitute with anything, cheaper or otherwise.
I don't know, the last two that I looked at in the store listed something like "artificial chocolate flavor" as an ingredient, rather than cocoa.
@SliverbackNet: All the hot chocolate powders I remember meeting (this has been in England, Pennsylvania, and maritime Canada) have still had some real cacao in them, but usually down as third or fourth ingredient, following some kind(s) of sugar and some kind(s) of milk solids. My approach is to buy the poshest drinking chocolate that’s reasonably affordable at the supermarket (eg Ghirardelli — mass-marketed, but not el cheapo), and then use a half-and-half mix of that and cacao powder :-) Green & Black’s is the only drinking chocolate I really recommend on its own.
The "pre-cooked" claim on black tea doesn't make sense to me. Green teas are usually steamed or heated to control oxidation, but black teas "ferment" (oxidize, really) as the natural side effect of /not/ cooking them.
Tea particularly requires water to be at a certain temperature, which varies by type, black tea needs to be at or very close to boiling point, as do most herbal infusions. Green tea should be a touch cooler, say 80-85C (176°-185°F).
Coffee should be at the cooler temperature, more like Green Tea, as it can make the coffee become overly bitter and unpleasant. Hot Chocolate is much the same I believe, both being beans.
With hot chocolate you leave the chocolate in and it doesn't get bitter over time (unlike tea or coffee), so I'd guess it's not the same.
This answer is incomplete. The OP asked if and how temperature might change the taste, and followed up with a question about heating methods and temperatures. You've stated some recommended temperatures but haven't actually answered any of the specific questions. Coffee was never mentioned in the question at all.
@Aaronut: I thought given that the question was on hot drinks, it might be useful to include other common hot drinks, so included coffee - as it differs from tea in temperature preparation. A great many answers are "incomplete", in that they do not address the entire question, but hopefully help along the way. The OP asked if they should be worried about temperature for a number of drinks I have mentioned, and I have stated that temperature is important (implying yes) and given target temperatures, so I would submit that I have answered some of the question. The upvotes would support that.
@Brendan Long: Perhaps not with regard to the over-extraction issue that tea and coffee suffer, but I wonder if the other issue coffee has with scalding may still effect chocolate?
Upvotes from the community are not sufficient to "support" an answer that you haven't backed up at all. You've stated a completely arbitrary temperature range with no citations or explanation. It's simply a poor answer, upvotes or not, and it would be so easy for you to improve it.
@Orbling - Thanks for the information. Yes, I would have liked more information related to chai rather than coffee, but your information was still helpful. I'm still hoping for an answer with tips on heating the water for the more delicate, green tea, preparations.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.098526
| 2011-01-03T23:35:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10721",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brendan Long",
"Chad",
"JasonTrue",
"John Dvorak",
"Marti",
"Mia",
"Orbling",
"PLL",
"Sid M",
"SilverbackNet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85495",
"tommy chheng",
"trapezoid",
"user21964"
],
"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
}
|
7786
|
How far in advance can I stage pizza?
We're having friends over and I'd like to make 3 or 4 pizzas. I'm considering stretching out the dough and put on the toppings ahead of time, say an hour ahead of when I pop them in the oven. How long can the pizzas sit on the counter in this pre-oven state?
You can stage pan pizzas (chicago style, or pizza hut style) for up to four hours as long as you keep them covered. You can stage a stretched dough for up to an hour and a half between two pieces of wax paper. However, you need to take the time into consideration when proofing your dough so that you don't get blown dough as that will not be delicious. You should not sauce the crusts or top them as pre-saucing will change how your dough cooks in the oven.
If the dough forms a harder crust/ dries out, you should consider tossing it as it will not result in good pizza after cooking.
When you say "stretched dough", is this specific for pan pizza or for regular pizza?
as in hand stretched/new york style. Basically, the kind that you build on a peel and put directly on a pizza stone. @neil
I'm trying this right now with a stretched pizza. The dough is on parchment paper on my pizza peel, with waxed paper on top of it. Will report on how this works.
@neil if it dries out to much for you with just the paper, I know someplaces use a little olive oil on the dough, but I never have bothered
@sarge_smith - I stretched out the pizza 2 hours before putting sauce and cheese on it and baking it. (I was aiming for a bit over an hour, but the company came later than expected.) It does suffer a bit -- the dough loses a bit of taste -- but not very much at all. I'd say that no more than an hour ahead of time would work just fine, and this works very well.
@neil glad it worked out for you, sir
I wouldn't recommend that; the dough may well overrise and poop out on you, not to mention get soggy from the fillings. Your best bet is to just get the dough rolled out into balls and the fillings all fully prepared in separate containers and the oven preheated. Then, say 10 minutes before you want to fire them, roll out the first one and top it, and do each of the succeeding ones while the previous one is in the oven. Give your guests a drink and an appetizer and they won't mind that you are busy in the kitchen for a few minutes.
I learned at a local culinary school that you have max one minute after you top a pizza to get it in the hottest oven available before the crust (of a thin crust, specifically) is adversely affected.
We always bake our crusts for 6-8 minutes before we top them. The pre-bake can be done well ahead (and you can even freeze the pre-baked crust) and then topped and baked for 6-10 minutes when you're ready. If you have all the ingredients ready for topping, it can be a very efficient process.
Interesting... maybe I'll try this one out.
Agreed -- the pre-bake helps as most home kitchens can't get to the high temps that a dedicated pizza oven can; the pre-bake can be done in advance and easily held for an hour or more in this state.
We do both baking stages at 500 degrees F, but we dream of a brick oven....
I would store prepared ingredients in separate boxes and 3 or 4 balls of dough in the fridge. Then just before dinner time I would let friends have fun by preparing their own pizza by choosing exactly what they want on.
Agreed on the preparing the toppings in advance ... but I wouldn't keep the dough in the fridge ... I find it a pain to work with straight from the fridge (it won't stretch out right, it tries to spring back on you).
I forgot to mention to bring the dough out of the fridge about half an hour before working it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.099455
| 2010-10-03T05:01:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7786",
"authors": [
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Joe",
"Rebekah",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/839",
"justkt",
"mouviciel",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8261
|
Should maple syrup be stored in the refrigerator?
Is there any reason to store maple syrup in the refrigerator? It tastes better when it's a little warmer.
That's what microwaves are for. :-)
Pull it out of the fridge first thing, before you start the pancakes/waffles/etc. I store mine in a glass syrup dispenser, topping it up as necessary (with a cleaning in between fills).
I'll assume that you're talking about pure maple syrup in a glass container; if it's that adulterated pancake syrup then it's probably riddled with preservatives, so any advice here doesn't apply.
Pure maple syrup can and will grow mold on the surface if left in a cupboard. There are several reports of this happening, and although several of those people say that it's OK to simply strain the mold and re-boil the maple syrup, (a) I wouldn't chance it, and (b) that process is hardly any more convenient than simply taking it out of the refrigerator a half-hour earlier and letting it come up to room temperature.
Maple syrup should be stored in the refrigerator. It doesn't have to be, and it will probably take at least a year for it to grow any mold if left in the pantry. But it will last longer in the refrigerator; I've seen refrigerated jars 3+ years old without any mold.
+1: Mold absolutely does happen, and nothing puts you off your pancakes like pouring out a green blob on them.
Eat more maple syrup! How can you not get through a jar in a year? If you're having trouble, your salmon needs a maple, bourbon, ginger glaze!
@yossarian: You are speaking to a Canadian here; I go through maple syrup faster than an average American goes through ketchup. The 3+ year old bottle was not my own. ;)
@Aaronaut - Yes, pure maple syrup; yes, glass container. Anything else is not truly maple syrup.
I just poured some maple syrup on french toast tonight, and it was moldy. I last used that bottle about 4-5 months ago. So I'll be storing it in the fridge from now on. (I'm in Mexico, where real maple syrup is impossible to find, so it's a valuable commodity for me!)
Items like maple syrup, honey and jam have a very high level of sugar in them. This causes a high osmotic potential which is what preserves them.
The problem when you refrigerate these types of foods is that water can condense on the surface. This will dissolve some of the sugar underneath it and lower the concentration, and therefore the osmotic potential, around it. This can be enough to allow microorganisms to grow.
As long as you are using the maple syrup up within a sensible amount of time it will not require refrigeration.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160312080144/http://www.vermontpuremaple.com/maple_syrup_faq.htm
Above link states that the FREEZER is best for long term storage of pure maple syrup. It is not supposed to be able to freeze solid since it is only 33-35% water.
The link says that the freezer is best to keep it for a "very long time". Since it keeps for well over a year in the refrigerator, if you use it reasonably often, there doesn't seem to be any need to freeze it.
Maple can grow mold, but that doesn't mean it's trash. Pour it through a strainer into a pot to remove the chunks, then heat it to 180 degrees for 5-10 minutes (do not boil!!). Scrub and rinse the container and pour the syrup back in. This will kill anything lingering in your syrup, and also the bottle, without hopefully affecting its quality. If the syrup once cooled smells or tastes off, then its trash (not unhealthy per se, as anything icky is now dead, but who wants to eat offtasting syrup)
Do you have evidence or citations that the molds that grow on maple syrup do not create toxins which remain in the syrup through this sort of treatment?
Maybe it has to be 190F, see for example these storage guidelines? (This is from an anonymous suggested edit; I don't know which is right.)
I can testify from experience that maple syrup can be attacked by more than one type of mold. I am fairly sure that if it's the usual kind of mold, then this advice (which can be found in multiple places on the internet) is fine. But if it's a different kind, I would just throw the syrup out (although the few drops I tasted before I noticed didn't seem to hurt me).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.099813
| 2010-10-18T14:58:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8261",
"authors": [
"123",
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Dilip Manek",
"Flimzy",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"JayRitchie",
"Michael",
"Peter Shor ",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Stephen",
"ceejayoz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83374",
"kajaco",
"neves",
"user16983",
"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
}
|
7130
|
How to measure food acidity
I am asking about a method or a trick to measure (or guess) how acidic is food.
Please don't suggest any expensive tool; this will be for home usage only.
Litmus paper is quite inexpensive. Edmund Scientific has 100 strips for US$1.95.
Where can I find this? On supermarkets?
@mmonem: online, or wherever you might buy chemistry supplies.
Does it harm the food or I have to use it on a sample of the food?
@mmonem: My wife, a chemist, doesn't think there should be any problem putting it directly into the food. They require very small samples, so using it on a sample of a food should work as well. Dipping a spoon in, and rubbing the paper across the back of the spoon should be fine. The only problem I could see is if you food has a deep color (tomato sauce, blackberries, etc). It might be hard to tell the color of the strip through the food coloring.
@mmonem: If you're in the US, you can order them at the link I gave. Otherwise just search in Google Shopping for litmus paper. Here is a page which gives instructions more making pH test paper of various types yourself.
It's unfortunate that even Edmund Scientific describes that as "litmus paper" - litmus is really a specific pH indicator, that classic red/blue acid/base test that you might've used in your high school chemistry class.
Some less precise methods using common ingredients:
Anthocyanin-containing foods (red cabbage, blueberries...) tend to turn blue in an alkaline, red in an acidic environment. Turmeric goes more lemon-yellow in acidic, more orange in very alkaline environments.
Baking soda can indicate strong acidity, it will activate and foam.
If there are green vegetables in a dish, their cooked colour gives you a hint about the cooking liquid (effect is not instant!)- if their color tends to go in the direction of olive drab, you are quite acidic; if they are unnaturally green your cooking liquid is rather alkaline.
Also, browning behaviour, especially of protein rich foods, gives you a hint - if it is hard to brown, your marinade might be just too acidic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.100206
| 2010-09-11T18:18:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7130",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dennis Williamson",
"Gabrer",
"KeithB",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"jim",
"joe stavalone",
"keithgagne",
"mmonem"
],
"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
}
|
4364
|
How to prevent overcooking of eggs in Carbonara sauce?
Carbonara can be absolutely delicicious if everthing goes perfectly; but it can also be tasteless, chewy and lumpy, if the egg is overcooked. Does anyone have what they regard as a fool proof method for preparing Carbonara?
@Tim: The title may have suggested a recipe request but the question content was very specific in its aim. I've edited the title to clarify.
Cook the pancetta on a large pan, so that it fries in its own fat. It must turn red, but don't cook it too much as you are going to cook it a bit more later on.
Open two eggs. If you like the color of the carbonara intense, throw one white away, and keep one white and two yolks. Put them in a bowl, then add grated parmigiano and mix with a fork. The amount of parmesan should be at least the same volume of the eggs, maybe even more (twice does not hurt). This will give you a rather firm but still flowing compound. Firm is better than too liquid.
Cook the pasta. Spaghetti is the norm for carbonara, but also penne is a good choice. Get them "al dente" or some second later, as you prefer. Drain the pasta and put it in the pan you used to cook the pancetta (where the pancetta still is). Pour the egg/cheese mix on top of the pasta and put the pan on gentle heat, while you continue moving and mixing. Detach any layer of cooked egg from the bottom of the pan while you mix. The perfect carbonara must not be liquid, and it must not be clumpy solid, so keep mixing or you will get a pasta omelette.
Once you are done, turn off the heat, and take spaghetti up with a large fork, so to disentangle them while you transfer them on the dishes. move them in the dish with a small oscillating movement to disentangle a bit more. Continue like this for all the dishes you have to serve. At the end you will have the pancetta remaining in the pan, and you put it on top of each dish.
Add more grated parmigiano and some ground black pepper and eat as soon and hot as possible !
Additional notes: try to stay a bit scarce on salt in the pasta water, and do not add salt to the egg. The fact is that the pancetta is already pretty salted, and you risk to obtain a very salted final result. Carbonara should be salty, but not too salty.
I heard about modification with butter and cream, but I have never seen them used, at least in my family and circle of friends.
Great detail! I've never made a carbonara before, but this makes me want to try. Nice tip on the salt.
@hobodave I checked some videos on youtube. Most of them are wrong, even when made by Italians. One very important point is to "saltare" (lit. jump) the pasta on the pan while heating, and this is an operation we perform for every pasta: sauce on a pan, heat, add pasta, mix. The reason is that at the same time you mix the pasta and the sauce, complete the cooking and evaporate any excess water in the drained pasta.
@Stefano this is definitely a great Carbonara..+1 for "eat as soon and hot as possible"!
Perfect. I also add a bit of extra virgin olive oil to the pancetta to make it fry better.
It's missing one thing! Pecorino Romano!
Two things... Guanciale too!
@StefanoBorini sorry for the stupid question, but are eggs end up being cooked (and become scrambled) or they remain raw (and liquid)? Thank you!
Carbonara is a tipical roman dish and there are few things to be aware of.
First, you don't use bacon (or pancetta) you have to use "guanciale", it's similar but comes from the cheek of the pig.
Second, use pecorino, or a mixture of pecorino and parmigiano for both your beaten eggs and the final toppings.
Third: there is no cream or butter in the recipe, the creaminess comes from the eggs partially cooked by the hot pasta. If you put them, call it with another name, but stop calling it carbonara.
I like stefano's suggestions and I think rigatoni is another great substitute.
yep, rigatoni is also fine. It depends on the household. In mine we tend to prefer long pasta, so we are not very skilled with short options.
+1 Pecorino romano is a must; I like a mixture of pecorino and parmigiano.
My method has never substantially failed me in this way: take your ingredients (butter, cheese, bacon/pancetta) and add them to the bottom of your serving bowl along with beaten eggs. Drain your pasta, let it cool a little (30 seconds), add to the serving bowl, and toss. The pasta retains enough heat to cook the egg gently.
Never substantially failed implies that you have experienced some minor fail. Have any caveats to add?
I haven't done this in a while so my memory is vague, but the big risk is that you can get something too liquid that might disturb people uncomfortable with uncooked egg. No major objections from me, but Stefano's method is almost certainly better.
This is exactly the same as I how I make Carbonara and it has never failed me either. It makes a very very tasty dinner
Ditto. fool-proof and works every time for me.
this is the canonical way to make carbonara, and it never overcooks. The only problem is that, if you make with a small amount of pasta (say, less than a half pound) there is enough heat loss that the eggs do not cook, and so you have a carbonara fail on your hand.
I will just add that if you sautè the carbonara in a pan, as it is suggested by the original poster and others, you get something that is perhaps safer (in a food safety sense) but is far from the original spirit of the dish. Do I need to cite an authority? Ugo Tognazzi.
I do not eat egg so at home so I make my Carbonara sauce with reduced thickened cream and grated Parmesan. Leaving out the egg eliminates all problems and I have been enjoying delicious, rich and creamy Cabonara for years.
At college I was taught that the modern Cabonara origniated in World War 2 when italian women started making it for allied soilders who's rations including little more than bacon, egg and cream.
The point I am trying to make is that although the traditional recipe calls for egg to thicken the sauce, it is a risky and unnecessary ingredient. If you absolutely have to have egg, only use the yolk and make sure that you let the liquid cool to the point that it doesn't steam before you add it or you will end up with scramble egg sauce.
Eggs are not definitely not unnecessary. They change the taste quite dramatically. It's the cream that doesn't bring much to the table.
Cream is NOT a substitute for eggs in carbonara, if you do that, you'll get some sort of bacon Alfredo sauce instead.
The way I do it is; Use a buttered glass, oven-safe, baking dish that's been heated, in the oven, to 350°F. Once the pasta is done drain and toss in the buttered dish, (this keeps the pasta from sticking to itself). Add the liquid ingredients and toss until thickened. The glass retains enough heat to gently 'cook' the sauce without curdling the egg.
One of the fastest dishes to make. Whilst boiling the pasta, everything else can be prepped.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.100441
| 2010-08-05T19:15:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4364",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Dennis",
"Derek Dysart",
"Dois",
"Hunt",
"Kim",
"Lucas",
"MaD70",
"Princess Fi",
"Sklivvz",
"Stan Mullins",
"Stefano Borini",
"Tina",
"Walter A. Aprile",
"Yulia V",
"bdd",
"daveface",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/986",
"superbimble",
"systempuntoout",
"timkl",
"user2215",
"user58537",
"杜 欣"
],
"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
}
|
11749
|
Ham and Pea Soup with whole dried peas instead of split peas?
I am making Ham and Split Pea Soup, however I only have whole dried peas. Will the shell on the whole pea make the soup more difficult to digest? Will the shell spoil the flavor? Or is it just adding more fiber and holding the legume together giving the soup a different texture?
Why do Chefs seem to prefer the split pea over the whole pea?
One of the commercially-available canned ham and pea soups I had was whole peas, and it was quite good, fibrous skin pieces and all.
Whole peas will take longer to cook than split peas, but they won't ruin the soup. Split peas will also break apart more to thicken the soup, while whole peas will remain mostly intact. If you want a similar effect, you could use a stick blender to partially liquefy the soup after it's cooked.
Just to add in, assuming you're using ham hocks to make the soup, you're probably going to be cooking it for 8-12 hours anyway. The shells should break down over that amount of time.
Today when I started my soup I discovered that I had not bought split peas but dried big peas.
Yes they took longer, and they looked scarier with those gross little clear shell things attached but after I whizzed them with the stick blender, my soup looked just like it was supposed to. And I don't think that the taste changed one bit.
So if you've bought the wrong peas, don't fret pet, just cook longer and whizz. The soup was delicious!
I'm from the Northeast originally, and my mom always used whole peas to make her soup. When we moved to Florida, she stopped making it because we couldn't find the whole peas and she didn't like the texture of split peas. I have had the good fortune of finding a large bag of whole, dried peas recently when I happened to stop into an Indian type grocery store. I'm going to try to get the best of both worlds and use half whole and half split peas. I like the nostalgia of the pea skin in my soup but also like the heartier texture of the split pea.
Whole peas are better to use. When you reheat the soup does thicken. Considering the size of my soup pot and all the family that want some this is a better idea to use whole peas if you can find them. They are hard to find in my area
Back east my mom preferred whole pea not split, as she says it made the soup too mushy. I had to seen for whole peas as we can't find them in California. We do have salt pork which is great and I like a ham hock, onion it served with corn bread.
I have always used whole peas for my soup, but they are very hard to find. I went on the internet and found them. Had to buy 12 - 1 lb. bags, but at least I can now make 12 batches!
I like using the whole peas for a more brothy soup if desired. I also put potatoes in my soup and everyone loves it!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.101082
| 2011-02-02T05:26:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11749",
"authors": [
"Alison Roberts",
"Anjy786",
"Cheryl",
"Marcus Cohn",
"Matthew",
"Nualpha Omegam",
"Sharron",
"Sindhu S",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99428",
"paulmelnikow",
"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
}
|
11716
|
Homemade Gluten-Free Udon Noodles
I have celiac disease and would like to make gluten free Udon Noodles. I have been unable to find a recipe and have never made homemade noodles. Does anybody know how to make these delicious, chewy noodles using brown rice flour?
Or have any advice as to what ingredients i should use in my attempts to develop a recipe for making them?
To be exact, what other ingredients could I use to substitute the wheat flour traditionally used in this noodle.
What should I add to brown rice flour, salt and water to obtain a chewy texture in a gluten free noodle.
I hate to say it, but I'd be willing to bet that gluten-free udon is about as practical as gluten-free seitan - the gluten is precisely what gives udon noodles the texture that makes them so special.
Having said that, I've bought frozen udon noodles that had tapioca starch as an ingredient in addition to wheat flour, and those were some of the best udon noodles I've eaten.
The other catch is that making udon noodles at home is hard - traditional recipes call for putting the very tough, springy dough in a plastic bag and stomping on it for a few minutes, as the only practical way of kneading it.
This site describes how to make udon noodles with tapioca - you could try replacing its flour with the gluten-free blend described here. I would also consider adding xanthan gum. If you're feeling adventurous, This e-book (not free, but looks pretty solid) discusses a wide variety of gluten-free flours and their properties, and might help you choose flours to use with the properties you want.
If gluten-free udon turns out to be impractical, I recommend soba noodles as an alternative. Those can much more easily be made gluten-free (although most commercially made ones available in the US do have wheat simply because it's cheap and bland) and can usually be used in the same dishes as udon. They have their own distinct texture, very different from udon, and a deliciously hearty flavor.
http://vegetarianandhealth.blogspot.com/2008/11/udon-noodles-from-scratch.html
here is a site that has a recipe for gluten-free udon. It is a vietnamese type noodle but it works very well with udon soups as it is similar to udon. Our family loves udon but since my 2 yr old son has to be on a gluten free diet, so do we since he cannot understand yet why he can't have certain foods..udon being one of his favorites! This has been a great substitute for us!
This E is for Eat blog entry contains a recipe for udon noodles that are gluten free, made from brown rice flour and tapioca flour.
This isn't an answer to the question.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Whilst this may theoretically answer the question, it would be preferable to include the essential parts of the answer here, and provide the link for reference.
This is an answer to the question just as much as the link to 'vegetarian and health' is (which has text below it, but doesn't say anything about the recipe, other than it being a vietnamise noodle. (so to clarify, it's "bánh canh") ... but no one called that one out for not standing on its own. This link, hoever, mentions that it's possible to use a bag w/ holes punched in it, and you don't actually need a cookie press. ... and a more conventional recipe format is all the way at the bottom of the page.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.101357
| 2011-02-01T12:09:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11716",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Joe",
"Ke.",
"Kim trask",
"Val",
"awy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71691",
"lemontwist",
"pda",
"user2692669"
],
"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
}
|
7772
|
Which non penetrating method is recommended to check chicken breasts for done-ness when pan fried
i love pan fried chicken usually with some tumeric, salt, pepper, rosemarry, and evoo. Anyways, I don't like to get my thermo dirty everytime, and sometimes i get it a bit overdone, sometimes the oppsite
There isn't one.
The only reliable way to determine doneness of a chicken breast is to use a thermometer. If you didn't have a thermometer then you would have to cut open the breast to confirm. Outside of those the only other method is experience. e.g. knowing that it takes 5 minutes per side to cook a breast of X size, in Y pan, on Z stove, at M heat.
Given that you own a thermometer, it's kind of silly to ask for another way. Use it.
You can work on learning the finger test, but during your first experiments, I would cross-check this with your thermometer to make sure you know what it feels like.
Personally I prefer to only trust a thermometer, as then I can be absolutely sure (within the margin of error for the device) that my food contains no living harmful bacteria to hurt anyone I am serving.
I also use the finger test. I'm never sure if I'm poking the right way, so I cut and use my infrared.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.101738
| 2010-10-02T17:37:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7772",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"papin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7277
|
How to stuff bread puffs (Gougeres)
The other day someone delighted me to a Stuffed Gougere. Mind you, I've made these delicacies at least 50 times, I've never figured out a way to stuff them without either ruining the crust, the puff, or without having puff-plosions.
The question is, how is it possible to stuff these darn things, with either wet, cheesey, or whole objects without sacrificing the puff or the crust
Gougeres are not stuffed, at least in Bourgogne. The dough contain the cheese (Gruyere) and nothing is added to it after the fact. Well cooked gougeres have the cheese in the center still moist and gooey, giving the impression of an after the fact filling when in reality the cheese has been in the dough all along. If the inside of your gougere is dry, it's been in the oven for too long. Note that using anything else than gruyere, or eventually comté, is probably not going to get the gooey delicious result.
I guess the only way to add a filling would be to do it the same way you do profiteroles: simply slice the gougere horizontally with a sharp knife, add whatever you want inside, and put the top back in place.
Eric, I agree, and as I said, I've made them a lot; however, these things were definitely stuffed; Looking back at it, I think what they might've done, is that once they were out of the oven, did a cross shaped cut on the bottom of the puff, and pumped a savory custard with a very fine nozzle, and put a bit of butter to close over the gap and put it back in the oven for a minute or two.
You can use a syringe. But this won't work for objects like olives.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.101879
| 2010-09-14T12:45:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7277",
"authors": [
"Ethel Thoma",
"Greg W",
"Manny",
"colejkeene",
"dassouki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"snahor"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21298
|
Will fresh strawberries make a cake soggy?
I'm decorating a two layer butter cake and I was thinking of adding a layer of sliced fresh strawberries in between the two layers together with some strawberry flavored Bavarian cream. I will be serving the cake in two days. Will the strawberries give out too much liquid and make the cake soggy?
After two days the decorated cake was moist, as most would prefer, and not soggy. I did not use the Bavarian cream, just a thick layer of sliced and chopped (to prevent sliding) strawberries and a thin layer of strawberry jelly (luck, but in accordance to rumtscho's advice).
Generally, no they should be fine. You'd have more of an issue with frozen than fresh. It would take fresh strawberries a long time to release enough moisture to cause any significant amount of sogginess.
The issue you're more likely to run into depending on the size of your strawberries, the density of your Bavarian cream, levelness of your cake, and the weight of your top layer is that they can act like rollers and friction between the two layers will be low. If the cake is tilted wrong, the top layer will just slide right off. I've definitely had it happen - ruined a cake for a charity event :(. Make sure the strawberries are cut into bits - not halves or slices and preferably fold them into the cream to prevent this from happening. All the flavors will still be there, but your cake will be safer.
I also think that the strawberries won't be much of a problem. But if you use lots of them, or if they are frozen, or if you want to use other, moister, fruit in the future, you could run into problems. And you would be relieved that there is a solution.
The solution against cake getting soggy from fruit is to simply seal the cake layers against moisture. The traditional way is to glaze with apricot jam - you brush a very thin layer of melted apricot jam on the cake layer, and put the fruit on it after it has cooled. The amount is so small that the taste is not noticeable, and it is also practically invisible. Alternatively, you can use other glazes, such as slightly thickened simple syrup (cooled, so it won't seep into the layer itself), starch cooked in water (evtl. with some sugar), other jams, or commercially available sealers (Dr Oetker sells them in sachets).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.102057
| 2012-02-13T00:30:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21298",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47627",
"momma scott",
"papin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68529
|
What can I bake for my nut allergic friend?
I have a friend who has tree-nut allergy so he isn't able to eat any kinds of nuts, because of this every single time I bake something for my class he can't eat it because of his allergy. When I searched up recipes that are nut-free, I can't be 100% sure that it will be safe for him to eat it, I understand if he eats something with nuts in it can cause a deadly reaction and I don't want him to risk his life eating my cookies. What are some recipes for baking cookies that I can guarantee that it will be safe for him to eat?
A nice loaf of French bread should be safe - flour, water, yeast (salt optional.) Nuts is easy; gluten is more of a challenge. And not all nuts are nuts, so Stephie's advice to ask "EXACTLY WHAT" is spot-on. Peanuts and tree nuts are different (someone may be allergic to one, the other, or both.) Meringues might be a better fit your your handle - egg whites, sugar (optional flavorings, choose non-nut-related in this case)
I was thinking more along the lines of shortbread - flour, butter, sugar. But yes, the fewer ingredients the better for most heavily allergic people.
I would make sure your friend feels safe eating food from your kitchen before you spend the time and energy making something. Food allergies can be a really sensitive subject and it is beyond terrifying eating food from a kitchen you don't know that much about (speaking from personal experience). Try not to be offended and don't take it personally if your friend doesn't want the snacks you make.
Step 1 should always be to ask which ingredients exactly you need to stay clear of, just in case it's more than nuts.
My - possibly naïve - assumption would be that basic recipes that stick to flour, sugar, eggs, butter and possibly dairy should probably be ok. Chocolate could be dangerous as the factories often use nuts as well, so there is a risk of cross-contamination, but cocoa should be safe. Note that some oils can be made (partly) from peanuts, so read the label or use butter.
Once you have verified the extent of allergies, you will have a "safe ingredients list".
From there, choose the type of baked product and search for basic recipes - the no-frills, few-ingredients recipes are a good place to start.
Unless you choose a recipe that uses nuts as main ingredient (sorry, no macarons for your friend) the options are almost endless, in my experience.
Asking the friend also lets you find out how they handle it; it's not necessarily just which ingredients but how careful they are about them. Some people have to pay attention to all potential cross-contamination warnings, some don't.
I have a friend who's fatally allergic to nuts (along with many other things), but she loves making chocolate chip cookies (and eats them). There must be a specific brand of chocolate chips that are nut-free, but it is good to watch out for that as well on the labels.
I echo all the advice here from everyone else: ask your friend which exact ingredients he cannot eat, and go from there. Keep everything that has been confirmed as safe in a separate sealed container, and then everything in there is safe!
Also note: make sure to wash everything thoroughly before you make anything for your friend; there may be cross-contamination there, too.
Enjoy Life chocolate chips are the ones! They're nut-free soy-free and dairy-free.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.102258
| 2016-04-24T17:22:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68529",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Ecnerwal",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60467",
"lspare"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8076
|
Removing the onion layers in an intact way without cooking them
I was wondering if there is a way to remove the onion layers in an intact way so they're not broken or damaged. I've done this before by slightly baking the onion until it softens
Could you say why you're attempting to do this? There might be different suggestions based on what the end goal is. (eg, the mention of making a bowl)
@Joe - I'm trying to preserve as much of the layer as possible, the end goal would be to stuff it. I have an idea of what i want to stuff it with, but have yet to succeed in the "taking the onion" apart
I once made onion bowls by slicing the onion at the point where it just starts to curve back in and soaking in water while I seperated the layers. It worked for my purposes but I did destroy a few in the process. I think I might have added some salt to the water they were soaking in to boost the water content of the onion, which could have affected how easily they seperated.
I agree, and I usually bake them with a bit of water in the oven until they soften, and "squeeze" them out
It depends on how much of the "bowl" you need to be intact. If you don't mind cutting the onion in half and then slicing off say about 1/2" off each end, so you have a truncate hemisphere, then you can wiggle off individual layers pretty easily.
I'd rather keep the layers intact, but I wouldn't mind losing some of the middle ones.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.102538
| 2010-10-13T14:03:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8076",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"dassouki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7068
|
Cookware and methods for large quantities of rice
On my next Catering job, I was asked to cook a large amount of rice. I will probably use about 15 to 20 cups of Basmatti or Risotto rice.
For the Basmati, my options are to either cook the rice 4 cups at a time (re-season, clean the pots, etc) or use my large soup / gravy pot to do the rice.
For the Risotto, I'm not really sure if cooking that much risotto is even possible simultaneously.
My question in a nutshell is how much water and salt should I put in?
Now I know that water and seasoning depends on humidity, weather condition, type of rice, where was it harvested from, was it drained ? washed ? drained and washed? soaked?, the moon and earth cycles, night and day, and that the amount of water decreases significantly as the amount of rice increases. I'm looking for a ballpark figure (+/- 1 cup)
EDIT
I'm sorry to be a pain in the rear; however, there is definitely a difference between cooking 2 cups of rice and 20 cups of rice. I ended up resorting to making my spice mix ahead of time and cooked the rice 4 cups at a time with about (5-6 cups of water for each batch).
I'll keep researching this and see what I can come up with
If you're going to do risotto for that many, I'd par-cook it in advance, then finish it off when getting ready for serving -- see : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2440/how-do-cooks-prepare-risotto-in-a-restaurant
One great way to cook rice is the iranian style chelow or polo. Rice is soaked in salted water for a couple of hours then it is boiled the same way as pasta 'al dente'. Finally it is drained then steamed for about one hour. The question of how much water doesn't hold.
I would definitely not do the risotto, very hard to get and hold the right texture in those kinds of quantities. The basmati rice will work fine in a large pot. Cook it by the absorption method (bring to a boil with 1 3/4 cups of water per cup of rice, reduce to a simmer, cook covered, without stirring, until all of the water is absorbed).
35 cups o water seem to be a very large amount for 15-20 cups of rice
It may seem like a lot but it might even be on the small side. I normally use 2 cups to a cup of dried rice. Dried ingredients can suck up a lot of liquid.
If I was going to cook rice for that many people, I probably wouldn't use stovetop method -- I'd use a pilaf method, and do it in the oven, hopefully in a large, wide pan.
The only issues I can think of when doubling amounts of rice, as I know that the more rice there is, the lower the ratio of water to rice needs to be is that maybe as the water gets deeper, the extra pressure allows the rice to cook faster? I'm not sure if the pressure differential of an inch or two would be that significant, but I'd think that a large bottom area and not cooking the rice so it's too deep would help offset this potential issue ... but you could also use multiple smaller containers, if you're worried about doubling, as the oven's going to give you a consistent temp.
For your basmati rice, Cook's Illustrated has a baked rice recipe that - with a large enough pot - you should be able to adapt. You can find it in their New Best Recipe. There's a similar recipe that was written up in Gourmet (via The Wednesday Chef).
I'd skip the risotto.
I cook mine in a Rice Cooker, good quality with variable settings for white and dark rices. Comes out great.
The best answer I can offer is two inches and go from there. Let me clarify put your rice in your soup pan cover it with water until it is two inches over the top of your rice on medium high heat and check and stir it until it is to the right consistency. Once the rice has absorbed all the water fluff. I know it is not a very accurate number but as you said there are a lot of factors involved. For the Risotto the most I have managed to cook at one time was six servings and that was difficult to get the proper consistency, I just don't have a pan large enough to cook it properly over that amount so have never tried.
I think this method works perfect on a small amount of rice, or the "water the size of your thumbnail over the rice", but does it work for a large quantity of rice.
That is why it becomes a little more complicated than letting it sit, you have to tend to the rice and add more water if necessary. There really is no way to accurately measure a rice to water ratio when you are cooking that large of a quantity. Like Michael said 35 cups of water may be exactly right if you have a large enough cooking vessel to spread the rice out in, but if you don't then there is more stirring involved and you may need to add water as you go.
Two inches? I usually use one inch, and it comes out great. Looking online, I found some recommendations for 1.5". Maybe there's differences between varieties of rice? (actually, looking again, I use low heat, not high heat, and don't stir)
@dassouki : I've never cooked 20c. of rice before, but I've done between 2-5c. with the 'water level' method, low heat, not stirring, and it comes out fine. I'd guess that part of the issue is the total depth of the rice, so I'd go with a large, wide vessel if you could.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.102688
| 2010-09-10T16:45:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7068",
"authors": [
"C. M.",
"David Kim",
"Joe",
"Kieran Patrick McGough",
"Matthew Mellott",
"Michelle B Brown",
"Varuuknahl",
"WasabiFlux",
"dassouki",
"dianne",
"henwil",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"sarge_smith",
"slavko",
"spiceyokooko"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3420
|
What's the best order to add ingredients to a Stir Fry?
I make nice stir-fry with bell peppers, mushrooms, onion, sugar-snaps, jalapenos and bean sprouts (and anything else that might be handy and in danger of being unused before it expires)
I tend to chuck everything in together on a really hot wok, but is there a better way?
Will adding the ingredients at different times make a difference?
If so, what's the best way to do this?
Thanks
I always go in this order:
Garlic/ginger/chili/spring onion whites
This is to infuse the cooking oil with these flavours. Cook for short amount of time ~30secs.
onions/peppers/carrots/harder veg
These need a little more cooking that the other bits, so I give them a bit longer.
mushrooms/sugar snaps/soft veg
These need less cooking, so bit less time.
bean sprouts
I like these to be a bit crunchy so add them right at then end and basically just warm through.
If I'm using bigger veg like broccoli/cauliflower then I do them separately to the other veg. I use a little of the chili/garlic/ginger and fry that for 30 secs, add the broccoli fry for another minute or so just to brown the florets, then add some water, turn down the heat and put on a lid, to steam the broccoli. Once its done I remove to a separate plate the add back in at the end.
It basically depends on how much you like each veg cooked. If you prefer your peppers crunchy, put them in nearer the end.
An answer below mentioned meats. When I do it, I fry the meat to get a good sear and cook it about 75% done. Then I set it aside and do the vegetables in the general order presented by Sam. I then add the meat back as I add the last vegetables, cook for a minute or two to heat everything up and incorporate the flavors into the meat, then add the sauce. Stir to coat/thicken, and you are done.
All the advice above is good, but let me add one more thing to consider: if you don't have a wok burner with the power of a fighter jet, you might want to not cook everything together at all. It often is best to cook one or two ingredients at a time, in a thin layer over the highest possible heat, until they are 20 seconds short of done, and then remove them to a bowl temporarily. When the last ingredient is just about cooked, add everything else back and then add the sauce, stir a couple of times to get everything back up to temperature and serve.
A general rule is put harder ingredients in first as they tend to require more cooking. Things you can eat raw can go in very late as the crispness can add to the meal.
So from your list, something like this:
Onion For a little while
Jalapenos (if not pickled)
Mushroom
Bell peppers
Sugar-snaps
bean-sprouts
It mostly comes down to personal preference. Some people like soggy stir fries and others like nearly raw onions and chillies.
The general rule is to put in aromatics first--stuff that contributes good smells. Traditionally that includes garlic, onions, dried spices, and celery. In oil,of course.
Then the hard to soft rule applies. The general idea is to have all of the food 'ready' at the same time, despite differences in cooking time. So you give the harder items, i.e. carrots, longer. More cooking time is required for items which have starches which need to be broken down (potatoes, carrots) or a fibrous structure that needs to be broken down (broccoli).
Proteins are a separate category and it depends on the amount of connective tissue (cubed beef, more time) or delicacy (lobster, less time). Either way, you don't want to overcook meats. Last, add ingredients that you really don't want to overcook, like fresh herbs, bean sprouts, lighter greens, lemon juice.
There is absolutely a better way than just adding everything together. But it depends, in part, upon your tastes.
I like my mushrooms very well done, so I will toss the mushrooms and onions in together first. Sugar snaps, bell peppers and bean sprouts I like nice and crisp, so I'll toss them in last just to heat them up. For just a minute or so. The jalapenos can go in any time depending on how much you want their spice to absorb into the oil. The earlier they go in, the spicier the whole affair will be. With other ingredients they may need to go in earlier or later depending on how much they need to cook and how well done you like them. For example, things like carrots, broccoli or cauliflower may need to be blanched before they go in, or go in much earlier than other things. Spices such as garlic or ginger should go in first or very early so they have plenty of time to infuse into the oil.
It really comes down to the ingredients and your tastes. Try adding things in different orders and letting them cook for different amounts of time to see what you really like.
You add some oil into a Wok first at a temperature around 350 degrees Farenheit for 3 minutes. Since the time for Stir Fry of the remaining ingredients is quite short, typically less than 7-8 minutes, you want to add the spices first (fresh garlic and ginger for 1 minute). Then, it's best to have meats or tofu finely sliced about a 1/4 inch thick. This allows it to cook evenly and thoroughly. Then the remainder of fresh veggies can be added (I've experimented with adding frozen pineapple chunks), after tossing them with some soy sauce, peppers, or other varieties of stir fry marinade. If you prefer certain veggies cooked more thoroughly, or if you're using frozen veggies, you might consider adding them before the fresh veggies. Finally, to reduce the excess amount of moisture, towards the very end, I'll add some previously cooked rice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.103140
| 2010-07-27T12:34:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3420",
"authors": [
"Dale",
"Greg Annandale",
"Helena",
"JSM",
"Natrium",
"Nemoden",
"William Jackson",
"dragfyre",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6277",
"magma",
"renegade",
"shawnxuc",
"what should a diabetic eat"
],
"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
}
|
6371
|
Saving pasta water
When making pasta, I often use small amounts of pasta water as an addition to sautes or to lengthen sauces. I have thought of saving more of the pasta water to refrigerate and use within 2 or 3 days, for say, a soup base or maybe as a light broth for cooking rice or bulgar wheat.
I'm wondering if anyone here does this, and if so, are the results worth the effort? I usually have a stock or other broth on hand but not always; so it occurred to me that leftover pasta water might have a second life.
Thanks.
A little more info - I got the idea from my well used copy of Lynne Rosetto Kasper's "The Italian Country Table" where in several recipes a small amount of pasta water is reserved for deglazing or cooking down within a vegetable dish. So, that's been my usage.
Consensus seems to be that it's not worth the effort to save for later.
But it some regions of Italy, there'd be pasta with almost every meal (so much so that my grandfather refused to eat pasta later in life ... except lasagna for special occassions), so it'd be something always on hand to add to a dish being cooked at the same time.
The major advantage of using pasta water is that it is high in starch rather than for any flavoring you may get from the water. You may find that you get some strange results if you're just subbing it directly for water or stock, and I wouldn't recommend keeping it for that reason.
Personally, it doesn't seem like it's worth the effort of keeping. If I want a thickening agent for a sauce or gravy, I'll just make a cornstarch slurry. However, you've just got a starchy water, so I'd think it'll keep for as long as tap water would (certainly 2-3 days if cooled properly).
Tap water properly stored should last for years. (and it's a good thing to have on hand in case of a zombie apocalypse ... or the water goes out, or one of those annoying 'boil water' alerts when another pipe breaks.)
@Joe, I guess it depends on how you are keeping it. My 2-3 days is based on the glass of tap water by my bed. It tastes fine for a couple of days, but after that it takes on a nasty metallic taste. It may just be my local water or it may be the exposure to air. I just thought I'd play my answer safe.
2L sitting tap water = 2L distilled water (and is terrific for house plants!)
I don't know. I'm not Mr. OMG-Bacteria's-Gonna-Kill-YOU but I'd not want to keep a thing of starchy water (which is an ideal bacterial growth medium) in my fridge for more than a day or two. Add to that the fact that it's basically so cheap as to be free, and it's right at the bottom of the list of things I'd save.
There certainly shouldn't be any food safety issues with doing that, as long as you cool it down to under 40 F. within a couple of hours. As to whether it is worth it, that is pretty subjective but if you make a lot of sauces that could use slight dilution while retaining sheen and texture, I think it is a sensible idea.
It's basically a pretty good way to culture bacteria. Don't bother. You're much better off just making the sauce that day, and storing it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.103617
| 2010-08-30T17:05:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6371",
"authors": [
"Angie1210",
"Chao",
"Joe",
"Roert.Bartolotta",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mfg",
"so12311",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25160
|
Why do chicken wings turn chewy if cooled between cookings?
I prepared some chicken wings by:
Place chicken wings, raw, in cool oil.
Heat corn oil to ~180°F, hold at ~180°F for 3 hours (in the oven).
Heat peanut oil in deep fryer to 370°F (as high as the deep fryer goes). Time such that deep fryer is heated by the end of the 3 hours.
Drain now-cooked chicken wings
Deep fry (while still hot) for 4 minutes, flipping half way through.
These came out good. While somewhat dry (but not overly so), they had very tender fall-off-the-bone meat and crunchy skin.
However, for a few of them, I inserted a step 4(b), put in plastic bag and chill in ice bath. I then deep fried them for an extra two minutes. They weren't quite as browned, but more importantly they could have been passed off as chewing gum.
Why did cooling the chicken wings turn them to chewing gum? Is there any way to avoid this (other than not cooling them, of course). It'd be nice to be able to do the time-consuming part in advance.
Your temperature is too high. Go for 78ºC (172F) instead of 82ºC. 3 hours seems a long time for chicken wings. Get a thermometer and take it out when it reaches 78ºC. After cooling, before frying, do you dry the wings? That could be an important step.
Lastly, instead of frying them as is, try panning them with flour or breadcrumbs.
If you're going to fry immediately, aim for 75ºC instead.
True, the lower temperature may help with the slight dryness (and I guess I'll try a little lower next time), but the question was about the chilled one (and only the chilled one) turning to chewing gum. I didn't dry them (but they weren't really that wet), though that might help with the browning. Breading them is cheating :-P
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.103888
| 2012-07-21T06:52:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25160",
"authors": [
"Hampden123",
"Kirk",
"Paxton",
"Spindle",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57563",
"peanutjelly"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11881
|
Heart shaped mold
I'm looking at making this for Valentines but I found it too late to ship the mold in from the USA (I'm in Melbourne Australia). Being that this is a technologically backward country and thats impossible to find anything local online, is there anyone here from Melbourne who knows or has any idea of where I might be able to find an anatomically heart shaped mold.
Sorry if this is off topic - feel free to close
Darko Z
Hey Darko, when getting things shipped from the USA to Brisbane, Australia, I was often surprised by how quickly they arrived. Most things arrived within a week...so perhaps you could still (just) manage it? Otherwise good luck finding the anatomical heart mold!
The first time I saw this (in the book "Penn & Teller's How to Play with Your Food"), they used the less anatomical "valentine's day heart" shaped mold, and stuck the bag of "sauce" in the point of the heart, so you could still serve to the top two round bits.
Although I am not sure of a store, online or otherwise, where you can buy an anatomically correct heart mold, one approach you might consider is to make your own mold for baking.
You could buy polymer baking clay to make the mold. As long as you don't heat the mold up, you don't need to worry fumes. However, a standard precaution for Sculpey brand is to use dishes made from their clay as decorative only. Therefore you will need to create a barrier using another inert material; wax, saran wrap? Or you could seek out a sculptor and get an earthenware heart mold.
Another idea is silicone. I am not sure where you'll be able to procure silicone in teeny tiny bulk in Australia (not that I know where to buy it in the US either), but I have seen online people casting silicone using modeling clay.
Basically, if you were to follow up on this, you would likely be using a Dow Corning "Silastic"; here is a link to XIAMETER® RBB-6630-30 BASE, which is inert and compliant with high thermal, repeat use per 21 CFR 177.2600 (U.S. Food & Drug Administration). There are additional products available in Australia, so if you cannot find a distributor for that one you might try another.
Yes, I know the latter option sounds over the top, but I thought I might throw it out there.
as much as I'd like to do that, I don't have the skills nor enough time to gain the skills, but good detailed answer!
@Dark Ha, yeah, thought it was worth a shot despite the fact I have no idea how to do the silicone one. However the clay wouldn't bee too bad; if you don't have sculpting skills you could make a relief cast with the clay of one of those plastic hearts they have at medical supply stores and doctor's offices. Any way good luck.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.104179
| 2011-02-07T07:24:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11881",
"authors": [
"Daniel Hershcovich",
"Darko",
"Dennis Bockus",
"Joe",
"KimbaF",
"Russ Clark",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jzimmerman2011",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
858
|
Is Beer Can Chicken safe?
Some time ago I've read about Beer Can Chicken.
I've never heard of this in my area, but it seems (and looks) tasty! So I would like to give it a try. There is just one thing that worries me:
Is it safe to bake a can on the grill (or in the oven) like this? Doesn't it give off any chemical flavours?
I can't stop saying this in a Jamaican accent. Makes it sound even more delicious.
We tried it a while back and, while I don't think the can itself is a concern, we had a hard time getting the chicken to a safe internal temperature before the outside was completely charred - the most direct way for heat to get to the inside of the bird is completely blocked by this method.
@GalacticCowboy Low and slow is the way to go. Indirect, smoky heat.
Works good with coke or Mountain Dew too :-)
Remember to open the can!
In my country we call it beer bottle chicken, which sounds even unsafer, as you prepare it with a glass bottle, but it works well, there are no problems.
I'm not sure if its dangerous, but if you are worried about the can you can get various tools, designed to cook a chicken like this.
Wow, looks amazing. Never heard of anything like this before :) thanks!
I picked up a similar item from Sur la Table: http://www.surlatable.com/product/666214.do
@ceejayoz: does that one allow a liquid to be pushed up through the chicken?
Yep, it has a beer-can sized cup you fill with fluid that the chicken sits on. Hit "additional views" for a photo.
The link doesn't work anymore. Should the Poultry Pal be described in the answer (or add a picture of one).
@J.A.I.L. updated
I own the top one. It's a nice product, and works a treat. Just be aware you can't close some grills (like mine!) with the chicken standing up in it.
My main concern (would have been) BPA, as most cans nowadays are coated with BPA plastics inside to protect flavor. Cooks Illustrated evaluated the BPA leeched into chicken using this method:
Beer can interiors are coated with an epoxy that contains Bisphenol A
(BPA). Is the popular method of cooking a chicken perched on an open
beer can really a good idea?
Some studies have linked BPA to cancer and other harmful health
effects. To evaluate the ramifications of cooking chicken on a beer
can, we roasted two whole birds, one set on an open beer can
containing 6 ounces of beer and the other on a stainless-steel
vertical roaster with the same amount of beer poured into the
reservoir. After roasting the chickens, we collected their drippings
and stripped each carcass, grinding the meat and skin to create
homogeneous samples. We sent the samples to a lab to be evaluated for
BPA content.
In each chicken, the BPA measured less than 20 micrograms per
kilogram, leading us to believe that the beer can cooking method is
safe. (The Food and Drug Administration’s current standard for
exposure is 50 micrograms per kilogram of body weight for adults, or
3,400 micrograms per day for a 150-pound person.) For those who have
any remaining concerns, there is always the vertical roaster, which
works just as well as a low-tech option.
Published May 1, 2011. From Cook's Illustrated.
There are several available vertical roasters that act just like a beer can. Here's a photo of the Steven Raichlen SR8016:
+1 for the only answer that cites actual science.
The beer can shouldn't be able to rise above the boiling point of the liquid inside until it is empty. Your chicken should be finished cooking long before that.
Obviously, the aluminum of the can itself isn't a safety issue anyway. If you are worried about the paint on the can, you can either buy the Poultry Pal that Sam linked to, or take some sandpaper to the beer can and scrape it all off (before opening the can of course).
For ease of removal later, you should be coating the can itself with fat/oil before inserting it into the chicken.
Cook slowly. Last time I made it, I aimed for about 275f to 300f. If you are doing it on the grill, use a pan to catch the drippings and prevent flare up.
I also basted occasionally to help create a more flavorful crust (not to prevent drying out, since the steam inside does that wonderfully).
First: This is delicious
Second: I simply use a small jar (from jam e.g.), which is about the same diameter as a beer can and simply pour the beer into the jar and the jar into the chicken.
--> The jar (especially if it's from jam) won't break, but survive the heat
--> It is absolutely non-toxic and can be put in the dishwasher to be cleaned.
Good idea! The linked article actually mentions using a small masonry jar.
Cook's Illustrated has tested beer cans enough that it would be totally reasonable to assume that Beer Can Chicken is safe, but if you want to avoid the can without spending money on a special pan, I just thought of an alternative to the beer can. If you have one...take the funnel section from angel cake pan, or tube pan...it fits perfectly! You should place it in shallow pan with whatever seasonings you want...I added a little water...with garlic, and will monitor for low water.
I do it with a Bundt pan. :) Welcome to Seasoned Advice. As written, I don't think this actually answers the question, but it could with a bit of editing. Consider that the question specifically asks about safety. If you visit our Help Center you'll get advice about how to write answers that are well received here. I'll edit your answer in a bit if you don't beat me to it.
I make this regularly in a regular domestic oven and it's delicious. properly cooked legs and dark meat with super juicy, tender breasts. The only thing I can think of that would give off any vapours would be the ink on the can, but as the oven is only at 180C and the can is surrounded by chicken, I can't imagine than the can get's hot enough for that to happen.
I've only done it once in a kettle barbecue over charcoal and I used indirect heat and a meat thermometer to check the deepest part of the thigh was at the correct temp. IIRC, it was took a couple of hours.
Also not sure of the safety aspect of this.
The point of the beer can is to provide moisture to the chicken as its cooking, so it doesn't dry out (and maybe add some flavor).
An alternative method would be to brine your chicken at least 24 hours before cooking. This will give you the desired effect of the beer can, although may not look quite as interesting while cooking.
I've brined chickens before roasting them on the grill and they didn't get as juicy as I've gotten them with the beer can method.
I've had the same experience. Brining with beer can chicken is not necessary.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.104449
| 2010-07-13T16:10:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/858",
"authors": [
"Alex King",
"Alison Miller",
"Carey Gregory",
"Carol Roszkowski",
"Chris_K",
"Christl N Babcock",
"Cornelius",
"GalacticCowboy",
"Google user",
"J.A.I.L.",
"JoeFish",
"Jolenealaska",
"Martin Beckett",
"Mashmagar",
"MnZrK",
"Nico",
"Rich Armstrong",
"Sam Holder",
"Vinnie",
"ark82",
"ccook",
"ceejayoz",
"clementino",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"soegaard",
"user1575",
"user1721135",
"user6591"
],
"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
}
|
640
|
Good video on separating eggs
Could anyone point me to a good video on cracking an egg and then separating the white and the yolk? I need to improve my technique. For every few eggs that I crack I end up with little bits of egg shell in the white that I then have to pick out.
I find the site startcooking.com particularly useful for some quick videos that are narrated clearly, photographed neatly, and generally are better in quality than those found on Youtube.
Here is the video at that site: http://startcooking.com/video/295/Crack-and-Separate-an-Egg
That said, there are many such videos on Youtube that might be useful also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-OwbEy-Vxk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAGX-54iR30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04jY7A1yy_g
Just crack the egg and empty the contents into the slightly closed fingers of your hand. Spread the fingers a little over a bowl, to let the white run out, place the yoke in a separate bowl.
I don't have edit privileges yet... you definitely want to say "bowl" instead of "bowel." Definitely.
That's what happens when English is not ones native language. Thanks for the heads-up
No worries, just wanted to help. :)
I accidentally found a slick way to separate the egg yolk from the white: before cracking, shake the egg like crazy. I expected the egg to to be scrambled after doing this, but when I cracked it open into the frying pan, the yolk was intact! The yolk just slipped away from the egg white, frying completely separately.
Related trivia: you can use this technique to make an egg stand upright on its own.
@Tim: I didn't actually shake the egg^^ I was demonstrating something to my middle-school tutoring student, and he was goofing off with the egg.
Check THIS one out! It went viral for good reason - I've tried it, it works just like in the video! She slightly squeezes a plastic water bottle and presses the opening against the top of the yolk, then releases the pressure on the bottle. The resulting vacuum sucks the clean yolk (no white at all) into the bottle. Another squeeze and the yolk is deposited in another bowl. She picks up and deposits the same yolk repeatedly. It's headshaking - Why didn't I think of that?! No more eggy fingers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz2Vnp5ZW4c
You might summarize the technique to add value to the answer...
@SAJ14SAJ --Done
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.105057
| 2010-07-11T15:17:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/640",
"authors": [
"Bill K",
"JYelton",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kenneth M Burling Jr",
"Leftium",
"Miguel Rincon",
"Pulse",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Seth McCauley",
"Vegard",
"Wavy Crab",
"andyb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91",
"mike turley",
"user1191"
],
"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
}
|
556
|
How much salt should I add to a dish?
I find it hard to figure out how much salt to add to dishes. I'm always afraid I'll make it too salty. Recipes always call for salt to taste, but what does that mean? Is there a good rule of thumb?
I once saw a recommendation that if you’re not sure if it’s sufficiently salted to pull a spoonful out and add just a flake or two of salt… if that then tastes salty, don’t add more salt to the dish.
I've noticed that salty food has somewhat of an addictive quality; people who eat a lot of it (i.e. fast food or other processed food) tend to bury their meals under a mountain of salt, whereas people such as myself who do a lot of home cooking hardly use (or want) any.
"Season to taste" means pretty much what it sounds like; add however much salt (and other spices) that you, personally, like the taste of. If you have a habit of eating a lot of salty foods, then you might want to add a little less than that, for the benefit of people like me who gag at heavily-salted foods.
If you use a lot of other spices, you won't need much salt - a few shakes of the shaker is enough. If the food is basically bland aside from the salt (and maybe pepper), then you'll need to use more. The best thing to do is add a little, then taste, and repeat as many times as it takes to get the flavour you want. If the food you're seasoning is still raw (and can't be eaten raw), then just put in a small amount the first time you make it and keep track of how much table salt you needed to add.
Just remember, you can always add salt later, but a dish that's too salty is permanently ruined.
People who exercise a lot crave salt as well. My wife runs 40+ miles / week and she loves salt. As her mileage increases, so does the salt in dinner.
@yossarian - that makes sense to me, i recently heard someone talk about salt tablets and looked them up, and learned quite a bit about how sodium is used by athletes. cool article: http://www.faqs.org/sports-science/Pl-Sa/Salt-Tablets.html
I need to somewhat disagree with this good answer. In particular with "If you use a lot of other spices", it's not about other spices it is about a preferred balance fat, sour, umami, and where salt and sugar often fall on the same axis. E.g. a water melon with a sprinkle of salt tastes sweeter. I use salt to make an avocado taste sweeter, in the middle east they use sugar.
Also did not realize this was an 11 y old Q =)
Salting food has a predictable trajectory. Think of it like a roller-coaster. /\ At first it's not great, then it's great, then it's not great again.
Food with no salt will taste one-dimensional and flat. The flavors will not "pop". Add a little salt and the taste of a dish will start to both integrate and become more complex.
With the perfect amount (differs by palette), the dish will just taste great, with all flavors easily identifiable and balanced (this partly depends on getting other elements of the dish right).
As you oversalt somewhat, the dish will begin to have a sharp but one-dimensional quality, an edge to it. Some people like this. It is what many people become addicted to.
As you go beyond this point, the dish begins to taste like, salt. It has a briny quality that will make your mouth uncomfortable.
As many have mentioned, it's a lot easier to make something more salty than less, so add salt gradually and regularly. Few beginning cooks know that adding small amounts of salt multiple times enhances the cooking process, allows flavors to meld, and lessens the likelihood of oversalting all at once.
Good way to look at it. What surprises me is how much the amount of salt varies. For example, Joy of Cooking recommends 1 teaspoon of salt per cup of water used when making rice, whereas I use half a teaspoon.
A lot of it has to do with personal preference. There's just a huge variety of tolerance and taste involved, similar to heat or sweetness or, I guess almost anything. I find that the dish "changes" as salt is added, sometimes so much that it seems like an altogether different recipe solely based on that ingredient. Same thing for cooking time on some ingredients. Still, good chefs manage to pretty much nail both of those things every time, and bad chefs... well, they're shooting in the dark.
It's a little more complicated to ask how much.
Different people have different palates, depending on what they're used to.
But more importantly, salt doesn't just make stuff taste good. We shouldn't just sprinkle it on the end of a dish. Otherwise, the dish just tastes... salty.
Salt affects the water balance in the cells, it can plump up moisture (brining a turkey - brings in other flavour), and it can remove moisture (salting sautéed mushrooms extracts more water, creating more browned/flavorful mushrooms).
We really should season as we go. Salt a little at various stages of your cooking. Err on the side of caution. And season at the end - to taste. The idea is that you shouldn't have to add too much salt to get it right.
You'll end up with a much tastier, more complex flavor profile. And you'll likely use less salt as well.
Unfortunately, there isn't much replacement for experience in this area. With experience, you know exactly how much salt to use, which type of salt, at which time. Practice and screw it up a lot. In the interim, just keep trying.
General rules, though:
Foods served cold need more salt. A properly seasoned hot dish will
be under-seasoned when cold.
Starches absorb salt - Potato salad needs to be salty; the next day
it will be less salty. Or potatoes in a stew will suck out the salt;
you'll need to reseason.
For these reasons, chefs always season their mise en place, then when finishing the dish, always check the seasoning.
I would say it depends. Some recipes need salt to work. If you use yeast, you need salt to control the gross. If the usage of salt is for taste, I first look if I can use a healthier substitute. This depends on the particular dish, however, since in my family we all like hot spicy food, we usually do not need any salt. Instead we enjoy the healthy benefits of turmeric, ginger and other spices that even make the food tastier than with salt.
Salt to taste means exactly that. You add a bit, taste it and then repeat the process until you like the result. Of course that once you've done the process a lot on different dishes, you will have a feeling for how much to use and you'll have to repeat the process less or even skip it completely, but what's the fun of cooking without tasting.
For things you cannot taste and repeat (like when cooking meat on a grill) my taste is to add a pinch on each side of the meat, evenly distributed. No way to tell what's yours so...
Rule of thumb: It's best to err on the side of missing salt than the other way around, so be shy. At worst you'll have to use salt on the table to fix it, but it'll be edible.
Salt to taste. As others have written. Add a pinch of salt. Stir. Wait. Taste. Repeat.
I use very little salt for myself, so my rule of thumb is that when I start tasting it's salty, I'm done. My wife need far more salt than that.
Generally 1%. If are cooking 100L of soup you would need 1kg of salt.
So if you are cooking 1L of broth 2 teaspoons should be good, because one teaspoon is 5ml.
Generally, people can escape this without measuring and just by intuition "Hmm this about feels right" because salt has a wide range. 0.75% - 1.5% is what you can escape. So a person who would add 1.5 teaspoons mistakenly adding 2 teaspoons is still safe. A lot also depends on the content of the dish, like a more acidic solution and a sweeter solution can take more salt. Therefore sometimes when your dish is overly salty, you can correct it by adding either vinegar, lime, yoghurt, tamarind or sugar, jaggery, dates, syrup, etc.
Salt has a very peculiar graph i.e. it amplifies your dish flavors, add a pinch more to a teaspoon and maybe it just amplifies twice as what was previously, but an extra grain and the whole dish is ruined. There's a peak after which it descends to zero just at the next level. The best cooks can consistently replicate that peak. How? By measuring, tasting, and noting.
So if your particular broth can have complex flavors, acids, and sweets, you can start with 0.75%, order your measuring spoons, and increase bit by bit; you can do this for a larger dish by taking out a smaller batch and trying to find that peak. Now you know how much per you can go for. Next time always add a level below peak. Like 1.25% is the peak, without fearing that it will ruin the dish next time you can safely add 6 teaspoons to a 3L broth i.e. 1%.
Yes, your saltiness will depend on culture, dish, and preferences. But restaurants always give your preference for Spice, not salt :P
P.S. - In a large section of Indian society housewives don't taste the food, as per Hinduism food is first offered to God and hence can't be tasted. I also generally follow the same.
In temples also same thing is followed. In Jagnath Temple what to say of tasting cooks don't even smell the food before offering it to the deity. Various community kitchens make very large quantities of meals they already have the exact amount to be put in.
This 1 KG to 100L I learned from temple :P
Here's one person who tried quantifying it, and the community downvoted it? Why? This is a good answer!
1% by weight is a value given regularly on the NHK (Japanese) program ‘Dining with the Chef’ for salting meat. I don’t recall if they’ve ever given an amount specifically for vegetables or salt, but it sounds like it would be a good starting point. America’s Test Kitchen recommended 1.5% by weight for making pork sausage, but they needed it to sit and break down the meat some for the right texture
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.105594
| 2010-07-10T22:44:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/556",
"authors": [
"Captain Giraffe",
"DHamrick",
"Hank Gay",
"Jason",
"Joe",
"Knarf Navillus",
"MacAnthony",
"Nav",
"Ocaasi",
"PMG",
"Rob",
"Sufendy",
"gPete",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7812",
"papin",
"russell_h",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user22377",
"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/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
623
|
Why should I "rest" meat after cooking?
I often read in recipes that I should "rest" meat after it has been cooked but what does resting the meat actually do?
There are a couple of reasons why 'resting' meat is a good idea. First, as the meat cooks the muscle fibres contract, which forces the juices out. Letting the meat rest helps the muscle fibres relax so the juices are re-incorporated into the meat and not lost on the chopping board, which would happen if carved immediately.
The second reason to let meat rest is to provide an evenness. Basically as the meat rests it continues to cook slightly and it allows the meat to gain an overall 'doneness'
An interesting article: http://www.seriouseats.com/2009/12/how-to-have-juicy-meats-steaks-the-food-lab-the-importance-of-resting-grilling.html
Yeah, not resting the meat means that when you cut into it all the juices don't flow out. In the Modernist Cuisine labs they discovered that it's not that the meat reabsorbs the juices but because disolved proteins thicken them as the meat cools:
http://www.fauxvictorianrag.com/2011/05/modernist-cuisine.html
Also keep in mind that meat continues to cook once you remove it from the heat source. The resting period allows the cooking process to complete.
Pulse is so correct that it is so important to let a piece of meat rest. It is so evident when a steak is cooked placed straight on a plate and cut into , all blood that hasn't been able to settle back through the meat will be pooling on the plate in seconds and you are left with a dry overbooked piece of meat.
In large joints of meat I have found that a short resting time creates the meat to be tougher to cut through and again a loss of crucial juices then a rested piece.
Creates the question with many cooks is a slightly cooled piece of meat rested and relaxed better than a nice hot piece of meat off the grill or out of the oven - I Believe Yes.
There's no blood in red meat - it's just myoglobin in the tissues.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.106388
| 2010-07-11T13:39:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/623",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"AlexD",
"Blorgbeard",
"Erik P.",
"IconDaemon",
"Ron Harlev",
"Stefano",
"gooch",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77",
"kmonsoor",
"oyvindio"
],
"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
}
|
8097
|
How can I make my scones rise evenly?
I've been making some scones and they are either falling away to one side or just sort of staying flat.
I'm currently just baking them on a tray in the oven at 220C
The recipe is:
450g self-raising flour
1 tbs caster sugar
80g butter, cubed, at room temperature
250mls milk, at room temperature
Are there any tips or techniques I can use to make them rise evenly?
Your technique is going to be critical here. Leaning scones aren't necessarily indicative of improper technique, but flat ones are.
Keeping your ingredients cold is important when creating scones in every recipe I've read or tried. Cook's Illustrated went so far as to grate the butter and then freeze the grated pieces and use a laminating technique to provide layers. Many other recipes use cold butter (frozen or simply very cold out of the freezer) in chunks and a pastry blender to cut them in. Your milk should also be cold, not room temperature. You may also want to chill your work bowl and utensils. You don't want your butter melting before those scones hit the oven.
When your scones hit the oven and the butter does begin to soften and melt, it will leave behind layers of air in your scone which will help it to rise.
You don't want to handle finished scone dough very much. Use a light touch and minimal work.
I'd also check the date on your self-raising flour. The ingredients will lose their activity over time, causing the flour not to rise as well any more.
Great techniques here, in particular the "don't handle it much". No point bashing the air out of it. I'd add a couple of techniques to make it flawless: use buttermilk in place of milk for extra rising, and make sure when you cut the scone shapes you cut it clean (see diane robertson's advice below). The cut will determine what direction the scones will rise in.
Of course your ingredients (except for butter) should be at room temperature before you start. But here are 2 other key things to consider:
(1) is the leavening agent distributed evenly through your dough? (i.e. did you mix the dry ingredients thoroughly? you may want to sift them together, just to make sure they're evenly incorporated)
(2) have you rolled the dough (or shaped it) to uniform thickness? If there are spots which are thicker (middle) than the ends, the scones could end up lopsided.
Hope that helps!
I use strong white flour and a good amount of baking powder, all sieved twice. Pop them in the fridge for 20mins then into a hot oven. Some are a bit lopsided, but rise amazingly. I'll remember the no-twist technique when cutting.
Hello and welcome - I've made a couple minor edits to your answer but would encourage you to add even more detail. Such as: what do you mean by "strong" flour, a "hot" oven, etc.? The more specific you can make your answer, the better.
@logophobe : I added a flour section to http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/784/67 ; I can merge in 'hot' and such to http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/27517/67 (see the first link in there)
@Joe Interesting, thanks for adding that. I still think there's room for clarification in this answer, specifically around the terms "good amount of baking powder" (how much?) and "hot oven" (what temp?)
The key is not to turn your cookie cutter. Flour the cutter and push down once. Flour again for the next scone. The turning of the cutter lets the dough rise unevenly.
Hello and welcome to the site! Could you please elaborate how your answer is different from the one user4714 gave in 2011? It is customary here not to repeat the answers of others - if you agree, simply upvote the existing answer. To upvote, click the little arrow over the number at the left side of a question or answer.
The key is nothing to do with freezing your butter. I have been trying various ones for years and now have then perfect. The 2 main things to remember. 1st The milk which should be soured but don't buy it just warm your milk in the microwave to take chill from it then squire lemon juice in it and thus will sour it. After you have done your butter and flour to breadcrumb effect stir in your sugar then make the well and pour in your soured milk. It will look sloppy don't worry well flour your work surface and your hands then slop it on. 2nd do not overwork from here because overworking it makes the gluten active which affects the bake. Just gently fold it and start cutting. Don't use the jagged edge of cutter use the smooth and just press down no turn. Make sure they're deep. Gently fold remainder and same again any left just roll and pat you don't need uniformity you want home made look. Brush with egg that look great and only 10 mins in oven for me . . And I can make mine last for 4 days without drying out if you want this tip just ask
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.106707
| 2010-10-14T12:58:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8097",
"authors": [
"Arifa",
"Craig",
"Gary",
"Joe",
"Kirk Morris",
"Rita Kerns",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe"
],
"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
}
|
9491
|
What is meringue powder?
I've got a recipe that asks for meringue powder and I have no idea what it is. So my question is what is meringue powder and what purpose does it serve in recipes?
I'm going to assume implied -- where do you get it? I've never seen it in general grocery stores; I either get it from a cake shop that sells supplies (colors, decorations, etc), or a larger craft store that has a cake decorating section; Wilton sells one that comes in something like a baking powder can. (paper sides, plastic top)
I wasn't really that interested in where you get it, more in what it was and what the purpose of using it in cooking was. Thanks for the info tho
Meringue powder is a pasteurized egg product - "dried egg whites with stabilizers and anti-clumping agents such as cornstarch".
It is used to stiffen recipes and I think there are two main reasons for using it (as opposed to egg whites):
1) Reduced risk of salmonella
2) Less time/labour/effort used - you don't have to beat the egg whites for a long time to stiffen them
I would guess as well that it would have more consistent results. When making meringues with egg whites you have to be careful not to get any yolk or other fat into the mixture or it won't stiffen properly. There is no real risk of this with meringue powder.
You also get more consistent/precise results -- it's easy to measure out a quarter teaspoon of meringue powder, whereas the same isn't true when dealing with measuring egg whites.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.107104
| 2010-11-26T09:49:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9491",
"authors": [
"Enrico Tuvera Jr",
"Joe",
"MZimmerman6",
"Trancot",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"lomaxx",
"michaelbea.com",
"peggy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1068
|
How do I get my spring rolls crispy?
I tried making spring rolls last night and for whatever reason they turned out soggy and I was generally disappointed.
I cooked them in about 5cm vegetable oil in a wok that was on a pretty high heat using generic spring roll "paper", but they just didn't crisp up.
I have a feeling that maybe it was because my fillings were a little wet side (but not too much) but I'm a little stumped as to what has caused them to be soggy.
Any tips on how I can get them to crisp up next time would be greatly appreciated
Don't fry the cabbage/vegetable filling - just flash fry or pan sear the veggies and the spring rolls will stay crispy when you deep fry them. good luck!
As Brendon mentioned, the oil needs to be very hot. Just test this by dropping a cube of bread into the oil. If it 'sizzles' and starts to colour, the oil is hot enough. Also, cook the spring rolls in small batches, say 2 or 3 at a time. Overloading the pan or wok won't help.
maybe adding 6 at once was my problem :) I'm guessing it cooled the oil and caused the dramas
If you don't have a fry thermometer -- the important part of frying is the bubbles coming off the food in the oil. If you don't have bubbles, the oil's too cold. The trick I use for measuring the temperature (as I don't have a fry thermometer) is to dip the end of a wooden spoon into the oil -- the wood holds enough moisture that if the oil's hot enough, it should bubble.
As you're adding food, if the bubbles lessen, you're cooling the oil off too much, and need to adjust the heat to compensate.
Was the oil hot when you added them? To get something crispy and not soggy, the oil needs to start out hot.
And stay hot, which can be a problem if you add too much food at once.
Trust me, my aunty makes homemade spring rolls for a living - Freeze them and fry them from frozen.
And Control the heat so that when you add them at the start, it's hot enough that the oil is bubbling and they are crisping up, don't have the oil too low that they're just Soaking up the oil, but also not too hot that they're browning too quickly or burning, because they need to have time to cook properly on the inside aswell. Lower the heat if you need to. If they are browning too quickly you can take them off the heat completely until they settle down a bit, sometimes if the oil is too hot, even putting it on the lowest setting wont stop then from burning. But of course it's better to not let the oil get too hot in the first place :)
P. S If they stick together after frozen, put them in a plastic bag and lay something like a thick newspaper or rug on the floor (to protect your floor) and mildly bang or drop the frozen spring rolls on the floor until they seperate.
And If you're filling is too thick and you're worried they won't cook through, I guees you could freeze them partially so the inside isn't too frozen.
Hope that helps :)
The Filling
Consideration has to be taken into account on moisture content, size/thickness of the pieces and whether they need prior cooking and/or draining. All the ingredients should cook at the same time, or not require cooking.
The Wrapper (and wrapping)
Presuming the wrapper is the defrosted conventional Chinese wrapper (flour, water, oil) specifically made for Spring Rolls. Make sure you roll it tight and firm (a loose roll will allow oil to flood in, and seal the final end with ideally a flour paste, but egg wash would work.
Batter (or no batter)?
Depending on your desired look of your Spring Roll, and when you will serve them (ie immediately after frying, or later as in party or reheat before serving) will help you decide about Batter. Non battered spring rolls don't reheat well, especially in the fryer.
Frying
The type of oil, quantity and the temperature of the oil is important.
You need a high smoking/burning point and enough volume of oil to keep the temperature from dropping as you add your spring roll/s.
The temperature will depend on the size (length and thickness) and whether the filling needs to be cooked.
Your spring roll/s should sizzle as they enter the oil and bubble away.
Don't overload your fryer, your spring rolls will start soaking up the oil and possibly start to unravel.
You might also want to check your fryer, a deeper pan would be better then a shallow pan - spring rolls are usually heavy at the start and sink down.
When they float or when they stop bubbling much is a sign they are done.
Draining
Depending if you had wet ingredients you might need to make a small prick in two ends and stack them on their ends to drain any excess oil or liquid.
Also your spring rolls should be spaced out from each other as they drain, this reduces them absorbing moisture from each other.
Hopefully yours turns out better!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.107256
| 2010-07-16T02:42:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1068",
"authors": [
"Adam Lear",
"JasonTrue",
"Lesley Bryce",
"Mia Clarke",
"Nate Noonen",
"Paula",
"Scott Dorman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64319",
"lomaxx",
"suse"
],
"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
}
|
704
|
Can I make my own chestnut puree?
I've got a recipe that calls for chestnut puree. I live in Australia and it's proving difficult to find. Chestnuts on the other hand are pretty easy to find so I googled around to see if I could find a recipe to make my own. The results really only returned other recipes that contain chestnut puree so I was wondering if I could make my own and if so, how would I go about it?
Yes, but chestnut purée comes in sweetened and unsweetened varieties, so making your own depends on what you'll be using it for. Chestnuts are pretty versatile, but I've come across using sweetened purée in old world desserts, while the unsweetened purée is typically used with root vegetables and winter squashes (the European variety of chestnut drop in late fall).
You'll start by scoring the skin of the raw nuts and roasting them at 400° (this prevents them from bursting). After this, peeling them is easy work. You will then boil them, optionally in a sugar syrup. Finally, reserve the liquid and puree in a food processor, adding back the liquid for the desired consistency.
About a pound of chestnuts per cup of purée.
That sounds really tasty.
There is such a thing as Chestnut Flour. I have a Dowd and Rogers brand imported from Italy that has a recipe for for Chestnut Puree on the back, using the flour. The ingredients are 100% ground chestnuts.
Here's one: http://www.foodreference.com/html/chest-puree-925.html
I haven't tried it though. It looks like "chestnut puree recipe" works fine on Google.
In Adelaide I have bought unsweetened puree in Coles and Woolies. You can also get the sweetened version. HOWEVER... they only tend to stock it at Christmas time... probably for Chestnut stuffing for Turkeys!!! Mind you... it's in a can... so get a few and keep them in the pantry!!!! Last year though, they were charging $6-7 dollars a tin... so if you DID get a recipe for unsweetened using fresh... I'd love to get it... as they are relatively cheap in Coles just at the moment!!!!!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.107693
| 2010-07-12T03:26:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/704",
"authors": [
"Andrew Burgess",
"AnjoMan",
"David Norman",
"Luis Filipe",
"Michael McCarty",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33017"
],
"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
}
|
8211
|
Making black bread in a microwave oven
I have received a few packs of dough mixture for German black bread from a friend (Vollkornbrot, black rye bread). All I have available to make it is a bread maker and a microwave oven (probably known as microwave "grill" function, works with actual heat, not microwaves, but is still no real oven). The bread maker is much too weak to move the heavy dough around, so I have to knead it by hand. That's not a problem though, but I have had very little success actually baking the bread using either the bread maker or the microwave oven.
Even after baking the final product remains very heavy and grows very little. There remain some very doughy pockets, which seem only half baked to me. I'm turning the oven almost as high as it goes (around 240℃, according to display) and tried baking the bread for a longer time. I also tried to make smaller rolls instead, with the same result.
Is it possible to make such heavy bread using such weak equipment? If so, what can I change to make it work? Or is the ready-made dough mixture simply no good?
Could you clarify what you mean by "microwave oven", and fix your question? If it doesn't use microwaves, then it isn't a microwave. Your question is very confusing as-is. Do you mean toaster oven?
@hobodave Well, it's a microwave that has an oven function. It probably works similarly to a toaster oven, in that there's an electric heating element, which is probably stronger than a toaster oven though. This may probably be called a "grill" function in some microwaves, but these things are used as an oven replacement in Japanese microwaves (no space, so they combine these two). I live in Japan and that's the only thing I have.
As you probably know, volkornbrot and similar breads are designed to bake at a lower temperature for a longer time. 240 C sounds way too high to me. 150-180 C should be about right, and leave the bread in for a long time (up to 3 hours), until the loaf starts to pull away from the sides of the pan. Even after this baking process, because the bread batter is much wetter than a standard bread, you should not slice or eat the bread until it has had time to cool and "rest," about 24 hours. If you slice it right away, the heat and moisture escape and the inside is still doughy/raw. If you wait, the moisture will have time to distribute throughout the loaf and the inside will firm up. Just be patient! The benefit is that the loaf should last for a very long time wrapped in plastic, especially if you put the unused portion in the fridge.
Hmm, I was following the instructions of the dough mix… Maybe they're a bit too optimistic? I'll try a long slow bake the next time. Thanks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.107882
| 2010-10-17T06:46:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8211",
"authors": [
"Felix Fung",
"deceze",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"themightyant"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18485
|
I have seaweed salad with sesame flavor. What are some good ways to garnish it or nice things to garnish with it?
I'm curious for some ideas on what to make with seaweed salad.
I like to dress the seaweed salad in a vinaigrette made with:
Soy Sauce: 1 1/2 tbsp
Sugar: 1 1/2 tbsp
Vinegar: 1 tbsp
Sesame Seeds: 1/2 tbsp to 1 tbsp
Sesame Oil: 1 tsp
Red Pepper Powder: 1/4 tsp
I eat the seaweed salad with steamed white rice.
Asian style - usually with a sprinkle of white sesame on top and that's it.
hehe, that's what it already had.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.108102
| 2011-10-21T00:34:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18485",
"authors": [
"J.R. Garcia",
"Janice",
"Ziki",
"alanmanderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40553",
"none too",
"trusktr"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17238
|
Wondering if the bottle of wine I have is still good or not
During my move to a new place, I found a bottle of wine that I had kept in my refrigerator that was dated 2004. It was still sealed; it didn't look like anything was floating around inside, and to all intents and purposes, it looked to be an average bottle of red wine that you'd find at your typical liquor store. However, I'm wondering if it's still any good or not, and if there was a way to check outside of opening it and taking a swig.
Intents and purposes.
Drink it and find out. If you're still sober enough to care afterward, it's gone bad. This might be my time in industry speaking, not good sense.
If you want to make sure your wine is still good without opening the bottle (wine, vinegar or broth), there are some things you can check. This doesn't give you 100% guarantee that the wine is actually any good.
Did the bottle lay horizontally (good) or was it standing up (bad). The wine must be in contact with the cork to hydrate it. This way the seal stays intact and the wine doesn't spoil.
How 'aged' was the wine? Normally a young wine will last about one year (maybe two in the fridge), a reserve or great reserve can last longer. Some wines will mature for 25 years or more.
Check the seal. If it's in good state (no 'dirty' spots), that's good.
Check the cork (without opening the seal). If the cork is pushing the seal out, then your wine may have suffered from heat (the air in the bottle pushes the cork out). This may cause your wine to taste of cork (broth).
Remove the seal and check the cork. If the cork is clean, that's good. If it has red spots (see point 4). If it looks dry... you may have a nice vinegar.
Substances floating in the wine doesn't mean the wine is bad, but you'll need to decant the wine carefully.
But anyway, open the bottle soon. Waiting any longer won't make the wine any better.
...assuming it even has a cork, rather than a screwtop ;^) While I agree that the fridge is not ideal, I probably still have some 1980's and 90's bottles lurking around here, including at at least one from the 90's I made.
That's the thing about wine. You never know until you taste it. It might be a pleasant surprise or it might be swill. That's actually part of the fun of trying wine.
But generally speaking, if it was nothing special 2004 it won't be better now. Wines that are worth "waiting for" are noticeably outstanding even when they're new (they might need more decanting early in their life).
Just try it... but have a back-up bottle!
Until you are ready to "take a swig" it doesn't really matter what state it is in "Now". At present it is a perfectly fine mantel piece.
When you are ready to actually drink it, it is either wine or vinegar, but you are going to have to pop the cork (or open the twist top...) to find out. If it is for an important occasion, have a back up bottle in the wine rack.
Easiest answer: you can taste it, wine doesn't go off.
It can lose its taste and quality but it can be drunk without making you sick or killing you so crack her open and taste it.
If it tastes bad don't drink more obviously. If it's sweet then drink it. That's from a professional wine expert.
Are you the wine expert or are you quoting somebody? Just curious :)
You need all the information on the label to assess a wine. the vintage in only part of it. The fridge is not a good wine cellar. wines deteriorate quickly there. ultimately, it is all educated guess work anyway. It might not have been good in 2004. try it. if you like it, serve it. if not, flush it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.108197
| 2011-08-28T22:31:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17238",
"authors": [
"Adam",
"Aria",
"BobMcGee",
"Ecnerwal",
"Erica",
"Hosam Aly",
"Paul",
"Rich Townsend",
"Roshen Carman",
"Tim Demeria",
"Zach",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"user37333"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86141
|
Balance out lemon juice in a smoothie, stinging my throat
I make smoothies for breakfast, and I prepare the contents each weekend for the following week (so I can prepare them as quickly as possible before I catch my train). I have a tiny container for dry contents, and bigger containers for refrigerated and frozen contents.
I started getting a sore throat a couple of days before smoothie prep day, two weeks ago, and felt my throat severely stinging. The following week I kept out the lemon juice, and it was much better. The following weekend, my throat had been better for a few days, so I put the Lemon juice back in. But by the end of that day, my sore throat came back! And I'd just made up six containers of liquid contents including the lemon juice!
What can I do to neutralize the acidity? (I'm assuming that's why the lemon juice burns my throat while the pomegranate juice doesn't). I add the lemon juice in the first place, because it cuts the bitter flavor of the kale. I almost don't care what it ends up tasting like – without the lemon juice, it was awful, and I dealt with it. With the lemon juice, it's excruciating, so I'm chugging it anyway.
These are the contents of each container (to which I can add anything you suggest):
Refrigerated
1 kale leaf
A chunk of raw Ginger
Juice from 1 half lemon
2/3 cup almond milk
2/3 cup POM juice
Dry
1/4 cup walnuts
3 tsp. Metamucil
2 tbsp Chia seeds
1/4 scoop protein powder
1 packet Emergen-C
Frozen
1 cup of frozen fruit
You can add some sugar, but if you want to watch your sugar intake you can try using baking soda. You need only a small amount of baking soda. Roughly 1/4 teaspoon of baking soda for 1 cup of liquid should be enough. Too much baking soda can lead to a soapy taste, so use it sparingly.
Should the "1 cup of liquid" guideline for the baking soda correspond to the amount of lemon juice, or the entire smoothie?
Baking soda, unlike the sugar, will reduce the acidity instead of masking it. Which is a good thing if the food is so acidic that it acts as an irritant.
The baking soda worked. I used a half teaspoon for a 2.5-cup smoothie, and the acidity is low enough I didn't get significant stinging. Thanks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.108525
| 2017-12-05T16:52:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86141",
"authors": [
"Dov",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49103
|
Another crockpot error
I accidentally set my crockpot, with raw chicken and broth, on warm for a little less than one hour. I read answers to a similar question, but since this is chicken and only for 1 hour, I thought I'd ask if it's likely okay or not.
If we go with the 2 hour rule, then you have about an hour to get it back up to a safe temperature.
So either turn the crockpot on high 'til you get it back over 140°F, or remove some of the broth and use another method to heat it and then re-combine the two.
Personally, I like going with a method mentioned on Good Eats -- get your liquid boiling, then add the chicken (so we kill off stuff that's on the outside, then reduce the heat so you maintain the desired finished temperature. This allows you to come back in 2 to 6 hours, and the chicken's at the desired doneness.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.108716
| 2014-10-20T21:31:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49103",
"authors": [
"Casey Bellicanta",
"Cindy B",
"Cindy Stubert",
"Destiny Lafleche",
"Joe",
"SiChang Ouyang",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.